I» ‘<¢‘V
.

a...

0.
,‘

\t .
(VJ: r,

\ 2x3...»
:23

a 31¢. N! V“ ._ ,

13a. a.“ .9 ._

93m.

 

LIBRARY
UNIVERSITYf
PEN N SYLVANIA

 

ﬁ'ﬁm/wusr (”Hr/y

MUSEUM LIBRARY

 

 

 

 

p‘i‘é ) ‘31! Ksuvﬂsaﬁ

Q. 5\\ec.\‘\§~n In“ (3 Cue-n ?\\\QXS ,

  
   
  
    
  
  
 
   

‘j :Lgfcﬁawﬁ s :

¢_\A\ ‘r\r\e_ $VQ$J‘.\\<¢. a. Wtcwasx x'rx

\

Qmex\¢—°~ ‘ \38‘3 '
5;" :ww’vxq

Q~\Q\;T‘\Q.ﬁ'\'s \“ “\Q— Nmﬁ‘ﬁ‘$ gjg~

i‘..§Te-m 5‘3- ‘\\r\e__ maﬁa?» amt-1m Q—O~“§-

% *V‘WLCL. :“B\Qh$ bx’ wa0~\e—‘T\Q~\q , V

q Q~n ~\\\9_ c.~ '$?\B\\Q‘fm erxe<$\\[\a\\s

 

:ﬂl'uf, C_~t.\‘;\é.o__\ (away-V15 b“ We. ebk’uéﬁs “\é‘

$\e.$c ée. \~o.w-\Bo.‘s NV'ﬁu—x3s ‘
\G. D“ ‘\\‘\e_ LVoned~c>—‘%O~\, Q{cu—x \Cul$u;.mxii
“T—r‘xbg 2— 23‘\Cs._.\e_q.\ 15% Q.\\\o.§o§.

\'\. 5“ij 23% “\Q Vlmﬁwcﬁﬂ \lh%\>_o~c§a.

\%. “ﬁelnew' (:5 the. boi‘cx. \TOW '\‘v\&. <.\u.§\f

6"} Wk ET e_.\\'\ g’YQY \‘g 1.fo 0*“ (>\ 031 GS“

“New \ {1:}. .

\C‘L 0‘“ "Ont So-c.o~\\€¢g m\0_§.\\o_q \».~._.\Y\$LL0~C\Q
0% ngjV—iYnOAQN

2.0. D“ cum (angeh-‘V \rxxm-neun t105V T‘th gnaw.

I . T-
Y°\7 sj‘nwﬁ $\$ 2. \‘ntoTYQ‘fQ ‘0“ (1.5

J

' ‘ Dunnex \ Lo.“
C.\'\0.Y “13‘ LT \$\ \ L 5 6%

T ' q
“0- 1" q Wu“ ‘w \,i' ”gt: ~61“ 63" {e
' Uh \t8*€& “Wigs. bSUs‘xé‘x $91,,» u,

 

 

THE

Svastika and the Cross

IN AMERICA.

By DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D.

Read before the American Philosophical Society, December 2|, 1888.

i r
l 1' '
j’ * PRESS OF MACCALLA & COMPANY,

,//J.. 237-9 DOCK ST., Pmm.
‘ 1889.

 

 

The Ta Ki, the Svastilca and the Cross in America.

By Daniel G. Brinton, MD.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, December 21, 1888.)

What I am about to say is, to a certain degree, polemical.
My intentiou is to combat the opinions of those writers who, like
Dr. Hamy, M. Beauvois and many others,* assert that, because
certain well-known Oriental symbols, as the Ta Ki, the Triskeles,
the Svastika and the Cross, are found amOng the American
aborigines, they are evidence of Mongolian, Buddhistic, Chris—
tian or Aryan immigrations, previous to the discover r by Colum-
bus; and I shall also try to show that the position is erroneous
of those who, like William H. Holmes, of the Bureau of Ethnol-
ogy, maintain that “it is impossible to give a satisfactory eX-
planation of the religious signiﬁcance of the cross as a religious
symbol in America.”i~ .

' In opposition to both these views I propose to show that the

primary signiﬁcance of all these Widely extended symbols is quite
clear; and that they can be shown to have arisen from certain
ﬁxed relations of man to his environment, the same everywhere,
and hence suggesting the same graphic representations among
tribes most divergent in location and race; and, therefore, that
such symbols are of little value in tracing ethnic afﬁnities or
the currents of civilization.

Their wide prevalence in the Old World is familiar to all stu-
dents. The three legs diverging from one centre, which is now
the well-known arms of the Isle of Man, is the ancient Trique-
trum, or, as Olshausen more properly terms it, the Trisheles,I
seen on the oldest Sicilian coins and on those of Lycia, in Asia
Minor, struck more than ﬁve hundred years before the beginning
of our era. Yet such is the persistence of symbolic forms, the
traveler in the latter region still ﬁnds it recurring on the modern

* Dr. E. T. Hamy, An Interpretation of one of the Copan Monuments, in Journal of the An-
thropological Institute, February, 1887; also, Revue d‘Ethnographie, 1886, p. 233; same
author, Le Svastika et la Roue Solaire en Amérique, Revue d’Ethnographie, 1885, p. 22. E.
Beauvois, in Annales de Philosophie C'hretienne, 1877, and in various later publications.

Ferraz de Macedo, Essai Critique sur les Ages Prehistoriques de Bresil, Lisbon, 1887, etc.
1‘ See his article, “Art in Shell of the Ancient Americans,” in Second Annual Report

of the Bureau of Ethnology, p. 270.
:1: See his article in Zeitschriftfur Ethnologie, 1886, p. 223.

$33 °\°t-D'Z,\

4

felt wraps used by, the native inhabitants.* As a decorative mo-
tive,ior perhaps with a deeper signiﬁcance, it is repeatedly'found
011 ancient Slavic ‘and Teutonic vases, disinterred from mounds
of the bronze age, or earlier, in Central and Northern Europe.
Frequently the ﬁgure is simply that of three straight or curved
lines springing from a central point and surrounded by a circle, as :

(/9169

Fig. 1. Fig. 2.

In the latter we have the precise form of the Chinese Tai Ki,
a symbolic ﬁgure which plays a prominent part in the mystical
writing, the divination and the decorative art of China.“{’ ,

As it is this symbol which, according to Dr. Hamy, the dis-
tinguished ethnologist and Director of the Museum of the Troca-
dero, Paris, indicates the preaching of Buddhistic doctrines in
America, it merits close attention.

The Ta Ki, expressed by thesigns:

3’3:
i3

Fig. 3.

is properly translated, “ The Great Uniter” (ta, great; lei, to join
together, to make one, to unite), as in modern Chinese philoso-
phy, expressed in Platonic language, the One as distinguished
from the Many,and is regarded as the basis of the numerical sys-
tem. But as the Chinese believe 1n the mystic powers of num-
bels, and as that which reduces all multiplicity to unity naturally
controls or is at the summit of all things, therefore the Ta Ki ex-
pressesthe completest. and highest creative force.

* Von Luchan, in Zeitschrz’ft rm Ethnologie, 1886, s. 301.

f See Dumoutier, Le Svastika et la. Rowe Solaire en Chine, in Revue d‘EtImologie, 1835 pp
333, sq.

5

1" Ks in Chinese philosophy, the 'Universe is. made up of oppo-'
sites, heaven‘and earth, light and darkness, day and night, land
and Water, concave and convex, male and female, etc.,the highest
terms for which are Y in and Yang; these are held to be brought
into fructifying union by Ta Ki. Abstractly, the latter would
be regarded as the synthesis of the two universal antitheses which
make up all phenomena.*

The symbolic representation of Yin and Yang is a circle di-
vided by two arcs with opposite centres, while the symbol of
Ta Ki adds a third are from above uniting these two.

w e

Fig. 4. ' Fig. 5.

It is possible that these symbols are of late origin, devised to
express the ideas above named. One Chinese scholar (Mr. S.
Culin) tells me that it is doubtful if they occur earlier than the
twelfth century, A. D., and that they were probably introduced
for purposes of divination. In this case, I believe that they were
introduced from the South, and that they originally had another
and concrete signiﬁcance, as I shall explain later.

Others consider these symbols as essentially Mongolian. The
Ta Ki or Triskeles is to them the Mongolian, while the Svastika
is the ethnic Aryan symbol. Such writers suspect Indo-Euro-
pean immigration where they discover the latter, Chinese immi-
gration where they ﬁnd the former emblem.

The Svastika, I need hardly say, is the hooked cross or gam-
mated cross, usually represented as follows: '

Fig. 6.

the four arms of equal length, the hook usually pointing from left
to right. In this form it occurs in India and on very early (nee.

it"; I am indebted. for some of ' these explanations to Mr. K. Sungimoto, an intelligent
Japanese gentleman, well acquainted with Chinese, now resident in Philadelphia.

6

lithic) Greco~Italic and Iberian remains. So much has been

written upon the Svastika, however, that I need not enter upon
its archaeological distribution.

Its primary signiﬁcance has been variously explained. Some
have regarded it as a graphic representation of the lightning,

others as of the two ﬁre-sticks used in obtaining ﬁre by friction,
and so on.

Whatever its signiﬁcance, we are safe in considering it a form

of the Cross, and in its special form obtaining its symbolic or
sacred association from this origin.

The widely-spread mystic purport of the Cross symbol has
long been matter of comment. Undoubtedly in many parts of
America the natives regarded it with reverence anterior to the
arrival of Europeans; as in the Old World, it was long a
sacred symbol before it became the distinctive emblem of Chris-
tianity.

As in previous writings I have brought together the evidence

of the veneration in which it was held in America, I shall not
repeat the references here.

I believe we may go a step further and regard all three of these
Symbols, the Ta Ki or Triskeles, the Svastika and the Cross as orig-
inally the same in signiﬁcation, or, at least, closely allied in mean-
ing. I believe, further, that this can be shown from the relics of
ancient American art so clearly that no one, free from preju-

dice, and whose mind is open to conviction, will deny its correct-
ness.

My belief is that all of these symbols are graphic representa-
tions of the movements of the sun with reference to the ﬁgure of
the earth, as understood by primitive man everywhere, and hence
that these symbols are found in various parts of the globe with-

out necessarily implying any historic connections of the peoples
using them.

This explanation of them is not entirely new. It has pre-
viously been partly suggested by Profs. Worsaae and Virchow ;
but the demonstration I shall offer has not heretofore been sub-
mitted to the scientiﬁc world, and its material is novel.

Beginning with the Ta Ki, we ﬁnd its primary elements in the
symbolic picture-writing of the North American Indians. In

7

that of the Ojibways, for example, we have the following three
characters:

Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9.
Of these, the Fig. 7 represents the sunrise ; Fig. 9, sunset ; Fig.
8, noonday. The last-mentioned is the full day at its height.*

Where, in rock-writing or scratching on wood, the curve could
not conveniently be used, straight lines would be adopted :

Fig. 10.

thus giving the ordinary form of the Triskeles. But the identi-

cal form of the Ta Ki is found in the calendar scroll attached to

the CodeX~Poinsett, an unpublished original Mexican MS., on

agave paper, in the library of the American Philosophical Society.
, A line from this scroll is as follows :

@OOOEQ

Fig. 11.

Here each circle means a day, and those with the Triskeles, cuL
minating days]L

* George Copway, Traditional History of the Qitbwag/ Nation, 13. 134. It will be noted
that in the sign for sunrise the straight line meets the curve at its left extremity, and for
sunset at its right. This results from the superstitious preference of facing the south
rather than the north.

‘ 'l- The triplicate constitution of things is a prominent feature of the ancient Mexican
philosophy, especially that of Tezcuco. The visible world was divided into three parts,
the earth below, the heavens above, and man’s abode between them. The whole was
represented by a circle divided into three parts, the upper part painted blue, the lower
brown, the centre white (see Duran, Historia, Lam. 15a, for an example). Each of these
three parts ‘was subdivided into three paits, so that when the Tezcucan king built a
tower as a symbol of the universe, he called it “The Tower of Nine Stories" (see my
Ancient Nahuatl Poetry, Introduction, p. 36).

78

Another form of representing daysis seen in the Vatican Mex--

,ican Codex published in Kingsborough’s Mexico, Vol. 111:

Fig. 12.

This is not far from the ﬁgure on the stone at Copan, described
in Dr. Hamy’s paper, Where the design is as follows:

/ .’*.""

’I/m'savg’k

/ 4/"05'9’0" I
l/Ic'ul: V

, ”0,4" ., z .

I'M. ~
., .

"’5‘” p 1

' 6i r <1?

,_ I» In,
t» " ‘4' V p
J . . "Mahmud.
A

 

Fig. 13.

'This does not resemble the Ta Ki, as Dr. Rainy supposes, but
rather the Yin-Yang; yet differs from this in having a central
circle (apparently a cup-shaped depression). This central circu-
lar ﬁgure, Whether a boss or nave, or a cup-shaped pit, has been
explained by Worsaae as a conventionalized form of the sun, and

in this he is.borne.out by primitive American art,’as we shall See.
The twenty elevations “which surround the stone, corresponding
in number to the twenty days of the Maya month, indicate at
once that we have here to do with a monument relating to the
calendar. L

Turning now to the development of this class of ﬁgures in
primitive American art, I give ﬁrst the simplest representations
of the sun such as those painted on buffalo skins by the Indians
of the Plains, and scratched on the surface of rocks. The exam-

ples are selected from many of the kind published by Col. Garrick
Mallery.*

@

Fig. 14.

The design is merely a rude device of the human face, with four
raysproceeding‘ from it at right angles. These four rays repre-
sent, according to the unanimous interpretation of the Indians,
the four directions deﬁned bythe apparent motions of the sun,
the East and West, the North and South. By these directions
xrall travel and all alignments of buildings, corpses, etc., were de-
‘ ﬁnediand hence the earth was regarded as four-sided or four-
cornered; or, when it was expressed as a circle, in accordance
with the appearance of the visible horizon, the four radia were
drawn as impinging on its four sides :

 

Fig. 15. Fig. 16.

Fig. 15 is a design on a vase from Marajo, Brazil, and is of com-
mon occurrence on the pottery of that regiomf Fig. ,16.repre-

* Mallery, Piotography of the North American Indians, in Fourth Annual Report of the
Bureau of Ethnology, p. 239. ‘ - . . .
1- Dr. Ferraz de Macedo, Essaz' critique mules Ages Mistonque de Breszl, p. 38 (Lisbonne,
1887). a p , _. , V . . ,. .

10

sents the circle of the visible horizon, or the earth-plain, with the
four winds rushing into it when summoned by a magician. It is
a ﬁgure from the Meday magic of the Ojibways.* Dr. Ferraz de
Macedo has claimed that such devices as Fig. 16 “show Chinese
or Egyptian inspiration”)L It is certainly unnecessary to accept
this alternative when both the origin and signiﬁcance of the sym-
bol are so plain in native American art.

‘When the symbol of the sun and the four directions was in- .
scribed within the circle of the visible horizon, we obtain the
ﬁgure representing the motions of the sun with reference to the

earth as in :

Fig. 17.

This is what German archaeologists call the wheel-cross, Rad-
Icreuz, distinguished, as Worsaae pointed out, by the presence of
the central boss, cup or nave, from the ring-cross, Ringlcreuz,

ED (5%?)

Fig. 18. Fig. 19.

in which, also, the arms of the cross do not reach to the circum-
ference of the wheel. Worsaae very justly laid much stress on
the presence of the central boss or cup, and correctly explained
it as indicative of the sun; but both he and Virchow, who fol-
lows him in this explanation, are, I think, in error in supposing
that the circle 'or wheel represents the rolling sun, die rollende
.Sonne. My proof of this is that this same ﬁgure was a familiar
symbol, with the signiﬁcation stated, in tribes who did not know

'* Captivity and Adventures '3)" John Tanner, pp. 359, 360.
.‘t Up cit., p 3:.

11

the mechanical device of the wheel, and could have had, therefore,
no notion of such an analogy as the rolling wheel of the sun.*

When applied to time, the symbol of the circle in primitive art
referred to the "return of the seasons, not to an idea of motion in
space. This is very plainly seen both in art and language. In
the year-counts or winter-counts of the American tribes, the
years were very generally signiﬁed by circles arranged in rows
or spires. Fig. 20 shows the Dakota winter-count, as depicted.
on their buﬂalo robesj‘

Fig: 20.
This count is to be read from right to left, because it is writ-

E

 

Fig‘. 21.

* See Worsaae, Danish Arts, and Virchow, in various numbers of the Zeitschriftfm- Eth-
nologie. The ring-cross is a common ﬁgure in American symbolism and decorative art.
It frequently occurs on the shields depicted in the Bologna Codex, and the two codices
0f the Vatican (Kingsborough’s Antiquities Qf Mexico, Vols. ii and iii). Dr. Ferrazde
Macedo says that‘the most common decorative design on both ancient and modern native
Brazilian pottery is the ring-cross in the form of a double spiral, as in Fig. 19 (Essnz C, ltzque
SW les Ages Prehistorique de Bresil, p. 40). A very similar form will be found in the B0-

~ logna Codex, pl. xviii, in Kingsborough’s Mexico, Vol. ii.
1‘ See Mallery, Pictography of the North American Indians, pp. 88, 89, 128, etc.

11

ten from left to right, and hence the y ear last recorded is at the
end of the line. ,

Precisely similar series of ciicles occur on the Aztec and Maya
codices with the same signiﬁcation. Moreover the year-cycles
of both these nations were 1ep1ese11ted by a circle on the bo1de1
of Which theyears were inscribed. In Maya this was called 11112111-
2021 katun, the turning about again, or revolution of the katuns. *

The Aztec ﬁgure of the year-cycle 13 so instructive that I give
a sketch of its principal elements (Fig. 21), as portrayed in the
atlas to Duran’ s Histoiy of Mexico. 1'

In this 1ema11sahle ﬁgure We observe the development and
primary signiﬁcation of those world-Wide symbols, the square,
the cross, the Wheel, the circle, and the svastika. The last-men-
tioned is seen in the elements of the broken circle, which are:

Fig. 22

which conventionalized into rectilinear ﬁgures, for scratching on
stone or wood, became:

Fig. 23.

_In the Mexican time-Wheel, the years are to be read f1o1n right
to left, as in the Dakota Wintel -counts; each of the qualter cir-
cles 1ep1esent thirteen years; and these, also, are to be read from
right to left, beginning with the top of the ﬁgure, which, is the
East, and proceeding to the North, South and West, as indicated.

The full analysis of this suggestive and authentic astronomical
ﬁgu1e will reveal the secret of most of the rich symbolism and
m) thology of the Ame1ican nations. It' 15 easy to see how from
‘ it was derived the Nahuatl doctrine of the nah,“ allin, or Four

* This name is given in Landa. R1 lacmn de lav Cosas dc‘ Yucatan, ’, 318,
’r H1; wria de la Nueva Epana, Trat III, cap. 1.

13

Motions of the Sun with its accesso1ies of the Four Ages of the
world. The Tree Of Life so constantly recurring as a design in
Maya and Mexican art, is but another outgrowth of the same
symbolic expression for the same ideas.

That we ﬁnd the same ﬁgurative symbolism 111 China, India‘
Lycia, Assyria and the valley of the Nile and on ancient inns
from Et1',uria Iberia, Gallia, Sicilia and Scythia, needs not sur-
prise us, and ought not to prompt us to assert any historic con-
nection on this account between the early development of man
in the New and Old World. The path of culture is narrow, espe-
cially in its early stages, and men everywhere have trod uncon-
sciously in each lother’s footsteps in advancing from the darkness
of barbarism to the light of civilization.

 

 

 

 

4/ mag;

 

NHEC WATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA 417

k _
i' ‘11.,31 Vt‘ZNlA‘
WW1?“ ‘ ' '
TROGLYPH FROM THE ISLAND OF ST. VINCENT, W. I.

BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

t

. The rock-inscriptions or petroglyphs which are found in various
parts of the American Continent offer a curious subject of study,
and one that may ultimately furnish valuable ethnological data.
They appear to present deﬁnite characteristics both of subject and
technical execution extending over wide areas, but not repeated
outside of ﬁxed geographical boundaries.

' The one which I submit to the Academy to- —night was photo-
graphed by Professor Benjamin Sharp 111 the Island of St. Vincent,
West Indies, last winter.

   
   

 
  
 

 
 

\\\\1.
\\\\ 1‘

v "_-:.—i \\\\\11 i ‘
3%. [/1 11% l \“RVF/ WE ' ‘ .
./ 1 ii“ Ilixi Kn\b N1 141/10!!!)114'

. The rock upon which it is inscribed is an ancient lava which

had ﬂowed into the sea,-making a spur into the water, from which
the inscription itself was about twenty feet distant. The lines were
about a quarter of an inch in depth, the edges rather sharply de-
ﬁned, though from the nature of the rock and the action of the ele-
ments, they do not now present the appearance of having' been
formed by a cutting implement, but rather of having been ground
. in, as by a process of rubbing. Which of these technical methods
was employed is of considerable interest, as will shortly be seen, but
the present condition of the surface is such that the point must 1e-

main in doubt.
28

418 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1889.

There is no question that this inscription is attributable to the na-
tive tribes who formerly occupied St. Vincent. These were the
Caribs who had populated it from the adjacent mainland, dist-ant
about seventy miles. When ﬁrst discovered, St. Vincent was the
most densely peopled of all the Caribbee Islands and exclusively by
this tribe.

One of the early writers says that they had many Villages in its
valleys and enjoyed entire repose from their enemies; hence it was
selected as a rendezvous for the tribal bands from other islands and
the mainland when organizing expeditions against their enemies,
the Arawacksfl ‘Ve may credibly aﬂirm therefore that this inscrip-
tion is a product of Carib art.

It is well known that on the adjacent portions of South America
many petroglyphs have been observed, some of remarkable size and
designs. They have been copied by Humboldt, Schomburgh, ‘Val-
lace, Im Thurn and others. The last mentioned who is also the most
recent observer, has made the important discovery that they are
divided into two classes, differing widely in design and technical
procedure. The one he calls the “deep” the other the “shallow”
petroglyphs. The “deep” are from 7% to tr an inch in depth; the
“shallow” are mere surface scratches ; the former have been incised
with the edge of a sharpened stone ; the latter rubbed in by friction
with a stone and moist sand. The ﬁgures represented differ, and the
two varieties never occur together, nor even near each other. The
shallow variety is seen on the Corentyn river and its tributaries in
the extreme east of British Guiana ; the deep occur on the streams
west of that region.2

The present Indians know nothing of the origin, age or meaning
of these monuments, and do not pretend to imitate them. The posi-
tion they occupy is generally, but not always, close to some body of
water. Not unfrequently they are upon almost inaccessible rock—
surfaces, and could have been executed only with enormous toil and
risk. This fact, and the well-known aversion of the natives to labor
of any kind, are suﬂicient to invalidate the theory of Dr. Richard

Andree that these figures were merely the product of idle hours,
without meaning and without object.3

 

1 De Rochefort, Histoire des Iles Antiles de l’Amérique, pp. 24, 25.

2 Among the Indians in Guiana. By Everard F. lm Thurn, p. 394.
3 Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche, s. 25. .

1889.] NATURAL SCIENCES or PHILADELPHIA. 419

Some, 011 the other hand, have attributed to them a profound
symbolic meaning, or supposed they possessed far-reaching his-Lori-
cal signiﬁcance. This is an error quite as much too far on the other
side. .

I am convinced that in regard to those found in Guiana and the
Carib district the theory of Professor Von Martius is correct.
He believed that they were intended as conjurations for luck in
ﬁshing and hunting, propitiatory to the spirits of the ﬁsh and ani-
mals sought for, objurgatory towards envious or malicious super-
natural powers.1

There is a passage in De Rochefort’s History of the Antilles con-
ﬁrmatory of Von Martius’ View, though he omits to quote it. This
early French historian speaking of the island Caribs says: “ To
turn aside the anger of the demons whom they dread, they paint
their hideous ﬁgures on the most prominent parts of their canoes.”2
He does not speciﬁcally say that they also engraved them upon the
plain surfaces of the rocks, but there can be no doubt they did, as
the Carib word temehri which is applied by them to rock inscrip-
tions means “ to paint" or “a painting.”3

We may safely decide therefore that the photograph before us ,
”represents one of the Carib demons or deities, and that its ﬁgure
was cut in the rock as a propitiatory act.

It may partake of temerity to proceed further, and undertake to
identify a particular deity; but I am tempted to do so. The main
ﬁgure of the glyph clearly represents a human form with arms ex-
tended over and laid upon the abdomen, but with no legs visible.
The abdomen is disproportionately large, as if greatly distended.
The suggestion is at once at hand that the ﬁgure is that of a woman in
parturition. Immediately above the head of the ﬁgure is the rude
representation of a human face, and another smaller one is to the
left of the ﬁgure, both without limbs.

Turning now to the mythology of the Carib we learn that
their principal beneﬁcent deity was the Earth. They spoke of it as
a female, as the good-mother, from whom proceeded their food and
other necessaries of life, and to her they paid their principal hom—
age. They also regarded the sun and moon as animate beings, and

 

1 Ethnographic und SprachemKunde Amerikas, Band I, S. 571, 2 qq.
2 Histoire des Iles Antilles, p. 479.
3 Im Thurn, ubi supra, p. 394.

420 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [1889.

paid them much respect in their ceremonies, but not actual worship,

as they did to Mother Earth.1

In the rock sculpture‘before us this evening, I believe we have
these three nature-spirits represented, the Earth as the parturient
All Mother, the sun and moon as accessories. The purpose of the
carving was propitiatory to these powerful forces, and was intended
as a permanent conjuration of their good-will.

 

1 See De Rochefort, ubi supra, pp. 489, 47“.

J

1 Reprint from t/ze A meriam Antiquarian, Septeméer, 1885.

THE TAENSA GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY.

[Reply of M. Lucien Adam to the attack on its authenticity published in the AMERICAN ANTQUA-
RIAN, March, 1885.]

The criticism on the Taensa Grammar published in the AMER-
ICAN ANTIQUARIAN last March has led to a reply from M. Lucien
Adam, the principal editor, under the following title: “Le Taen-
sa a-t—il ste forge de toutes Pieces? Reponse a M. Daniel G.
Brinton, par Lucien Adam.” (800 pp. 22. Paris, Maisonneuve
st cie. 1885.) As the question at issue is one of material im—
portance to American archxology, I shall state M. Adam’s argu-
ments in defense of the Grammar.

It will be remembered that the criticism published last March
closed with an urgent call for the production of the original MS.,
which M. Adam himself had never seen. To meet this," M. A.
as soon as practicable applied to young M. Parisot, who alleged
that he had translated the Grammar from the SpaniSh original,
to produce that original. This M. Parisot professed himself un—
able to do, although only two or three years have elapsed,
he cannot remember what he did with it, aud he thinks it
possible that it is lost or destroyed! The investigations, how—
ever, reveal two facts quite clearly: ﬁrst, that the original MS,
if/there was one, was not in Spanish as asserted, and was
not in the handwriting of M. Parisot’s grandfather, as was

7. also asserted, as the latter was certainly not the kind of
man to occupy himself with any such document. He kept a

sort of boarding-house, and the suggestion now is that one of
his temporary guests left this supposed MS. at his house. _As
its eXIStence is still in doubt, this uncertainty about its or1g1n
need not further concern us.

The more important question is whether the language as pre—
sented in the Grammar and texts bears internal evidence of au—
thenticity or not.

M. Adam begins with the texts, the so-called poems. To my
surprise, M. Adam, so far as they pretend to be native produc-
tions, tosses them overboard without the slightest compunctlon.
“ In my own mind,” he writes, “I have always considered them
the work of some disciple of the Jesuit Fathers, who had taken
a fancy to the Taensa poetry.” This emphatic rejection of their
aboriginal origin has led me to look over the volume again, as 1t
seemed to me that if such was the opinion of the learned editor
he should certainly have hinted it to his readers. Not the slight-

.est intimation of the kind can be found in its pages. Such being

the case, it is rather hard on me for M. Adam to arraign me with
severity for accepting these poems as genuine, on,the strength of
his well-deserved reputation as a linguist and critic, and before
I had studied the volume in detail. This Idid in myiwork,
“Aboriginal American Authors and their Productions,” pp. 48,
49, (Phila, 1883.) and it was a mistake which I hasten to ack—
nowledge.

The original MS. having disappeared, and the texts having
been ruled out as at best the botch work of some European, M.
Adam takes his stand on the Grammar and maintains its authen-
ticity with earnestness.

I named in my criticism six points in the grammatical struc-
ture of the alleged Taensa, specifying them as so extremely rare
in American languages, that it demanded the best of evidence to
suppose that they all were present in this extraordinary tongue.

These points are discussed with much acuteness aud fairness
by M. Adam, and his arguments within these limits are consid-
ered convincing by so eminent an authority as Professor Fried-
erich Muller, of Vienna, to whom they were submitted, and
whose letter concerning them he publishes. What M. Adam
does is to show that each of the peculiarities named ﬁnds a par-
allel in other American‘ tongues, or he claims that the point is
not properly taken. As I never denied the former, but merely
called attention to the raritysof such features, the question is,
whether the evidence is sufﬁcient to suppose that several of them
existed in this tongue, while as to the correctness of my charac-
terization of Taensa Grammar, scholars will decide that for
themselves.

It will be seen from the above that, even if some sub—structure
will be shown to have existed for this. Taensa Grammar and texts,
(which, individually, I still doubt) it has been presented to the
scientiﬁc world under conditions which were far from adequate to
the legitimate demands of students.

M. Adam in the tone of his reply is very fair and uniformly
courteous, except in his last sentence, Where he cannot resist the
temptation to have a ﬂing at us for the supposed trait which ~
Barnum and his compeers have conferred upon us among those
who do not know us. “ Permettez—moi de vous dire,” he Writes,
“qua la France n’set point la terre classique du lzumbug.” Has M.
Adam forgotten that George Pralmanasar, he who in the last .cen—
tury manufactured a language out of the whole cloth, grammar
and dictionary and all, was a Frenchman born and bred? And that
If the author of the Taensa volume has done the same, his only
predecessor in this peculiar industry is one of his own nation?
DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.
Media, Pa. - , . .. . :

Supplementary Remarks:

TO THE

Grammar of ma Gakahiaaal Language

. of Guatemala,

Edited by D. G. Brtnton, M. B.

BY OTTO STQLL, M- 13.,
0f Zurich, Switzerland.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, Februa/I’y 6, 1885.)

 

 

 

Supplementary remarks to the Grammar of the (Ia/echiquel Lan-
guage of Guatemala, edited by D. G. Brinton, M D. By Otto
Stoll, M D., of Zurich, Switzerland.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, February 6, 1885.)

Among the numerous branches of the great Maya family, the
languages which form the Quiche group (the Quiche with the
Uspanteca branch, and the Cakchiquel with the nearly allied
Tzutuhil) offer a peculiar interest to the comparative philologist.
These idioms have undoubtedly been long ago separated from the
common Maya stock and may safely be reckoned among the old- .
est branches of this family. We may derive this fact not only
from the geographical area they occupy in our days, but also from
the changes which the languages themselves have undergone in
the course of time. It is to be hoped that in a few years from
now the lack of sufﬁcient materials regarding them will no longer
be an Obstacle to rational etymological research, and that we
shall be able not only to deﬁne the differences between the
Quiche languages and the classic Maya,but even to trace out the
laws, according to which these differences have realized them-
selves.

At/ present, only a few hints can be given in this direction.
With respect to the Cakchiquel in particular, its present stock
of words seems to be formed by three different groups.

First, we ﬁnd a group of words which have perpetuated them-
selves unchanged since the Cakchiquel became independent of
the Maya. Such are the fellowing :

ah, cane, grass. balam, tiger.
’al, heavy. weight. 'ehi, mouth.
am, spider. mam, grandfather, etc.

. NOTE 1 : In many words the difference between Maya 'and
Cakchiquel is no real one, but must simply be attributed to the
alphabets in which the two languages are written. So are the
following Maya words : ioin youngerbrother, amae inhabitant of
a. great village, bae bone, cute heart, life, identical with the Oak-
chiquel words: ifk in, amda, bale, gum or aux, both in meaning
and pronunciation, though different in orthography.

2

NOTE 2: We may range among the ﬁrst group a number of
words in which the Cakchiquel has added a ﬁnal y to the Maya.
root as in :

MAYA: ba, mole CAKCH: bay.
be way, road bey.
chho mouse qhoy.

NOTE 3: In some other instances there occurs an interchange
of vowels between the two languages as in:

MAYA: zim‘c , ant CAKOH: zam’c.
miz to sweep mez.
m‘m’c man m'nalc.
cimzah to kill camizah.
hol the hole hul, etc.

The second group is formed by words in which certain con-
sonants of the Maya root change into other ones in Cakchiquel.
These changes follow regular phonetic laws‘and bear a strong
aﬂ‘inity to the principle of “ Lautverschiebung ” (Grimm’s law),
long ago known as an agent of most extensive application in the
morphology of the Indo~germanic languages.

So the Maya n in many instances becomes h in the corres-
ponding Cakchiquel root: the Maya t changes into ch in Oak-
chiquel and, as Brasseur de Bourbourg already remarked, the
Maya y sometimes becomes 7' in Cakchiquel and its sister lan-
guages.

The following examples may serve to illustrate these changes:

A. The Maya n becomes h in Cakchiquel:

MAYA: loin the'sun ‘ CAKo-H: 8m.
caan sky cah.
can four cahz'.
. on the aguacate* oh.
uun paper vuh.
nal ear of corn ‘ hal.
wanab sandal xahab.
zz‘mm scorpion zinah.
bolon nine / belehé (in
‘ composition belch).
lahun ten lahuh, etc.

* The fruit of Tersea gratissima.

3

B. The Maya t changes into ch in Cakchiquel:

MAYA: ta, obsidian CAKCH: okay.
te » ‘tree Che.
tub ' saliva chub.
tuh rotten, putrid chuh (pus)
tun stone ohunGime-
stone).
taan ashes chah.
tah _ fir-tree ohah, etc.

C. The Maya 3/ becomes 7‘ in Cakchiquel:

MAYA: cay ﬁsh CAKCH: car. ,
[coy sperm €07"!<
yaw green, blue Tax, etc.

Future inquiries will lead us to the discovery of the strict
_ laws which rule the etymological afﬁnity between the various
branches of the Maya family. ‘ Here I must limit myself to the
above given examples which may show the reader that such
phonetic laws really exist and, I may add, that a similar “ Lant-
vershiebung ” can be shown between the languages of the Mam-
group on one side, and the Maya and Quiche languages on the
other. .

Thirdly, there remains an extensive amount of Cakchiquel
roots which do not seem to bear any direct alliance to the Maya
\ words, but to have sprung from a distinct source. Most of these
roots also occur in the two remaining groups of Guatemala
idioms, 2'. e. in the Pokonchi and the Mam languages. After
having got better acquainted with all the languages of Maya
origin, we may undoubtedly hope to reduce the number of roots
which now form this third group, to a considerable extent, and
to discover affinities which, at present, are hidden. We shall
even be able. perhaps, to point out the elements, which previously
were strange to the Maya, and form the last remains of idioms
preceding the Maya invasions in Guatemala.

After these short introductory remarks I shall proceed to
comment on the “ Grammar of the Cakchiquel Language ” with a
few notes, to which I had been invited by its learned editor.

* 807‘ is the usual word for atole, a beverage made of corn and sugared water.

4

p. ’7. Introduction. “ Cozumelguapam.” The orthography now
generally adopted in ofﬁcial papers and maps in Guatemala is '
Cotzumalgnapam. The name is evidently 0f Nahuatl origin, and
means, according to Buschmann,* near the rainbow water, from
cozamalotl. Though this etymology does not seem entirely satis-
factory, I cannot oﬁ’er any better.

13. 8. “ 001075.90, the ara or guacamalla, TrogOn splendens.” The
bird called “ calciac ” by the Indians is the Arc macao L. known
generally by its Carib name guacamaya. Trogon splendensis a
scientiﬁc synonym for the quetzal, Tharom‘acrus mocz'nno' (Lall.),
a bird diﬁering, widely from the ara both in shape and color.

p. 19. Phonology. The four new signs added to the European
alphabet by some of the old writers on Cakchiquel (Parra, Flores)
mg: 8, 4, 3,, gh are but phonetic modiﬁcations of four cor-
responding signs of the common alphabet. So we get four pairs
of sounds, namely: 0 and 4;

k and 8
oh and gh
tziL and g;

forming two series of consonants, the former of which repre-
sents the commou letters, and the latter their respective “cut
letters,” which may be described as being pronounced With a
shorter and more explosive sound than the couesponding com-

mon lettei, and separated by a short pause from the preceding
or following Vowel.

p. 21. Dcclensz’on of nouns. vleuh, earth, pronounce uléuh.
In the old Spanish grammars the 1) before a consonant is always
an 21, before a vowel it has the sound of the Spanish 1).

ya'o/c. _ The old writers are very inconsequent in the alternate
Use of y and z', and the reader might be misled so as to suppose
them to be two differently sounding letters. Wherever in the

old grammars y precedes a consonant, it sounds like the common
1', and so We write better,

2'ka instead of yxolc.
ix you.
itzel yﬁel, etc.

* Buschinann, Ueber die aztekischen 'Ortsnamen, p. 799.

“H? is simply an antiquated form ofthe German tz, and is pronounced exactly
like it. ‘

5

In all plurals ending with y with the old writers, it has always
the sound of 2', and bears the accent. In pronunciation it is
separated by a short hiatus from the preceding vowel and does
not form a dipthong ay, as one would believe from the old or-

thography. So read

mebat' instead of mebay.
ahtzeolui ahtzeolay.
ahpz'tzolai ahpitzolay,
tzatcht’ vinak read tzatzi vinak.

p. 22. aqual, aquala, child, written, according to the old
Spanish orthography, for acual, acuala. Many Indians pro—
nounce agual, aguald.

p. 23. wk read zalc white.

coman gamun, or zamtan the cornﬁeld.
camah ' gar/moth or zamuh to work.
chughuh 4hu4huh, gliuéhuhilah.
giw, gixalah thorn, thorny, read 477x {ﬁxalah '
g; echelah ticon, a cacao-ﬁeld neglected and overgrown;
most probably an error of the copyi'st for 4ichelah t.
.qul (gul) is the “manta,” the unworked cotton-cloth. .
au is the “ chamarra,” a sort of woolen blanket used by
. the Indians.
10. 24. hat‘ read hdy, because here the 75 forms part of a diph-
' thong 6y. ’
nu uh, nu uhz‘l, write and pronounce nu vuh, nu vuhil
my book. If the root were simply uh, its combina-
tion with the possessive pronoun would be 'u-uh,
and not nu uh.
zac, zacz’l is the orthography adopted for the pure
Maya idiom. It corresponds with the Cakchiquel
za/c, zaicz’l (also gale, gulcil).
10. 25. chu vih “ against me,” "0471 means “my back,” chu 12271
at my back, behind me. And so cha m’h, behind ,
, thee (not chahm‘h).
p. 26. chin‘ubt‘lvz‘h. Flores gives the same combination (p.
255) with the variant chirubilvz’h, within himself.
He adds another one of the same meaning, formed
with cohol, the space .or distance between two things,
viz.: chinu cohol within myself.

6

cha cohol within thyself.
chu cohol.

chi/ca, cohol.

chi cohol.

chiquz’ cohol.

viquz‘n. More consistent with the real pronunciation!
is Flores’ orthography vugin vol 11247571, with me.
augin vel auz'gz'n with thee.

rugin neg—m.
yugin yuz'gxin (pron. ivigin).
cu 4m quigin.

p. 27. nu aahol my son, read nu gazhol. aahol is he who
breaks something. ‘

nu m’nu‘al my elder brother, read nu nimal.

p. 30. Qm's vel qui, who? Flores treats this matter in his

§ 4,pp. 47 and 99, according to his views of the Cakchiquel gram-
mar, as follows :

Nominative: na/c vel and/c vel. achinak.

who who who.
nalcz' who or what?

Genet. : acholc vel nakcholc.
whose whose.
acholcych'in nalccholcz'chz'n.

whose whose.
ahcholc whose.

Dati've : nalc chirilcz'n vel chire.

to whom.

nalc chiquichin vel chique.
to which of them.
Accus.: nak' wacamipah.
Whom didst thou kill?
nalc chz'm'h wag—holihm'.
With whom didst thou quarrel or ﬁght?
Ablative: nakrué-z’n, achokrigin.
with whom.
nalc rumal.
by whom, or by what.

7

QUICUNQUE VEL QUIVIs.

Any one whosoever. ,

To these correspond the following: Nalc vel naklaga
vel bilachz’nak, and their meaning is any one, whoso-
ever.

v. g. Any one that will not obey, will be punished,
nakla mam} Mini/man xtigahigax ruvach.

ALIQUIS.

For aliquis is used the verbal root 5L0}; which signiﬁes:
to be somewhere (Spanish, estar), v. {3.510}; xbcmo
some one did it. Also, bila, bilanak, bilachinalc
are used for the aliqm’s, f.‘i. ve bila xgamo hoyeruvach,
if some one has taken it, woe to him. Bilanalc or
balanalc chi yabz’lal, bilanalc ch75 Saxomal, some of
the inﬁrmities, some of the pains. V6 bila tux
chivichz’n eleaon wtz’mpax, If some one of you is
the thief, he will be whipped.

So far Flores. It is almost superﬂuous to say that there does
not exist anything like declension of interrogative pronouns and
the like, and that a future analysis of the above given expres-
sions will show in how many respects they thoroughly differ from
the Latin quis, quicunque, aliqm's, etc.

1). .31. Distributive words—Flores adds (p. 31): “For the
distributives of a number they use the particle ychal, postponed
to the numeral, and the possessive pronoun before it.”

GAY, the y changed into 5: cab;

Sing. m cabichal both of them.
Plur. Isa cabichal we. both.
I y Cabichal you both.
quz' cabichal they both.

OXI.

Sing. roxichal all three.

Plur. Icoxz‘chal we
y'voxz'chal you}three.
coxichal they

CAHI. '

Sing. ru cahz’chal all four.
Plur. lea cahz’chal we four.

8

y cahz’chal you four.
quz‘ cahichal they four. And so forth.

p. 32. nuion, etc. Flores writes, consistent with the real
renunciation nuion m on et‘c.
p 1 ./ 7 J 7

CHAPT. III. OF THE VERBS.

An exact study of the Maya and Cakchiquel verb would lead
us too far at present, and so I am obliged to follow this difﬁcult,

but interesting matter according to the system adopted by the
old grammarians. '

Sum, 68, fuz'.
- Flores (p. 68) is of opinion that the verb ux in some instances
means to become, ﬁo being a. kind of passive of the active verb
ban, to make, but that there are other instances where it sup-

plants the true verb sum, fui, esse, f. i. in nalc tux, who is it?
Flores gives the conjugation of the verb M: as follows:

Pretem't perfect.

in ainom xi'nua; I have been rich.

at ainom amt, ux ThOu hast been rich.
ainom xux

0h ainoma xoh ux etc.

yw ainoma xix me
he einoma we ux

Future imperfect.

In ahtz‘h xqm‘num I shall be a teacher.
at ahtz’h moat ua: Thou shalt be a teacher,
ahtz’h xtux etc.
0h ahtz‘ha xlcoh use we shall be teachers.
ya: ahtz'ha, wquz’w um
xque use

It is easy to see that the root we is conjugated according to
the rules of the passive verbs, and its present, which no gramma-
rian gives fully, would be gum-um, out we, tux, lcoh ux, quix ux,
que me. We may even venture to see in the suﬂ‘ix x the true
sign of a passive verb “to become,” and to consider me as the
passive of a hypothetical active verb uh, to generate, and to

translate the above given examples accordingly: I have got rich,
I shall become a teacher.

p. 34. Imperfect preterit.

yn naelc utz, I Was good. Flores says: “In this idiom there
is no special word for the said preterit and for forming it, we
. Want a temporal sentence: I wasgood when thou earnest. In
utz, tolc watul, etc.” He adds (p. 62), “ With less than a tempo-
ral sentence the said preterit cannot be expressed, because form-
ing it with naelc as some Artes MSS. do, is but imperfection, as
is shown by the formation of the said particle, the meaning of
which is: though, but. Notwithstanding everybody may con~
form himself with the style of his place.”

Perfect preterit. Flores forms it with use: in ainom win um
I have been rich, etc., but he gives also : in oher ahau I have
been chief.

Pluperfect. Flores gives :
max in vi eatolgih I had been judge.
max at vi gatolﬁih Thou hadst been judge, etc.
and : in 01c utz I had been good.
at olc‘utz Thou hadst been good.

I
p. 37. chuhach read chu'vach.
Optati-ve JlIood. Imperfect preterit. Flores (p. 7 2) gives:
In tah naonel quinux I would be heard or understood.

Preterit perfect. Flores (p. 73):
in tah utz urinals I would have been good (Yo haya
sido bucno).
Preterit pluperfect. Flores (p. 7 4): '
mutant in utz, etc. yo huviera, havria 6 huviesse sido
bueno.
Inﬁnitive Mood.
Besides the present and imperfect tense: in tah utz tivaho I
wantito be good, Flores (p. 78)’ gives the preterit perfect and
the pluperfect as follows:

Sing. ‘ In ta meba minim: can tivaho.
yo quisiera haver sido pobre.

At ta meba xatux can ta-vaho.
Tu quisieras haver sido pobre.
Meba tah xux can tivaho.

Plur. 0h ta mebay wohux can tilcaho.
.yx ,ta mebay xixux can ti'vwho. ‘
he ta mebay xeua: can ticoho.

10

- From all the named differences between the old authors in
their elaboration of the Cakchiquel paradigm for the verb sum,
fui, esse, through all its moods and tenses, the reader will satisfy
himself, that this verb does’ not form any inherent part of the
Cakchiquel, but has been artiﬁcially built up by the priests by
various particles and circumlocutions.

p. 40. Indicative Mood 0f the verb 40h.

Negative preterit imperfect. Flores (p. 82):
Tan in mani 40h
vel mani in ta 40h, etc.
p. 41. Flores gives a Preterit perfect.
utzta xigohe tah, yo haya e'stado
utzta watgohe tah, tu hayas estado.
Gerunds. In following up his s3 stem, F101es (p 97) adds what

he singularly calls an Aecusative Gerund, formed with the verb
be to go.

quibe 407w, voy a estar.

catbe 407w, vas a estar, etc.
and an Ablative Gerund.

tan 016 in 40h, estando yo.

tan 010 at 40h, estando ti’i.

He adds a participle of the present (p. 98): gohl, el que esta.

Pluperfect.

Were we to adopt for a moment the views of the old gram-"
marians about the Indian verb and to form a pluperfect, it would,
with the root ban to make, for instance, run thus :

nu banun chic, I had made.
(verbally. : my making already.)
a banun chic, Thou hadst made, etc.
_ Flores forms it with the verb loaon, to love.
nu log 0m chic I had loved.
The same form nu log om chic he gives for the Future perfect,

I shall have loved, which shows that no such thing as a Future’
perfect does exist in Oakchiquel.

yn log oninaic (correctly formed from the intransitive
verb log on), I was he who loved.
p. 45. tivulicah . read tivuligah I cause to come.
ti'vutziricah read ti-vutziricah.
p. 51. x08 ohauh' read xokahau.
p. 55. oh ahtih, etc. read 0h ahtiha, etc.

11

p. 58. Verbals in cm. When combined With the possessive
. pronouns they serve as preterit perfect ; nu banom I have done.

10. 59. OF CERTAIN PRONOUNS.

'This matter is more extensively treated by Flores (§ XIV, p.
209 sqq. De las oraeiones de aceusativo) and he gives the fol-

lowing Paradigms :

quin a
cat nu
ti nu
[ooh 3/
quiz: lca.
que .ica

win a.
mat nu
w nu ~
woh ru
xix lea .
we lea

wquina,
a: cat nu
xtz’ nu
xlcoh y
xquix lea
a; que y

in a
at nu
ha nu
oh ru
ya: law
ha y

l

PRESENT.

l

} log 0h

J-

PRETERIT.

l

> 208 Oh

J

FUTURE.

l

} log oh

I

J

PRETERIT PERFECT.

l

l

108 am

Thou lovest me.
I love thee.

I love him.
You love us.
We love you.
We love them.

Thou hast loved me.
I have loved thee.

I have loved him.

He has loved us.

We have loved you;
We have loved them.

Thou shalt love me.
I shall love you.

I shall love him.
You shall love us.
We shall love you.
You shall love them.

Thou hast loved me.
I have loved thee.

I have loved him.

He has loved us.

We have loved you.
You have loved them.

Of course, the number of possible combinations between sub- .
jective and objective pronoun in the verb is not exhausted by

‘ the given examples.

12

As for combinations of verbs with negative or vetative ad- ,
verbs, Flores gives the following examples :

ACTIVE VERB BEGINNING WITH A CONSONANT.

min ‘ no haga yo.
ma, ‘ no hagas m.
mu ban no haga e1, etc.
maka
mi
magm‘ J

ACTIVE VERB BEGINNING WITH A VOWEL.
miu ‘1 no oiga. yo, etc.
mau
mar

agawah (to hear)

male
'mz'u ‘
mac

ABSOLUTE, PASSIVE AND NEUTER VERB BEGINNING WITH A VOWEL.
min

mat

ma (vel) m agaxan (absolute) to hear.
moh agaxaw (passive) to be heard.
mm

me

VETATIVE ADVERBS FOR. IMPERATIVES OF NEUTER, ABSOLUTE AND
PASSIVE VERBS BEGINNING WITH A CONSONANT.

min

mat

ma (vel) ba var to sleep.
moh log on to love.

mi (vel) bi log ow to be loved.
me

p. 62. qu que to sit down. Better write quqe. The word
is'often pronounced cake and quke. /

The system of conjugation in the idioms of Maya origin needs \
a thoroughly renewed study. The ﬁrst step will be to examine

13

by a comparative study. of the various branches of the Maya
family, if the syntactical elements, commonly called verbs, can
really be considered as true verbs. Then we must try to clear
‘ them of all the artiﬁcial additions of the priests, and to ﬁnd out
the real Indian verb and all its possible forms, tenses and moods,
a task by no means so easy as it would seem from a superﬁcial
examination. In a subsequent publication, I propose to enter
more fully upon this theme.

 

r" ”In“

1881'] ‘ 9 lBrinton.

Memoir of S. S. Haldeman, A. M, Ph. 1)., etc. By D. G. Brz'yzton, M. D.
4 (Read before the American Philosophical Society, February 4, 1881.)

III/presenting a sketch of the life of the late Professor Haldeman, I shall
begin with his personal history, and then proceed to give a brief account
of his contributions to science.

Samuel Stehman Haldeman was born August 12, 1812, at Locust Grove,
a beautifully situated country—seat on the east bank of the Susquehanna
river, twenty miles below Harrisburg. The house, with the extensive
property surrounding it, had been in the possession of his ancestors for
several generations. ‘

The family came originally from Thnn, in German Switzerland, and
were an energetic, independent race, who had been honored in their day.
Jacob, Haldeman, a great-grandfather of the subject of this memoir, was
chosen one of a Committee of Public Safety from Rapho towuship, Pa., in
revolutionary times. Frederick Haldimand, a great-uncle who had entered
the English military service, became ﬁrst Governor-General of Canada
under that rule. John B. Haldeman, a grandfather, was member of the
General Assembly from Lancaster county, in 1795. The name was for-
merly spelled with either 2' or e in the second syllable and the ﬁnal d re-
jected or retained according to the language of the canton in which it was
found, but as it was of Germanic origin, Prof. Haldeman always used the
German method.

I

Brinton.] 280 - (Feb. 4,

He was the oldest of seven sons, his parents being Henry Haldeman
(1787—1849) and Frances Stehman (1794—1826). His father. a lover of
books, endeavored to foster in this, his favorite child, a desire for learning,
and to impress upon him its importance. His mother, a lady of attain-
ments, dying when he was but twelve years old. had but little inﬂuence
upon his after career, except perhaps that his great accuracy in detecting
and analyzing unusual sounds in language may have been inherited from
her who was an accomplished musician. His early education was pursued
at the local schools, supplemented by a good library at home. The favor-
able opportunities for the observation of nature which presented them-
selves he improved by forming a boyish museum containing rude anatomi-
cal preparations made from rabbits, opossums, muskrats, etc., and of birds,
which a traveling Methodist preacher had taught him how to stuff. An
extract from a letter to a friend, dated 1844, contains these words, “I col-
lected shells on the banks of the Susquehanna long before I knew the
meaning of genus and species ”

In the spring of 1826, when nearly fourteen years of age, Mr. Haldeman
was sent to the Classical Academy of Dr. John H. Keagy, at Harrisburg,
Pa., a gentleman of whom he always spoke as being an able thinker and
thorough scholar. An assistant teacher, Mr. J. T. Q. Mittag, who is yet
living at an advanced age, refers with enthusiasm to the precocity and
studious habits of his pupil at that time.

He remained at Harrisburg two years, and then went to Dickinson Uol-
leg e, Carlisle, Pa., where his taste for natural science was eneouraded by
Prof. H D. Rogers, subsequently the distinguished geologist. But his
ea1ly freedom and the bent of his own sturdy genius made the restraints
of a college course irksome, and after two years he left Carlisle without
waiting to obtain a degree and with the intention of pursuing his studies
alone. In fact, the lack of thorough teaching in his youth had given
him a rooted distrust for the opinions of the masses, and had formed
habits of self-reliance Which forced him to be original or nothing. “I
cannot learn from others, I must see for myself,” he would impatiently
exclaim, and thereupon would proceed to investigate an assertion “With ‘a
series of cross-examinations such as were well calculated to develop the
exact truth. In after years, to see some poor native under the ﬁre of his
questions, when the pronunciation of an a or an u was at stake, was almost
painful. His horror of compilers was ‘such that once when returning from
Europe, being reproached for having written such short letters “when
seeing so much to write about,” he characteristically referred the speaker
to an excellent Wo1k on European travel saying that as everything had
been well desmibed there, it was not worth while to repeat it.

Thus at the age of eighteen he began to direct his own studies and to
accumulate at the paternal mansion cabinets of geology, conchology, ento-
mology. botany and a scientiﬁc and linguistic library As the bias of local
opinion rendered it necessary that all young men who were not professional
should go into business, he assisted his father 1n conducting a saw-mill on

1881.] i 28]- lBrinton.

a newly acquired property, called at that time Chickiswalungo. The
young student found business even more tedious than college routine, and
relates of himself at this time, “ I developed a taste for rainy weather and
impassable roads; then I could remain undisturbed in the perusal of my
books, a supply of which I kept in a back ofﬁce, where I retired as soon as
the sky looked threatening.” This taste for rainy days was not ﬁctitious
and remained with him during his life.

In 1835, Mr. Haldeman married Miss Mary A. Hough, a lady whose emi-
nent qualities and devotion to his interests greatly aided to render his after
Successpossible. Ably taking upon herself those cares which a growing
family entail, she left him leisure for the pursuit of his favorite projects,
and it was in consequence of her wish that he wrote his essay on Analyti-
cal Orthography, which, though not more important than his other works,
gained him an European reputation.

Shortly after 'his marriage, Mr. Haldeman, with his wife, occupied the
.residence built for him by his father at Chickies, and became a silent part—
ner in the iron business conducted by his brothers, Dr. Edwin and Paris
Haldeman. Here books and cabinets accumulated under his laborious
hands, only to be scattered again and give place to others when his insatia-
ble appetite for knowledge led him into new ﬁelds of investigation. For
forty-ﬁve years he spent most of his time in his library, where in his
Vigorous manhood he worked sixteen hours a day. For though he accept-
ed several professorships and delivered a number of courses of lectures, he
did so with reluctance, preferring to be master of his time and to spend it
in the quiet of home. ‘

In person, Mr. Haldeman was of middle height, with small, well formed
hands and feet, a large and remarkably round head, giving great breadth
across from ear to ear; high forehead, Roman nose, full lips, black eyes,
and inryouth a quantity of black hair, which at his death was of snowy
whiteness. Long before it was usual in America he wore a moustache and
beard, not for adornment but for convenience. In speaking, he had a clear
enunciation, penetrating voice, and much readiness at repartee. His
movements were rapid, his disposition cheerful, his general health excel-
lent, and his interest in science unﬂagging to the end of his life, his latest
occupation for leisure moments being the forming of an archaeological col-
lection, in Which he took great pleasure, and the advancement of the spell-
ing reform. .

His death took place suddenly at seven o’clock, Friday evening, Septem-
ber 10, 1880. On returning from the meeting of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, held at Boston, August 23d, he com~
plained of fatigue, but insisted on occupying his library as usual. A physi-
cian, being sent for advisedrest, but it was only on Friday morning that
he could be induced to keep his bed. The physician paid him a long visit
on Friday afternoon, and Mr. Haldeman eonversed cheerfully for about an
hour; only once he complained of weakness, and ﬁxing his eyes on the
doctor, asked, “Do you think this could be the breaking up of my sys-

Brinton.] 282 ‘ [Feb. 4,

tom ‘2” but seemed satisﬁed when the doctor, surprised, answered “No.”
A few hours afterward, having risen from his bed without assistance, his
Son, who was in the next room, heard a fall ; in a moment he was by his
side and had taken him in his arms, but though every means was resorted
to that animation might be restored, life had departed. Death was occa-.
sioned by a disease of the heart, to which he had some hereditary predis-
position. .

I may add to the above some personal reminiscences illustrating Prof.
Haldeman’s character, Communicated to me by Prof. E. A. Barber, of this
city.

Like most men of high impulse and native truthfulness, it was difﬁcult
for him to suspect deceit in others. On one occasion he showed Prof.
Barber a small stone ornament shaped like a ﬁsh, and enthusiastically de-
scribed it as one of the “ﬁnds” in the famous “Chickiés rock retreat/7
With some hesitation his auditor pointed out certain suspicious marks about
it, and suggested the possibility that it had been manufactured by one of
the boys engaged in the excavation. F01 the ﬁlst time the idea of such
an imposition crossed his mind, and further investigation led to a confes-'
sion of the act by the perpetrator.

It was his taste and apparently also his theory that a student should not
be a specialist, but should devote his mind to different branches, thus secur-
ing wider knowledge. In a conversation with Prof. Barber, he once said :
“I never pursue one branch of science more than ten years, but lay it
aside and go into new ﬁelds.”

As a correspondent, he wrote frequent letters, but brief ones, and gener-
ally was an enemy to prolixity. In one of his letters he w1ites, “You may
think the enclosuIe rathei sho1t, but I dislike palave1, and like to say my
say then st.op”

This trait shows itself in his writings. His style is terse and nervous,
and his matter shows constant evidence of careful arrangement, so as to
secure the utmost condensation compatible with clearness.

Professor Haldeman’s religious views were ﬁXed for many years before
his death. Born of Protestant parentage, he was led in early life to doubt
the theology which he heard taught in the schools and preached in the
pulpits of Central Pennsylvania, and for a term of years did not attach him-
self to any sect or church. Later on he took up the systematic study of the
evidences of 1eligion, convinced that this is a subject on which every man
of intelligence should have definite and defensible convictions. The result
of his studies was that he united himself with the Roman Catholic Church,
which he stated he had found to be the ea1liest historic form of 0111 istlan-
ity, and he remained a consistent member of that confession until his
death . ‘

Eaily distinguished as a devoted student of natural science, Prof.
Haldeman was selected to ﬁll various public positions as an expert and a
teacher. In 1836 he was chosen an assistant in the New Jersey Geological
Suivey. and the following yea1 held a similar ofﬁce 111 Pennsylvania, and

 

1881.] 283 ‘ [Brinton.

prepared a work on the geology of that part of this State lying between
the Blue mountain and South mountain, from the Delaware to the Mary-
land line, which was published Mayilst, 1837. While engaged in this oc-
cupation he discovered the Scolithus linear-2'3, the oldest fossil then known.
In 1851 he became Professor of Natural History in the University of Penn-
sylvania; in 1855, in Delaware College, acting also as Professor of Geol-
ogy and Chemistry to the State Agricultural College, and subsequently
became Professor of Comparative Philology in the ﬁrst-named institution,
when that chair was ﬁrst established, and ﬁlled it continuously up to the
time of his death.

Turning now to his record as an author, we ﬁnd Professor Haldeman
displayed amazing activity in a variety of branches. In his earlier years
natural history was his passion, while in his later life linguistics and
archmology occupied most of his attention.

The ﬁrst work which I can ﬁnd assigned to him was “Fresh Water
Univalve Mollusca,” published in 1840, 2 vols. 8vo, which is now out of
print. This book is very scarce and it is difﬁcult to obtain a copy, the last
one that was sold bringing thirty dollars ; in 1842 he published “Zoologi-
cal Contributions;” in 1847 he issued a work on the “Genus Leptoxis,”
in French, while on a visit to Paris. It is part of the Illustrations (Ion-
chologz’ques of Dr. Chenu. In 1849 he issued his ﬁrst philological work,
entitled "‘Some Points in Linguistic Ethnology,” dealing with English
languages, and from that date he became recognized in the scientiﬁc world
as one of the leading philologists.

In 1850 he published a work, “ Zoology of the Invertebrate Animals ;”
in 1851, “Elements of Latin Pronunciation ;” in 1855 he edited “ Taylor’s
Statistics of Coal ;” in 1856, a work on the “ Relations of the English and
Chinese Languages ;” in 1864 he issued a work on the game of chess under
the title of “ Tours of a Chess Knight ;” and in 1868. the “ Rhymes of the
Poets,” under the nom de plume of “Felix Ago ;” in 1871 he issued a
work on “Afﬁxes to English Words,” and in 1877, his last work, entitled
“ Outlines of Etymology,” was published.

The Professor leaves behind him a complete work on “Word Building,”
which is designed for the use of classes in Etymology, and which is ready
for the printer; also a work on “English Prosody.” He also leaves the
manuscript of “Rat and River—a Tale of the Ohio,” a mock heroic poem, '
and a poem of the same kind entitled, “ Flight of the Fishes.” '

In addition to these works he has contributed probably one hundred and
ﬁfty papers on various scientiﬁc subjects, especially relating to Geology,
Conchology,-Entomology, Philology, and several branches of Zoology, '
which have been published in the Proceedings of the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science, the American Philosophical Society,
American Philological AssOciation, Academy of Natural Sciences, and
many other learned societies of which he was a member. This Society is
now publishing. in their Transactions a monograph on “Contents of a
Rock Retreatin Southeastern Pennsylvania,” which is descriptive of the

Brintnn .] 284 [Feb. 4,

Indian arrow heads and other relics found in the 'cave under Chickies rock.
He was the ﬁrst editor of the Pennsylvania “Farmers’ Journal,” a con-
tributor to “Silliman’sJournal,” the “Iconographic Encyclopeedia,” the
“Literary World,” and Johnson’sCyclopaédia. ‘ . ‘

0f the latter he was also an associate editor of the Comparative Philology
and Linguistic department, and was the author of numerous articles in it.
He also wrote two or three manuals of orthography, pronunciation and
etymology, and his treatise on “Analytical Orthography,”consisting of
investigations into the philosophy of language, gained him, in 1858, the
highest Trevelyan prize over eighteen competitors. He wrote the zoologi-
cal portion of Trego‘s ‘i‘ Geography of Pennsylvania ” (1843), and Rupp’s
“History of Lancaster County” (1844).

I have endeavored, without success, to prepare a complete list of these
numerous papers, and must content myself with the above general refer-
ences to them.

In conclusion, I wish to present an appreciative tribute to Prof. Halde-
man’s scientiﬁc attainments from the pen of his personal friend and our
much, esteemed member, Dr. John L. LeConte. \

“Next to his valuable contributions in Philology, the most important
work of Prof. Haldeman was in the direction of descriptive Natural His-
tory. He was well versed in several branches of Zoology, and notably in
Conchology and Entomology; in both studies he perceived latent possi-
bilities of future philosophical development, which the then imperfect
observations rendered impossible to do more than dimly outline. This
quality is eSpeciall y noticeable in remarks scattered through his monograph
of Fresh W'ater Univalves of the United States, and in a memoir ;* ‘Enu-
meration of the recent fresh water Mollusca, which are common to North
America and Europe, with observations on species and their distribution.’

“ Without being a partisan, any more than myself, in the scientiﬁc squab-
ble which then provoked much bitterness of expression between the contend-
ing factions, but which has since dwindled into comparative insigniﬁcance
——the single or multiple origin of man—we held frequent conferences upon
the subject. And in these friendly talks, I have heard him express himself
freely on the impossibility of the results of the naturalist (now the biolo-
gist), being ever acceptable to the adherents of the scholastic school,
‘For,’ said he, ‘if it be proved that organic forms are invariable during
their continuance upon earth, then the different human races must be con-
sidered as having originated independently. If on the other hand, organic
forms are plastic, under circumstances not yet understood, then the present
species may have been developed from species which preceded them, and
have not resulted from direct creative acts. Either horn of the dilemma is
unsatisfactory to the metaphysical views prevalent.’

“ While his contributions to the two branches of Zoology above mentioned
have contributed to their advance in this country, what are especially to
be admired are the zeal, the honesty of expression, and the unselﬁshness

* Boston Journal of Natural History, vol. iv, p. 468.

1881.] 285 [Brinton.

with which he did everything he believed to be right, or to be his duty as
the occasion dictated.

“ When in afﬂuence, his contributions for the promotion of science were
liberal; When in moderate circumstances, he pursued with equal industry
such subjects in science as required small expenditure. But at all times he
was an industrious and intelligent laborer, a warm and sympathetic friend,
and a thorough hater of pretence and empiricism.

' “ Failing eyesight compelled him eventually to give up his studies in
Zoology, and to devote his whole time to Linguistics, for which he had ex-
hibited a growing taste for several previous years

“The rare ﬂexibility of his vocal organs gave him peculiar facility for
analyzing and imitating the sounds in foreign languages, which he neve1
lost any opportunity of hearing 1n his travels, both in this country and in
Europe. In this matter his Natural History training in accurate observa-
tion, aided by remarkable perceptive qualities, gave him great advantage,
and I am convinced that his analysis of the causes of change of sound in
words, in passing from one Ian guage to another, will hereafter receive much
more attention than they have heretofore done in this, the country of his
birth, where such investigations are still in their infancy.”

 

   

' The Phonetic Elements in the
5 Graphic System of the
Mayas and Mexicans.

 

0—..—

BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

 

 

 

 

Reprintfrom American Antiquarian, November, 1886.

THE PHONETIC ELEMENTS IN THE GRAPHIC
SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS AND MEXICANS."<

All who have read the wonderful story ofthe Spanish conquest
ofMexico and Central America will remember that the European
invaders came upon various nations who were well acquainted with
some method of writing, who were skilled in the manufacture of
parchment and paper, and who ﬁlled thousands of volumes
formed of these materials with the records of their history, the
theories of their sciences, and the traditions of their theologies.
Aiming at greater permanence than these perishable materials
would offer, they also inscribed on plinths of stone, on slabs of
hard wood, and on terra cotta tablets, the designs and ﬁgures
which in the system they adopted served to convey the ideas
they wished to transmit to posterity.

In spite ofthe deliberate and wholesale destruction of these
records at the conquest, and their complete neglect for centuries
afterwards, there still remain enough, were they collected, to
form a respectably large Corpus Inscrzfz‘z'onzmz Alnerz'mnarnm.
Within the present century many Mexican and Maya MSS.
have for the ﬁrst time been published, and the inscriptions
on the temples of southern Mexico and Yucatan have been
brought to the tables of students by photography and casts,
methods which permit no doubt as to their faithfulness.

Nor have there been lacking diligent students who have availed
themselves of these facilities to search for the lost key to these
mysterious records. It is a pleasure to mention the names of
Thomas and Holden in the United States, of De Rosny, Aubin
and de Charencey in France, of Forstemann and Schellhas in
fGermany, of Ramirez and Orozco in Mexico. But it must
frankly be confessed. that the results obtained by all of these
have been inadequate and unsatisfactory. We have not yet
_ passed the threshold of investigation.

The question which forces itself upon our attention as de-
manding a reply at the very outset is whether the Aztec and
Maya systems of writing were or were not, in whole or in part
phonetic systems? Did they appeal, in the ﬁrst instance, to the
g . meaning of the word, or to the sonna‘ ofthe word? Ifto the latter,
. if,,in other words, they were phonetic, or even partially phonetic,
then it is vain to attempt any interpretation of these records
without a preliminary study of the languages of the nations who

 

 

*Read before the Anthropological Section of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, at Buffalo, Aug, 1886.

4 THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS

were the writers. These languages must moreover be studied
in the form in which they were spoken at the period ofthe con-
quest, and the course of native thought as expressed in the
primitive grammatical structure must be understood and taken
into account. I hasten to add that we have abundant materials
for such studies. '

This essential preliminary question, as to the extent of the
phonetic element in the Mexican and Maya systems of writing,
is that which I propose to put at present, and to answer it, so far
as may be. Hitherto, the greatest diversity of opinion about it
has prevailed. Some able writers, such as Valentini and Holden,
have questioned the existence of any phonetic elements ;
but most have been willingto concede that there are such
present, though their quantity and quality are by no means
clearly deﬁned.

We may assume that both systems under consideration are
partly ideographic. Every system of phonetic writing introduces
ideograms to some extent, our own among the number“ The
question is, to what extent.

But before we are prepared to answer this question, about the
extent of the phonetic element, we must seek to ascertain its
character. We are all aware that a phonetic symbol may ex-
press the sound either of a whole word of several syllables, or
ofa single syllable, or of a simple acoustic element. Again, a
single phonetic symbol may express several quite diverse sounds,
as is familiarly exempliﬁed in the ﬁrst letter ofthe English alpha—
bet which represents three very different sounds; and, on the
other hand, we may ﬁnd three, four or more symbols, no wise
alike in form or origin, bearing one and the same phonetic value,
a fact especially familiar to Egy ptologists.

We must further bear in mind that the arrangement to the
eye of phonetic symbols is altogether arbitrary. Because a pre—
ﬁx is pronounced ﬁrst in the order of time and a sufﬁx last, it by
no means follows that the order in space of their corresponding
symbols shall bear any analogous relation. The idea awakened
by the sound of the word is a whole, and one, and so that this
sound is represented, the disposition of its component parts, is,
philosophically speaking, indifferent. When it is remembered
that in most American languages, and notably in the» Mexican
or Nahuatl, there is a tendency to consolidate each phrase into
a single word, the importance of this consideration is greatly
increased.

As the position of the phonetic parts of the phrase-word
may thus be disregarded, yet more indifferent is the order of
sequence of the symbols. There is no aprim‘i reason why this
should be from left to right as in English, or from right .to left

as in Hebrew; alternately, as in the ‘BOUSTROPHEDON of the
Greek, or from top to bottom as in Chinese.

THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS. 5

In such an examination as the present one, we must rid our
minds of the expectation of ﬁnding the phonetic elements in
some familiar form, and simply ask, whether they are to be found
in any form.

We are not without a trustworthy guide in this quest. It is
agreed among those who have most carefully studied the subject
that there is but one path by which the human mind could have
originally proceeded from picture-writing or thought-writing, to
phonetic or sound-writing. This was through the existence of
homophones and homoiophones in a language, of words with
the same or Similar sounds, but with diverse signiﬁcations. The
deliberate analysis of a language back to its phonetic elements,
and the construction upon those ofa series of symbols, as was
accomplished for the Cherokee by the half—breed Sequoyah, has
ever been the product of culture, not a process of primitive
evolution.

V In this primitive process the sounds which were most frequent-

ly repeated, or were otherwise most prominent to the ear would
be those ﬁrst represented by a ﬁgure; and the same ﬁgure would
come to be employed as an equivalent for this sound and others
closely akin to it, even when they had other connections and
bore other signiﬁcations. Hence afﬁxes, sufﬁxes, monosyllabic
words, and accented syllables of polysyllabic words, are those to
which we must look as offering the earliest evidences of a con-
nection of ﬁgure with sound.

According to the theory here very brieﬂy indicated, I shall
examine the Maya and Nahuatl systems of writing to ascertain if
they present any phonetic elements and of what nature these
are.

Turning ﬁrst to the Maya, I may in passing refer to the disap-
pointment which resulted from the publication of Landa’s alpha-
bet by the Abbe Brasseur in 1864. Here was what seemed a
complete phonetic alphabet, which (should at once unlock the
mysteries of the inscriptions on the temples of Yucatan and
Chiapas and enable us to interpret the script of the Dresden and
other Codices. Experience proved the utter fallacy of any such
. hope. Prof. Valentini has even condemned Landa’s alphabet as a
Spanish fabrication. But the Bishop must be declared innocent
of such an intention. His work is no key to the Maya script;
but it does indicate that the Maya scribes were able to a551gn a
character to a sound, even a sound so meaningless as that of a

single letter.

The failure of the Landa alphabet was complete, and left
many scholars total skeptics as to the phonetic values of any of
the Mava Characters. To name a conspicuous and recent exam—
ple, Prdf. Leon de Rosny, in his edition ofthe Codex Cortesmnus,
published in 1883, appends a Vocabulary of the hieratic s1gns as

6 . THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS.

fa1 as known; but does not include among them any phonetic
signs other than Landa s .

bBut if we tuin to the most recent and closest students of these
1eco1ds we ﬁnd among them a consensus of opinion that a certain
deg or,ree though a small degree, of phoneticism must be accepted.
Thus our own able lepresentative in this branch, Prof. Cyrus
Thomas, announced in 1882, in his Study fo/lé‘ .MS. 77/007203“
that several of the day and month characters are, beyond doubt,
to a certain extent phonetic.

Prof. Forstemann, of Dresden, whose work on the Dresden
Codex has appeared within the present year, announces his con-
clusion that the Maya script is essentially ideographicﬁ but
immediately adds the numerous small ﬁgures attached to the
main sign are to be considered phonetic, and no matter in what
local relation to this main sign they stand, they are to be re-
garded either as preﬁxes or sufﬁxes of the word. He does not
attempt to work out their possible meaning, but, as he says,
leaves that to the future.

Almost identical is the conclusion of Dr. Schellhas, whose
essay on the Dresden Co-
dex: has also appeared
within the present year.
His .ﬁnal decision is in
these words: “The Maya
writing is ideographic in
principle, and probably
avails itselfin order to com—
plete its ideographic hiero-
glyphs of a number of ﬁxed
phonetic signs.”

Some of these signs have
been so carefully scrutin-
ized that their phonetic val-
ue may be considered to
have been determined with
reasonable certainty. An
interesting example is
shown on Fig. I. for the
analysis of which we are in- \
debted t0 DI‘, Schellhas. Fig. I—The Maya Hieroglyph of the Firmament.
The quadrilateral ﬁgure at the top represents the ﬁrmament. One
of the squa1es into which it is divided portrays the sky in the
day time, the other the starry sky at night. Beneath each are
white and black objects, signifying the clouds, from which falling
rain is indicated by long zigzag lines. Between the clouds on

 

 

*Study of the MS lroano, p 141.
TErlauterungen dei Maya hand- s-chrift, etc, p 2. (Dresden, I886.)
$Die Maya-Handschrift der Konig. Bilb 211 Dresden, p. 77; (Berlin, 1886.)

THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS. ’7

the left of the ﬁgure is the well-known ideogram of the sun, on
the right that of the moon. In the Maya language the sun is
called lain, the moon 2;, and these ﬁgures are found. elsewhere,
not indicating these celestial bodies, but merely the phonetic
values the one of the syllable few, the other of the letter 21. The
two signs given in Landa’s alphabet for the letter 7! are really
one, separated in transcription, and a variant ofthe ﬁgure for the
moon with the wavy line beneath it. The word 7; in Maya is the
possessive adjective of the third
person, and as such is employed
in conjugating verbs, the Maya ver-
bal being really a possessive.

A very common terminal sylla—
blein Maya is 27. It is called by
grammarians “the determinative
ending,” and is employed to indi—
cate the genitive and ablative rela—
tions. Dr. Schellhas considers that
this is represented by the signs
afﬁxed to the main hieroglyphs
shown on Fig. 2.*

The upper ﬁgure he reads l’z'iz—
z'l, the lower aim-2'1. The two signs
are the title to a picture in the Co-
dex Troano representing a storm

 

Fig. z—Maya Phonetic Terminals.

with destruction of human life.
The two words fem-2'! cam 27 may be
translated “At'the time of the kill-
ing.” The syllable am is express—
ed in several variants in the Codi
ices, examples of two of which,
‘from the Dresden Codex are pre-
sented in Fig. 3.

The signs for the four cardinal
points appear to be expressed pho-
netically. They are represented in
Figs. 4 and 5. The words are for
North, 1727721212, East, Idem, South,
710/127, West, c/zzi/ez'u, Of these the
Syllable lei/z appears in [ah/z and

chi/{7'72 and is represented as above . A
described. The word for North Fig 37Maya PhonetcTermmals-
has not been analyzed; that for South has been translated by

*Die Maya-hand—schrift, em, p. 47.

 

 

8 THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS.

Prof. Londe Rosny as 71m ya, the word 71m meaning hands or
arms, the lower as either a fruit or the masculine sign, in either
case the phonetic value being alone intended. Both the name
and the etymology are, however, doubtful, resting upon late and
imperfect authorities. -

By pursuing the plan here indicated, that is, by assuming that
a ﬁgure whose representative value is known, has also a merely

 

East. \Vest.

Figs. 4 and 5—Signs of the Cardinal Points in Maya.
phonetic value in other combinations, a certain number of pho-
netic elements of the Maya tongue have been identiﬁed. Prof.
Cyrus Thomas, in an article published in March of the present
year, states that he has “interpreted satisfactorily to himself

twelve or ﬁfteen compound characters which appear to be pho—
netic.”*

It is obvious, however, that small progress has been made in
this direction compared to the labor expended. By far the
greater number of the ﬁxed symbols of the Maya are yet unde-
ciphered. It is acknowledged by all recent students that they
cannot be representative, as they recur too frequently. To ex—
plain them, there is but one sure course, and that is, by a close
analysis of the Maya language to get at the relations ofideas in
the native mind as expressed in their own phonetic system.

When we turn to the Mexican system of writing, much more

 

*American Antiquarian, March, 1886.

r~ ”3“,“,"ﬁﬂ .0 .. ., . , ..

THE GRAPIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS. 9

deﬁnite and extensive information as to its phonetic elements
awaits us. It is possible that at bottom it has really no higher
phonetic character, but several facts have combined to give us a
better understanding of its structure. In the ﬁrst place, more ex—
amples of it have been preserved, some of these with more or less
accurate translations. Again, the earlier writers, those whom we
look upon as our historical authorities, have been more explicit
and ample in their description of Mexican native literature than
of that of Yucatan. Finally, and most important, the Mexican
language, the Nahuatl, was studied at an early date . and with
surprising thoroughness, by the Catholic priests. Within a
generation after the conquest they had completed a quite ac-
curate analysis of its grammatical structure, and had printed
a Nahuatl—Spanish dictionary containing more words than are
to be found in any English dictionary for a century later.

These intelligent missionaries acquainted themselves with the
principles of the Mexican script, and to a limited extent made
use of it in their religious instructions, as did also the Spanish
scriveners in their legal documents in transactions with the na—
tives. They found the native phonetic writing partly syllabic and
partly alphabetic; and it was easy for the priests to devise a
wholly alphabetic script on the same plan. An interesting ex—
ample ofthis is preserved in the work of Valades, entitled 13/18—
z‘orim C/zrislimm, written about 1570. Familiar objects are repre-
sented, chieﬂy of European introduction. Each has the phonetic
value only of the ﬁrst letter of its Nahuatl name. The plan
is .eXtremely simple and indeed the forms and names of
the Hebrew letters seem to indicate that they arose 1n
the same way. Applying it to English, we should spell
the word cat by a picture ofa chair, of an axe, and of a table,
each of these being the recognized symbol of its ﬁrst phonetic
element or initial letter. Often any one of several objects whose
names began with the same letter could be used, at chorce.
This is also illustrated in Valades' alphabet, where, for instance,
the letter E is represented by four different objects.

As I have observed, the native genius had not arrived at a
complete analysis of the phonetic elements of the language; but it
wasdistinctly progressing in that direction. Ofthe ﬁve vowels and
fourteen consonants which make up the Nahuatl alphabet, three
vowels certainly, and probably three consonants had reached the

_ stage where they were often expressed as simple letters by the
method above described. The vowels were a, for which the Sign
twas all, water; 6 represented by a bean, NZ; and 0 by a footprlnt,
or path 0112'; the consonants were p, represented either by a ﬂag,
ﬁrm, or a mat, pail; 2‘, by a stone tell, or the lips, telzz‘lz; and 2', by a
lancet, .20. These are, however, exceptions. Most of the Nahuatl
phonetics were syllabic, sometimes one, sometimes two syllables
of the name of the object being employed. When the whole

10 THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS.

name of an object or most of it was used as a phonetic value,
the script remains truly phonetic, but becomes of the nature ofa
rebus, and this is the character of most of the phonetic Mexican
writing]

Every one is familiar with the principle of the rebus: It is
where a phrase is represented by pictures of objects whose
names bear some resemblence in sound to the words employed.
A stock example is that of the gallant who to testify his devo-
tion to the lady of his heart whose name was Rose Hill, had
embroidered on his gown the pic—
tures of a rose, a hill, an eye, a
loaf of bread, and a well, which
was to be interpreted, “Rose Hill,
I love well.”

In medieval heraldry this system
was in extensive use. Armorial
bearings were selected, the names
of the elements of which expressed
that of the family who bore them.
Thus Pope Adrian IV whose name
was Nicolas Breakespeare, carried
the device ofa spear with a broken
shaft; the Baltons of England wear
arms representing a cask or 22m
pierced by a cross-bow shaft or
[7011; etc. Such arms were called
crzzzz‘zilzgr arms,the term being derived
from the Latin [(ZIZZ'ZZI‘6’, to sing or
'chant, the arms themselves chant-
ing or announcing the family sur-
name. ,

We have, so far as I am aware,
no scientiﬁc term to express this
matter of phonetic writing, and I
propose for it therefore the adjective
z‘lemzonmtz‘c, from the Greek £11,012,
a ﬁgure or image, and 01207120 (gen-
itive, onomﬂos) namC,—-a writing by
means of the names of the ﬁgures
Fig. 6—Mexican Phonetic Hieroglyphics 01' illlages represented. The COF-

°f‘h“ ““me 0f M‘mtezuma- responding noun would be z‘é07207724-
tog/”apﬁy. It differs radically from picture—writing (Bz'la’ersc/zl’z'fl,)
for although it is composed of pictures, these were used solely
with reference to the sound of their names, not their objective
Signﬁcance.

The Mexicans in their phonetic writing, were never far~re«
moved from this ikonomatic stage of development. They com-
bined however, with it certain clearly deﬁned monosyllabic signs

 

v

. dumfr,

HOW) war u»

THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS. 11

and the separate alphabetic elements which I have already noted.
An examination of the M58. proves that there was no special
disposition ofthe parts ofa word. In other words, they might be
arranged from right to left or from left to right, from below up-
wards or from above downwards; or the one may be placed
within the other. It will easily be seen that this greatly increas—
es, the difficulty of deciphering these ﬁgures.

_ As illustrations of the phoneticism of Mexican writing I show

two compounds, quoted by M. Aubin in his well known essay

on the subject. The ﬁrst is a proper noun, that of the emperor

Montezuma (Fig. 6.) It should be read from below upward. The

picture at the base represents a mouse trap, in Nahuatl, mow/i,
with the phonetic value 7120, or 772011; the
head of the eagle has the value gnaw/z,
from gz/azz/zt/z'; it is transﬁxed with a lancet,
so; and surmounted with a hand, wait],
whose phonetic value is 77m; and these val-
ues combined give 7/20-92’10/1—30—71212.

’ The second example is a common noun,
the name of a serpent z‘cczz/zz‘lacozazz/zqz/i,
(Fig. 7.) It is also read from below up—
ward ; the head with the peculiar band and
frontal ornament is that of one of the noble
class, z‘e’czz/zt/z'; the central ﬁgure is a famil-
iar sign for £10, and represents two teeth,
ZZa72t/z,; they are surmounted by a jar,
comitl with the value co; and this in turn
is pierced by a lancet, which here has only
its alphabetic value 5. The remainder of
the word was not expressed in the writing,
the above much being deemed sufﬁcient to
convey the idea to the reader.

In presenting these examples Ido not
bring forward anything new. They are
from an essay which has been in print
nearly forty years". Many other examples
are to be seen in the great work of Lord

- Kingsborough, and later in publications

I i in the city of Mexico. The learned Rami-

Fllg.lz_—-M?131canPhouftiEI-rlierot- I‘CZ undertook a dictionary Of Nahuatl

gyp mo enameo a e pen ‘ hieroglyphics which has in part been pub—

 

 

 

*The ﬁrst of M. Aubin’s Memoirs appeared in 1849 and was the result. of studies begun in 1830-
A new and enlarged edition has lately been edited by Dr. Harny: Blemrnres stu‘ la.P61ntur68£l]
dactique at l’ Ecm‘ture Figurative des Anc'i' ns Mexicams. Pa'rJ. M. A. Allln’rl [Parlis I ha.
But Dr. Hamy has traveled very far beyond limits of a sober appreCiation of M. Aubin s resu ts w en
he writes; “Les recherches de M. Aubin ont reUSSi a resoudre presque toutes les diﬂicultes que pres—
entait la lecture des hieroglyphes nahuas.” [Introduction p. Viii.] He _is also in error ‘111 supposling
[in a nOte to same page] that Aiihin’s theory is not well known. to Americanists. Brasseﬁir popu a;
ized it in his introductions to his Histoire du MCCIZ'ique, .Aubin, in fact, gmded "by the: bpanis 1
Writers of the 16th century and the annotators Of. the COdICCS,‘ ﬁrst clearly expressed1 t. e (igfnerz:
principles of the phonetic picture writing; but his rules and identiﬁcations are entirt y 111:1 equal 6

to its complae or even partial interpretation.

12 THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE M‘AYAS.

lished; Orozco y Berra in his History of Ancient Mexico gath-
ered a great many facts illustrative of the phonetic character of
the Mexican script; and within a year Dr. Penaﬁel has issued a
quarto of considerable size giving ancient local Mexican names
with their phonetic representations.* ,

With these aids at command, why had not our progress
in the interpretation of the ancient records on stone and paper
been more rapid? Why do we stand now almost at the same
point as in 1850?

There can be but one answer, and that will immediately sug-
gest itself from the nature of the phoneticism in the Mexican
writing. What I have called the zléozzomatzc system of writing
can be elucidated only by one who has a wide command of the
vocabulary of the language. Consider, for a moment, the difﬁ—
culty which we experience, with all our knowledge of our native
tongue, in solving one of the rebuses which appear in the puz-
zle column of periodicals for children; or in interpreting the
canting arms in armorial bearings. Not only must we recall the
various names of the objects represented, and select from them
such as the sense of the context requires, but we must make
allowance for extensive omissions, as in one of the examples
above quoted (Fig 7.) and for mere similarities of sound, often
quite "remote, as ,well as for the abbreviations and conventional-‘
isms cf practiced scribes, familiar with their subject and withthis
method of writing the sounds of their language.

Such difﬁculttes as these can only be overcome by long—con-
tinued application to the tongues themselves, and by acquainting
oneself intimately with the forms, the methods, and the variations
of this truly puzzling graphic system. Every identiﬁcation is
solving an enigma; but once solved, each illustrates the method,
conﬁrms its accuracy, and facilitates the learner’s progress, and
at the same time stimulates him with the joyous sense of difﬁcul—
ties conquered, and with the vision of discovered truth illumina-
ting his onward path.

Although, as Ihave stated, the general principles ofthis method
were pointed out forty years ago, the prevailing ignorance of the
Nahuatl language has prevented any one from successfully de—
iphering the Mexican script. This ignorance has had even a
worse effect. Men who did not know a dozen words of Nahuatl,
who were unable to construe a single sentence in the language,
have taken upon themselves to condemn Aubin’s eXplanations as
visionary and untrue, and to deny wholly the phonetic elements
ofthe Mexican writing. Lacking the essential condition of testing

 

_*0rozco y Berra, Historia Antigua de Mexico, [Mexrco, x880.) The Atlas to this work con-
tams a large number of proposed identiﬁcations of hieroglyphics. See also by the same writer, En-
sayo d0 Descifracion Gerogliﬁca in the Anales deli Maser) Nacionat Tom 11. Much of this
is founded on Ramirez’s studies, who, however, by his own admission. knew little or nothing of the
Nahuatl language [as he states in his introduction to the Code): Chimalpopoca 07‘ Ana-MS d6
Quauhlttlanj Dr. Penaﬁel’s praiseworthy collection is entitled Catalogo Alfabetieo de los

_ Hombres dc Lugares pertcnecientcs al Iainma Nahuatl. Estudio Jerogliﬁco. [Mexico, 1885.

THE GRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE MAYAS. 13

the accuracy of the statement, they have presumed blankly to
condemn it!

In contrast to such, I take peculiar pleasure in referring to the
singular success in this method of interpretation by a student of
Mexican Archaeology, whose results will be announced in greater
detail hereafter. I refer to Mrs. Zelia Nuttall Pinart. The inti-
mate acquaintance which this lady possesses of Mexican life and
manners, and of the earliest writers and historians of that country
has felicitously supplemented her knowledge of the Nahuatl
tongue to enable her to make remarkable progress in decipher—
ing the ancient Mexican memorials. She has applied the method
which‘she has developed to the Vienna Codex, the Borgian and
Fejevary“ Codices, and to the inscriptions on the celebrated
Calendar and Sacriﬁcial Stones. The results she has obtained
cast an entirely new light on ancient Mexican history and social
life, and her conclusions, if established, will deal a severe blow
at most of the prevailing theories regarding the government,
religion and mythology of the Aztec and allied tribes. Among
the theories thus threatened are some I have advocated in former
publications; but for all that, I am bound to express the convic—
tion that she is on the right track, and that the extensively
phonetic character of the Mexican script will be Victoriously
demonstrated by her researches.

DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

Philadelphia, Pa, October, 1886.

 

 

ON THE

# AAAAA INDIANS 0F GUATEMALA.

VEY

PROF. DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

(Read before the Amara-an P/‘Az'losophical Society, October 17, 18534.)

 

 

 

0n the Language and Ethnologic Position of the Xinca Indians of Guate-
mala. By Dr. Daniel G. Brinton.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, October 17, 1884.)

In the aboriginal ethnology of Guatemala, the afﬁliations of the Xinca
‘ tribe have always remained uncertain. The opinion is expressed by Dr.
Stoll (Zar Ethnom aphie der Republilc Guatemala, p.170, Ziirich,1884)
that an investigation of their language might thiow a new light on the
migrations of the ancient inhabitants of that region.

Up to the present time, however, no words of their language have been
published, and students have had no means of comparing it with the dia-
lects which surrounded them. I am fortunate enough to be able to sup-
ply this deﬁciency to a moderate extent, and to offer sufﬁcient materials to
form some opinion as to this people.

Their precise location was on the Rio de los Esclavos and its branches,
which empties into the Paciﬁc ocean, about N. lat. 130 50’, W. long. 900
25’, and westward to the Rio Michatoyat, Their area embraced most of
the departments of Santa Rosa and J utiapa, and may roughly be said to
have extended about ﬁfty miles along the coast, and back to the Sierra
some sixty miles.

On the west they were bordered by the Pipiles, of Aztec lineage, speak-
ing a Nahuatl dialect not much corrupted ; on their north were the Poko«
mams, who belonged to the Maya stock, and on their east was a colony
of Popolucas, a tribe supposed to have been related to the Mixes of the ‘
Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Their name has been variously spelled, Xinca, Xinka and Sinca. The
ﬁrst given is correct, the initial X having the value of the soft English sit,

as in show, ’
According to the Geograjia de las Lenguas Maya-make, MS. of Dr.

2

Berendt, the Xinca is or was spoken in the following towns or villages in
the district mentioned :

Atescatempa, Mustiquipaque,
Atiquipaque, Nancinta,
Chiquimulilla. Sinacantan,
Comapa, Tacuilula,
Guazacapam, Taxisco,
nguatan, - Tepeaco,

J u piltepeque, Tescuaco,

J utiapa, Tupitepeque.

The ﬁrst information about the Xincas is contained in the letter of Pedro
de Alvarado to Hernan Cortes, dated July 28, 1524.* He there describes
his conquest of their territory in the previous winter. Further particulars
of the campaign are given by J uarros, in his Historia de Guatemala, Tom.
ii, Tratado iv, Cap. xxii, from the MSS. of Fuentes. ,

From these sources we learn that Alvarado ﬁrst encountered the Xincas
after he had crossed the River Michatoyat and entered the town Atiqui-
paque (Atz'epar, in Alvarado’s letter, who makes as much havoc with the
native names as he did with their armies).

In this town he particularly states that he met another people and a dif-
ferent language from those he had just left (“ este es otra lengua y gente

. por si”).

Thence he proceeded to Tacuilula and Taxisco, not encountering deter-
mined opposition, as J uarros erroneously says, as Alvarado informs us
that the natives received him without ﬁghting, but ﬂed in the night to the
forests. After leaving Taxisco, however, they attacked him in force and
slew many of his allies.

The chief town of the Xinca would seem to have been either Nancinta
(the “ Nacendelan, pueblo muy grande ” of Alvarado’s letter) or according
to J uarros, Guazacapam. In this vicinity a determined stand was made
by the Indians, and they caused the Spaniards and their allies much trouble
by digging pitfalls, and by planting the paths with sharpened sticks said
to be poisonous. What puzzled the Spaniards was that these natives
during their ﬁghtin g held in their hands small bells with which they made
as much noise as possible. Probably they were intended either as charms,
or to alarm the enemy.

J uarros adds that these tribes were not conquered by Alvarado’s incur-
sion. It required renewed efforts by Don Pedro Portocarrero, in 1526, to ‘
bring them under subjection.

On account of their obstinacy, numbers of them were sold as SlaVes and
branded with a hot iron, and hence was derived the Spanish name of the
river on which the Xincas lived, Rio de los Esolowos, Slave river.

Very few hints as to their social condition are found in the early '

*I quote It as published in the Bibliotecq de autores Espaﬂoles, Vol. 3311,
Madrid, 1852, i

 

3

accounts. Their country is stated to have been populous, their towns
built of wood and not of stone, they were skillful with the bow and arrow,
and were bold warriors. They formed small independent tribes united in
a sort of confederacy, the “cabeza de seﬁorio,” or chief clan, being at “ the
famous town of Guazacapam, ” and its four dependents or allies are named

as,
Nestiquipaque, Guaim an go, and

Chiquimulilla, Guanagazapa.

The linguistic materials I offer are vocabularies of three dialects of the
Xinca. '

The ﬁrst, from Sinacantan, was obtained from a native of that place by
the distinguished historian and antiquary, Don Juan Gavarrete, of Guate-
mala, in 1868. The other two were obtained for him in the same year by
Don Sebastian Valdez, Cura of J utiapa. As according to Dr. Stoll, the
originals of these have disappeared, no one knows where, since Seﬁor
Gavarrete’s death, the present publication seems the more appropriate.
presenting as it does the only specimens of the Xinca language known to
be in existence. I would not omit to add that they came into my hands,
together with other valuable documents, in the collection of the late Dr.
C. Hermann Berendt.

Phonology of the Xinoa.

The language is vocalic, and with few gutturals or harsh palatals, con~
trasting in this respect with the Cakchiquel and other Maya dialects. The
labials,/b, f, and c, are absent, although I) is foun d in two or three words
of the accompanying vocabulary. The linguals are not prominent, the
d and/th not appearing at all. The semi-vowels 7' and l are convertible in
the dialects and occasionally alternate with n.

In the vocabularies, the letters have the powers of the Spanish alphabet,
except that a is pronounced like sh in she, the c is the neutral vowel as in

‘ but, the z is the same as the s, and the compounds ash and sch appear to

have the value of the a: (2 sh).

Vocabulary of the Xinoa Language.

LOCALITY. Sinacomtom. Jupiltepeque. Jatiapa.

Man, j urac, j urnu, j urgaqui.
. Woman, ayala, aya, ‘ aiya.
Boy, xurum, sorone, soroni.
Father, tatan, tataj, tataj. ‘
Mother, utan, utaj, utac.
Son, naj uum, nauij , naguij .
Daughter, . jaya naj nun, —— —— naguij
Brother, xuyam, keruke, suyac.
Head, jamatan, usajle, gesalia.
Hair, ' mux jumatan, mosal, musal.
Eyes, jurtin, juratii, yuratica,

LOCALITY. Sinacantan.-
Nose, jutu narin,
Nostril. uona narin,
Ear, maman,
Mouth, xa’jan,
Tongue, ejlan,
Teeth, jari xa’jan,
Throat, ta’tam,
Breast, ziquim,
Arm, pum,
Hand, j ixi pum,
Fingers, mux,
Belly, jiguin,
Leg, titan,
Knee, jaricomon,
Foot, uapan,
Town, machiname,
House, macu,
Bed, a’tac,
Hamack, guaro,
Mortar (mill stone),uiki,

Plate, aulac
Jar, erec,
Fire, uray,
Water, ui,
Maize, aima,
Bar of maize, —— —-
Bean, xinac,
Salt, tita,

Hat, ta’yuc,
Breeches, xu’nan,
Paper, papooc, .
Heaven (sky), uina,
Sun, pari,
Moon, agua,
Star, xune,
Day, Dari,
Night, chamazvma,
Wind, tan,
River, xanj ui,
Hill, naguona,
WOOdS, jaragua,
Road, tasma,
Cornﬁeld, uaya’a,
Earth (land), naro,
Stone, jixi,

4-

Jupiltepeque.

-—-_—_

mami,
xaj ac,
ela,

.__——-

tutu,
paja,

PU,

pere p11,
ururi,
kegije,
sulna,
napi,
saguqui.

 

alutn,
uik,
al j uat,

hueso,

ti parri,
chi j mac,
una,
tire,
kerter,
casagua,
talma,
uayaaj,
narro,
ixe,

Jutiapa.

narica.
lurate.
manca.
saj ac.
eglaj ac.
sajac.
tarti.

paj a’.
puj .

pere puj .
ururi.
uapi.
guapi
saguqui.
ma cu.
alutaj .

, guaro.

uic.
augeal.
erec.
icura’.
huy.
ahua.
aima.
cshidna.
tila.
tayuc.
asiuna.
popoque.
giiigna.
parri.
ahua.
gﬁeso.

ti parri.
schugmac.
yeuha.
ture.
querter.
caragua.
talma.
guaya’.
narro.
gicshe.

LOCALITY.

Tree,
Ceiba,
Banana,
Jaguar,
Deer,

‘ Jabali,
Dog,
Snake,
Fish,
God,
SouL
Alive,
Dead,
Old.
White,
Black,
Red,
Yellow,
Green, .
Blue,
Bright,
Dark,
Above,
Below,
Yes,
No,
Good-day,

Good-night,

Good-bye,

£599.09!"

PWS‘QP‘

10.

5

 

 

. Smacantan. Jupiltepeque.
jutube, utis,
pa’guac, — ——
jugua, --— —
uij lay, uilay,
tuma, ———-
cargua j axo, —— ——
pelo, —-—- ——
jurumuy, urunugui,
seema, samu,
tiuiX, —
terouala, namasamac,
ixiuac, ixij,
teroa’ar, tero’,
mere, mochi,
mooti’, moatij,
zumati, simatij,
tenati, tenaj tij,
meelati’, totoj tij ,
mee, meyatij,
mee, — —
minabar, —— ——
zama, — —-
xam, ~—- ——
xama’, -—— —-
jaa, ~—-— —
Xim, —— ——

NUMERALS.
ica, ical,

ti, piar,

uala, ualar,

jiria, iriar,

pvj, pijar,

tacal, ——

puj ua’, DUIjal‘,

tapvc, apuj,

uxtu’, -—-

pakil,

guilai.
tubma.
urunugﬁi.
giamuc.
isi g.

tero’.
mochi.
mougua.
sij mati g.
tenaj tig.

meyatij.

cshi mani maqui con
Dios.

cshi manusiguai con
adios.

coo-par.

ical .
pia’r.
guarar.
iriar.

puj ar.
tacalar.
pulluar.
apocar.
gerj sar.
paquilar.

6

COMMENTS ON THE VOCABULARY.

Man. Jumu. In the Xicaque language of Honduras jome 2 man, but as
this is the only close similarity in a comparison of thirty seven words,
I attribute it to aCcident ; jurao has a faint resemblance to Cakchiquel
h‘un urinals, one man.

Father. tataj, is evidently the universal baby word for father, and its .
analogies are worthless for tracing afﬁnities. The same is true of
utaj, mother. Compare Germ. Vater, Mutter, Cakchiquel data.

Son. najuum, in Pokomchi akun, probably an accidental resemblance.

Daughter. jag/a, najuun, jag/a evidently from age, woman, female, hence
“female child,” the combination showing that najuun does not mean
son, but child, oﬁ‘spring.

Brother. mug/am and keruke are evidently wholly different words, and
are either used by the different sexes, or apply the one to an elder the
other to a younger brother.

Hair. mum jumatan (the last word no doubt an error for jamatan, liter-
ally “the ﬁngers of the head” or more properly “the extremities,
the small branches of the head”). See Fingers. musal is apparently
a synthesis of mum, and gesalz'a, with the same signiﬁcation. Such
compounds indicate that the Xinca is more synthetic than the Maya.
dialects.

Nose. nam'n, member, may be the Spanish maria, nose.

. Teeth. The words wa’jan and sajac, mean mouth. The preﬁx jam' seems
to mean either bone, or front part, as it re-occurs in jam‘comon, knee
(knee-cap ?).

Breast. tutu may be Spanish teta, but in the Maya dialects we ﬁnd Cak-
chiquel and Quiche tu, tit, mamma. Pocoman, tuj, Chol., twu ,' ziquim
may be related to Quiche tz’um, mamma.

Hand. jc‘m'pum, probably “the end of the arm.” In none of the Maya
dialects is there any separate word for “hand.” The hand and arm‘

are included in one term, the proper translation of which is “the I

upper extremity.” When it is desired to distinguish between hand
and arm, a compound must be formed, or the distinction be left to the
bearer. Jz’m‘ is also given for stone; perhaps the stone point or end
of the arrow explains the identity of the expressions.

Fingers. On must, see teeth. pare pu, from pum, upper extremity, and
a preﬁx probably signifying ends, tips, or branches.

Leg. uapz', means foot, q. v.

Knee. See teeth. The two words given evidently mean different things.

Foot. uapan. Comp. Cakchiquel akan. '

'Town. mackz'name. This is plainly the Pipil ckz‘namiﬂ, town, with a

preﬁx ma.

Mortar. Span. pied/m de molar, the hollowed stone on which the
women pound the corn.

Plate, in the original, comal, from Nahuatl comallz', a shallow earthen dish
used to prepare tortillas.

7

Maize. The word aima given for maize and ear of maize is found in pre-
cisely the same form in Chontal, and in Lenca ama. I am inclined to
derive it from caim (pronounce ishc'm) the universal word for maize in
the Maya family. Later, we have for corn ﬁeld uaga/a, which is close
to the Cakchiquel auan, corn-ﬁeld, or auea, when the corn is young.
If this is correct, it would indicate that the neighboring tribes learned
the cultivation of corn from the Maya stock, which is the more signiﬁ-
cant as it is now the opinion of botanists that the native habitat of
the Zea mac's was in Guatemala where it was developed artiﬁcially
from the wild Enchlana luaum’ans. The other word given for maize,
ahua, is identical with that for “moon.” This may possibly refer
to an identiﬁcation of the moon as the goddess of maize. In Chipe-
way the name of maize is mandamz‘n, “the grain, min, of the god,
mlanz'to.” .

Beans. ain’ac is the Cakchiquel, tzz'nak, Tzendal twenek. Evidently the
Xincas got their corn and beans ﬁrst from their neighbors of Maya
lineage. .

Salt. tita, from Nahuatl z'ztatl. ’This article the Xincas learned from
their Nahuatl speaking neighbors, the Pipiles.

Breeches. All three words are corruptions of the Spanish calzones.

Paper. , The words are corruptions of Span. papel.

Heaven or Sky. uina’, closely allied to Zotzil uinaje’l.

Sun and Moon. In pure Maya the general root for sun is hi, for moon, u.
But in the Kekchi, Pokomchi and Pokomam we have for moon the
totally different word 110. This seems to be the radical of parm‘, sun,
in Xinca. Further, in Chaﬁabal and Mam we have for moon {ma/u,
where the id: is probably the feminine preﬁx, leaving for moon a’u, a
kin to Xinca ahua.

The word ahua bears a superﬁcial resemblance to hay, water, but a
close examination of these tongues does not bear out Dr. Trumbull’s
theory, of a radical connection between the expressions for sun and water.
(See Proceedings of the American Philologt'cal Association, 1875—6, p. 45.)
Star. (rune, allied to Cakchiquel, teamed, star; hxeso appears to have no

connection with Maya dialects.

Day. pam’, the same as sun.

Night. 'chq'jm—ac, Cakchiquel aha, night, perhaps with the preposition
chi, at, “by night,” “at night.”

Wind. yeuha, Pokonchi te’ug.

Tree. utis, Tznedal te, Chol tie’.

Jaguar. m’lay, Pokomchi, baijlam.

Deer. tuma, Chontal, chz'ma’. .

J abali. cargua, from caragua, woods, jaao, Pokomchi, aj’k, hog, wild
hog ; compare the name 'of the same animal in Pokomchi, quiche ajk,
wood-hog.

Dog. pelo, Spanish, perm.

SOul. terouala, in which tero is the adjective “dead.”

8

Alive. t'wij, Aguacateca, am, Tzendal, c’uaml.

Old. mocha} Maya, noixib, Tzotzil mo’ol.

Colors. The names of all the colors differ totally from the Maya. They
appear to have a generic suﬂix, ati, appended to the radicals

mo, white. tea, red.
aim, black. tot, yellow.
me, blue or green.

The word meelati for yellow is probably a mistake, and the identiﬁca-
tion of blue and green is common in the radicals of most Central Amer-
ican tongues as I have elsewhere pointed out (The Names of the Gods
in the Kicks Myths, Proo. Am. Phil. 800., 1881).

For comparison I add the Maya radicals for colors, as presented in
the Kiche dialect.

zak, white. oak, red.
gek, black. gan, yellow.
raw, blue or green.

It is evident that there is not the slightest relationship, and they
are equally remote from the Pipil and Aztec color names.

Numerals. The numerals indicate few and fath similarities to any of the
other Central American or Southern Mexican languages with which I
have compared them ; ica, one, is like Mangue tied, and the four ﬁrst
may be compared with the Lenca of Honduras as follows :

XINCA. LENCA
1. ica, ita.
2. piar, pe.
3. uala, lagua.
4. jiria, aria.

But I regard this as accidental, as it is not borne out by the re-
mainder of the Lenca vocabulary, in four dialects, which I have
brought into comparison.

The termination our in the J alapa dialect reminds one of the suﬂix

uual, indicating turn or repetition, found in the 1in numerals, a
rather pure Maya dialect, thus :

ungoual, one time.
caoual, two times,
09: act, three times, etc.

God. tim’x. Gavarrete appends the note to this word; “It does not
properly signify God, but image or idol. At present it is applied to
the images of the saints.” It is probably from the Cakchiquel tioh,
great, divine, a Word employed in a religious sense. This indicates
the origin of their ancient cult.

The number ﬁve. puj-ar, is clearly the noun pm", hand, and refers
to the ﬁve ﬁngers.

.UVM‘ w ..

g.
it
i;

 

9

Six, tacal, appears to be a compound of ti-z‘cal, :: second, ﬁrst, 2'. e. the
ﬁrst ﬁnger of the second hand. In seven, pui-ua, and eight, a-puj,
the word zi‘uj, hand,_is apparently present.

From this analysis I reach the conclusion that the Xincas belonged. to a
diﬁ‘erent linguistic stock from the Mayas or the Pipiles (Nahuas). They
were a rude tribe, who ﬁrst learned the planting of corn and beans from
the Cakchiquels or Pocomams, some parts of their religious rites from the
same, the use of salt, and some of their village organization from the
Pipiles, and portions of their present dress from the Spaniards.

. They spoke a vocalic language of monosyllabic radicals, whose themes
are chieﬂy formed by sufﬁxes.

It may be that they were the rude primitive folk Who once extended
over Guatemala and were forced down to the coast and into the restricted
limits where they were ﬁrst found, by the warlike immigration of the
Maya and Nahua races, both of Whom distinctly remembered a foreign
origin.

We know little of the date of the advent of the Cakchiquels and Poco-
mams into Guatemala. But a traditional history of it is preserved in the
“ Annals of the Cakchiquels, ” written shortly after the Conquest by Fran-
cisco Ernantez Arana Xahila, the original MS. of which is in my pos-
session. He informs us that when his ancestors entered Guatemala large
tracts of it were uninhabited, and other portions were peopled by a race
who, even to the Cakchiquels, appeared as barbarous, and so rude that
they called them chicop, brutes. They had captured two of these, and
learned some words when they entered the lower country. The annalist
proceeds : ,

“ They [i. e. the ancestors of the Cakehiquels] descended ﬁnally to
Cholumag and'Zuchitan. The language there was very difﬁcult, and only
the barbarians themselves could speak that language. We spoke only as
we had asked the barbarians Loxpin and Chupichin [their captives], and
we said on arriving, ‘uwya, nag/a, ela opa.’ Thebarbarians were greatly
astonished to hear us speak their language with the natives of Cholumag ;
they were really frightened at it ; but they gave us only good words.”

From these few words, the meaning of which I do not know, it is evi-
dent the language was of a totally different stock from Maya or Nahuatl.
It was soft'and vocalic, like the Xinca; and, indeed, ela, tongue (lan-
guage ‘0, is found in the vocabulary. Unfortunately, Xahila does not tell
us the signiﬁcation of the phrase he gives. It was probably some form of
friendly salutation.

‘ But it is not worth while to pursue the inquiry further. These sugges-
tions will indicate the interest which attaches to the Xinca tongue and will

I hope, inspire some one to obtain more complete information about it.

 

dings of the Amazing of Natural
- - October 28 18816]

 

 

 

1884.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 275

ON THE CUSPIDIFORM PETROGLYPHS, 0R, SO-GALLED BIRD-TRACK
ROCK-SCULPTUBES, OF OHIO.

BY DR. D. G. BRINTON.

In the study of American rock-sculptures, the attention
of archaeologists has several times been drawn to a peculiar
character which appears frequently on the inscribed rocks of
central and northern Ohio, and rarely, or not at all, outside of
this region.

It has been called a bird-track or speciﬁcally, a turkey-track,
and has been supposed to be a conventional representation of the
impression of the foot of this or some other bird. A recent study
of one of the best examples of it, near Newark, Ohio, has led me
to a different opinion as to its signiﬁcance, and I take the occa-
sion to explain this, and also to offer some suggestions as to the
distribution and purport of this design.

In Ohio, rocks bearing this ﬁgure are found near Barnes,
ville, Belmont 00.; near Amherst, Lorain 00.; at Independence-
~Ouyahoga Co. ; in Licking 00., and elsewhere. It does not occur
in the rather numerous inscriptions upon the Ohio River, nor in
those, south of that stream. Nor has it been reported in the
various petroglyphs existing in the Susquehanna Valley and in
New England. In fact, it seems conﬁned pretty closely to that
area which was occupied by that people whom we call, for want

" of a better name, the mound-builders. This adds interest to the
investigation of the character and its meaning.

That it possessed some deﬁnite signiﬁcation would seem to
be demonstrated by the frequency of its recurrence and the regu-
larity shown in its tracings ; this indicating that it was a familiar
ﬁgure, and that constant repetition had conferred on the designer

V' a certain technical skill in forming it. This would not be the
‘-case were it merely the product of an idle hand, and of no
I import.
As I have said, this peculiar ﬁgure does not occur in other
American rock-inscriptions. It is, indeed, very rare in any other
’locality. Dr. Richard Andree, in his “ Ethnographische Paral-

lelen” (Stuttgart,y1878), gives drawings of ﬁfty-nine rock inscrip-
'_tions from various parts of the world, but on examining them I
9 ﬁnd only one which presents any analogy to that under considera-

27 6 PROCEEDINGS or THE ACADEMY or [1884.

tion ; that one is from Somal Land, in Africa, ten degrees north
of the equator. '

There are, however, some very ancient Chinese inscriptions,
dating from about the fourth century before our era, which show
a similar device. For this reason, Dr. J. F. Salisbury, of Ohio,
has maintained that some connection existed between the mound-
builders and the ancient Chinese.

My own opinion, based on a close inspection of the inscribed
rock in Licking 00., Ohio, is that the so-called bird-tracks were
never intended to represent the footprints of any species of birds,
but are conventional signs for arrows or arrow-heads. My reasons-
are the following: ‘

In no case are there representations of toes or claws. The
centre line is frequently prolonged, passing beyond the junction
of the lateral lines, thus giving to the figure a cruciform appear"
ance. More often it is prolonged in the other direction—some'
times to three or four times the length of the lateral lines——
presenting an unmistakable picture of a barbed. arrow-head on a
shaft.

The lateral lines are usually three or four inches in length
while the median line is always longer. The incisions are clean
and clear, the edges sharp and singularly ﬁrm, betraying a
practiced hand and a powerful instrument.

On the supposition that these are intended for arrow-points, I
propose for them the name of “ cuspidiform petroglyphs.” This
is descriptive of their actual appearance, and also indicates what
they were doubtless designed to represent.

Granting this, we do not have to- go far to ascertain the idea
which this sign was intended to convey. There can be little doubt
but that the arrow signiﬁes a warrior, or some related military
conception.

This, in turn, throws light on other points in the archaeology of
the Ohio region. The inscribed rock at Newark is within about
eight miles of a very remarkable series 0f works between the
north fork of Licking River and Raccoon Creek. One of these
works is a mighty circular embankment, enclosing an area of
thirty acres, now used as the fair grounds of Licking Co. In the
midst of this area, headed toward the. only entrance, is an efﬁgy
mound, of large size, commonly supposed to represent an eagle.
At present, however, the alleged eagle has no head, and I could

 

1884.] NATURAL SCIENCES or PHILADELPHIA. 277

not see signs that it ever had had one. The ﬁgure is, indeed,
nothing else than one of these cuspidiform symbols on a gigantic
scale. It measures along the central elevation 210 feet, while the
_ lateral lines, called the “wings,” branch oﬂ‘ about 100 feet from
the limits of the central ridge. The point of the arrow is directed
precisely to the single gateway or opening of the enclosure.

The inference which the presence of this gigantic delineation of
an arrow-head seems to justify, is that this enclosure was once
dedicated to military ce1 emonies of some kind.

The inscribed rock on which my observations were made, is

located about six miles from Newark, close to the bank of the
Licking River. It IS a moderately hard sandstone, much eroded
where fully exposed to the weather. The bluff is about thirty
feet high, and the summit overhangs the base to such an extent
that it furnishes a natural shelter. Many of the inscriptions have
thus been preserved with great freshness of outline.
v This rock shelter was also extensively used by generations
of primitive hunters. Excavations which I made, turned up
numerous examples of their work in pottery and stone, and the
fragments of the bones of animals used 1n their repasts.

The only previous examination of this inscription, for archae-
ological purposes, which I have heard of, is one by Dr. Salisbury:
in 1859, the notes of which are in M8,, in the library of the
American Antiquarian Society. A brief memorandum by him,
on the subject, was also published in the Rep01t of the Ohio
centennial managers in 1876.

 

«a»

l. >

mug ‘ x ‘
33?“ law: ,.
7

‘ ‘4 \y

 

 

 

h

I.»
3.

wk»

AMERICAN LANGUAGES,

AND WHY WE SHOULD STUDY THEM.

,qAN ADDRESS

DELIVERED BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
' ' * ' MARCH 9, 1885,

BY

, DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D.,

, PROFESSOR or ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHIEOLOGY AT THE ACADEMY or NATURAL SCIENCES,
' ’ PHILADELPHIA.

, \ REPRINTED FROM THE
PENNSYLVANIA MAGAZINE 0F HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY.

PRINTED BY

J. B LIPPINCOTT COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA
' 188 5.P

 

AMERICAN LANGUAGES,

AND WHY WE SHOULD STUDY THEM.

AN ADDRESS

DELIVERED BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
' MARCH 9, 1885,

BY

DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D.,

PROFESSOR OF ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHEOLOGY AT THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES,
PHILADELPHIA.

REPRINTED FROM THE
PENNSYLVANIA MAGAZINE 0F HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY.

PRINTED BY

J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPAN Y, PHILADELPHIA.
1 8 8 5.

 

AMERICAN LANGUAGES, AND WHY WE SHOULD
STUDY THEM.

MR. PRESIDENT, ETC. : .

I appear before you to-night to enter a plea for one of the

most neglected branches of learning, for a study usually
considered hopelessly dry and unproductive,—that of Amer-
ican aboriginal languages.
. It might be thought that such a topic, in America and
among Americans, would attract a reasonably large number
of students. The interest which attaches to our native soil
and to the homes of our ancestors—an interest which it is
the praiseworthy purpose of this Society to inculcate and
cherish—this interest might be supposed to extend to the
languages of those nations who for uncounted generations
possessed the land which we have occupied relatively so
short a time;

This supposition would seem the more reasonable in view
of the fact that in one sense these languages have not died
out among us. True, they are no longer media of inter-
course, but they survive in thousands of geographical names
all over our land. In the State of Connecticut alone there
are over six hundred, and even more in Pennsylvania.

Certainly it would be a most legitimate anxiety which
should direct itself to the preservation of the correct forms
and precise meanings of these numerous and peculiarly
national designations. One would think that this alone
would not fail to excite something more than a languid
curiosity in American linguistics, at least in our institutions
of learning and societies for historical research.

Such a motive applies to the future as well as to the past.

‘ We have yet thousands of names to afﬁx to localities, ships,
V 3

4 American. Languages.

cars, country-seats, and the like. Why should we fall back
on the dreary repetition of the Old World nomenclature? I
turn to a Gazetteer of the United States, and I ﬁnd the name
Athens repeated 34 times to as many villages and towns in
our land, Rome and Palmyra each 29 times, Troy 58 times,
not to speak of Washington, which is entered for 331 dif-
ferent places in this Gazetteer!

What poverty of invention does this manifest!

Evidently the forefathers of our christened West were,
like Sir John Falstaff, at a loss Where a commodity of good ‘
names was to be had.

Yet it lay immediately at their hands. The native tongues
supply an inexhaustible store of sonorous, appropriate, and
unused names. As has well been said by an earlier writer,
“No class of terms could be applied more expressive and
more American. The titles of the Old World certainly
need not be copied, when those that are fresh and fragrant
with our natal soil await adoption.” 1

That this study has received so slight attention I attribute
to the comparatively recent understanding of the value of
the study of languages in general, and more particularly to
the fact that no one, so far as I know, has set forth the pur-
poses for which we should investigate these tongues, and the
results which we expect to reach by means of them. This
it is my present purpose to attempt, so far as it can be accom-
plished in the scope of an evening address.

The time has not long passed when the only good reasons
for studying a language were held to be either that we might
thereby acquaint ourselves with its literature; or that certain
business, trading, or political interests might be subserved;
or that the nation speaking it might be made acquainted
with the blessings of civilization and Christianity. These
were all good and suﬁicient reasons, but I cannot adduce
any one of them in support of my plea to-night; for the lan—
guages I shall speak of have no literature; all transactions
with their people can be carried on as well or better in
European tongues; and, in fact, many of these people are

1 H. R. Schoolcraft.

American Languages. 5

no longer in existence. They have died out or amalgamated
with others. What I have to argue for is the study of the
dead languages of extinct and barbarous tribes.

You will readily see that my arguments must be drawn
from other considerations than those of immediate utility.
I must seek them in the broader ﬁelds of ethnology and
philosophy; I must appeal to your interest in man as a
race, as a member of a common species, as possessing in all
his families and tribes the same mind, the same soul. It
was the proud prerogative of Christianity ﬁrst to proclaim
this great truth, to break down the distinctions of race and
the prejudices of nationalities, in order to erect upon their
ruins that catholic temple of universal brotherhood which
excludes no man as a stranger or an alien. After eighteen
hundred years of labor, science has reached that point which
the religious instinct divined, and it is in the name of science
that I claim for these neglected monuments of man’s powers
that attention which they deserve.

Anthropology is the science which studies man as a species;
”Ethnology, that which studies the various nations which make
up the species. To both of these the science of Linguistics
is more and more perceived to be a powerful, an indispensa-
ble auxiliary. Through it we get nearer to the real man, his
inner self, than by any other avenue of approach, and it needs
no argument to show that nothing more closely binds men
into a social unit than a common language. Without it,
indeed, there can be no true national unity. The afﬁnities
of speech, properly analyzed and valued, are our most trust-
worthy guides in tracing the relationship and descent of
nations.

If this is true in general, it is particularly so in the eth-
nology of America. Language is almost our'only clue to
discover the kinship of those countless scattered hordes who
- roamed the forests of this broad continent. Their traditions
are vague or lost, written records they had none, their cus-
toms and arts 'are misleading, their religions misunderstood,
their languages alone remain to testify to a oneness of blood

often seemingly repudiated by an internecine hostility.
‘ a:

6 American Languages.

I am well aware of the limits which a wise caution assigns
to the employment of linguistics in ethnology, and I am only
too familiar with the many foolish,_unscientiﬁc attempts to
employ it with reference to the American race. But in
spite of all this, I repeat that it is the surest and almost our
only means to trace the ancient connection and migrations
of nations in America.

Through its aid alone we have reached a positive knowl-
edge that most of the area of South America, including the
whole of the West Indies, was occupied by three great
families of nations, not one of which had formed any im-
portant settlement on the northern continent. By similar
evidence we know that the tribe which greeted Penn, when
he landed on the site of this city where I now speak, was a
member of one vast family,—-—the great Algonkin stock,—
whose various clans extended from the palmetto swamps of
Carolina to the snow-clad hills of Labrador, and from the
easternmost cape of Newfoundland to the peaks of the
Rocky Mountains, over 20° of latitude and 500 of longitude.
We also know that the general trend of migration in the
northern continent has been from north to south, and that
this is true not only of the more savage tribes, as the Al-
gonkins, Iroquois, and AthapaScas, but also of those who,
in the favored southern lands, approached a form of civiliza-
tion, the Aztecs, the Mayas, and the Quiche. These and
many minor ethnologic facts have already been obtained by
the study of American languages.

But such external information is only a small part of what
they are capable of disclosing. We can turn them, like the
reﬂector of a microscope, on the secret and hidden mysteries
of the aboriginal man, and discover his inmost motives, his
impulses, his concealed hopes and fears, those that gave rise
to his customs and laws, his schemes of social life, his super-
stitions and his religions.

The life—work of that eminent antiquary, the late Mr.
Lewis H. Morgan, was based entirely on linguistics. He
attempted, by an exhaustive analysisof the terms of rela-
tionship in American tribes, to reconstruct their primitive

American Languages. 7

theory of the social compact, and to extend this to the frame-
work'of ancient society in general. If, like most students
enamored of an idea, he carried its application too far, the
many correct results he obtained will ever remain as prized
possessions of American ethnology.

Personal names, family names, titles, forms of salutation,
methods of address, terms of endearment, respect, and re-
proach, words expressing the emotions, these are what
infallibly reveal the daily social family life of a community,
and the way in which its members regard one another.
They are precisely as correct when applied to the investiga—
tion of the American race as elsewhere, and they are the
more valuable just there, because his deep-seated distrust of
the White invaders—for which, let us acknowledge, he had
abundant cause—led the Indian to practise concealment and
equivocation on these personal tOpics.

In no other way can the history of the development of his
arts be reached. You are doubtless aware that diligent stu-
dents of the Aryan languages have succeeded in faithfully
" depicting the arts and habits of that ancient community in
which the common ancestors of Greek and Roman, Persian
and Dane, Brahmin and Irishman dwelt together as of one
blood and one speech. This has been done by ascertaining
what household words are common to all these tongues, and
therefore must have been in use among the primeval horde
from which they are all descended. The method is conclu—
sive, and yields positive results. There is no reason why it
should not be addressed to American languages, and we
may be sure that it would be most fruitful. How valuable
it would be to take even a few words, as maize, tobacco,
pipe, bow, arrow, and the like, each representing a wide-
spread art or custom, and trace their derivations and aﬂini-
ties through the languages of the whole continent! We
may be sure that striking and unexpected results would be

obtained. _'
Similar lines of research suggest themselves in other

directions. You all know What a fuss has lately been made
about the great Pyramid as designed to preserve the linear

8 American Languages.

measure of the ancient Egyptians. The ascertaining of such
measures is certainly a valuable historical point, as all artistic
advance depends upon the use of instruments of precision.
Mathematical methods have been applied to American archi-
tectural remains for the same purpose. But the study of
words of measurement and their origin is an efﬁcient
auxiliary. By comparing such in the languages of three
architectural people, the Aztecs of Mexico, the May'as of
Yucatan, and the Cakchiquel of Guatemala, I have found
that the latter used the span and the two former the foot,
and that this foot was just about one-ﬁftieth less than the
ordinary foot of our standard. Certainly this is a useful
result. .

I have made some collections for a study of a different
character. Of all the traits of a nation, the most decisive
on its social life and destiny is the estimate it places upon
women,—that is, upon the relation of the sexes. This is
faithfully mirrored in language; and by collecting and an-
alyzing all words expressing the sexual relations, all saluta-
tions of men to women and women to men, all peculiarities
of the diction of each, we can ascertain far more exactly
than by any mere description of usages what were the feel-
ings which existed between them. Did they know love as
something else than lust? Were the pre-eminently civilizing
traits of the feminine nature recognized and allowed room
for action? These are crucial questions, and their answer
is contained in the spoken language of every tribe.

Nowhere, however, is an analytic scrutiny of words more
essential than in comparative mythology. It alone enables
us to reach the meaning of rites, the foundations of myths,
the covert import of symbols. It is useless for any one to
write about the religion of an American tribe who has not
prepared himself by a study of its language, and acquainted
himself with the applications of linguistics t0 mythology.
Very few have taken this trouble, and the result is that all
the current ideas on this subject are entirely erroneous.
We hear about a Good Spirit and a Bad Spirit, about poly-
theism, fetichism, and animism, about sun worship and

American Languages. 9

serpent worship, and the like. No tribe worshipped a Good
and a Bad Spirit, and the other vague terms I have quoted
do not at all express the sentiment manifested in the native
religious exercises. What this was we can satisfactorily
ascertain by analyzing the names applied to their divinities,
the epithets they use in their prayers and invocations, and
the primitive sense of words which have become obscured
by alterations of sounds.

A singular example of the last is presented by the tribes
to Whom I have already referred as occupying this area,—
the Algonkins. Wherever they were met, Whether far up
in Canada, along the shores of Lake Superior, on the banks
of the Delaware, by the Virginia streams, or in the pine
woods of Maine, they always had a tale to tell of the Great
Hare, the wonderful Rabbit which in times long ago cre—
ated the world, became the father of the race, taught his
children the arts of life and the chase, and still lives some-
where far to the East where the sun rises. What debasing
animal worship I you will say, and so many others have said.
Not at all. It is a simple result of verbal ambiguity. The
word for rabbit in Algonkin is almost identical with that
for light, and when these savages applied this word to their
divinity, they agreed with him who said,“ God is Light,
and in Him is no darkness at all.” ‘

These languages offer also an entertaining ﬁeld to the
psychologist.

On account of their transparency, as I may call it, the
clearness with which they retain the primitive forms of
their radicals, they allow us to trace out the growth of
words, and thus reveal the operations of the native mind
by a series of witnesses whose testimony cannot be ques-
tioned. Often curious associations of ideas are thus dis-
closed, very instructive to the student of mankind. Many
illustrations of this could be given, but I do not wish to
assail your ears by a host of unknown sounds, so I will con-
tent myself with one, and- that taken from the language of
the Lenapé, or Delaware Indians, who, as you know, lived
Where we now are.

10 American Languages.

I will endeavor to trace out one single radical in that
language, and show you how many, and how strangely
diverse ideas were built up upon it.

The radical which I select is the personal pronoun of the
ﬁrst person, I, Latin Ego. In Delaware this is a single
syllable, a slight nasal, N e’, or M.

Let me premise by informing you that this is both a per-
sonal and a possessive pronoun; it means both I and mine.
It is also both singular and plural, both I and we, mine and
our.
The changes of the application of this root are made by
adding sufﬁxes to it.

I begin with ni’killan, literally, “ mine, it is so,” or “ she,
it, is truly mine,” the accent being on the ﬁrst syllable, m",
mine. But the common meaning of this verb in Delaware
is more signiﬁcant of ownership than this tame expression.
It is an active animate verb, and means “ I beat, or strike,
somebody.” To the rude minds of the framers of that
tongue, ownership meant the right to beat what one owned.

We might hope this sense was conﬁned to the lower
animals; but not so. Change the accent from the ﬁrst to
the second syllable, 7zi’hz'llan, to nihil’lan, and you have the
animate active verb with an intensive force, which signiﬁes
“to beat to death,” “to kill some person ;” and from this,
by another sufﬁx, you have nihil’lowen, to murder, and 722712?-
lowet, murderer. The bad sense of the root is here pushed
to its uttermost.

But the root also developed in a nobler direction. Add
to ni’hillcm the termination ape, which means a male, and
you have nihillape, literally, “ I, it is true, a man,” which, as
an adjective, means free, independent, one’s own master,
“I am my own man.” From this are derived the noun,
nihillapewz’t, a freeman; the verb, nihillapewin, to be free; and
the abstract, nihillasowagan, freedom, liberty, independence.
These are glorious words; but I can go even farther. From
this same theme is derived the verb nihillape-wheu, to set
free, to liberate, to redeem; and from this the missionaries
framed the word nihillape—whoalid, the Redeemer, the Saviour.

American Languages. 11

Here is an unexpected antithesis, the words for a mur—
derer and the Saviour both from one root! It illustrates
how strange is the concatenation of human thoughts.

These are by no means all the derivatives from the root
m', I.

When reduplicated as né’né’, it has a plural and strength-
ened form, like “ our own.” With a pardonable and well-
nigh universal weakness, which we share with them, the
nation who spoke that language believed themselves the
ﬁrst created of mortals and the most favored by the Cre-
ator. Hence whatever they designated as “ours” was
both older and better than others of its kind. Hence nenm'
came to mean ancient, primordial, indigenous, and as such
it is a frequent preﬁx in the Delaware language. Again,
as they considered themselves the ﬁrst and only true men,
-' others being barbarians, enemies, or strangers, nennc was
understood to be one of us, a man like ourselves, of our
nation.

In their different dialects the sounds of n, l, and r were
"alternated, so that while Thomas Campanius, who trans-
lated the Catechism into Delaware about 1645, wrote that
word rhennus,later writers have given it lenno, and trans-
late it “man.” This is the word which we ﬁnd in the
name Lenni Lenape, which, by its derivation, means “we, ,
we men.” The antecedent lenm' is superﬂuous. The proper

name of the Delaware nation was and still is Len d‘pé, “ we
men,” or “our men,” and those critics who have malntained

that this was a misnomer, introduced by Mr. Heckewelder,
have been mistaken in their facts.

I have not done with the root 715. I might go on and
show you how it is at the base of the demonstrative pro-
nouns, this, that, those, in Delaware; how it is the radical
of the words for thinking, reﬂecting, and meditating; how
it also gives rise to words expressing similarity and identlty;
how it means to be foremost, to stand ahead of others; and
ﬁnally, how it signiﬁes to come to me, to unify or congre-
gate together. But doubtless I have trespassed on your ears
long enough with unfamiliar words.

1 2 American Languages.

Such suggestions as these will give you some idea of the
value of American languages to American ethnology. But I
should be doing injustice to my subject were I to conﬁne my
arguments in favor of their study to this horizon. If they are
essential to a comprehension of the red race, not less so are
they to the science of linguistics in general. This science
deals not with languages, but with language. It looks at the
idiom of a nation, not as a dry catalogue of words and gram-
matical rules, but as the. living expression of the thinking
power of man, as the highest manifestation of that spiritual
energy which has lifted him from the level of the brute, the
complete deﬁnition of which, in its origin and evolution, is
the loftiest aim of universal history. As the intention of all
speech is the expression of thought, and as the ﬁnal purpose
of all thinking is the discovery of truth, so the ideal of lan-
guage, the point toward which it strives, is the absolute form
for the realization of intellectual function.

In this high quest no tongue can be overlooked, none can
be left out of account. One is just as important as another.
Goethe once said that he who knows but one language knows
none; we may extend the apothegm, and say that so long as
there is a single language on the globe not understood and
analyzed, the science of language will be incomplete and
illusory. It has often proved the case that the investigation
of a single, narrow, obscure dialect has changed the most
important theories of history. What has done more than
anything else to overthrow, or, at least, seriously to shake,
the time-honored notion that the White Race ﬁrst came from
Central Asia? It was the study of the Lithuanian dialect
on the Baltic Sea, a language of peasants, without literature
or culture, but which displays forms more archaic than the
Sansorit. What has led to a complete change of views as
to the prehistoric population of Southern Europe? The
study of the Basque, a language unknown out of a few
secluded valleys in the Pyrenees.

There are many reasons why unwritten languages, like
those of America, are more interesting, more promising in
results, to the student of linguistics than those which for

American Languages. 13

generations have been cast in the conventional moulds of
written speech.

Their structure is more direct, simple, transparent; they
reveal more clearly the laws of the linguistic powers in their
daily exercise; they are less tied down to hereditary formulae
and meaningless repetitions.

Would we explain the complicated structure of highly-
organized tongues like our own, would we learn the laws
which have assigned to it its material and formal elements,
we must turn to the naive speech of savages, there to see in
their nakedness those processes which are too obscure in
our own. .

If the much-debated question of the origin of language

engages us, we must seek its solution in the simple radicals
of savage idioms; and if we wish to institute a comparison
between the relative powers of languages, we can by no
means omit them from our list. They offer to us the raw
material, the essential and indispensable requisites of articu-
late communication.
, As the structure of a language reﬂects in a measure, and
as, on the other hand, it in a measure controls and directs
the mental workings of those who speak it, the student of
psychology must occupy himself with the speech of the most
illiterate races in order to understand their theory of things,
their notions of what is about them. They teach him the
undisturbed evolution of the untrained mind.

As the biologist in pursuit of that marvellous something
which we Call “the vital principle” turns from the complex
organisms of the higher animals and plants to life in its
simplest expression in microbes and single cells, so in the
future will the linguist ﬁnd that he is nearest the solution of
the most weighty problems of his science when he directs
his attention to the least cultivated languages.

Convinced as I am of the correctness of this analogy, I
venture to predict that in the future the analysis of the
American languages will be regarded as one of the most
important ﬁelds in linguistic study, and will modify most
materially the ﬁndings of that science. And I make thls

14 American Languages.

prediction the more conﬁdently, as I am supported in it by
the great authority of Wilhelm von Humboldt, who for
twenty years devoted himself to their investigation.

As I am advocating so warmly that more attention should
be devoted to these languages, it is but fair that you should
require me to say something descriptive about them, to ex-
plain some of their peculiarities of structure. To do this
properly I should require not the fag end of one lecture, but
a whole course of lectures. Yet perhaps I can say enough
now to show you how much there is in them worth studying.

Before I turn to this, however, I should like to combat a
prejudice which I fear you may entertain. It is that same
ancient prejudice which led the old Greeks to call all those
who did not speak their sonorous idioms barbarians; for
that word meant nothing more nor less than babblers (ﬂu).-
[a’a/lm), people who spoke an unintelligible tongue. Modern
civilized nations hold that prejudice yet, in the sense that
each insists that its own language is the best one extant, the
highest in the scale, and that wherein others differ from it
in structure they are inferior. .

So unfortunately placed is this prejudice with reference to
my subject, that in the very volume issued by our govern-
ment at Washington to encourage the study of the Indian
languages, there is a long essay to prove that English is the
noblest, most perfect language in the world, while all the
native languages are, in comparison, of a very low grade
indeed!

The essayist draws his arguments chieﬂy from the ab-
sence of inﬂections in English. Yet many of the pro-
foundest linguists of this century have maintained that a
fully inﬂected language, like the Greek or Latin, is for
that very reason ahead of all others. We may suspect
that when a writer lauds his native tongue at the expense
of others, he is inﬂuenced by a prejudice in its favor and an
absence of facility in the others.

Those best acquainted with American tongues praise
them most highly for ﬂexibility, accuracy, and resources of
expression. They place some of them above any Aryan

American Languages. 1 5

language. But what is this to those who do not know
them? To him who cannot bend the bow of Ulysses it
naturally seems a useless and awkward weapon.

I do not ask you to accept this opinion either; but I do
ask that you rid your minds of bias, and that you do not
condemn a tongue because it differs widely from that which
you speak.

American tongues do, indeed, differ very widely from
those familiar to Aryan ears. Not that they are all alike in
structure. That was a hasty generalization, dating from a
time when they were less known. Yet the great majority
of them have certain characteristics in common, suﬂicient to
place them in a linguistic class by themselves. I shall name
and explain some of these.

As of the ﬁrst importance I would mention the promi-
nence they assign to pronouns and pronominal forms. In-
deed, an eminent linguist has been so impressed with this
feature that he has proposed to classify them distinctively as
“ pronominal languages.” They have many classes of pro-
nouns, sometimes as many as eighteen, which is more than
twice as many as the Greek. There is often no distinction
between a noun and a verb other than the pronoun which
governs it. That is, if a word is employed with one form
of the pronoun it becomes a noun, if with another pronoun,
it becomes a verb.

We have something of the same kind in English. In the
phrase “I love,” love is a verb; but in “my love,” it is a
noun. It is noteworthy that this treatment of words as
either nouns or verbs, as we please to employ them, was
carried further by Shakespeare than by any other English
writer. He seemed to divine in such a trait of language
vast resources for varied and pointed expression. If I may
venture a suggestion as to how it does confer peculiar
strength to expressions, it is that it brings into especial
prominence the idea of Personality; it directs all subjects
of discourse by the notion of an individual, a living, per-
sonal unit. This imparts vividness to narratives, and direct-
ness andlife to propositions.

16 American Languages.

Of these pronouns, that of the ﬁrst person is usually the
most developed. From it, in many dialects, are derived the
demonstratives and relatives, which in Aryan languages
were taken from the third person. This prominence of the
Ego, this conﬁdence in self, is a trait of the race as well as
of their speech. It forms part of that savage independ-
ence of character which prevented them coalescing into
great nations, and led them to prefer death to servitude.

Another characteristic, which at one time was supposed
to be universal on this continent, is what Mr. Peter S. Du
Ponceau named polysynthesis. He meant by this a power
of running several words into one, dropping parts of them
and retaining only the signiﬁcant syllables. Long descrip-
tive names of all objects of civilized life new to the Indians
were thus coined with the greatest ease. Some of these
are curious enough. The Pavant Indians call a school-
house by one word, which means “ a stopping-place where
sorcery is practised;” their notion of book-learning being
that it belongs to the uncanny arts. The Delaware word
for horse means “ the four-footed animal which carries on
his back.”

This method of coining words is, however, by no means
universal in American languages. It prevails in most of
those in British America and the United States, in Aztec
and various South American idioms; but in others, as the
dialects found in Yucatan and Guatemala, and in the Tupi
of Brazil, the Otomi of Mexico, and the Klamath of the
Paciﬁc coast, it is scarcely or not'at all present.

Another trait, however, which was confounded with this
by Mr. Du Ponceau, but really belongs in a different cate-
gory of grammatical structure, is truly distinctive of the
languages of the continent, and I am not sure that any one
of them has been shown to be wholly devoid of it. This is '
what is called incomoration. It includes in the verb, or in
the verbal expression, the object and manner of the action.

This is effected by making the subject of the verb an in-
separable preﬁx, and by inserting between it and the verb
itself, or sometimes directly in the latter, between its sylla-

American Languages. 1 7

bles, the object, direct or remote, and the particles indica-
ting mode. The time or tense particles, on the other hand,
will be placed at one end of this compound, either as pre-
ﬁxes or sufﬁxes, thus placing the whole expression strictly
within the limits of a verbal form of speech.

Both the above characteristics, I mean Polysynthesis and
Incorporation, are unconscious efforts to carry out a cer-
tain theory of speech which has aptly enough been termed
holophmsz's, or the putting the whole of a phrase into a single
word. This is the aim of each of them, though each en-
deavors to accomplish it by different means. Incorporation
conﬁnes itself exclusively to verbal forms, while polysynthesis
embraces both nouns and verbs.

Suppose we carry the analysis further, and see if we can
obtain an answer to the query. Why did this effort at
blending forms of speech obtain so widely? Such an inquiry
will indicate how valuable to linguistic research would prove
the study of this group of languages.

I think there is no doubt but that it points unmistakably
to that very ancient, to that primordial period of human
utterance when men had not yet learned to connect words
into sentences, when their utmost efforts at articulate speech
did not go beyond single words, which, aided by gestures
and signs, served to convey their limited intellectual con-
verse. Such single vocables did not belong to any particular
part of speech. There was no grammar to that antique
tongue. Its disconnected exclamations mean whole sen-
tences in themselves. -

A large part of the human race, notably, but not exclu-
sively, the aborigines of this continent, continued the tra-
dition of this mode of expression in the structure of their
tongues long after the union of thought and sound in
audible speech had been brought to a high degree of per-
fection.

Although I thus regard one of the most prominent pecu—
liarities of American languages as a survival from an ex-
Ceedingly low stage of human development, it by no means
follows that this is an evidence of their inferiority.

18 American Languages.

The Chinese, who made no effort to combine the primi-
tive vocables into one, but range them nakedly side by
side, succeeded no better than the American Indians;
and there is not much beyond assertion to prove that the
Aryans, who, through their inﬂections, marked the relation
of each word in the sentence by numerous tags of case,
gender, number, etc., got any nearer the ideal perfection of
language. .

If we apply what is certainly a very fair test, to wit:
the uses to which a language is and can be put, I cannot
see that a well-developed American tongue, such as the
Aztec or the Algonkin, in any way falls short of, say French
or English.

It is true that in many of these tongues there is no dis-
tinction made between expressions, which with us are care-
fully separated, and are so in thought. Thus, in the Tupi
of Brazil and elsewhere, there is but one word for the three
expressions, “his father,” “ he is a father,” and “ he has a
father;” in many, the simple form of the verb may convey
three different ideas, as in Ute, where the Word for “he
seizes” means also “the seizer,” and as a descriptive noun,
“ a bear,” the animal which seizes.

This has been charged against these languages as a lack
of “diﬁerentiatiori.” Grammatically this is so, but the
same charge applies with almost equal force to the English
language, where the same word may belong to any of four,
ﬁve, even six parts of speech, dependent entirely on the
connection in which it is used.

As a set-off, the American languages avoid confusions of
expression which prevail in European tongues.

Thus in none of these latter, when I say “the love of
God,” “l’amour de Dieu,” “amor Dei,” can you under—
stand what I mean. You do not know whether I intend
the love which we have or should have toward God, or
God’s love toward us. Yet in the Mexican language (and
many other American tongues) these two quite opposite
ideas are so clearly distinguished that, as Father Carochi
warns his readers in his Mexican Grammar, to confound

American Languages. 19

them would not merely be a grievous solecism in speech
but a formidable heresy as well.

Another example. What can you make out of this sen—
tence, which is strictly correct by English grammar: “ John
told Robert’s son that he must help him”? You can make
nothing out of it. It may have any one of six different
meanings, depending on the persons referred to by the pro-
nouns “he” and “him.” No such lamentable confusion
could occur in any American tongue known to me. The
Chippeway, for instance, has three pronouns of the third
person, which designate the near and the remote antece—
dents with the most lucid accuracy.

There is another point that I must mention in this con-
nection, because I ﬁnd that it has almost always been over—
looked or misunderstood by critics of these languages.
These have been free in condemning the synthetic forms of
construction. But they seem to be ignorant that their use
is largely optional. Thus, in Mexican, one can arrange the
same sentence in an analytic or a synthetic form, and this is
J'also the case, in a less degree, in the Algonkin. By this
means a remarkable richness is added to the language.
The higher the grade of synthesis employed, the more
striking, elevated, and pointed becomes the expression. In
common life long compounds are rare, while in the native
Mexican poetry each line is often but one word.

Turning now from the structure of these languages to
their vocabularies, I must correct a widespread notion that
they are scanty in extent and deﬁcient in the means to
express lofty or abstract ideas. ' '

Of course, there are many tracts of thought and learn-
ing familiar to us now which were utterly unknown to
the American aborigines, and not less so to our own fore-
fathers a few centuries ago. It would be very unfair to
compare the dictionary of an Indian language with the last
edition of Webster’s Unabridged. But take the English
dictionaries of the latter half of the sixteenth century, be-
fore Spenser and Shakespeare wrote, and compare them with
the Mexican vocabulary of Molina, which contains about

)

20 American Languages.

13,000 words, or with the Maya vocabulary of the convent
of Motul, which presents over 20,000, both prepared at that
date, and your procedure will be just, and you will ﬁnd it
not disadvantageous to the American side of the question.

The deﬁciency in abstract terms is generally true of these
languages. They did not have them, because they had no
use for them,—and the more blessed was their condition.
European languages have been loaded with several thousand
such by metaphysics and mysticism, and it has required sev-
eral generations to discover that they are empty wind-bags,
full of sound and signifying nothing.

Yet it is well known to students that the power of form-
ing abstracts is possessed in a remarkable degree by many
native languages. The most recondite formulae of dog-
matic religion, such as the deﬁnition of the Trinity and
the difference between consubstantiation and transub-
stantiation, have been translated into many of them without
introducing foreign words, and. in entire conformity with
their grammatical structure. Indeed, Dr. Augustin de la
Rosa, of the University of Guadalajara, who is now the
only living professor of any American language, says the
Mexican is peculiarly adapted to render these metaphysical
subtleties.

I have been astonished that some writers should bring up
the primary meaning of a word in an American language
in order to infer the coarseness of its secondary meaning.
This is a strangely unfair proceeding, and could be directed
with equal effect against our own tongues. Thus, I read
lately a traveller who spoke hardly of an Indian tribe be-
cause their word for “to love” was a derivative from that
meaning “ to buy,” and thence “ to prize.” But What did
the Latin amare, and the English to love, ﬁrst mean? Car—
nally living together is what they ﬁrst meant, and this is not
a nobler derivation than that of the Indian. Even yet,
when the most polished of European nations, that one
which most exalts la grande passion, does not distinguish in
language between loving their wives and liking their din-
ners, but uses the same word for both emotions, it is scarcely

American Languages. 21

wise for us to indulge in much latitude of inference from
such etymologies.

Such is the general. character of American languages,
and such are the reasons why they should be preserved and
studied. The ﬁeld is vast and demands many laborers to
reap all the fruit that it promises. It is believed at present
that there are about two hundred wholly independent stocks
of languages among the aborigines of this continent. They
vary most widely in vocabulary, and seemingly scarcely less
so in grammar. '

Besides this, each of these stocks is subdivided into
dialects, each distinguished by its own series of phonetic
changes, and its own new words. What an opportunity is
thus oﬁ'ered for the study of thenatural evolution of lan-
guage, unfettered by the petrifying art of writing!

In addition to these native dialects there are the various
jargons which have sprung up by intercourse with the
Spanish, English, Dutch, Portuguese, and French settlers.
These are by no means undeserving of notice. They reveal
in an instructive manner the laws of the inﬂuence which is
exerted on one another by languages of radically different
formations. A German linguist of eminence, Prof. Schu-
chardt, of Gratz, has for years devoted himself to the study
of the mixed languages of the globe, and his results promise
to be of the ﬁrst order of importance for linguistic science.
In America we ﬁnd examples of such in the Chinook jargon
of the Paciﬁc coast, the Jarocho of Mexico, the “Maya
mestizado” of Yucatan, the ordinary Lingoa Geral of Brazil,
and the Nahuatl—Spanish of Nicaragua, in which last men-
tioned jargon, a curious medley of Mexican and low Spanish,
I have lately published a comedy as written and acted by
the natives and half—castes of that country.

All such macaroni dialects must come into consideration,
’ if we wish to make a full representation of the linguistic
riches of this continent.

What now is doing to collect, collate, and digest this vast
material? .We may cast our eyes over the civilized world
and count upon our ﬁngers the names of those who are

22 Amem'ccm Languages.

engaged in really serviceable and earnest work in this
department.

In Germany, the land of scholars, we have the traveller
von Tschudi, who has lately published a most excellent
volume on the Qquichua of Peru; Dr. Stoll, of Zurich, who
is making a specialty of the languages of Guatemala; Mr.
Julius Platzmann, who has reprinted a number of rare works;
Prof. Friederich Miiller, of Vienna; but I know of no other
name to mention. In France, an enlightened interest in the
subject has been kept alive by the creditable labors of the
Count de Charencey, M. Lucien Adam, and a few other
students; while the series of American grammars and
dictionaries published by Maisonneuve, and that edited by
Alphonse Pinart, are most commendable monuments of
industry. In Italy, the natal soil of Columbus, in Spain, so
long the mistress of the Indies, and in England, the mother
of the bold navigators who explored the coasts of the New
World, I know not a single person who gives his chief
interest to this pursuit.

Would that I could place in sharp contrast to this the
state of American linguistics in our own country! But out-
side of the ofﬁcial investigators appointed by the Govern-
ment Bureau of Ethnology, who merit the highest praise in
their several departments, but who are necessarily conﬁned
to their assigned ﬁelds of study, the list is regretfully brief.

There is ﬁrst the honored name of Dr. John Gilmary
Shea. It is a discredit to this country that his “Library of
American Linguistics” was forced to suspend publication
for lack of support. There is Mr. Horatio Hale, who forty
years ago prepared the “Philology of the United States EX-
ploring Expedition,” and who, “obeying the voice at eve
obeyed at prime,” has within the last two years contributed
to American philology some of the most suggestive studies
which have anywhere appeared. Nor must I omit Dr. J.
Hammond Trumbull, whose Algonkin studies are marked
by the truest scientiﬁc spirit, and the works on special dia-

lects of Dr. Washington Matthews, the Abbe Cuoq, and
others.

American Languages. 23

Whatever these worthy students have done, has been
prompted solely by a love of the subject and an appreciation
of its scientiﬁc value. They have worked without reward
or the hope of reward, without external stimulus, and almost
Without recognition.

Not an institution of the higher education in this land has ’
an instructor in this branch; not one of our learned societies
has offered inducements for its study; no enlightened patron
of science of the many which honor our nation has ever held
out that encouragement which is needed by the scholar who
would devote himself to it.

In conclusion, I appeal to you, and through you to all the
historical societies of the United States, to aid in removing
this reproach from American scholarship. Shall we have
fellowships and professorships in abundance for the teach—
ing of the dead languages and dead religions of another
hemisphere, and not one for instruction in those tongues of
our own land, which live in a thousand proper names around
us, whose words we repeat daily, and whose structure is as
important to the philosophic study of speech as any of the
dialects of Greece or India?

What is wanted is by offering prizes for essays in this
branch, by having one or more instructors in it at our great
universities, and by providing the funds for editing and pub-
lishing the materials for studying the aboriginal languages,
to awaken a wider interest in them, at the same time that
the means is furnished wherewith to gratify and extend this
interest. .

This is the case which I present to you, and for which I
earnestly solicit your consideration. And that I may add
weight to my appeal, I close by quoting the words of one of
America’s most distinguished scientists, Professor William

Dwight Whitney, of Yale College, who writes to this eﬁ'ect:
I “The study of American languages is the most fruitful
and the most important branch of American Archaeology.”

 

 

:4. d
>\

u ‘

 

1;, (From lite American Naturalist, Sefltember, 1881.)

NOTES ON THE CODEX TROANO, AND MAYA
CHRONOLOGY.

BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D.

THE investigations of Professor Thomas, published in the
AMERICAN NATURALIST for August, go far towards dispelling
the obscurity which has hitherto rested on this interesting docu-
ment. In examining its pages some other suggestions have oc—
curred to me which may throw further light on its object and
contents. .

One question in reference to it is, as to what precise period of
time it refers. Up to the present there has been no opinion
expressed upon this point, but I think it can be approximately if
not deﬁnitely determined.

To do so we must decide What was the length of an Ahau. It
is true that all the old authors, Landa, Cogolludo, Beltran,
Lizana and the Maya chronicler, speak of it as a period of twenty
years; and the most recent writer on the subject, Dr. Valentini,1
insists on this being the proper length. On the other hand, we
have the profound Maya scholar, Seﬁor Juan Pio Perez, Who very
positively maintained that it embraced twenty-four years, only
twenty of which, however, were counted, the remaining four be—
ing considered “intercalary, and, as it were, non-existent.” Al—
though no reason whatever for this odd arrangement has been
proffered, I am convinced that Perez is correct, and in addition to
the valuable corroborative testimony adduced by Professor
Thomas, I shall bring forward a calculation which some time ago
. dispelled any doubts 'I had on the subject.

,As the Kin Katuns, or periods of 52 years, recurred so fre-
quently that after a few generations they could not be distinguished
one from the other, and would thus have led to great confusion
in chronology, the Ahau Katun was devised, embracing the much '
I longer period Of 312 years, and to it was referred any‘important
event in history. Instead of its purpose being “ further to com-
plicate the calendar and to deceive the people,” as Professor
Thomas thinks, it is, when properly used, an extremely simple
and easy means of keeping the run of the years, and converting the
one computation into the other. For this purpose the series of

‘ - numbers was used which has been such a mystery to antiquaries:

' 13,11,9,7,5,3,1,12,10,3,6,4,2
1 “ The Katuns of Maya History,” I880.

720 . Notes on the Codex Troano, and Maya Chronology. [Sept.,

Gallatin explained them as the numerical characters of the
days “ Ahau ” following the ﬁrst day of each year called Cauac ;1
Dr. Valentini thinks they refer to the numbers of the .various
idols worshiped in the different Ahaus; Professor Thomas that
they are the number of the year (in the indiction of 52 years)
on which the Ahau begins. Each of these statements is true in
itself, but each fails to show any practical use of the series; and
of the last mentioned it is to be observed that the objection
applies to it that at the commencement of an Ahau Katun the
numbers would run I, 12, Io, 8, etc., whereas we know positively
that the numbers of the Ahaus began with I 3 and continued 11,
9, 7, 5, etc.

The explanation which I offer, is, that the number of the Ahau
was taken from the last day Cauac preceding the Kan with which
the ﬁrst year of each Ahau began—for, as 24 is divisible by 4,
the ﬁrst year of each Ahau necessarily began with the day Kan.
This number was the“ ruling number ” of the Ahau, and not for
any mystical or ceremonial purpose, but for the practical one of
at once and easily converting any year designated in the Ahau
into its equivalent in the current Kin Katun, or 52 year cycle.
All that is necessary to do this is to add the numoer of the
yearz'n the [Man to the numoer oft/2e year Cauac corresponding to
this “ ruling number.” W/zen the sum exceeds 52, subtract that
numoer.

Take an example: To what year in the Kin Katun does IO
Ahau XI (the 10th year of the nth Ahau) correspond?

On referring to a table, or, as the Mayas did, to a “ Katun
wheel,” we ﬁnd the I Ith Cauac to be the 24th year of the cycle;
add ten to this and we have 34 as the number of the year in the
cycle to which 10 Ahau XI corresponds. The great simplicity
and convenience of this will be evident without further dis-
cussmn.

I now pass to the important question: Can we establish a cor-
rect correspondence between the Kin Katuns and the Ahau Ka-
tuns with the years of the Christian era P

The attempt has been made with widely divergent results.
Perez makes the 13th Ahau begin in 1488, and Gallatin follows
him; Valentini has it begin in 1522, but he makes'the serious
error of supposing the 13th was the last Ahau, whereas it was

1Trans. Am. Ethnol. Soc., Vol. I, p. 109.

1881.] Notes on the Codex Trotmo, amt Maya Chronology. 72I

the ﬁrst in the Ahau Katun ; besides attributing only twenty
years to the Ahau. That both these suppositions are erroneous,
will appear by an analysis of a date which has been given us by
a Maya writer preserved by Perez and referred to by Professor
Thomas. This date is that of the death of Ahpula. A false
translation of this important qubtation, led Gallatin to suspect an
error in the original; but it is entirely correct and intelligible as
it stands. The text runs thus:

“ In the 13th Ahau Chief Ahpula died. Six years were want—
ing to complete the 13th Ahau. This year was counted towards
the east of the wheel, and began on the 4th Kan. Ahpula died

"on the 18th day of the month Zip, on the 9th Imix; and that it
may be known in numbers it was the year I 5 36.”

Side by side to this must be put a very precise date given by
Bishop Landa, and corroborated by native writers. It is to the
p effect that “the Spaniards arrived at the city of Merida in the
~'"Vﬂatmgealr of the nativity of our Lord I 541, which, said the Indians,
‘ gwas precisely in the ﬁrst year of the period of Eleven Ahau.”
Here, then, are two dates which should be reconciled. It
'r looks difﬁcult, at ﬁrst sight. Counting six years back from I 54I,
brings us to 1535, not 1536, and Valentini therefore' supposes
that the Maya chronicler had in view the ofﬁcial incorporation
of Merida (Jan. 6, I 542)——though what that would have had to do
with the ﬁxed principles of Maya chronology, he does not make
clear.
In reality, there is no contradiction at all. The Maya year did
' not begin January I as does ours, out fuly 16, at or about the time
of the transit of the sun by the zenith in the latitude of Merida.
Hence the Maya chronicler identiﬁed the 6th year from the end
of the Ahau with 1536, because the greater part and the latter
part of that Ahau year was actually in A. D. I 536. In point of
fact, Chief Ahpula, whoever he was, died Sept. I I, 1535, O. S.
. Having ﬁxed this date beyond peradventure, I shall take
another step. .The Ahau Katun of 312 years, divided into I3
periods of 24 years each, embraces 6 Kin Katuns of 52 years
each; yet owing to the properties of the different numbers, the
ﬁrst‘year of any Ahau will not coincide with the ﬁrst year of any
Kin Katun except at the beginning of the Ahau Katun; and,
from the date of this coincidence the Ahaus were reckoned oogz'n-
ﬂing wit/it t/ze [gt/z (as Perez positively and correctly states).
Referring again to Chief Ahpula’s death, the chronicler, states

   
  
 

722 Notes 072 the Codex Troano, and Maya Chronology. [Sept.,

that it occurred not only in the 6th year from the close of the
Ahau, but he also gives it in the Kin Katun reckoning as the
year 4 Kan. Now it is obvious that if Ahau XIII is the ﬁrst of
the greater cycle, the number of the year referred to should be
the same as the number of the year 4 Kan in the lesser cycle——
a coincidence which could not occur except in the ﬁrst Ahau of
the Katun. In fact, 4 Kan is the 18th year of the Kin Katun;
and of course 24 — = 18, the year of the Ahau.

This leads to the result that the coincidence above referred to,.
which marked the beginning of the greater cycle, occurred July
16, 1517, on which day, for the ﬁrst time for 312 years, the cur,-
rent Ahau und Kin Katun both began on the day I Kan.

With this date thus deﬁnitely ﬁxed, it would be easy to con-
struct a table showing'the correspondences of the Maya and
Christian systems of reckoning. I shall pass, however, to its
application to the Codex Troano.

Leaving aside the opinion of the Abbé Brasseur that this man-
uscript is a sort of geological treatise, and that of Mr. Bollaert
that it is a history, all unprejudiced students have agreed that a
portion of it at least is a calendar—what the Mayas called z‘zolcm
Katun, the arrangement of the Katuns or divisions of time, and
probably also a Zzolam‘é, ritual. The left hand} columns of the
four plates numbered XXIII, XXII, XXI, XX, as has been noted by
Professor Thomas, enumerate a series of 52 years beginning with -
IO‘Cauac, which is the 36th year of the Kin Katun. Could we
ﬁnd anywhere on these plates the number of the Ahau, there
would be no difﬁculty in ﬁxing the exact date of the manuscript.
I have no doubt that Professor Thomas is right in believing that
the Ahau is indicated in the upper compartment of Plate XXIII;
and I had repeatedly sought to make it out there before seeing
his article ; but unless it is the ﬁgure two in red at the top of the
column of numbers to the right of the ﬁgures in blue, I cannot
discern it. Assuming that the date is Ahau II, and the year 10
‘Cauac, it is obvious from the method of calculating above given,
that the year with which this calendar begins is that which cor-
responds to July 16, 1500-1501, and that it ends on the year 9
Ix, Ahau XI—July 16, 1552—1553.

Passing by various other considerations of interest'in connec-
tion with the Codex, I shall offer one suggestion which, so far as ,
I know, has not heretofore beenmade.

 

1881.] Notes on the Codex Troaoo, and Maya Chronology. 723

It is known to all students of the subject that there is no ac-
chnt of the plan adopted by the Mayas to arrange their inter-
calary days. That they did allow for these days is asserted by
all authorities; if they had not done so, they would, as Gallatin
observes, have been out of their reckoning twenty days every
‘ eighty years; whereas we know that they were only forty-eight
hours astray in the time of the transit of the sun by the zenith at
the time of the Conquest (Pio Perez). .

Their method of intercalating is, I believe, illustrated by the
Codex Troano. One of the most instructive pages of that manu—
script, is the title page. Were it fully deciphered, we should
doubtless have a key to the whole work. It is composed of
eleven lines across the page, each presenting either seven num-
bers or seven ﬁgures. The ﬁrst row from the top of the page is
partly erased, but may readily be restored.1 It represents the
hieratic signs of the seven days :

Ymix, Ix, Akbal, Kan, Chicchan, Cimi, Manik.
Below them stand the numbers:

I, 2, 3, 4" 5’ 6’ 7' ,
Now of these days, the ﬁrst three named—Ymix, Ix, Akbal—
are the last of the series of 20 which make up the Maya month,
while the remaining four are in their order, the ﬁrst of the
month.

This serves to identify the kind of book the Codex is, for
Landa has, among his other obscurities about the Maya calendar, .
this particularly obscure passage:

“ It is curious to note how the dominical letter [of the year]
always comes up at the beginning of its year, without mistake or
failing, and that none of the other twenty letters appears. They
also used this method of counting in order to derive from cer-
tain letters a method of counting their epochs and other things,
' which, though interesting to them, does not concern us much
here. It is enough to say that the character or letter with which
they begin their computation of the days or their calendar 15

Sign
of
day.

called One sz'x which is this which has no certain

 

 

 

nor ﬁxed clay in which it falls. Because each one changes its

_ 1The reasoning of Professor De Rosny on this point is conclusive. See his
“ Essai sur le\ Déchiﬂ'rement de l’Ecriture Hiératique de l’Amérique Centrale.”
Folio, Paris, 1876, p. 26.

724 Notes on the Codex Tromzo, and Maya Chronology. [Sept., \ \

position according to his own count; yet for all that, the'domini-

cal letter of the year which follows does not fail to come up cor-
rectly.”1

This certainly is not to be understood, as has been supposed ‘
by M. de Charencey, who has made some excellent studies on
this Codex, to mean that the year began With the day Ymix.2 r
The contrary is distinctly afﬁrmed by Landa. The true explana- ‘
tion I take to be the following:

Each period of 13 years began with the day I Kan, and, count-
ing 365 days to the year, ended on the day I3 Cauac. In each
period there should be three intercalary days, every fourth year
being properly a leap year. These three days are allowed for by
beginning the next subsequent I 3 year period, not on the day fol-
low ing I 3 Cauac in regular order, but by starting the almanac of
the period with Ymix, thus allowing three days to elapse, which

would bring I Kan of the new year in its proper astronomical
position within about half an hour.

1 “ Relacion, de las Cosas de Yucatan,” p. 236.
3“ Recherches sur le Codex Troano,” p. 10, 1876.

 

BY

 

(

D
M,

, N,
.O.
T
m
, R
. .Bp

 

 

WERE THE TOLTECS

9

AN

HISTORIC NATIONALITY?

 

BY

DANIEL Gr. BRINTON, M.D.,

. Professor of American Archaeology and Linguistics in

the University of Pennsylvania.

 

~ Read before the American Philosophical Society, Sept. 2, 1887.

 

PRESS 0F MACCALLA & COMPANY,
237—9 DOCK ST., PHILA.
1887.

 

 

 

Were the Toltecs an Historic Nationality?

By Daniel G. Brinton, MD.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, Sept. e, 1887. )

In the ﬁrst edition of my Jifyths of the New World, * published
in 1868, I asserted that the story of the city of Tula and its
inhabitants, the ’I‘oltecs7 as currently related in ancient Mexican
history, is a myth, and not history. This opinion I have since
repeated in various publicationsﬁ‘ but writers on pre-Columbian
American civilization have been very unwilling to give up their
Toltecs, and here lately M. Charnay has composed a laborious.
monograph to defend them. I

Let me state the question squarely.

The orthodox opinion is that the Toltecs, coming from the
north (-West or -east), founded the city of Tula (about forty
miles north of the present city of Mexico) in the sixth century
A.DL; that their State ﬂourished for about ﬁve hundred years,
until it numbered nearly four millions of inhabitants, and
extended its sway from ocean to ocean over the whole of Gen-
tral Mexico; § that it reached a remarkably high stage of culture
in the arts; that in the tenth or eleventh century it was almost
totally destroyed by war and famine;

                          

* Myths of the New World. By D. G. Brinton. Chap. vi, passim.

1' Especially in American Hero Myths, a Study in the Native Religions of the Western Con—

tinent, pp. 35, 64, 82, etc. (Philadelphia, 1882).
' IM- Charnay, in his essay, La Civilisation Tolteqne, published in the Revue (l’Ethno-
graphie, Tome iv, p. 281,1885, states his thesis as follows: “J e veux prouver l’existence
du Tolteque que certains ont niée ; je veux prouver que les civilisations Americaines ne
‘ sont qu’une seule et meme civilisation; enﬁn, je veux prouver que cette civilisation est
tolteque.” I consider each of these statements an utter error. In his Anciennes Villes
cln Nouveau Mon de, M. Charnay has gone so far as to give a map showing the migrations
of the ancient Toltecs. As a translation of this work, with this map, has recently been
published in this country, it appears to me the more needful that the baseless character
of the Toltec legend be distinctly stated.

a Ixtlilxochitl, in his Relaciones Historicas (in Lord Kingsborough’s Antiquities of
Mexico, V01. ix, p. 333), says that during the reign of Topiltzin, last king of Tula, the
Toltec sovereignty extended a thousand leagues from north to south and eight hundred
from east to west; and in the wars that attended its downfall ﬁve million six hundred
thousand persons were slain! !

I] Sahagun (Hist. de la Nueva Espaiia, Lib. viii, cap. 5) places the destruction of Tula in
the year 319 B. 0.; Ixtlilxochitl (Historia Chichmeca, iii, cap. 4) brings it down to 969
A. D.; the Codex Ramirez (p. 25) to 1168; and so on. There is an equal variation about

the date of founding the city.

Brinton.] 4: [Sept 2,

escaping in separate colonies, carried the civilization of Tula to -
the south, to Tabasco (Palenque), Yucatan, Guatemala and
Nicaragua. Quetzalcoatl, the last ruler of Tula, himself went
to the south-east, and reappears in Yucatan as the culture-hero
Cukulkan, the traditional founder of the Maya civilization.

This, I say, is the current opinion about the Toltecs. It is
found in the works of Ixtlilxochitl, Veitia, Clavigero, Prescott,
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Orozco y Berra, and scores of other
reputable writers. The dispersion of the Toltecs has been
oﬁered as the easy solution of the origin of the civilization not
only of Central America, but of New Mexico and the Missis-
sippi valley. * ‘

The opinion that I oppose to this, and which I hope to estab-
lish in this article, is as follows:

Tula was merely one of the towns built and occupied by that
tribe of the Nahuas known as Azteca or Mexican, whose tribal god
was Huitzilopochtli, and who ﬁnally settled at Mexico-Tenochti-
tlan (the present city of Mexico); its inhabitants were called
Toltecs, but there was never any such distinct tribe or nation-
ality; they were merely the ancestors of this branch of the
Azteca, and when Tula was destroyed by civil and foreign Were,
these survivors removed to the valley of Mexico and became
merged with their kindred; they enjoyed no supremacy, either
in power or in the arts ; and the Toltec “ empire ” is a baseless
fable. What gave them their singular fame in later legend was
partly the tendency of the human mind to glorify the “good
old times ” and to merge ancestors into divinities,and especially
the signiﬁcance of the name Tula, “the Place of the Sun,” lead-
ing to the confounding and identiﬁcation of a half-forgetten

legend with the ever-living light-and-darkness myth of the gods
Quetzalcoatl and TezcatlipOca.

To support this view, let us inquire what we know-about Tula
as an historic site.

Its location is on one of the great‘ancient trails leading from

*Since writing the above I have received from the Comte de Charencey a reprint of his
article on Xibalba, in which he sets forth the theory of the late M. L. Angrand, that all
ancient American civilization was due to two “currents” of Toltecs, the western,
straight-headed Toltecs, who entered Anahuac by land from the north-west, and the

eastern, ﬂatheaded Toltecs, who came by sea from Florida. It is to criticise such vague
theorizing that I have written this paper.

 

1887.] 5 [Brinton.

the north into the Valley of Mexico.* The ruins of the old
town are upon an elevation about 100 feet in height, whose
summit presents a level surface in the shape of an irregular
triangle some 800 yards long, with a central width of 300 yards,
’ the apex to the south-east, where the face of the hill is fortiﬁed
by a rough stene wall. 1* It is a natural hill ,overlooking a small
muddy creek, called the Rio d6 Tedd: Yet this unpretending
mound is the celebrated Goatepetl, Serpent-Mount, or Snake-
Hill, famous in Nahuatl legend, and the cent al ﬁgure 1n all the
wonderful stories about the Toltecs.§ The remains of the arti-
ﬁcial tumuli and walls, which are abundantly scattered over the
summit, show that, like the pueblos of New Mexico, they were
built of large sun-baked bricks mingled with stones, rough or
trimmed, and both walls and ﬂoors were laid in a ﬁrm cement,
which was usually painted of different colors. Hence probably
the name Palpdn, “amid the colors,” which tradition says was
applied to these structures on the Coatepetl. The stone-work,

   

* Motolinia, in his Historia de los Indies de Nueva Espa'ﬂa, p. 5, calls the locality “ e1
puerto llamado Tollan,” the pass or gate called Tollan. Through it, he states, passed
ﬁrst the Colhua and later the Mexica, though he adds that some maintain these were
the same people In fact, Colhua is a form of a word 11 hich means “ancestors; ” colli,
forefather, no~col- huan, my forefathers, Colhuacan, “the place of the forefathers,” where
they lived. In Aztec picture—writing this is represented by a hill with a bent top, on the
“ikonomatic” system, the verb coloa, meaning to bend, to stoop. Those Mexica who
said the Colhua preceded them at Tula, simply meant that their own ancestors dwelt
there. The Anales de Cuauhtz‘tlan (pp. 29, 33) distinctly states that what Toltecs survived
the wars which drove them southward became merged in the Colhuas. As these wars
largely arose from civil dissensions, the account no doubt is correct which states that
others settled in Acolhuacan, on the eastern shore of the principal lake in the Valley of
Mexico. The name means “ Colhuacan by the water,” and was the State of which the
capital was Tetzcoco.

1- This description is taken from the map of the location in M. Charnay’s Ancz'ennes
Villes du Nouveau Maude, p. 83. The measurements I have made from the map do not
agree with those stated in the text of the book, but are, I take it, more accurate.

I Sometimes called the Rio de Montezuma, and also the Tollanatl, water of Tula. This
stream plays a conspicuous part in the Quetzalcoatl myths. It appears to be the same as
the river Atoyac (= ﬂowing or spreading water, atl, toyaua), or Xz'pacoyan (2 where
precious stones are washed, from xiuz‘tl, paca, yan), referred to by Sahagun, Hist. de la
Nue’ua Espaﬁa, Lib. ix, cap. 29. .In it were the celebrated “Baths of Quetzalcoatl,”
called AteCpanamochco, “the water in the tin palace,” probably from being adorned
with this metal (Anales de Cuauhtz‘tlan).

a See the Codex Ramirez, p. 24 Why called Snake-Hill the legend says not I need not
recall how prominent an object 15 the serpent in Aztec mythology. The name is a com-
pound of coall, snake, and tepetl, hill or mountain, but which may also mean town or city,
as such were usually built On elevations. The form Coatepec is this word with the post-
position c, and means “at the snake-hill,” or, perhaps, “ at Snake-town.” '

II Or to one of them. The name is preserved by Ixtlilxochitl, Relacz‘ones Iﬂ'storicas, 1n
Kingsborough, Metrico, V01. ix, p. 326. Its derivation is from palli, a color (root pa), and
the postposition pan. It is noteworthy that this legend states that Quetzalcoatl in his

Brinton.] 6 ' [Sept 2,

represented by a few broken fragments, appears equal, but not
superior, to that of the Valley of Mexico. Both the free and
the attached cplumn occur, and ﬁgure-carving was known, as a
few weather-beaten relics testify. The houses contained many
rooms, on different levels, and the roofs were ﬂat. They were no
doubt mostly communal structures. At the foot of the Serpent-
Hill is a level plain, but little above the river, on which is the
modern village with its corn-ﬁelds. '

These geographical particulars are necessary to understand

the ancient legend, and with them in mind its real purport is
evident.*

That legend is as follows: When the Azteca or Mexica—for
these names were applied to the same tribe T—left their early
home in Aztlan—which Ramirez locates in Lake Chalco in the
Valley of Mexico, and Orozco y Berra in Lake Chapallan in
Michoacan i—nthey pursued their course for some generations in

avatar as Ce Acatl was born in the Palpan, “ House of Colors ;” while the usual story was

that he came from Tlapallan, the place of colors. This indicates that the two accounts
are versions of the same myth.

* There are two ancient Codices extant, giving in picture-writing the migrations of the
Mexi. They have been repeatedly published in part or in whole, with varying degrees
of accuracy. Orozco y Berra gives their bibliography in his Historia Antigua de Mexico,
Tom. iii, p. 61, note. These Codices differ widely, and seem contradictory, but Orozco
y Berra has reconciled them by the happy sug estion that they refer to sequent and not
synchronous events. There is, however, yet much to do before their full meaning is
ascertained.

1' The name Aztlan is that of a place and Mexitl that of a person, and from these are
derived Aztecatl, plural, .Azteca, and Mericatl, pl. Mca'ica. The Azteca are said to have left
Aztlan under the guidance of Mexitl (Codex Ramirez). The radicals of both words have
now become somewhat obscured in the Nahuatl. My own opinion is that Father Duran
(Hist. de Nzwva E'Sj’pa'fta, T011). 1, p, 19) was right in translating Aztlan as “the place of
whiteness," cl lugar de blancura, from the radical iztac, white. This may refer to the East,
as the place of the dawn ; but there is also a temptation to look upon Aztlan as a syncope
of a-rfzta-tlan, = “ by the salt water.”

Mexicatl is a nomen gentile derived from Mexitl, which was another name for the
tribal god or early leader Huitzilopochtli, as is positively stated by Torquemada (Mon-
arrqu'ia Indiana, Lib. viii, cap. xi). Sahagun explains Mexitl as a compound of metl, the
maguey, and citli, which means hare and grandmother (Histo-ria de Niteva Espaﬁa, Lib.
x, cap. 29). It is noteworthy that one of the names of Quetzaleoatl is Meconetzz’n, son of
the maguey (Ixtlilxochitl, Rel. Hist, in Kingsborough, Vol. ix, p. 328). These two gods
were originally brothers, though each had divers mythical ancestors.

I Orozco y Berra, Historic Antigua de Mexico, Tom. iii, cap. 4. But Albert Gallatin was
the ﬁrst to place Aztlan no further west than Michoacan‘(Trarns. American Ethnolog.
Society, Vol. ii, p. 202). Orozco thinks Aztlan was the small island called Mexcalla in
Lake Chapallan, apparently because he thinks this name means “ houses of the Mexi ;”
but it may also signify “where there is abundance of maguey leaves,” this delicacy
being called memcalli in Nahuatl, and the terminal a signifying location or abundance.

(See 'Sahagun, Historic dc Nueva, Espaﬂa, Lib. vii, cap. 9.) At present, one of the smaller
specres of maguey is called mezcalli.

 

' 1887.] 7 [Brinton.

harmony; but at a certain time, somewhere between the eighth
and the eleventh century of our era, they fell out and separated.
The legend refers to this as a dispute between the followers of
.the tribal god Huitzilopochtli and those of his sister Malinalxo-
chitl. We may understand it to have been the separation of two
“ totems.” The latter entered at once the Valley of Mexico,
while the followers of Huitzilopochtli passed on to the plain of
Tula and settled on the Coatepetl. Here, says the narrative,
they constructed houses of stone and of rushes, built a temple
for the worship of Huitzilopochtli, set up his image and those
of the ﬁfteen divinities (gentes ?) who were subject to him, and
erected a large altar of sculptured stone and a court for their
ball play.* The level ground at the foot of the hill they partly
ﬂooded by damming the river, and used the remainder for plant-
ing their crops. After an indeterminate time they abandoned
Tula and the Coatepetl, driven out by civil strife and warlike
neighbors, and journeyed southward into the Valley of Mexico,
there to found the famous city of that name.

This is the simple narrative of Tulan, stripped of its contra-
dictions, metaphors and confusion, as handed down by those
highest authorities, the Codex Ramirez, Tezozomoc and Father
Durant It is a plain statement that Tula and its Snake-Hill
were merely one of the stations of the Azteca in their migrations
—-an important station, indeed, with natural strength, and one
that they fortiﬁed with care, where for some generations, prob-
ably, they maintained an independent-existence, and which the
story-tellers of the tribe recalled with pride and exaggeration.

How long they occupied the site is uncertain}; Ixtlilxochitl

* It. is quite likely that the very stone image ﬁgured by Charnay, Anciennes Villas du
Nouveau Monde, p. 72, and the stone ring used in the tlachtlz‘, ball play, which he ﬁgures,
p. 73, are those referred to in the historic legend. ,

’rThe Codex Ramirez, p. 24, a most excellent authority, is quite clear. The picture-
writing—which is really phonetic, or, as I have termed it, lkonomallc—represents the
Coatepetl by the sign of a hill (tepetl) inclOsing a serpent (coall). Tezozomoc, in his
Cronlca Memicana, cap. 2, presents a more detailed but more confused account. Duran,
Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espaﬁa, cap. 3, is worthy of comparison. The artiﬁcial
inundation of the plain to which the accounts rcfer probably means that a ditch 01‘
moat was constructed to protect the foot of the hill. Herrera says: “ Cercaron de agua
e1 cerro llamado Coatepec ” Decadas de Indlas Dec iii, Lib ii, cap. 11.

IThe Annals of Cuauhtitlan, a chronicle written in the Nahuatl language, gives 309
. , . years from the founding to the destruction of Tula, but names a dynasty of only four
rulers. Veitia puts the founding of Tula in the yea1 713 A. D (Histor la de Nueva Espaﬁa,
cap 23). Let us suppose, with the laborious and critical Orozco y Berra (notes to the
Codex Ramirez, p. 210) that the Mexi left Aztlan A. D. 648 These three dates would ﬁt -

 

Brinton.] 8 ‘ [Sept. 2,

gives a list of eight successive rulers of the “ Toltecs,” each of
whom was computed to reign at least ﬁfty-two years, or one
cycle; but it is noteworthy that he states these rulers were not
of “Toltec” blood, but imposed upon them by the “ Chichi-
mecs.” This does not reﬂect creditably on the supposed singular
cultivation of the Toltecs. Probably the warrior Aztecs sub-
jected a number of neighboring tribes and imposed upon them
rulers.* .

If we accept the date given by the Codex Ramirez for the
departure of the Aztecs from the Coatepetl—A. D. 1168—then
it is quite possible that they might have occupied the site for a
couple of centuries or longer, and that the number of successive
Chieftains named by Ixtlilxochitl should not be far wrong.
The destructive battles of which he speaks as preceding their
departure—battles resulting in the slaughter of more than ﬁve
million souls—we may regard as the grossly overstated account
of some really desperate conﬂicts.

That the warriors of the Azteca, on leaving Tula, scattered \
over Mexico, Yucatan and Central America, is directly contrary
to the assertion of the high authorities I have quoted, and also
to most of the mythical descriptions of the event, which declare
they were all, or nearly all, massacredi‘

The above I claim to be the real history of Tula' and its
Serpent-Hill, of the Toltecs and their dynasty. Now comes the
question, if we accept this view, how did this ancient town and

into a rational chronology, remembering that there is an acknowledged hiatus of a
number of years about the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the Aztec records (Orozco y

Berra, notes to Codex Ramirez, p. 213). The Anales de O'uauhtitlan dates the founding of.
Tula after that of Tlaxcallan, Huexotzinco and Cuauhtitlan (p. 29).

* As usual, Ixtlilxochitl contradicts himself in his lists of rulers. Those given in his
Historia Chichimeca are by no means the same as those enumerated in his Relaciones His-
toricas (Kingsborough, Mexico, Vol. ix, contains all of Ixtlilxochitl’s writings). Entirely
different from both is the list in the Anales de Cuauhtitlan. How completely euheme-
ristic Ixtlilxochitl is in his interpretations of Mexican mythology is shown by his
speaking of the two leading Nahuatl divinities Tezeatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli as
“certain bold warriors” (“ciertos caballeros muy valerosos.” Relaciones Historicas, in
Kingsborough, Vol. ix, p. 326).

1‘ See the note to page 3. But it is not at all likely that Tula was absolutely deserted.
0n the contrary, Herrera asserts that after the foundation of Mexico and the adjacent
cities (despues de la fundacion de Mexico i de toda la tierra) it reached its greatest
celebrity for skilled workmen. Decadas de India's, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. 11. The general
statement is that the sites on the Coatepetl and the adjacent meadows were unoccupied
for a few years—the Anales de Ouauhtz‘tlan says nine years—after the civil strife and
massacre, and then were settled again. The Historia de los Mem‘canos par sus Pinturas,
cap. 11, says, “y ansi fueron muertos todos los de Tula, que no quedo ninguno.”

I
1887 .] 9 [Brinton

its inhabitants come to have so wide a celebrity, not merely in
the myths of the Nahuas of Mexico, but in the sacred stories of
Yucatan and Guatemala as well—which was unquestionably the
case?

i To explain this, I must have recourse to some of those curious
principles of language which have had such inﬂuence in building
the fabric of mythology. In such inquiries we have more to do
with words than with things, with names than with persons,
with phrases than with facts.

First about these names, Tula, Tollan, Toltec—what do they
mean? They are evidently from the same root. What idea
did it convey?

We are ﬁrst struck with the fact that the Tula I have been
describing was not the only one in the Nahuatl district of
Mexico. There are other Tulas and Tollans,-one near Ococingo,
another, now San Pedro Tula, in the State of Mexico, one in
Guerrero, San Antonio Tula in Potosi,* etc. The name must
have been one of some common import. Herrera, who spells it
Tula, by an error, is just as erroneous in his suggestion of a
meaning. He says it means “place of the tuna,” this being a
term used for the prickly pearqL But tuna was not a Nahuatl
word; it belongs to the‘ dialect of Haiti, and was introduced
into Mekico by the Spaniards. Therefore Herrera’s derivation
must be ruled out. Ixtlilxochitl pretends that the name Tollan
was that of the ﬁrst chieftain of the Toltecs, and that they were
named after him ;I but elsewhere himself contradicts this asser-
tion. Most writers follow the Codex Ramirez, and maintain
that Tollan—of which Tula is but an abbreviation—is from
tolz'n, the Nahuatl word for rush, the kind of which they made
mats, and means “the place of rushes,” or, where they grow.

The respectable authority of Buschmann is in favor of this
derivation; but according to the analogy of the Nahuatl lan-
guage, the “place of rushes” should be Toltz'tlan or Tolimm,
and there are localities with these names.§

Without doubt, I think, we must accept the derivation of

* See Buschmann, Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen, ss. 682, 788. Orozco y Berra, Geo-

graﬁa, de las Lenguas de Mejico, pp. 248, 255.
1' Historia de las Indias Occidentales, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. 11.
I Relaciones Historicas, in Kingsborough’s Mexico, V01. ix, p. 392. Compare his Historia

Chichimeca.
a Buschmann, Ueber die Aztekischen Orisnamen, ss. 682, 797.

Brinton.] 10 [Sept 2,

Tollan given by Tezozomoc, in his Crom’ca Mexicana. This
writer, thoroughly familiar with his native tongue, conveys to
us its ancient form and real sense. Speaking of the early
Aztecs, he says: “ They arrived at the spot called Coatepec, on
the borders of Tonalan, the place of the sun.” *

This name, Tonallan, is still not unusual in Mexico. Busch-
mann enumerates four villages so called, besides a mining town,

Tonatlanj “Place of the sun” is a literal rendering, and it

would be equally accurate to translate it “sunny-spot” or
“warm place” or “summer-place.” There is nothing very
peculiar or distinctive about these meanings. The warm, sunny
plain at the foot of the Snake-Hill was called, naturally enough,
Tonallan, syncopated to Tollan and thus to Tulal

But the literal meaning of Tollan—“ Place of the Sun ”—
brought it in later' days into intimate connection with many a
myth of light and of solar divinities, until this ancient Aztec
pueblo became apotheosized, its inhabitants transformed into
magicians and demigods, and the corn-ﬁelds of Tula’ stand forth
as fruitful plains of Paradise.

In the historic fragments to which I have alluded there is
scant reference to miraculous events, and the gods play no part
in the sober chronicle. But in the mythical eyclus we are at
once translated into the sphere of the supernal. The Snake-

* Grom‘ca Mat-foam, cap. 1. “ Partierou de alli y vinieron a la parte que llaman
Coatepec, terminus de Tonalan, lugar del sol.” In Nahuatl tonallan usually means
summer, sun-time. It is syncopated from tonallz' and ﬂea; the latter is the locative
termination; tonalli means warmth, sunnincss, akin to lonatilth, sun; but it also means
soul, spirit, especially when combined with the possessive pronouns, as to—tmzal, our soul,
our immaterial essence. By a further syncope tonallan was reduced to Tollan or Tullan,
and by the elision of the terminal semi-vowel, this again became Tula. This name may
therefore mean “ the place of souls,” an accessory signification which doubtless had its
inﬂuence on the growth of the myths concerning the locality.

It may be of some importance to note that Tula or Tollan was not at ﬁrst the name of
the town, but of the locality~that is, of the warm and fertile meadow-lands at the foot
of the Coatepetl. The town was at ﬁrst called Xoeotitlan, the place of fruit, from mocotl,
fruit, ti, connective, and tlan, locative ending. _ (See Sahagun, Historia de Nueva, Espaﬁa,
Lib. x, cap. 29, secs. 1 and 12.) This name was also applied to one of the quarters of the
city of Mexico when conquered by Cortes, as we learn from the same authority.

1‘ Buschmann, Ueber die Aztelmischen Ortsnamen, ss. 794, 797 (Berlin, 1852).

IThe verbal radical is tona, to warm (hazer calor, Molina, Vocabulam‘o de la Lengua
Mexicana, s. v.) ; from this root come many words signifying warmth, fertility, abun-
dance, the sun, the east, the summer, the day, and others expressing the soul, the vital
principle, etc. (Simeon, Diet. de la Langue Nahuatl, s. v. tcmallz'.) As in the Algonkin
dialects the words for cold, night and death are from the same root, so in Nahuatl are

those for warmth, day and life. (Comp. Duponceau, Memoire sur les Leagues dc l’Amér-
{que du Nord, p. 327, Paris, 1836.)

 

 

1887.] ' ' 11 [Brinton.

Hill Coatepetl becomes the Aztec Olympus. On it dwells the
great goddess “ Our Mother amid the Serpents,” Coatltm Tonan,*
otherwise called “The Serpent-skirted,” Coatlicue, with her
children, The Myriad Sages, the Centzon Huitznalzua.T It was
her duty to sweep the Snake-Hill every day that it might be
kept clean for her children. One day while thus engaged, a
little bunch of feathers fell upon her, and she hid it under her
robe. It was the descent of the spirit, the divine Annunciation.
When the Myriad Sages saw that their mother was pregnant,
they were enraged, and'set about to kill her., But the unborn
babe spake from her womb, and provided for her safety, until
in due time he came forth armed with a blue javelin, his ﬂesh‘
painted blue, and with a blue shield. His left leg was thin and
covered with the plumage of the humming-bird. Hence the
name was given to him “ On the left, a Humming-Bird,’7 Huitzi-
'lopochtli.i Four times around the Serpent-Mountain did he
drive the Myriad Sages, until nearly all had fallen dead before
his dart, and’the remainder ﬂed far to the south. Then all the
Mexica chose Huitzilopochtli for their god, and paid honors to
the Serpent-Hill by Tula as his birthplace. §

* Coatian, to-nan, from coatl, serpent; tlan, among; to-nan, our mother. She was the
goddess of ﬂowers, and the ﬂorists paid her especial devotion (Sahagun, Historic, Lib. ii,
cap. 22). A precinct of the city of Mexico was named after her, and also one of the
ediﬁces in the great temple of. the city. Here captives were sacriﬁced to her and to the
Huitznahua. (Ibid , Lib. ii, Appendix. See also Torquemada, Monarquia Indiana, Lib.
X, cap. 12.)

“f Centzon IIuitznahua, “the Four Hundred Diviners with Thorns.” Four hundred, how-
ever, in Nahuatl means any indeterminate large number, and hence is properly trans—
lated myriad, legion. Nahuatl means wise, skillful, a diviner, but is also the proper name
of the Nahuatl-speaking tribes; and as the N ahuas derived their word for south from
huiztli, a thorn, the Huitznahua may mean “the southern Nahuas.” Sahagun had this
in his mind when he said the Huitznahua were goddesses who dwelt in the south (His-
toria de Niteva Espaiia, Lib. vii, cap. 5). The word is taken by Father Duran as the
proper name of an individual, as we shall see in a later note.

IHuitztlopochtli, from huitzilin, humming—bird, opochtli, the left side or hand. This is
the usual derivation ; but I am quite sure that it is an error arising from the ikonomatic
' representation of the name. The name of his brother, Huitznahua, indicates strongly
that the preﬁx of both names is identical. This, I doubt not, is from huitz—tlan, the
south; tie is from iloa, to turn ; this gives us the meaning “the left hand turned toward
the south.” Orozco y Berra has pointed out that the Mexica regarded left-handed
warriors as the more formidable (Historic Antigua de Mexico, Tom. i, p. 125). Along with
this let it‘be remembered that the legend states that Huitzilopochtli was born in Tula
and insisted on leading the Mexica'toward the south, the opposition to which by his
brother led to the massacre and to the destruction of the town.
g This myth‘ is recorded by Sahagun, Historia de Nueva Espaﬂa, Lib. iii, cap. 1, “ On the
Origin of the Gods.” It is preserved with some curious variations in the Historia ole los
Mexicanos por sus Pinturas, cap. 11. When the gods created the sun they also formed

I

Brinton.] 12 ' [Sept 2,

An equally ancient and authentic myth makes Huitzilopochtli
one of four brothers,born at one time of the uncreated, bi-sexual
divinity, the God of our Life, Tonacatecutli,who looms dimly
at the head of the Aztec Pantheon. The brothers were the
black and the white Tezcatlipoca and the fair-skinned, bearded
Quetzalcoatl. Yet a third myth places the birthplace of Quetz-
alcoatl directly in Tula, and names his mother, Chimalman, a
virgin, divinely impregnated, like Coatlicue, by the descending
spirit of the Father of All.* ‘

Tula was not only the birthplace, but the scene of the highest
activity of all these greatest divinities of the ancient Nahuas.
Around the Coatepetl and on the shores of the Tollanatl—“ the
Water of Tula”—as the stream is called which lave‘s the base
of the hill, the mighty struggles of the gods took place which
form the themes of almost all Aztec mythology. Tulan itself is
no longer the hamlet of rush houses at the foot of the Coatepec,
surmounted by its pueblo of rough stone and baked brick. It is
a glorious city, founded and governed by Quetzalcoatl himself,
in his ﬁrst avatar as Hueman, the strong-handed. “All its
structures were stately and gracious, abounding in ornaments.
The walls within were incrusted with precious stones or ﬁnished
in beautiful stucco, presenting the appearance of a rich mosaic.
Most wonderful of all was the temple of Quetzalcoatl. It had
four chambers, one toward the east ﬁnished in pure gold,an0ther
toward the west lined with torquoise and emeralds, a third
toward the south decorated with all manner of delicate sea-
"shells, and a fourth to the north resplendent with red jasper and

four-hundred men and ﬁve women for him to eat. At the death of the women their
robes were preserved, and when the people carried these to the Coatepec, the ﬁve
women came again into being. One of these was Coatlicue, an untouched virgin, who
after four years of fasting placed a bunch of white feathers in her bosom, and forthwith
became pregnant. She brought forth Huitzilopochtli completely armed. who at once
destroyed the Huitznahua. Father Duran translates all of this into plain history. His
account is that when the Aztecs had occupied Tollan for some time, and had fortiﬁed
the hill and cultivated the plain, a dissension arose. One party, followers of Huitzilo-
pochtli, desired to move on: the other, headed by a Chieftain, Huitznahua, insisted on
remaining. The former attacked the latter at night, massacred them, destroyed the
water-dams and buildings, and marched away (Historia de las Indtas de Nue'ua Espaﬁa,

Tom. i, pp. 25, 26). According to several accounts, Huitznahua was the brother of
Huitzilopochtli. See my American Hero Myths, p. 81. '

* I have discussed both these accounts in my American Hero Myths, chap. iii, and need ‘
not repeat the authorities here. ‘

 

M

4Gr‘3i‘i'fgk?‘ 3‘? “ 321.7 ""52?" .
x:~¢~.~,,<s.. .-

EEK"? ‘3‘};

1887.] 13 [Brinton.

shells.” * The description of other buildings, equally wondrous,
have been lovingly preserved by the ancient songsrl" What a
grief that our worthy friend, M. Charnay, digging away in 1880
en the Coatepec, at the head of a gang of forty-ﬁve men, as he
tells us,:[ unearthed no sign of these ancient glories, in which,
for one, he fully believes! But, alas! I fear that they are to be
sought nowhere out of the golden realm of fancy and mythical
dreaming.

Nor, in that happy age, was the land unworthy such a glorious
city. Where now the neglected corn-patches surround the
shabby huts of Tula, in the good old time “the crops of maize
never failed, and each ear was as long as a man’s arm; the
cotton burst its pods, not white only, but spontaneously ready
dyed to the hand in brilliant scarlet, green, blue and yellow;
the gourds were so large that they could not be clasped in the
arms; and birds of brilliant plumage nested on every tree l ”

The subjects of Quetzalcoatl, the Toltecs, were not less mar-
velously qualiﬁed. They knew the virtues of plants and could
read the foréﬁasts of the stars; they could trace the veins of
metals in the mountains, and discern the deposits of precious
stones/ by the ﬁne vapor which they emit; they were orators,
poets and magicians; so swift were they that they could at
once be in the place they wished to reach ; as artisans their skill
was unmatched, and they were not subject to the attacks of
disease.

The failure and end of all this goodly time came about by a
battle of the gods, by a contest between Tezeatlipoca and Huit-
zilopochtli on the one hand, and Quetzalcoatl on the other.
Quetzalcoatl refused to make the sacriﬁces of human beings as
required by Huitzilopochtli, and the latter, with Tezcatlipoca,

- set about the destruction of Tula and its people. This was the

* The most highly-colored descriptions of the mythical Tula are to be found in the
third and tenth book of Sahagun’s Historia de Nueva Espana, in the Anales do Cnauhti—

, ﬂan, and in the various writings of Ixtlilxoehitl. Later authors, such as Veytia, Tor-

quemada, etc., have copied from these. Ixtlilxochitl speaks of the “legions of fables ”
about Tulan and Quetzalcoatl which even in his day were still current (“otras tresci-
entas fabulas que aun todavia corren,” Relaciones Historicas, in Kingsborough, Mexico,
V01. 'ix, p. 332).

i 1‘ In the collection of Ancient Nahuatl Poems, which forms the seventh volume of my
Library of Aboriginal American Literature, p. 104, I have printed the original text of one
of the old songs recalling the glories of Tula, with its “house of beams,” huapalcalli, and
its “house of plumed serpents,” coatlaquetzalli, attributed to Quetzalcoatl.

1 Les Anciennes Villas du Nonveau'Monde, p. 84 (Paris, 1885).

Brinton.] 1-4 ' [Sept 2,

chosen theme of the later Aztec bards. What the siege of Troy
was to the Grecian poets, the fall of Tula was to the singers and
story-tellers of Anahuac—an inexhaustible ﬁeld for imagination,
for gloriﬁcation, for lamentation. It was placed in the remote
past—according to Sahagun, perhaps the best authority, about
the year 319 before Christ.* All arts and sciences, all knowledge
and culture, were ascribed to this wonderful mythical people,
and wherever the natives were asked concerning the origin of
ancient and unknown structures,they would reply,“ The Toltecs
built them.”T '

They ﬁxedly believed that some day the immortal Quetzal-
coatl would appear in another avatar, and would bring again to
the ﬁelds of Mexico the exuberant fertility of Tula, the peace
and happiness of his former reign, and that the departed glories
of the past should surround anew the homes of his votariesi

I have elsewhere so fully represented this phase of the myth-
ical cyclus that I need not emphasize it further; nor need I
explain the signiﬁcance of these myths as revealed to us by an
application of the principles of comparative nﬁthology; for
that, too, would be repeating what I have already published in
ample detail.

What I wish to point out in clear terms is the contrast
between the dry and scanty historic narrative which shows
Tula with its Snake-Hill to have been an early station of the
Azteca, occupied in the eleventh and twelfth century by one of
their clans, and the monstrous myth of the later priests and
poets, which makes of it a birthplace and abode of the gods, and
its inhabitants the semi-divine conquerors and civilizers of
Mexico and Central America. For this latter fable there is
not a vestige of solid foundation. The references to Tula and

* Historic dc Nueva Espaﬁa, Lib. viii, cap. 5.

f Father Duran relates, “Even to this day, when I ask the Indians, ‘Who created this
pass in the mountains? Who opened this spring? Who discovered this cave? or, Who
built this ediﬁcc?’ they reply, ‘The Toltecs, the disciples of Papa.” Historic]. de las
Indt'as dc Nueva Espa ﬁa, cap. 79. Papa, from papachtz‘c, the bushy-haired, was one of the
names of Quetzalcoatl. But the earlier missionary, Father Motilinia, distinctly states
that the Mexiea invented their own arts, and owed nothing to any imaginary teachers,
Toltecs or others. “Hay entre todos los Indies muchos oﬁcios, y de todos dicen que
fueron inventores los Hericanos.” Historia de los Indies de la Nue'va Espaﬁa, Tratado iii,
cap. vni.

1 Quetzalcoatl announced that his return should take place 5012 years after his ﬁnal

departure, as is mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl (in Kingsborough, Mexico, Vol. ix, p. 332).
This number has probably some mystic relation to the calendar.

 

 

1887.] 1 5 [Brinton.

the Toltecs in the Chronicles of the Mayas and the Annals of
the Kakchiquels are loans from the later mythology of the
Nahuas. It is high time for this talk about the Toltecs as a
‘mighty people, precursors of the Azteca, and their instructors
in thearts of civilization, to disappear from the pages of his-
tory. The residents of ancient Tula, the Tolteca, were nothing
more than a sept of the Nahuas themselves, the ancestors of
those Mexica who built Tenochtitlan in 1325. This is stated as
plainly as can be in the Aztec records, and should now be con-
ceded by all. The mythical Tula, and all its rulers and inhab-
itants, are the baseless dreams of poetic fancy, which we prin-
cipally owe to the Tezcucan poets.

In conclusion, I have no hesitation in repeating the words
which I printed some years ago, and which gave considerable
offence in certain quarters: “Is it not time that we dismiss,
once for all,these American myths from the domain of historical
traditions? Why should we try to make an enlightened ruler
of Quetzalcoatl, a cultured nation of the Toltecs, when the
proof is of the strongest that they are the ﬁctions of mythol-
ogy? Let it be understood hereafter that whoever uses these
names in an historic sense betrays an ignorance of the subject
he handles, which, were it in the better-known ﬁeld of Aryan or
Egyptian lore, would convicthim of not meriting the name of
. scholar.”*

* American Hero Myths, p. 35. The only writer on ancient American history before me
who has wholly rejected the Toltecs is, I believe, Albert Gallatin. In his able and
critical study of the origin of American civilization (Transactions of the American Ethno-
logz'cal Society, Vol. i, p. 203) he dismissed them entirely from historical consideration
with the Words: “The tradition respecting the Toltecs ascends to so remote a date, and
is so obscure and intermixed with mythological fables, that it is impossible to designate
either the locality of their primitive abodes, the time when they ﬁrst appeared in the
Vicinity of the Valley of Mexico, or whether they were preceded by nations speaking
the same or different languages.” Had this well-grounded skepticiSm gained the ears of
writers since 1845, when it Was published, we should have been saved a vast amount of
rubbish which has been heaped up under the name of history.

Dr. Otto Stoll (Guatemala; Reisen und Scln‘lde'rungen, ss. 408, 409, Leipzig, 1886) has
joined in rejecting the ethnic existence of the Toltecs. As in later Nahuatl the word
toltccatl meant not only “resident of Tollan,” but also “artiﬁcer” and “trader,” Dr.
Stoll thinks that the Central American legends which speak of “ Toltecs ” should be in-
terpreted merely as referring to foreign mechanics or pedlars, and not to any particular
nationality. I quite agree with this View.

 

 

 

 

guisti s‘ in the Uiﬁvefsifi; bf .Pe’nnsylvaniaf ‘

 

 

 

THE

CONCEPTION OF LOVE

IN

Some American Languages.

BY

DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M., M. D.,

Professor of American Archaeoiogy and Linguistics in the
University of Pennsylvania.

PHILADELPHIA: _ ‘
PRESS 0F MCCALLA & STAVELY, 237—9 Docx STREET,
x886.

1‘.»““’?£:'&;‘hi§€§« . v

 

 

The Conception of Love

IN

SOME AMERICAN LANGUAGES.

By DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M., M. D.,

PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN ARCHfEOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 5, 1886.)

“The words which denote love, describing a sentiment at
once poWerful and delicate, reveal the inmost heart of those who
created them. The vital importance attached to this sentiment
renders these beautiful WOIds especially adapted to point out
the exceeding value of language as a true autobiogIaphy of
nations.”

This quotation is from an essay by a thoughtful writer DI.
Carl Abel in which he has gatheied from four languages, the
Latin, English, HebIew and Russian, their eXpIessions fOL
this s’w-eet emotion, and subjected them to a careful analysis."<
The perusal of his article has led me to make some similar ex-
aminations of American’languages; but with this difference in
method, that while Dr. Abel takes the languages named in the
fullness of their development and does not occupy himself with
the genesis of the terms of affection, I shall give more particular
attention to their history and derivation as furnishing illustra-
tions of the origin and growth of those altruistic sentiments
which are revealed in their strongest expression in the emotions
of friendship and love.

Upon these Sentiments are based those acts which unite man

* Linguistic Essays, by Carl Abel, Ph.D. (London, 1882).

4

to man in amicable fellowship and mutual interchange of kindly
offices, thus creating a nobler social compact than that which
rests merely on increased power of defence or aggression. These
sentiments are those which bind parent to child and child to
parent, and thus supply the foundation upon which the family
in the true signiﬁcance of the term should rest. These are they
which, directed toward the ruler or the state. ﬁnd expression
in personal loyalty and patriotic devotion. Surpassing all in
fervor and potency, these sentiments, when exhibited in love be-
tween the sexes, direct the greater part of the activity of each
individual life, mould the forms of the social relations, and con-
trol the perpetuation of the species. Finally, in their last and
highest manifestations, these sentiments are those which have
suggested to the pmest and clearest intellects both the most
exalted intellectual condition of man, and the most sublime deﬁ-
nition of divinity.* These are good reasons, therefore, why we
should scan with more ,than usual closeness the terms for the
conception of love in the languages of nations.

Another purpose which I shall have in view will be to illus-
trate by these words the wonderful parallelism which everywhere
presents itself in the operations of the human mind, and to show
how it is governed by the same associations of ideas both in the
new and old worlds

As a preparation for the latter object, let us take a glance at
the derivation of the principal words expressing love in the
Ar) an languages. The most prominent of them may be traced
back to one of two ruling ideas, the one intimating a similarity
or likeness between the persons loving, the other a wish or de-
sire. The former conveys the notion that the feeling is mutual,
the latter that it is stronger on one side than on the other.

These diverse origins are well illustrated by the French aimer
and the English love. Aime)", from the Latin amare, brings us
to the Greek «pa, mung, both of which spring from the Sanscrit
3am; from which in turn the Germans get their words sammt,
along with, and zusammen, together; while we obtain from this
root almost without change our words similar and same. Ety-

*I scarcely need say that I refei to the maivelous words of St. John:
o [1.77 09417111»), ()UK afwu ‘TO‘I 9501501: 0 9:0; aran‘y early (1 John iv, 3);

and to the amor intellectualis the golden ciown of the philosophy of Spinoza as
developed in the last book of his Etln'ca.

 

m,w“,r¢r§.u '~

 

5

mologically, therefore, those who love are alike; they are the
same in such respects that they are attracted to one another, on
the proverbial principle that “birds of a feather ﬂock together.”

Now turning to the word love, German Liebe, Russian lubou,
lubz’ty, we ﬁnd that it leads us quite a different road. It is traced
back without any material change to’ the Sanscrit lobha, covet-
ousness, the ancient Coptic 15,32, to want, to desire. In this ori-
gin we see the passion portrayed as a yearning topossess the
loved object; and in the higher sense to enjoy the presence and
sympathy of the be10ved, to hold sweet communion with him or
her.

A class of ideas closely akin to this are conveyed in such
words as ,“ attached to,” “attraction,” “ affection,” and the like,
which make use of the 'ﬁgure of speech that the lover is fastened
to, drawn toward, or bound up with the beloved Object. We
often express this metaphor in f‘nll in such phrases as ‘f the
bonds.of friendship,” etc. ' y

This third class of words, although in the history of language
they are frequently of'later growth than the two former, probably
express the sentiment ‘which underlies both these,,and that is a
dim, unconscious sense of the unity which exists throughout all
objective nature, a unity which is revealed to man most per-
fectly in the purest and highest love, which at its sublimest

height does away with the antagonism of independent personality

and blends the Iand the Thou in a oneness of existence.
Although in this, its completest expression, we must seek ex-
amples solely between persons of opposite sex, it will be well'to
consider in an examination like the present, the love between
men, which is called friendship, that between parents and chil-
dren,and that toward the gods, the givers of all good things.
The words conveying such sentiments will illustrate many fea-
tures of the religious and social life of the nations using them.

I. The Algon/cin.

I begin with this group of dialects, once widely spread
throughout the St. Lawrence valley and the regions adjoining;
and among them I select especially the Cree and the Chipeway,
partly because we know more about them, and partly because
they probably represent the common tengue in its oldest and

6 _
purest type. They are closely allied, the same roots appearing
in both with slight phonetic variations.

In both of them the ordinary words for love and friendship
are derived from the same monosyllabic root, sale. On this, ac-
cording to the inﬂectional laws of the dialects, are built up the
terms for the love of man to. woman, a lover, love in the abstract,
a friend, friendship, and the like. It is also occasionally used
by the missionaries for the love of man to God and of God to
man.*

In the Chipeway this root has but one form, sagi; but in Cree
it has two, a weak and a strong form, sa/ci and wide. The mean-
ing of the latter is more particularly to fasten to, to attach to.
From it are derived the words for string or cord, the verbs, “to
tie,” “to fasten,” etc.; and also some of the coarsest words to
express the sexual relationd‘ Both these roots are traced back
to the primary element of the Algonkin language expressed by
the letters mic or 3—16. This conveys the generic notion of force
or power exerted by one over another,}‘_ and is apparently pre-
cisely identical with the fundamental meaning of the Latin
aﬁicz’o, “to affect one in some manner by active agency,”§ from
which word, I need hardly add, were derived affectus and aﬂectio
and our “affection,” thus we at once meet with an absolute par-

allelism in the working of the Aryan Italic and the American
Algonkin mind.

The Cree has several words which are conﬁned to parental, ‘

and ﬁlial love and to that which the gods have for men. These
are built up on the dissyllabic radical espi or aspi, which is an
instrumental particle signifying “by means of, with the aid_0f.” H
Toward the gods, such words refer to those who aid us ; toward
children those whom their parents aid; and from children to'ward.
parents, again those from whom aid is received.

*Chipexvay: m‘n sagiiwe, I love; .sagiz‘wewin, love: saiagiiwed, a lover.

Cree: satkiltitLuvin, friendship; manilowi sdkihmuewin, the love of God. The

words from the Chipeway are from Baraga’s Otchipwe Dictionarz ; those from

the Cree from Lacombe‘s Dictionnaire de la langue des C‘ris, except when other-
wise noted. .

+Chipeway: saqibidjlgan, a string or cord.

Cree: salamappitew, he fastens, he lies; sakkahigan, a nail‘; sakkistiwok, coeuntr

copulati sunt.
iSee Joseph Howse, Grammar of the Cree Language, p. 165.
QSee the remarks in AndreWs’ Latin Lexicon, s. 1‘.

ll Cree: (as-pircyimit kijeqnanito, for the love of God ; cspiieyimatijk, for the love of
the children.

7

For love between men, fiiendship, the Cree employs some
words from the radical sci/61'; but more frequently those com-
poundel With the root wit or witch, which means “ in company
with, ”* and is the pieeise analogue of the syllable com (Latin,
con)‘ 111 the English words companion comrade, compeer, con-
iederate, etc.; it conveys the idea of association in life and
action, and that association a voluntary and pleasure- giving one.

In the Chipeway there is a series of expressions for family
love and f1iendship which in their origin carry us back to the
same psychological process which developed the Latin amare
from the Sanscrit sam (see above). They may be illustrated by
the melodious term which in that dialect means both friendship
and relationship, inawendawin. This is an abstract verbal noun
from the theme 711' inawz, I resemble him, which is built up from
the radicle in". This particle denotes a certain prevailing way
or manner, and appears both in Cree and Chipeway in a variety
of wordsj‘ The principle of similarity is thus fully expressed
as the basis of friendship. To see how apparent this is we have
but to remember the English “I like him,” 2'. 6., there is some-
thing in him like me.

The feebler sentiment of merely liking a person or thing 13
expressed in the Chipeway by a derivative from the adjective
mino, good, well, and signiﬁes that he or it seems good to me. +

The highest form of love however, that which embraces all

1 men and all beings, that whose conception is conveyed in the
Greek aramy, we ﬁnd expressed in both the dialects by deriva«
tives from a root different from anv I have mentioned. It is in
its dialectic forms let's, lcéche, or lcaji, and in its origin it is an
intensive interjectional expression of pleasure, indicative ofgwhat
gives joy.§ Concretely it signiﬁes what is completed, perm-a-'
nent, powerful, perfected, perfect. As fiiendship and love) ield
the most exalted pleasure, from this root the natives drew a fund
of words to express fondness, attachment, hospitality, charit '

* Cree: m‘ arw'ljirzidqan, my friend; wi'chettuwz’n.. a confraternity, or society.

‘i Chipeway: inawema, I am his relative, or, his friend.

Cree: iiindkusim, he has such an appearance. This particle of similarity is
considered by Howse to he “one of“ the four primary generic nouns” of the Al-
gonkin language. Grammar of the Cree Language, p. 133.

IChipeway: 71in minmima. I like (him, her, it).

§See Howse, Grammar of the Owe Lang., p. 175. Keche (kegs) as an interjection

of pleasure, he considers in antithesis to ak (compare German achl) as an inter-
Jection of pain, and cites abundant examples.

" 8

and from the same worthy source they selected that adjective
which they applied to the greatest and most benevolent divinity.*

II. The Nahuatl.

The Nahuatl, Mexican 01‘ Aztec language was spoken exten-
sively throughout Mexico and Central America, and every tribe
who used it could boast of a degree of culture considerably
above that of any of the Algonkin communities. Such being
the case, it is rather surprising to note how extremely poor in
comparison is the Nahuatl in independent radicals denoting love
or affection. In fact, there is only one word in the language‘
which positively has this signiﬁcation, and it, with its deriva-
tives, is called upon to express every variety of love, human and
divine, carnal and chaste, between men and between the sexes.

This word is ilazétla, he loves. It is no easy matter to trace
its history. By well known laws of Nahuatl etymology we
know‘ that the root is 20. We have from this same root several
other words of curiously diverse meanings. Thus, 1'20, to hired,
to draw blood, either for health, or, as was the custom of those
nations, as a sacriﬁce before the idols; z'zolz'uz‘, to grow old, to
wear out, applied to garments; llazoh’, to offer for sale at a high
price; and 2020, to string together, as the natives did ﬂowers,
peppers, beads, etc. Now, what idea served as the common
starting-point of all these expressions? The answer is, that we
ﬁnd it in the word 20 as applied to a sharp-pointed instrument,.
a thorn, or a bone or stone aw], used in the earliest times for
puncturing or transﬁxing objects. From this came 2020, to
transﬁx with such an instrument and string on a cord; z'zolim',
to be full of holes as if repeatedly punctured and thus Worn out;
and 220, to bleed, because that was done by puncturing the ﬂesh
with the thorns of the maguey or sharp obsidian pointsd‘

*Chipewayz'nin kijewadis, I am amicable, benevolent; kijeu‘adisiwin, charity,
benevolence, benignity, compassion; kije manilowin, Godhead. divine nature.

Cree: kisatew, he is devoted to (him, her); kisew, she loves (her children);
kisewatzfsiwin, charity, the highest virtue; kise mam'to, “ l’esprit charitable, Dieu,”
and numerous others. ’

+The following words and meanings are from Carochi's Grammar and Mo-
lina’s Dictionary of this tongue:

90, punzar, sangrar.

coco, ensartar, como ﬂares. cuentas, etc.

col/it'd, estar ensurtada la cueuta, etc.

tlacutl, cosa ensartada. ‘

The original meaning of 20, a pointed tool or aw1.is not given by Molina, but
_is repeatedly expressed in the phonetic picture writing of the Aztecs. ‘

 

-_ ' 9

But how do we bring these into connection with the sentiment
of love and its verbal expression? We might indeed seek an
illustration of the transfei f1 om classical mythology, and adduce
the keen- pointed arrows of Cupid the darts of love, as pointing
‘ out the connection. But I fear this would be crediting the
ancient Nahuas with ﬁner feelings than they deserve I g1avely
doubt that they felt the shafts of the tender passion with any
such susceptibility as to employ this metapho1.Mueh 1n01e
likely is it that tlazotla, to love, is deiived directly from the
noun tlazdtl, which means something strung with or fastened to
another. This brings us directly back to the sense of “ attached
to” in English, and to that of the root ‘sa/cz’ in Algonkin, the
idea of being bound to another by ties of emotion and affection.

But there is one feature in this derivation which tells seriously
against the national psychology of the Nahuas: this their only
word for love is not derived, as is the Algonkin, from the pri—
mary meaning of the root, but from a secondary and later sig-
niﬁcation. This hints ominously at the probability that the
ancient tongue had for a long time no word at all to express
this, the highest and noblest emotion of the human heait, and
that consequently this emotion itself had not risen to eonscious- ‘
ness in the national mind.

But the omissions of the fathers were more than atoned for by
, the-efforts of their children. I know no more instructive instance
7 in [the history of language to illustrate how original defects are
amended in periods of higher culture by the linguistic faculty
than this precise point in the genesis of the Nahuatl tongue.
The Nahuas,when they approached the upper levels of emotional
development, found their tongue singularly poor in radicals con-
veying such conceptions. As the literal and material portions
of their speech offered them such inadequate means of expres-
siOn, they turned toward its trOpical and formal portions, and in
, those realms reached a degree of development in this direction
which far surpasses that in any other language known to me.

In the formal portion of the language they were not satisﬁed
with one, but adopted a variety of devices to this end. Thus:
all verbs expressing emotion may have an intensive termination
sufﬁxed, imparting to them additional force; again, certain pre-
ﬁxes indicating civility, respect and affection may be employed

 

10

in the imperative and optative moods; again, a higher synthetic
construction may be employed in the sentence, by which the
idea expressed is emphasized, a device in constarit use in their
poetry; and especially the strength of emotion is indicated by
suﬁixing a series of terminations expressing contempt,reverence
or love. The latter are wonderfully characteristic of Nahuatl
speech. They are not conﬁned to verbs and nouns, but may be
added to adjectives, pronouns, participles, and even to adverbs
and postpositions. Thus every word in the sentence is made to
carry its burden of affection to the ear of' the beloved object!

Add to these facilities the remarkable power of the Nahuatl
to impart tropical and figurative senses to words by the employ-
ment of rhetorical resources, and to present them as one idea by
means of the peculiarities of its construction, and we shall not
consider as overdrawn the expression of Professor Dela Rosa
when he writes: “ There can be no question but that in the mani-
festation in words of the various emotions, the Nahuatl ﬁnds no
rival, not only among the languages of modern Europe, but in
the Greek itself.” * 4

The Nahuatl word for friendship is icniuhtlz’. This is a com-
pound of the preposition 2'0, with; the noun—ending tlz’; and the
adverbial yuh, or nag/uh, which means “ of the same kind.” The
word, therefore, has the same fundamental conception as the
Latin amicus and the Cree inawema, but it was not developed
into a verbal to express the suffering of the paSsion itselfﬁf

III. The Maya.

The whole perinsula of Yucatan was inhabited by the Mayas,
and tribes speaking related dialects of their tongue lived in
'Guatemala, Chiapas, and on the Gulf Shore north of Vera Cruz.
All these depended chieﬂy on agriculture for subsistence, were
builders of' 'stone houses and made use of a system of written
records. Their tongue, therefore, deserves special consideration
as that of a nation with strong natural tendencies to develop;
ment. _

In turning to the word for love in the Maya vocabulary we are.

* Eotudio de la Filosoﬁa ,3/ Riqueza de la Lengua Mezz'cana. Par Agostin de la.
Rosa, p. 78 (Guadalajara, 1877 . '

+ There is another word in Nahuatl oi‘similur derivation. It is pohm‘, to make
much of a person, to like one. The root is p0, which carries with it the idea of
sameness, similarity or equality: as itelpocapo, a. boy like himself. (l’aredes,

— I’rmnptumuo Manual Alerz'cano, p. 14".) ‘

\..

 

W?"’-""‘: W

11

at once struck with the presence of a connected series of word <
expressing this emotion, while at the same time they, or others
CIOsely akin to them and from the same root, mean pain, injury,

.diﬁiculty, suffering, wounds and misery. Both are formed by

the usual rules from the monosyllable ya.* Were the ancient
Mayas so sensitive to love’s wounds and the pangs of passion as
to derive their very words for suffering from the name of this
sentiment ?

No; that solution is too unlikely for our acceptance. i More
probable is it that we have here an illustration of the develop
ment of language from interjectional cries. In fact, we may be
said to have the proof of it, for we discover that this monosyL
lable yet is still retained in the language as a verb, with the sig-
niﬁcation “to feel anything deeply, whether as a pain or as a
pleasure.”]L Its derivatives were developed with both mean-
ings, and as love and friendship are the highest forms of pleas-
ure, the word ya in its happier senses became couﬁncd to them.

It seems to have sufficed to express the conceptioii in all its
forms, for the writers invthe language apply it to the love of the
sexes, to that between parents and children. that among friends,
and also to that which men feel toward God, and that which He
is asserted to feel toward men}:

The Mayas, therefore, were superior to the Nahuas in possess-
ing a radical word which’expressed the joy of love; and they
must be placed above even the early Aryans in that this radical
Was in signiﬁcance purely psychical, referring strictly to a men-
tal state, and neither to similarity nor desire.

It is noteworthy that this interjectional root, although belong~

* Thus: . _
ya or yail, love; pain, sickness, a wound; difﬁcult, laborious,
gate, to love.
yacunah, to love.
yaili’, painfully, laboriously.

yalal, to taste; to have relations with a. woman.
yatzil, love, charity; something difﬁcult or painful.

1- “ya: sentir mucho una cosa.
yamab. sin sentir | the mat is the negative].
Diccionario Maya-Espaﬁol del Convento de Motul. (MS. in my possesslon. )

+ Thus:
yahtetabal cah tumen Dias, we are loved by God.
u yacunah Dios loan, the love of God to us.
yacunahil Dias, the love with which God is loved.
mghenbil yacunah, ﬁlial love.
bdkil yacunah, carnal love.

All from the Diccionario de Main! (318.).

12

ing to the substructure of the language, does not appear with
the meaning of love in the dialects of the Maya stock. In them
the words for this sentiment are derived from other roots.

Thus among the Huastecas, residing on the Gulf of Mexico,
north of Vera Cruz, the word for love is canezal. It/is employed
for both human and divine love, and also means anything pre-
cious and to be carefully guarded as of advantage to the pos-
sessor.”< There is no difﬁculty in following its development
when we turn to the Maya, which preserves the most numerous
ancient forms and meanings of any dialect of this stock. In it
we discover that the verb can means “to affect another in some
way, to give another either by physical contact or example a
virtue, vice, disease or attribute.’”{ Here again we come upon
the precise correlative of the Latin aﬁcio, from which proceeds
our " affection,” etc.

The Guatemalan tribes, the principal of which were and are
the Quiches and Cakehiquels, did not accept either ya or can as
the root from which to build their expressions for the sentiment
of love. In both these dialects the word for to love is logoh. It
also means “to buy,” and this has led a recent writer to hold up
to ridicule the Spanish missionaries who chose this word to ex-
press both human and divine love. Dr. Stoll, the writer re-
ferred to, intimates that it had no other meaning than “to buy ”
in the pure original tongue, and that the only word for the pas—
sion is ah, to want, to desire: In this he does not display his
usual accuracy, for ivc ﬁnd [09072, used in the sense “ to like,” “ to

love,” in the Annals oflhe Calccht'quels, written by a native who had ‘

grown to manhood before the Spaniards ﬁrst entered his country.§

* Thus :
talu. canel ixallé, my beloved wife.
ma a canezul a D 03, dost thou love God ?
chctonwrt‘o Haasteco Espanol, por Carlos de Tapia Zenteno (Mex.,
1767). -

Jr A number of examples are given in the Diccionario de Molul (MS).

1: “ Der blosse Begritfderjenigen Liebe, welche das lateinisclie Zeitwort amare
ausdriickt, dem Cakchiquel Indianer fremd ist.” Zm‘ Ethnographie d3" Repub-
lik Guatemala. Von Otto Stoll, M.D., p. 146 (Zurich, 1884).

éXelogox ka. chm ruma Akahal vinak, “they were loved by the Akahal men.”
Annals of the Cukchiquels, p. 126 (Vol. VI of Brinton"s Library of Aboriginal
American Literature). In the Quiche Popol thh the word has the same mean-
ing as (page 102): ‘

chi log to each, their beloved face.

In fact, the word Dr. Stoll gives as that now usual among the Cakchlquels for
“to love”=to desire, in the Popol Vuh is applied to the price paid for wives
(p. 304) : ‘

rahi‘lpu mial, the price oftheir daughters.
This word may be a derivative from the Maya go, above mentioned.

 

 

inn-v: mm“ ?

+17} ,

, .1 » mwmmwwﬁm‘r *7 ‘7‘?- ;WW

 

13

That the verb logoh means, both in origin and later use, “ to

buy,” as well as “to‘ love” is undoubtedly t1ue. Its ioot logb is
identical with the Maya ZOII, which has the meanings “ to ex-

change, to buy, to 1edeem, to emancipate ” It was the wo1d

- selected by the F1anciscan missiona1ies to express the redemp-

tion of the world by Ch1ist, and was applied to the redemption
of captives and slaves. It might be suggested that it bears a
reference to “marriage by pu1chase;” but I think that “to
buy,” and “to love,” may be construed as developments of the
same idea of prizz’ng highly. When we say that a person is ap—
preciated, we really say that he has had a ploper piice put upon
him. The Latin carus, which Cicero calls ipsum 067 bum amoms, *
means costly in price as well as belo1ed; and the tender En-
glish “dear” means quite as often that the object is expensive to
buy, as that we dote very much upon it. N01 need we go out-
side of American languages for illustrations; in Nahuatl tlazo’tz’
means to offer for sale at a high price, and in lluasteca cane],
irom the same loot as canezal, to love, means something p1e-
cious in a pecunia1y sense, as well as an object of the affections.
Other instances will present themselves when we come to exam-
ine some of the South American tongues; But from what I
have already given, it is evident that there is nothing contra-
dictory in the double meaning of the verb logoh.

IV. The Qquichua.

,‘ The ancient Peruvians who spoke the Qquichua language had
organized a system of government and a complex social fabric
unsurpassed by any on the continent. The numerous specimens

' of their arts which have been preserved testify strongly to the

licentiousness of their manners, standing in this respect in

- marked contrast to the Aztecs. whose art was singularly pure,

It must be regarded as distinctly in connection with this that
we ﬁnd a Similar contrast in their languages. We have seen
that in the Nahuatl there appears to have been no word with a
primary signiﬁcation “to love,” or any such conception. The
Qquichua, on the contrary, is probably the richest language on

the continent, not only in separate words denoting affection, but
in modiﬁcations of these by imparting to them delicate shades

*De Naturd Deorum, I, 44,

14

of meaning through the addition of particles. As an evidence
of the'latter, it is enough to cite the fact that Dr. Anchorena in
his grammar of the tongue, sets forth nearly six hundred combi-
nations of .the verb munay, to love I * L _

The Qquichua is fortunate in other respects ; it has some liter-
ature of its own, and its structure has been carefully studied by
competentscholars. It is possible, therefore, to examine its 10-
cations in a more satisfactory manner than is the case with most
American languages. Its most celebrated literary monument is
the drama of Ollanta, supposed to have been composed about
the time of the conquest. It has been repeatedly edited and
translated, most accurately by Pacheco Zegarra.T His text may
be considered as the standard of the pure ancient tongue.

Of Qquichua words for the affections that in widest use is the
one above quoted, munay. It is as universal in its application
as its English equivalent, being applied to ﬁlial and parental love
as well as to. that of the sexes, to aﬁ'ection between persons of
the same sex, and to the love of God. No other word of the
class has such a wide signiﬁcance. It ranges from an expres-
sion of the 'warmest emotion down to that faint announcement
of a preference which is conveyed in the English “ I should pre-
fern”:

0n looking for its earlier and concrete sense we ﬁnd that
munay expressed merely a sense of want, an appetite and the
accompanying desire of satisfying it, hence the will, or the Wish,
not subjectively, but in its objective manifestation.§ Therefore
it is in origin nearly equivalent to the earliest meaning of
“love,” as seen in'the Sanscrit and the Coptic.

While munay is thus to love on reasonable grounds and with
deﬁnite purpose, blind, unreasoning, absorbing passion is ex-

5‘ G'ramtinica Quechua, por Dr. J. D. Anchorena, pp. 163-177 (Lima. 1874). '

+ Ollan/a‘J: Drame en rers Quechuas du Temps des Incas. Traduit et commenté
par Gavnno Pacheco Zegarra, (Paris, 1878).

xThus, from the ()llcmta .-

Ouuntaytan munarccanqui, thou lovest Ollanta! (line 277).

munacuaccallm , my well beloved! (the Inca to his daughter, line, 314).
munayman, I should prefer (line 1606).

Holguin, in his Vocabulario de la Lengua Qquichua, gives:
Dios munay, the love of God. \
munaricuy. unchaste love.

3 lloignin (u. s.)rglves the deﬁnitions:
munana, la voluntad que es potentia.

munuy, voluntad, el querer, el gusto, appetitp o amor que es acto.

 

 

 

pressed by huayllum’. This is nearly always confined to sexual
love, and conveys the idea of the sentiment showing itself in
action by those sweet signs and marks of devotion which are so
highly prized by the loving heart. The origin of this word in-
dicates its sentient and spontaneous character. Its radical is
the interjection imay, which among that people is an inarticulate
cry of tenderness and affection. *

The verb lluylluy means literally to be tender or soft, as fruit,
or the young of animals; and applied to the sentiments, to love
with tenderness, to have as a darling, to caress lovingly. It has
less of Sexuality in it than the word last mentioned, and is ap-
plied by girls to each other, and as a term of family fondness.
It is on a parallel with the English “dear,” “to hold dear,” etc.)L

In the later compositions in Qquichua the favorite word for
love is ccuyay. Originally this expression meant to pity, and
in this Sense it occurs in the drama of Ollanta; but also even
there as a term signifying the passion of love apart from any
idea of compassion}: In the later songs, thOse whose composi-
tion may be placed in this century, it is preferred tomzmay as
the most appropriate term for the love between the sexes. §
From it also is derived the word for charity and benevolence.

As/munay is considered to refer to natural affection felt
within the mind, mayhuay is that ostentatious sentiment which
displays itself in words of tenderness and acts of endearment,
but leaves it an open question whether these are anything more,

than simulated signs of emotion. I
This list is not exhaustive of the tender words in the Qqui-

- chua; but it will serve to show that the tongue was rich in
them, and that the ancient Peruvians recognized many degrees
and forms of this moving sentiment.

 

* From the Ollanta :
IIuay com/allay. Him}; mhmallay,
Ay, huayﬂucuscoay ccosallay.
Oh, my queen! Oh, my mother!
Oh, my husband so beloved! (32).}, 506).
These lines show both the word and its derivation.

From the Ollanta:
ﬁ/z llulluspa, caress thee, are fond of thee (931).

:From the Oltantu .- _
ccuyuccwseallay, my beloved one (1758).
ccuyaska, compassionate (l76-3}.
. éSee the Qquichua love songs, harahni and hum/nu, as they are called, given
by Anchoreua in his Gramdtica Quechua. pp. 131-135.
I] See Holguin, Vocabulario Qquichua, s. v., mayhuay and mayhuayccuni.

16

What is also noteworthy is the presence in this language of
the most philosophical term for friendship in .its widest sense
that can be quoted from any American language. It is runaccuyay,
compounded of ccuyanz‘, mentioned above, and ru'na, man ——- the
love of mankind. This compound, however, docs not occur in
the Ollanta drama, and it may have been manufactured by the
missionaries. The usual term is maciy, which means merely
“ associate,” or Icochomaciy, a table-cornpanion or conuz’ve.

V. The Tupi-Guarani.

The linguistic stock which has the widest extension in South
America is that which is represented in Southern Brazil by the
Guarani, and in Central and Northern by the Tupi or Lingoa
Geral. The latter is spoken along the Amazon and its tribu-
taries for a distance of twenty-ﬁve hundred miles. It is by no
means identical with the Guarani, but the near relationship of
the two is unmistakable. The Guaranl presents the simplest

. and more primitive forms, and may be held to present the more
archaic type.

The word for love in the Guarani is aihu,in another form
haiku, the initial h being dropped in composition. This expres-
sion is employed for all the varieties of the sentiment, between
men, between the sexes, and for that which is regarded as
(livine.* For “a friend,” they have no other term than one
which means a visitor or guest; and from this their expression
for “friendship ” is derived which really means “ hospitality.” T

Verbal combinations in Guarani are usually simple, and I‘do
not think we can be far wrong in looking upon az'hu as a union
of the two primary words (12' and ha. The former, az’, means
self or the same; and the latter, hu, is the verb to ﬁnd, or, to be
present}; “ To love,” in Guarani, therefore, Would mean, “to
ﬁnd oneself in another,” or, less metaphysically, “to discover in _

*Thus:
Tuna nande raihu, God loves us.

Tupa nande haihu, the love which we have for God.
ahaihu, I love her, (him, it).
fyecom'aha, friend; compounded of cotz’, a. dwelling, and aha. to go =a goer to a
dwelling, avlsitor. This, and the other Guarani words given, are taken from
Ruiz de Montoya’ s T6801 0 de la Lengua Guarani (ed. Vienna 1876).
1Another possible derivation would be from ahiz’, desire, appetite (Spanish,

gana); and hu, in the sense of being present This would express a longing,a
lust, like love (see above).

17

another a likeness to oneself.” This again is precisely the pri-
mary signiﬁcation of the Latin amare; and if the sentiment
impressed in that way the barbarous ancient Aryans, there is no
.reason why it would not have struck the Guaranis in the same
manner. ‘ ‘ '

In the Tupi or Lingua Geral the word for love is evidently
but a dialectic variation of that in the Guarani. It 1s given by
some authors as gaigu, plainly a form of haihu, ' and by others
as gaugu. * These forms cannot be analyzed in the Tupi itself,
which illustrates its more modern type.

There are other dialects of this wide-spread stem, but it would
not be worth while to follow this expression further in its di-
verse forms. It is interesting, however, to note that which
appears in the Arawack, spoken in Guiana. In that tongue to
love is lcam'sz'n, in which the radical is am” or ansz’. Now we ﬁnd
that am‘ means “ of a kind,” peculiar to, belonging to, etc. Once
I more it is the notion of similarity, of “birds of a feather,” which
» underlies the expression for the conception of love. i”

 

”3331" » 7

 

Conclusions.

If, now, we review the ground we have gone over, and classify
the conceptions of love as revealed in the languages under dis-
cussion, we ﬁnd that their original modes of expression were as
follows :

1. Inarticulate cries of emotion (Cree, Maya, Qquichua).

2. Assertions of sameness or similarity (Cree, Nahuatl, Tupi,
Arawack).

3. Assertions of conjunction or union (Cree, Nahuatl, Maya).

4. Assertions of a wish, desire or longing (Cree, Cakchiquel,
Qquichua, Tupi).

These categories are not exhaustive of the words which I have
brOught forward, but they include most of them, and probably

 

a: .

a"

.4

*I ﬁnd gaieu given by Dr. Couto de Magelhaes in his C’ur so da Linqua Geral
segzmdo Ollendorf (Rio de Janeiro, 1876); saisu by Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti in
The Brasilian Language and 118 Agglum’nation (Rio Janeiro,1883), caucub by
Dias, Diccz’onario da Lingua Tupy (Leipzig, 1858) and by Dr. E. F. Franga in his
0hrestomathia da Lingua Brasitica (Leipzig, 1859).

f“Ani, es gehort, ist eigen; ta am‘, nach seiner Art.” Arawackisch-Deutches
Worterbuch. This dictionary, published anonymously at Paris, in 1882, in Tome
viii, of the Bibliotheque Linguistique Américaz’ne, is the production of the ‘Mo-

~ravian Missionary, ‘Rev. ’1‘. S. Schuhmanu. See The Literary Works of the For-
eign Missionaries of the M’oravian Church. By the Rev. G. H. Reichel t. Trans-
lated and annotated by Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz, p. 13 (Bethlehem, 1886).

 

18

were this investigation extended'to embrace numerous other
tongues, we should ﬁnd that in them all the principal expressions
for the sentiment of love are drawn from one or other of these
fundamental notions. A most instructive fact is that these
same notions are those which underlie the majority of the words
for love in the great Aryan family of languages. They thus
reveal the parallel paths which the human mind everywhere pur-
sued in giving articulate expression to the passions and emo-
tions of the soul. In this sense there is a oneness in all lan-
guages, which speaks conclusively for the oneness in the sentient
and intellectual attributes of the species. .

We may also investigate these categories, thus shown to be
practically universal, from another point of view. We may in-
quire which of them comes the nearest to the correct expression
of love in its highest philosophic meaning. Was this meaning
apprehended, however dimly, by man in the very infancy of his
speech-inventing faculty ?

In another work, published some years ago, I have attempted
a philosophic analysis of the sentiment of love. Quoting from
some of the subtlest dissectors of human motive, 1 have shown
that they pronounce love to be “the volition of the end,” or
“the resting in an object as an end.” These rather obscure
scholastic formulas I have attempted to explain by the deﬁni-
‘ tion: “ Loye is the mental impression of rational action whose
end is in itself”:i< As every end or purpose of action implies
the will or wish to obtain that end, those expressions for love
are most truly philosophic which express the will, the desire,
the yearning after the object. The fourth, therefore, of the
above categories is that which presents the highest forms of' ex-
pression of this conception. That it also expresses lower forms
is true, but this merely illustrates the evolution of the human
mind as expressed in language. Love is ever the Wish; but
while in lower races and coarser natures this Wish is for an ob
ject which 1n turn is but a means to an end, for example, sensual
gratiﬁcation, in the higher, this object is the end itself, beyond
which the soul does not seek to go, in which it rests, and with

which both reason and emotion ﬁnd the satisfaction of boundless
activity Without incurring the danger of satiety.

* The Religious Sentiment, its Source and Aim; a Contribution to the Science
and Philosophy of Religion, p. 60 (New York, 1876).

AnextlnctDlaleet formerly spoken in
" ' ” " f’fN‘iea'rag’ua.

 

 

  
   
     
    

\

ii} An ~Qi’tlictiimt Dialect fOrmerly spoken in
Nicaragua. ‘ , '

BY‘ ,‘ '.

DANIEL G~ BRINTON, M.D.,

[afﬁmthlmlogy and Archaeology at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadel-
phia.

 

 

Wwi‘mewr; ~.r

NOTES ON THE MANGUE;

A22 Extinct Dialect formerly spoken 1'12
Nicaragua.

BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D.

‘ (Read before the American Philosophical Society, November 90, 1885.)

Sources. Nothing whatever has been published about the
Mangue language, except a list of ninety-ﬁve words, by Mr. E.
G. Squier in his work, “Nicaragua, its People, Scenery and
Monuments.” Whence he obtained this short vocabulary he
does not state; but it is evidently the work of some one only
slightly acquainted with the character of the language. 1 do not
make any use of it in the present notes, except in a few instances
for comparison.

My authorities are, ﬁrst, Don Juan Eligio de la Rocha’s ’
Apuntamz'entos de la Lengua Mangue, JIIS. The author was

'born in Granada, C. A., June 15, 1815. By profession a lawyer,

his taste led him to the study of languages, and he acquired a
ﬂuent knowledge of French, English and Italian. He was
appointed instructor in French and Spanish grammar in 1848
in the University of Leon, 0. A., and ten years later, 1858, pub-
lished his Elementos de \Gramc‘ztz'ca; Castellana (Leon, 1858, small
4to, pp. 199). His death occurred in 1873. g

While living in Masaya in 1842, he became interested in the
surviving remnants of the Mangues, and undertook to collect
materials for a study of their language. Unfortunately, he never
completed these investigations, and many of the sheets on which
he had recorded his notes were scattered. A few of them, how-

4-

ever, were in the hands of his brother, Doctor Don Jesus de la
Rocha, of Granada, who gave Dr. C. H. Berendt an opportunity
, to copy them in 1874.

In that same year, 1874, Dr. Berendt collected the last
obtainable fragments of the Mangue. In' his (printed) lecture
before the American Geographical Society in 1876, he thus
describes his efforts in this direction, and at the same time
points out the localities Where the Mangue speaking populations
where located when they ﬁrst came to the knowledge of the in-
vading Whites :—

“ The Spaniards on entering the present State of Nicaragua from Nicoya
bay, and then marching through the country, came into contact ﬁrst with
the southern section of the Chorotegas or Mangues, as they were also
called ; then with a Nahuatl tribe, whose capital and king are mentioned
as bearing the name of Nicarao ; and after these again with Chorotegas or
Mangues, who, however, did not occupy the whole tract of land up to the
Bay of Fonseca, but were again separated from the Chorotegas on the
shores of that bay by another foreign tribe called Maribios. Thus we
obtain the three sections into which the Chorotegas of Nicaragua were
divided at the time of the Conquest. Now, their language seemed to me
an object worthy of having some special attentiOn bestowed upon it—not
so much for its own sake, but in order that a better understanding might
be arrived at of the ethnological features of Nicaragua, which, on account
of an insufﬁcient acquaintance with its actual condition as well as with the
early writers, and ot the rather precarious speculations and conjectures of
modern authors based upon such scanty knowledge, have become greatly
confused. Having studied the Chapanecan language on a former expedi-
tion, and wishing to compare it with the Chorotegan, I visited Nicaragua
in the year 1874. I found that the Indian population near the Nicoya and
the Fonseca bays had entirely disappeared, and in both districts only met
with some local names belonging to the Chorotegan language. In the
third district also. Where descendants of the old stock are still living in
twelve villages around the lakes of Masaya and Apoyo, I was informed
that no other vestiges pf the old idiom were left, the inhabitants Speaking
exclusively the Spanish language. I had, however, the good luck to
ferret out some old people who still remembered words and phrases they
had heard in their childhood ; and I was enabled to collect material suﬂi-
cient to convince myself and others of the identity of this Mangue or
Chorotegan idiom with the Chapaneco language of Mexico. I was not a
moment too early in Obtaining this information, for the greater number of
my informants died while I was staying in the country. I still hope that
with the knowledge of the Chorotegan thus gained in Nicaragua and
Chiapas, it may be possible to trace their history and descent backwards

5

to one of the nations that were living in Anahuac in the earliest times of
which our records speak.”

The materials were never published by Dr. Berendt, nor,
indeed, did the many other projects which occupied him allow
him the leisure to collate and arrange them. I have taken them
from his original notes, often in pencil and not always perfectly
legible. But I believe those here offered can be depended upon
as accurate, and have special value as the sole remaining vestiges
of an idiom now wholly extinct.

Synonyms. It Will be seen that Berendt speaks of this
people as the “Chorotegas or Mangues.” I have given the
origin of these names in the Introduction to “ 'l‘he Giiegiienee, a
Comedy-Ballet in the Nahuatl-Spanish Dialect of Nicaragua,”
published as Number III, of “ Brinton’s Library of Aboriginal
American Literature ” (Philadelphia, 1883). They adjoined on
the north-east and south-west the Nahuatl-speaking tribe, who
occupied the narrow strip of land between Lake Nicaragua and
the Paciﬁc ocean. ‘

”They were of one blood and one language, and called themselves
Mdnkcme, rulers, masters, which the Spaniards corrupted into Mangues.
The invading Aztecs appear to have split this ancient tribe into two frac~
tions, the one driven toward the south, about the Gulf of Nieoya, the
other northward, on and near Lake Managua, and beyond it on Fonseca
bay. Probably in memory of this victory, the Aztec Nicaraguans applied
to them the opprobious name, 0k0loltew, ‘those driven Ollt,' from the
Nahuatl verb choloa, in its compulsive form chololtia, and the suffix,
tecatl, people; which was corrupted by the Spaniards into Oltorotegas.”
(The Gilegiience, Introduction, p. viii.)

In Squier’s work above referred to they are called “ Chorote-
gans or Dirians.” The latter is from the Mangue dirt, a hill or
mountain, and was applied to that 'portion of them who dwelt in
the hillycountry south of Masaya.

The Spanish form of their native name is that which I should
recommend for adoption in ethnological works.

Early Notices. The old historians and travelers, on whom we

. depend for our knowledge of Nicaragua, tell us practically
' nothing about this language, and little about the people who
spoke it. The Chieftain, called Nieoya, living on the bay of that

name, was ﬁrst visited by Captain Gil Gonzalez Davila 1n 1.523.

.The natives Were estimated at about six thousand, who received

6

the Spaniards 1n a friendly mannei, and gave them considerable
gold. *
Oviedo in his Historia de las Indians gives a few words of the
language as follows :
mamea, hell.
nam ()2, dog.
72am bue, tiger,

the last two of which correspond to those in later vocabularies]L

The Auditor Garcia de Palacio (1576) mentions the Mangue
as spoken in Choluteca, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, in the last
mentioned as introduced from elsewhere: About a century later
a colony of Mangues, several hundred in number, were found by
Juan Vazquez de Coronado, almost at the extreme eastern end
of Costa Rica, in the Province of Pacaca.§ Those on the Paciﬁc
Coast, about the Gulf of Nicoya, were accustomed to cross to the
ocean on the north for trading ,
They appear to have been a people of moderate cultivation, and
rather extended commercial connections.

Aﬁlz’atz’ons. The Mangue is the mother tongue from which
the Chapanec (or Chiapanec) of Chiapas branched off. The
separation from the ancestral tribe, and the migration from
Nicaragua to Chiapas, were distinctly remembered by the Cha-
panec off-shoot when ﬁrst encountered by the whites. Remesal,
in his well-known history, gives a brief but clear account of it.

The date of this occurrence cannot be speciﬁcally stated, but
its occasion can be readily su1mised. The Mangues at one time
occupied the whole coast from the entrance of the Gulf of
Nicoya to F onseca bay. At a pe1iod which we may locate some
time in the fourteenth century, a large Colony of Aztecs de-
scended the coast and seized the strip between Lake Nicaragua
and the Paciﬁc, thus splitting the Mangues in two, and driving
a large portion of them out of their homes. Some of these wan-
derers remained with their relatives, but one body of them
marched north and west until they reached a lofty peak on the

                               

* Letter of Gil Gonzalez Davila to the Emperor Charles V, in Costa- -Rz’ca, Nic-
a? agua 3/ Panama en el Siglo xvi, por D.Ma.1'1uel E. de Peralta, p. 9 (Madrid, 1833).

THistom’a Gene? alt y Nata? al de Indias, Part iii, Lib. iii.

IPalacio, Oarta, al Rej, Ed. Squier, p. 20.

gﬁse the Repo1t of Coronado in the collection of Peralta above quoted. p. 777.

[I id, p. 704

 

7

Rio Grande in Central Chiapas, where they constructed a for-
midable fortress, and became the terror of their Nahuatl-speak-
ing neighbors.*

No connection has been demonstrated between the Mangue
(or Chapanec), and any other North American language,
although owing to the liberal exertions of M. Alphonse l’inart,
we have now in print and easily procurable, a grammar and a
number of texts of the Chapanec dialecti

A comparison, the partial results of which I have previously
‘ published, proves that the differences between the Chapanec and
Mangue are slight and unimportant, and for purposes of colla-
tion with other stocks the two may be looked upon as identical.

In the Introduction to “The Giiegiience,” I pointed out some
singular coincidences between the Mangue and the Aymara of
Peru. Further examination of the two tongues has not added
to the list given, and has weakened the belief I entertained of
some possible connection in the past between them.

I take this occasion to point out an error which has crept into
several philological works, that of confounding the Mangue
with the Nagrandan of Nicaragua. Thus, Francisco Pimentel, in
his work on the languages of Mexico, falls into the capital mis-
take of declaring the Chapanec of Chiapas to be allied to the
Nagrandan of Nicaragua; and to prove his assertion, gives a
list of alleged N agrandan words, all of which belong to the
Mangue tongue! 1

The same confusion marks an attempt of Mr. Hyde Clark, of

* “ Vinieron antiguamente de la Provincia de Nicaragua unas gentes que can-
sados de andar y de las descomodades que la peregrinacion trae consigo, se qued-
‘ aron en tierra de Chiapa, y poblaron en un peﬁol aspero orillas de un Rio Grande
que pasa por medic della y fortiﬁcaronse alli, porque nunca se quisieron sujé-
tar a los Reyes de Mejico, antes tenian continuamente guerra con sus capi-
tanes.” etc. Remesal, Historia de Ohtapa 1, Guatemala, Lib. iv, cap. xiii.

‘ TArte de la Lengua Chiapeneca. Por Fray Juan de Albornoz.

' Dnetm‘na C‘ristiana en Lengua Ohtapaneca. Por Fray Luis Barrientos.
, These two publications comprise Vol. 1 of the Btbliothéque de Lt‘ngut‘stique et
d’Ethnographie Americatnes, publiéc par Alph. L. Pinart (Paris, 1b75).

Dr. Berendt states that the natives pronounce the name of the province
Chapa,not C'ht’apa, and that the word is the Mangue Chapa, which means their
sacred bird, the Ara or Guacamayo,from which they named their fortress in the

V State of Chiapas. [Father Juan N unez, who was missionary among them about
1620, and who preached and wrote in their tongue, also called it “la lengua
Chapaneca.” See Brasseur (de Bourbourg), Bibliothéque Mezz‘co-Guatemalz‘enne,

pp. 109, 110. ., - .
:tcuadro Descriptivo de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico, Tomo iii, p. 509 (Mex1co,

18 75);

8

London, to bring into relation “the Masaya language of ’
Nicaragua with the Sioux language.” The words he quotes as
from Masaya are all from the Nagrandan of Subtiaba, near
Leon. There is really no relationship between the N agrandan
and Mangue, and although Dr. Latham has attempted to indi-
cate some few analogies,* they must be deemed quite accidental.

A comparison of about 125 words of the Mangue with the
Mixteca, which I ﬁnd among the Berendt MSS., reveals only
about half a dozen similarities, all apparently accidental.

Phonetics. The Mangue words in this paper are principally in
letters with the Spanish powers, some of the semi-vowels being
in’smaller type. The h is pronounced as an aspirate, and is
equivalent to the j, which has its aspirated Spanish value.

All syllables are open; that is, they all end in a vowel sound.
Thus m'mbu, water, is to be divided ni-mbu. In this respect it
~ resembles the Cherokee, the Japanese, etc.

Dr. Berendt stated that the Chapanee dialect was the most
difﬁcult of any American language he had ever studied, on
account of the obscurity and uncertainty of its sounds. It is
greatly syncopated, and terminal syllables are often pronounced
in so low a tone that they escape the unpraeticed ear. The
vowels are not distinct, and many of the consonants are “ alterna-
ting” as it'is called, that is, one may be substituted for another
without altering the meaning of the word. Thus, evil spirit
(demonic) may be either tixdmbi’ or .sisa‘mbui, these two being
the same word pronounced indifferently, either way, by the same
individual. This is by no means without parallel in American
languages.

The curious frequency in the Mangue of the “resonants ” n
and m will strike every observer. This is also the casein the
Chapanec. Albornoz regards it as a phonetic phenomenon only,
and remarks, “Whenever a word begins with b, g, y or d, an 71.
must be written before it, which is pronounced with the word
itself.” Dr. Berendt calls it an “article” which appears as n,
na, m‘, or m, especially before the letter b. As such, I may
suggest its similarity to the Nahuatl in, and the Othomi na, both
of which are demonstratives worn down almost to articles.

There is a similar resonant nasal in various South American

* Latham, Essays, chieﬂy Philological and Ethnographical, p“. 373 (London, 1860).

9

tongues, especially the Tupi-Guarani dialects of Brazil. It
appears most frequently before the consonants b and 01. Its
peculiarity is that it is not an expiratory sound, but a soft in-
spirate, and as such is claimed by Dr. Nogueira to be a phonetic
phenomenon conﬁned exclusively to American tongues.* I have
been unable to decide from the descriptions within my reach of
the Chapanec phonetics, whether the initial resonant is an inspi-
rate, and I would call the attention of travelers to this interest-
ing point.

In addition to this simple resonant preﬁx there are a number
of particles beginning either with n or m, which are added to
indiéate the absolute or independent form of the noun, that is.

‘to characterize it when not attached to a personal possessive
pronoun. Of these Albornoz gives fourteen for the singular, and
seven for the plural. This will explain the striking prevalence
of words beginning with these letters in the vocabulary.

Accent is of the utmost importance in both these dialects, and
the identity to the eye of various words as nyujmz‘, ear and
smoke, arises from absence of proper accent marks in my
authorities. The words for bird, snake and ﬂower are the same;
but/Albornoz gives this very example to illustrate the import-
ance of accent, nolo‘, a snake, 72016, a ﬂower. Unfortunately,
none of my authorities employ any accentual mark but the acute,
and this appears to be syllabic. A vowel written above the line
of the word, in Berendt’s MSS., signiﬁes a semi-vowel.

Structure. The general structure of the Mangue was clearly
polysynthetic and incorporative in a marked degree. In its
grammar it was no doubt identical in all essential points with
the Chapanec, about which, as above mentioned, we have con-
siderable information in published sources. Nominal and verbal
forms are deﬁned by the categories of animate and inanimate
genera, a distinction which is to a certain extent purely gram-
matica1,as'for instance, a book is considered animate, and a table
inanimate (Albornoz, Grant, cap. xiii). The ﬁrst person plural
has an inclusive and exclusive form. Adjectives usually, but
not always, follow the nouns. Plurals are frequently formed.
by simply lengthening the terminal vowel sound.

*séé the excellent work of Dr. B. C. A. Nogueira, Aponlamemos sobre 0 Ab:-
neénga tambem chamado Guarani ou Tupi, pp. 56, 57 (Rio J aniero, 1876).

10

The Vocabulary. The words invthe vocabulary have been
obtained from the Rocha and Berendt MSS. Where these two
authorities differ the variants are indicated by the aﬂixed
initials, R. and B. .All words quoted for the sake of compari-
son from Squier, are marked by an afﬁxed S. The observa-
tions, explanations and other remarks attached to the words
and phrases are my own. The comparative expressions taken
from the Chapanee (marked, Chap.) are from the printed works
above mentioned, or from MS. vocabularies of various author-
ship in my possession.

All of Rocha’s words are from the dialect of Masaya; but Dr.
Berendt obtained some at the villages of Masatepec, Niquin-
dome, and N amotiva’ , and this explains the occasional variants .
given. The differences, however, between the speech of these
localities was evidently slight.

Vocabulary: English—Ilfangue.

Achiote, nariyu. (The Bz'xa oreZlana, a fruit tree ; achiote is
Nahuatl).
' Aguacate, nirimo’, narimu. (Fruit of the Persea gratissz’ma).
Ancestor, kopo’. The same as old, (1. v.
Ancestress, kapoi. Apparently a feminine form of Icopo, old.
Anona, naria’. Fruit of the Anona squamosa.
Ant, an, naju, naa.
Ara, Iapa; Chap. txapa. The Ara macao, of ornithologists.
Arm, ndiro. Compare hand, and ﬁnger. Properly “ the
upper extremity.” S. deno. Chap. gulu“a. '
Armpit, ngisa. Compare, beard. Perhaps “hair of the armpit.”
Armadillo (Dasypus) nyuku’. Compare lizard.
Ashes, nitsu, nisﬁ.
Atole, nambo. (A dish prepared from maize.)

Bad, gangame, ganyame. Properly not-good.
Bark, nanso“a’. I

Basket, naj“ari.

Bat, nyuta’.

Bean, nyumli.

Beast, nyumbr’i. Compare tiger.
Bear, to (to bear children) pindih.
Beard, gisa.

 

11

Bed, nakuta .

Bee, nopopo.

Beetle, nag“a.

Belly, ngusi. ,

Bird, nori, nyuri’. Compare snake and flower. Chap. nuri.
Bitter, yasi. I

Black, nansome.

Blood, nijnyl’i; S. nenuh.

Blue, nandipame.

Body or Flesh, nimbrome, nampoome.

Bone, nyu‘.

Bowels, ngita.

Boy, n'asome; R. norome; little boy, noromiﬁamu.
Branch (of a tree) ndiro nya; 2 “its arm, tree.”
Brandy, nimbuyasi; = “ water, bitter.”

Brave, pusit‘u.

Brook, nanda.

Brother, manku, mambo.

Brother, younger, mambo nyamo nasome.
Buttocks, bojoi; nbasi, basti’.

Cacao, nyﬁsi.

Camote, yuj mi (an edible root).

Cane, shgar, niriémbome.

Cantaro (a water jar), natiyojpo.

C/asava, see yuca.

Cat, misa, mixa.

Cat, Wild, misa se nirome; = “ eat of the forest.”

Chachalaea, tasara. A kind of partridge called, in Nahuatl,
chachalacatl.

, Chalchihuitl (a green stone, Nah.),nyu se rayo; the last word,
rayo, is Spanish, and the expression means “stone of the light-
ning,” the belief being that these stones are thunderbolts.

Cheek, girote. Compare face.

Chief, ruler, mankeme. _ Chap. manaz’alma, from Zimd, the
head. See The Gilegilence, Introd., p. viii, note.
. Chief, female, najyumbu.

Child, nasuhgi.

Chile (a sort of red pepper), ningi.

Chocolate, nimbu nyusi; = “ water-cacao.”

12

Chocollo (a bird), naturi.

Church, naklimbui.

Clay, nambroj.

Clay, potter’s, nambréj se nati; = “clay of jars.”
Cock, a, norijué.

Cockroach, nambisa.

Cocoyol, neme; a species of palm.

Cold, poro’, yoro, oro.

Collar, or necklace, bakoya’jo.

Comal (a dish or plate), nambujyo‘.

Come, to, na.

Conch-shell, txote.

Cook, a female, naka1 nakupasi. Comp. kitchen.
Corn-ﬁeld, namasinyu’, ndam bur’rio.

Cotton, naroti’. ,

Cotton, thread of, tapaki’isime naroti.

Dance, to, tasosmo.

Daughter, banya nasinyamo: Comp. son and girl.
Daughter-in-law, mbajtioro.

Dead, ko‘jme. Comp. to die.

Deaf, gungupajo ; = not hearing.

Deer, nyumba ngami.

Devil, natamasimo.

Die, to, nagaanyu; imper. koijme.

Dish from a gourd, nambira. Comp. water.
Distant, haltsu.

Door, nya siyu. ‘
Drink, to, imper. koi ri (?). ‘ . * l
Drum, nyunsu. Comp. jicara.
Dog, nyumbi’.

Dog, female, nyumbi nyaka‘.

Ear, nyﬁjmi.

Earth, land, nikupu’, nambrome.
Eat, to, nasu, imper. ko‘ta’. ’

Egg, nyuga—yori. Comp. bird.
Egg-shell, nanso“a. Compare bark.
Enclosure, mendi.

Enclosure of stone, mendi nyu“.~ . \
Excrement, nig“a.

 

13

Eye, nate.
Face, ngroti. Compare cheek.

Father, k“é; kﬁjk“e; S. gooha. R. coehyo.

Feather, napa yori.

Female, of animals ,nyaka.

Finger, ndiro. Compaie arm and hand. Chap. banya dila.

Finger nail, monsu’, munsﬁ. '

Fire, nyayu, naku; S. nahu.

Fish, nyuji’i.

Flatus, piji.

Flea, louse, etc., nyu‘.

Flesh, for eating, nampumi.

Flint, nyupa nyugo. Compare stone.

Flower, nyuri, niri. Compare bird, and snake.

Fly, a, nimbrome.

Food, nyumuta. Comp. bean.

Foot, ngira.

Forehead, guia.

Forest, nijome, nmandi. . .

Fork, a, nya nangu, Compare house. Probably the forked
stick, which supports the ridge-pole.

Friend, nguri; manku. Comp. brother.

Frog, natakopé. Comp. toad.

Fruit, narime.

Gall, bayatimé.

Gaspar, nyuju yansu. A ﬁsh sometimes called the “lizard.
ﬁsh.” I

Girl, nasunyamo. R. najiﬁamu.

God, kupankeme Dio; nikus’ p “.a (Our Lord.) Chap. kop-
andzame; comp. chief. S. gopahemedeo.

Good ,pami, pame, yame.

Great, yok“e, yokueme.

Green, apame, yapame.

Guacal (small dish), nari.

Guayabo (a fruit), nikonyo’.

4 Hair, nimbi’.

Half-breed, nyukiis“a.

Hamack, nyu. Comp, mecate.

Hand, ndiro. Comp. arm and ﬁnger. Chap. di‘la.

 

.. 5,41 ’

14

Hat, nimpe.

Hatchet, nimunguya.

Hawk, nake’. .

He, pron. neje.

Head, ngu’ kimo.

Heart, nambume.

Heaven, sky, nakup“i; nakujpu.

Heavy, arime.

Hedge, or fence. See enclosure.
Henequen (a ﬁbrous plant), notome.
High, opome.

Hoe, bajari’tojo.

Hog, nyuju.

Hog, wild, nyuju mandi. Comp. forest.
Honey, nambo’ pu, nombé.

Horn, nimbomo.

Horse, nyumpie’. Comp. tapz'r.

Hot, tsujmu, yatsumu.

House, nangu, nge.

Husband, boh“e. Comp. man and male.

Iguana, nyumbu. Comp. animal, beast.
Indian, an, namba’jimo.

Jar, of pottery, nimbﬁgu.

Jicaro (tall jar), nyunsu.

Kill, to, tambajme.
Kitchen, nakupasi.
Lake, ninda. ‘ 4
Leaf, nyuma’. A
Leg, ngiko.
Light, adj. ngari me; = not-heavy.
Lightning, koyo’mo (?).
Lion, couguar, nyumbﬁ nyangami. Comp. deer.
Little, kame ; R. ﬁamu.
Lizard, nyukli.
LOW, nyamo. Comp. small.
Macana (an iron implement for cutting brush), nampﬁj.
Mecapal (a net for carrying loads), napalumu.
Machete (a heavy knife), nimb‘u.

. Maize, nama.

 

Maize, ear of, nyupo.

Maize, cob of, neje’.

Maize, green, nyopome.

Maize, cooked (nistamal), nyu ’ritu.

Maize, masa of, nambima.

Male, of animals, j“e, fue.

Mamma, su ngitsu, ngisu.

Man (homo), ndiJ'pu. Chap. dipaju.

Man (vir), nyug o, noj ue, enkaj , S. nuho. Chap. num a.

Mantle, of cotton, nambu sangui; R. nimbu ranguma.

Married man, koipujma nasominyamo.

Married woman, noji.

Mat, nuri.

Metapail (hand-stone for pounding grain), ndiro nyupa (hand-
stone). _

Metate (mealing stone, mortar), nyupa; : stone.

Mill woman, a, nasinyamo tapa’ kupui.

Mole, nyu’kupu. Comp. armadillo.

Money, najmo.’ Comp. silver.

Monkey, nambi.

Moon, yu. Chap. yuji’i.

Mother, ngumo; nyame; ngimo; S. goomo. R. 'guirmoh.
‘ Mountain, hill, tiri, diri.

Mouth, nyunsu; R. ﬁunzu.

”Much, pokopi.

Musquito, néj u.
' Nacatamal (maize cooked with ﬂesh), nyuga mpume. Comp.
tamal.

Navel, ngutinyamo.
Near, kopunapu.
Neck, nko‘.
Negro, a, nanso’me. Comp- black.
N ephew, batsﬁn kényamo.
. Nest, nga. Comp. house.
Net (for carrying), niskupu, namu.
Net (for ﬁshing), najkupu; niskupu se yuju
’Night, koyujmi (it 1s now night).
No, aku. ‘
Nose, nyungﬁ; R. nuﬁgu.

 

16

Old, man, kopo’. Comp. ancestor.

Old woman, naka‘, naska‘me.

Opossum, niyﬁ.

Orphan, butajmu.

Pain, gaime.

Parrot, nimbusojo.

Pearl color (naear), narimbame.

Pebble, nipa. Comp. stone.

Penis, bu“yore. '

Petticoats, nimbusame; nambusangume. Comp. mantle.
Pigeon, nyurinyamo.

Pineapple, nindi.

Pinole (maize roasted and pulverized), nambari.

Pisote (a badger ‘3), nyundi.

Plantain, green, nirinte, nikotona.

Plantain, ripe, ndurime.

Plate (of dried gourd), nambira.

Pleiades, the, napopo.

Poor, nambajimo, nambainjume.

Pretty, tapustxuya.

Priest, kn“jk“e’.

Privates (female), sungip“ai motxo’tete.

Rabbit, nyuku. Comp. lizard.

Rain, nimbu. Comp. water.

Rat, nangi.

Red, arimbome.

Reed, néjeri.

Rind (peel), nanso“a’. Comp. bark. _
River, neju. 1
. Road, niro.

Roof, nimii, nakamu’.

Room, apartment, nakangu. Comp. home.
‘ Rope, string (mecate), nyu‘.

Sacate (a species of grass), nimt’i, nakamo.
Saliva, nimbojmo.

Salt, niri.

Sandal, or moccasin, nyansu, ninsu.
Sapote, red (a fruit), noxa’, nyuxa’.
Scorpion, nyumbukuki.

 

’17

Sea, nimbu yumbu.

She, pron. neja. See He.

Shirt, for men, mboyi’i.

Shirt, of women, nayu.

Shore, ninda. Comp. lake.

Shoulder, inku‘.

Silver, najmo. ' Comp. money.

Sing, to, undamo.

Sister, boronyamo, mambo. Comp. brother.
Skin, hide (of animals), ninsu, nansii, nyiin su.
Sleep, to, nagu.

Small, txote, nyamo. Comp. low.

Smoke, nyujmi; S. nemare.

Snake, nyuri. Chap. nulﬁ. Comp. bird and ﬂower.
Son, banya. ’

Son-in-law, ngismé.

Sorcerer, nyu“ja.

Sour, yagu.

Speak, to, nata, imper. papa’ me.

Squirrel, naré. ‘

Star, nyutl'; R. nuti; S. nuete. Chap. nahuiti.‘
Stone, rock, nyupa (pl. nipa).

Stool, nambu ku ta’.

Sugar, nombé. 00mp. sweet.

Sun, nyumb“i,nomo; S. numbu. Chap. mapl’iu. Comp. moon.
Sweet, nombo’.

Tamal (a dumpling of sweetened maize), nyuga.

Tapir, the, nyumpié mandi. Comp. forest.

Tear, a, nimbu nate. Comp. water and eye.

Tenamaste or cooking stone, hajmi nyugu .(three stones),
nakupasi (see, to cook), nikusugo’.

Thief, tiposi’tinyo.

Thorn, ni, nindi.

Thunder. Koi tapu’meme; lit, “it thunders.”

Thrush, nyi’ijua. A species of Caprimulgus.

Tick, nambisa, nansuma.

Tiger, jaguar, nyumbii. Comp, animal.

Tiste (a drink of cacao, etc), nimbyusi. Comp. water.

Toad, natakopo.

2

18

Tobacco, nyumurime; nimburime; S. nemurema. To smoke
tobacco, fasomo nimbu rimi.
Tomate, naripo.
To-morrow, majimi. Comp. yesterday.
Tongue, grij“i’.
Tooth, niji.
Tortilla, noi.
Totoposte (a kind of corn-bread), nyua yahji’.
Town, nama puma, namépume.
Tree, nya. Comp. wood.
Trough, nimbéya. Comp. water.
Turtle, of water, nyuka,
Ugly, ganyame. Comp. bad.
Unio (the shell so-called), nyukanyamu.
. Vapor (mist, steam, etc.), ndipi‘.
Vase (tinaja), nojpu.
Washwoman, nasinyamo tapapa’poro.
Wasp, naju (.7). '
Water, nimbi’i.
' Wax, nyu.
Well (noun), kita. ,
Where? nde.
“Thite, nandirime.
Wife, mboome, nj ujmi. Comp. husband.’
Wind, nitiu’; nijt‘u. S. neshtu.
Woman, noji, .nasi.
Wood, nya, nindomi (1?).
Yellow, nandiume.
Yes, un; taspo (.7).
Yesterday, yajimi.
Yuca (the Yatropha manihot), noya, nuya. Chap. niya.

Numerals.
tike. ,
. ha, ja, jami, iojo. ' :
.hajmi,jajame. ‘
. hahome. I

5. hagujmi.

10. jendo.

20. jajue’.

800. ja‘mbi.

shooter

 

v

19

The Verb “to be,” R.

I am, cejo.
Thou art, simuh.

He is, neje sumu.
We are, cis mi muh.
Pronouns.

I, saho, 8.
My, \ amba, mba.
\He, neje, R.
She, neJa, R.
Phrases.

Koi ml’lrio, It is already dawn.

Koi yujmi, It is already night.

Koi prij pi, It is already growing dark.

Koi ujumbo, He has already urinated.

Koi gaimi ndiro, He gave me his hand.

Koi pajo nama siﬁﬁ, I am going to die (ya me voy a la m-uerto).

Koi-li nimbuyati, I drank some brandy.

Koi-ta cutaca ﬁumbi’, I ate like a dog.

Koi- li gipomo ga muningui, ’I ate broth with chile.

Tagiiaime ga muﬁunso yoku e, Give me a large jar.

' Tari nimbuin, on giiaii. 7 Will you d1ink some tiste, 01 will you
not. 7

Oyat us ma? How do you like it (i. 6., hot or cold)?

Pokopi ndijpo,

Taku pamu ndijpﬁ, j

Koi jini kﬁjk“e, His father died.

Muri kagroi, Here is the old woman.

Ai nambunu ju, I have a pain in the belly.

Ni koi sime, You have already bought.

Pe ya puti nakuta, Go and lie down in the room.

Tiki numapuna, It is the town.

Nam bu mejo, His stomach is weak.

Koi tsujmﬁ nimbu, The water is already warm.

Koi puré nimbu, The water is already cold.

Koiniro, He has already come.

Many people.

20

Pami nyumuta, The food is good.

Cajo rismoh, I am seated.

Neje zumu rimah, They are lying down.
Guay cane noy, Give me a piece of tortilla.
Koi guaja, I have already given you some.
Garoh, Not yet.

I??? } Take some!

7
3:113:11??? I» How are you?
Ko’ mi muya’ 1 kn? And you, how are you?

Camo cujmi umyaique, Nasi pujimo camo? There is nothing
new; and you, how are you .7

Gusapo, Take a seat.

Nam bro’ gatsuro yaji? Why did you not come yesterday?
Koi k“eme, I was up there.

Kupa kastai, Seﬁor, Good-by, Seﬁor.

Nohue opome, A tall man.

Nya opome, A high tree.

Nya nyamo, A short tree.

Nyumbi yok“e, A large dog.

Nyumbi pusitiu, A brave dog.

Koyémo nikﬁjui nimbu, With thunder comes rain.

Koi pirami nimb“1’, Already comes the rain.

Tapuko kuno tipo kunyo, Let us go to see the sick man.
Mundamé, The pigeon sings.

Nde yat supu is ya? Where are you going?

Tsupu nekajui, I am going to the garden. ‘

Munsu supu kujkui, They are (go) lame.

ROpia, Come here.

Ropia no somingamo, Come here and sweep.

Koi apiﬁame naturi, The Chocollo (bird) has already cried.
Koi pindih Juana, Joanna is with child.

I’ieyas mah, She already was. ‘

La puta (Spam) ansu punah, The whore that bore thee.
Cumbﬁ puy muh. I do not remember.

' Neje rumu coy cuhme, He is already a great man.

Nis puzu punah ? What did she bringforth ?

Naci ﬁamu, A little girl.

 

l

21'

Taru miro, They are all mine.

Neia guirmiﬁo, That is my half.

Niora muLa pu ninda? Are you going to the shore?
Taspo, Yes.

Ya pu camu, In a little while.

Mu. koi cu pume, Thou hast already seen it.'

Koi Ci; pume’, I have already seen it.

UﬁO! See! _

Mis upa’? Where are you going ?

‘Umimopyako, } We are out of breath.

Pas1 puJimo,
Pangare’rmanijitaré, Be quiet, I will pay you to-morrow.
Gugapi, koy ujmi, Let us sleep, it is night.

Bu“si na“, munikako, Get away from here, you son of a devil !
Nim bu’ tajo pa’yamo? What were you doing by the water ?
Tapame, Be good.

Motan atima nyumpia, You come on horseback.

.Observations on the Vocabulary.

Preﬁxes.—The most frequent preﬁxes in the vocabulary are
nyu and nya. They probably indicate the position of the noun
as independent of expressed possessive relations. In the Cha-
panec they are also found, but not so commonly. They do not
appear to be classiﬁcatory particles, as they are preﬁxed to the
names of the most diverse objects.

Generic Names—These are quite common, as is frequently
the case in American languages, in spite of what has often been
said to the contrary. The word nyu-mbu means any large quad-
ruped ; nyu", any insect; nam’mu, any kind of wild fruit, etc. It
must be remembered that the genera into which individuals are
grouped have a widely different connotation from those to which

we are accustomed.

Oat—The word for cat, misa, seems identical with the Oak-
chiquel mez. In Chapanec it is kitu, reminding one of kitten.
As the domestic cat was unknown in America before the dis-
covery, these words can probably be traced to some European
source.

22

Color Names—The color names appear diﬁicult to analyze,
and vary from those in Chapanec. Thus, as given by the various
authorities, they are :

Mangue, Chapanec.
Black, nanzome, R. dujama.
White, nandirime, R. _ dilim'a.
Yellow, nandiume, R. nandikuma.
Blue or Green, {nandipama R ndipama.
apame, B
Red, arimbome, B. nduima.

In these adjectives the termination me or and does not belong
to the root. Father Abornoz tells us that this sufﬁx character-
izes adjectives in the singular number, When they qualify a cer-
tain class of nouns “in tighe.” (See his Gram. p. 15.) The
nasal or resonant beginning most of them is also a mere preﬁx.

Proper Names.—But fewnative families of the Mangue dis-
tricts of Nicaraugua have retained names drawn from their
ancient tongues. In a list before me of several hundred persons
in Masaya and Managua, the only surnames from the Mangue

are Norori, Namendz‘, Namullare, Putoi, Nionongue, Macanche,

and perhaps Haembes and Piura. Generally, the natives adopted
Spanish surnames.

On the other hand, a large number of local names, derived
‘ from the Mangue language, on the map of Nicaragua still deﬁne
the region once occupied by this nation. Such are Nindirz’a
(from m‘nda, shore, dim’, hill), Nakutz'm’ (from nalcu, ﬁre, dim’,

hill), Mom‘mbe (nimbu, water, rain), Nandasz'mo (nanda, brook), .

Mombonasi (nasz', woman), Masaya, Managua, Namotz'va, N0-
rome, Nicoya, Oretz’na, etc., etc.

 

 

J
3
3
3.
y
a
3.
i
1
a

 

 

 

CRITICAL RE MARKS

ON THE

Editions of Diego de Landa’s Writings

BY

DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

(Read before the American Philosophical Society, Jan. 7, 1887.)

No document bearing upon the ancient Maya civilization of
Yucatan surpasses in importance the work written by Diego de
Landa, the second Bishop of the Diocese of Me’rida, who was a
resident of Yucatan from 1549 until 1579, the year of his death.
The/description of the country and its inhabitants which he com-
posed has been preserved to us in one MS. copy, now in the
library of the Royal Academy of History, at Madrid. In the
winter of 1863-4, the late Abbe Brasseur (de Bourbourg) tran~
scribed a portion of it, and published it with notes, and a trans-
lation into French, the following summer, under the title, Rela-
tion des Chases de Yucatan de Diego de Landa, etc. (Paris,
Arthus Bertrand, 1864). As it contained the signs of the cal-
endar, and what purports to be the alphabet of the Maya hiero-
glyphic writing, as well as much material relating to the customs
of the natives, Landa’s Relation at once took a leading position
among Americana.

‘ The well-knOWn peculiarities of the Abbe’ Brasseur, however,
the freedom with which he dealt with his authorities, and the
license he allowed his imagination, have always cast an atmos-
phere of uncertainty about his work,* and hence it was a decided
*This general distrust with reference to the particular instance of the Lands.
MS. has been very vigorously expressed by Dr. P. J. J. Valentini in his article

on the Landa alphabet, in Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for
1880,p.91. "

Brinton.] 2 [Jan. 7,

satisfaction to have published at Madrid, in 1884, under the
competent supervision of Don Juan de Dios de la Rada y Del-
gado, a literal, faithful copy of the original text. Unfortunately,
it appears simply as an appendix to the Spanish translation of
M. Leon de Rosny’s work on the hieratic writing of Central
America, and is issued to the limited number of 200 copies', all
large folio. It is therefore both difﬁcult to obtain and needlessly
expensive. Moreover, the editor, for fear of “distracting the
reader,” as he tells us, pointed out only a few of the differences
between the correct text and that printed by Brasseur, so that
the real value of the second edition of the text is not apparent
until a long and toilsome comparison has been made.

The leading position which Landa’s Relacz’on holds with refer-
ence to the ancient Maya civilization has led me to examine his
words with care, and the notes I have made will, I believe,prove
of value to those who are engaged in the study of this remarka-
ble people. I shall arrange these notes in three portions, as
they refer to the two texts now printed, to the Abbe Brasseur’s

translation with its notes, and to the hieroglyphic signs, etc., in-
serted in the text.

The Text.

In Brasseur’s edition the text is divided into numbered sec-
tions, each with an appropriate heading. No such arrangement
is in the original. What is more objectionable, many of the para-
graphs and even sections as arranged by Brasseur are entirely
arbitrary, and do not correspond at all with the paragraphing of
the original. Sometimes they begin in the midst of a phrase,
cutting it in two, and destroying its meaning.

He omits, without a word, fully one-sixth of the whole text.
In his edition, p. 346, he concludes with the words, aquz’ acaba la
obra de Landa, “here closes the work’of Landa.” No such
words are in the original. On the contrary, the MS. he copied
from continued with a number of chapters, one on the reason
why the Indians offered human sacriﬁces, others on the serpents,
animals, trees, etc., of Yucatan. Of these, Brasseur says not a
syllable. In copying he occasionally, but rarely, omitted sen-
tences, doubtless through haste. An instance of this occurs,‘p.
‘328, where three lines of the original are dropped immediately
after the word escalera, terminating the sentence.

 

 

 

 

1887.] ‘ 3 1 [Brinton.

He did not hesitate occasionally to alter the original when he
could not get at its meaning conveniently. Thus, p. l00, he
prints “ pero que a parte de los espaﬁoles,” whereas the original
is “ pero que entre los Espaﬁoles,” which conveys exactly the
opposite sense. Again, p. 162, lines 2, 3, he writes “otras se
separavan partes de su cuerpo,” where the original is “ se seja-
van.” Oddly enough, in the note on p. 104, he claims to have
altered the text from “ tresﬁestas ” to “ otras fiestas,” whereas
the latter alone stands in the original.

The proof-reading of Brasseur’s Spanish text leaves something
to be desired. On the ﬁrst page I have noted three errors, vaya
for via, haz el for haz d, and Mer'vas‘ for Sierras, which last error
he carries into his translation. Others as Ilamaron for [lever on,
p. 20, line 1, and alcangar on for alancearon, p. 76, line 10, are
not much misleading.

Of greater moment is his inaccuracy in both the spelling and
translation of proper names and Maya words» I shall mention a
few of these :

Taiza, p. 4. This is for tah itza, “the lord or ruler of the ‘
Itzas.”

Uiu'mil Cuz y Etel 06h, p. 6. These Maya words were un-
derstoodand translated by Brasseur as two distinct names con-
nected by the copulative conjunction y, at, and. This is not the
case. They form one term, the correct spelling of which is
uluumil cutz y‘etel 0671., “the land of the wild turkey and deer.”

Cuzmil, p. 12. The “Swallow-island,” ah-cuzamil pelen, ac-
cording to the Diccionario Maya-Espariol del Convento de
111015141, MS, was also called 01/0672 and OyCib. In these names
cen means “ornament,” and Gil), “wax,” while the preﬁx 03/ is an
interjection.

Maya, p. 14. The form adopted by Brasseur, Ma—ay—ha,
meaning “there is no water,” is incorrect. This phrase in the
Yucatecan tongue is Ma. yam. ha. For a more plausible deriva—
tiOn of the wo1d Maya, see'The JiIaya Chronicles, p. 16 (Phila-
delphia, 1880, vol. I of Brinton’s Library of Aboriginal Ameri-
can- therature).

The names of the idols mentioned, p. 16, read in the original
Ixhum‘é, and Ixhum'eta, not beum’é, etc. The preﬁx ix in all
four names is the feminine particle. The meanings are:

Brlnton.] 4: [Jam 7,

far—ch 61, the Lady of the Rainbow, or “of the Cheles.”
Ix—chebel—yaw, the Lady of the green (blue) feathers.
Ix—hun—yet, the one chosen Lady.

Ix—hun—yeta, the Lady with the one adornment.

Jllochcot-oh, p. 18. The Catches are referred to, p. 72, as the
name of the tribe near Champoton. The word Oct-oh is applied
to a poisonous spider found in Yucatan, and here probably has
a totemic signiﬁcation. It is still, says Dr. Berendt, a common '
family name among the Mayas.

On p. 30, the original has Cochnah instead of Oochuah; but
the latter is probably correct, being a simple compound of each,
bl‘Ole or large, and mm, bread or tortilla. Hocabaz’humun has
no terminal 71 in the original. The proper form I expect is
Haccobul-hunlmn, “ cosa asentada en el suelo cada aﬁo,” referring
to 1he year-stones which were annually set up.

fl’ikoch, p. .32, orig. Tiboch. The former is correct. It means
“at (the place of ) the castor-oil plants” (ti, at, xlcoch or koch,
the thz‘m’s communz’s).

Mat, p. 42. This word means ordinarily snuff, or pulverized
tobncca. Brasseur. in his note, derives from it the name Maya,
forgetting that on p. 14 he had assigned a different etymology.

Tutulm'u, p. 46. On the derivation of this name see The
Maya Chronicles, p. 109.

Otlan, p. 52. The proper form is oilaan, and means something
ﬁlled, realized, perfected, attested, etc.

Chicaca, p. 70. Brasseur says that Cogolludo calls this prov-
ince Chauacha-Hda. This is inaccurate. Cogolludo’s words
are “Choaca, que los Indios llaman Chuuachaa” (Hist. de Yu-
cathan, Lib. II, cap. viii). This is a compound of chauac, large,
great, and ha, water.

Vamuxchel, p. 76. The original has Namumchel. The correct
form may be Namach Chet, the distinguished Chel; or Vamac
Chet, some one of the Chels, or, he who is a Chel.

0010:), p. 148, is the Ficus rubtgz’nosa (Aznar, Plantas dc
Yucatan, p. 231).

Iztahte, p. 184, stands for yttz tahté, which is the native name
for turpentine.

JlIttnal, p. 200, is spelled by Beltran, Arte de la Lengua Maya,
Metnal. Brasseur’s derivation from Nahuatl Mictlan is probable.

1887.] 5 [Brintom

Ixtab, p. 202. Compounded of the feminine preﬁx £46, and
tab, which as a verb means “to tie to something,” and as a noun,
the gallows.

Uinal-Hun-E’keh, p. 204. In the original this reads Vinal,
Hunelceh. Of these words uinal is the ordinary Maya word for
month; hun is “one”; but ekeh does not appear in any of the
dictionaries. Perez Dicc. Maya, gives Keh as “the seventh
day.” ,

Zacab, p. 212. Brasseur explains this in a note as "‘ une sorte
de mais moulu”; but the Diccz’onario de Jllotul, gives got/cab,
“ la caﬁa del mais,” cornstalk. The name of the deity, therefore,
was “The Nine Cornstalks.” On the same page, worth is in the
usual form gaca, and is pulverized roasted maize mixed with
cold water. Kanté, on the same page, is not the cedar, as the
editor supposes, which in Maya is Kuche, but “a tree from
whose roots the natives obtain a yellow dye” (Dice. Motul).

Kauz'l, p. 21.6, does not appear in the dictionaries. The Abbé’s
suggestion that it is an error for Kabul is possibly correct; or
it may be for Kaual, which means one who is very choice in food
and raiment (Dice. Motul).

Batel-olcot, p. 218, means “battle dance.” The similarity of
the Maya batel or bateel, to battle, a battle, to the English I have
elsewhere noted as an odd coincidence.

Chacan-cantun, pp. 220, 222. The original has chacacantun,
and also Oanzienal in place of OanZiemal in Brasseur’s text.

On p. 222and elsewhere instead of zac-u-uayeyab, the original
text gives uniformly zacuuayayab.

The Translation.

Bishop Landa’s writings on this subject were evidently mere

‘ memoranda, jotted down to await future arrangement and re-

vision. The copyist contributed to their obscurity, so that
passages of his Relacion present peculiar difﬁculties, some of
which have led his translator wide of the mark. I shall point
out some of the most notable of these.
. p. 4. “tiene mucha lama”; “la plage y est tres etendue”;
more correctly “a beaucoup de limon.”

p. 16. “que por esto le llamaron Lazaro”; “que les Espag-
noisappellent de Lazaro”; better “et pour cela ils l‘appellent

’ Lazaro.”~

Brinton.] 6 L [Jan, 7.

p. 24. “seis soles” is translated “ trois soleils.”

p. 82. “ tres cuentas de piedra buenas”; "trois objets de
pierre bleu travaille’s.” It is not easy to see where this sense
was obtained. -.

p. 74. The space left blank at the beginning of § xiii is un-
necessary, and there is no need to supply a supposed omission.
The sense is “The adelantado did not occupy the best position for -
one who had enemies,” etc.

1). 116, line 1. The words “les parecia muy‘ mal,” do not
mean “bien qu’elle leur parﬁt mauvaise,” but “ ce qui les deﬁgu—
rait beaucoup.” Later, on the same page, “cuero de venado por
curtir seco,” does not mean “ cuir de bétes fauves tanné a see,”
but “de cuir sec de chevreuil.”

p. 136. “Llamanse aora los nombres de Pilar los proprios”;
“ Leurs no‘ms propres aujourd’hui sonticomme Pilar,” etc. This
is a singular mistranslation. The baptismal font in Spanish is
pila, 31M “nombres de pila” means “christened names.” The
meaning evidently is “they now call themselves by their baptis-
mal names.”

p. 158. Speaking of the wooden idols which descended from
father to son, Landa says they were considered the most'valua-
ble part of the heritage, “tenidos por lo principal de la herencia.”
This Brasseur translates “ils y avaient la plus grand conﬁance.”

On p. 1.74 there are two important errors. ’Line 2, “los quales
llaman holcanes” does not mean “51. l’appel des holcans,” but
“qu’on appellait holcans”; and “ que a essos holcanes sino era
en tiempo de guerra no davan soldada,” means that the holcans
did not receive pay except in time of war, and not at all “ Quant
aux holcans, ils n’amenaient point 1a; milice hors du temps de la.
guerre.” .

Equally incorrect is the translation of the description of the
manner in which the natives wore their mantle, p. 186. But it
will not be proﬁtable to continue pointing out such slips. I have
said sufﬁcient to show that Brasseur’s translation must be care-
fully compared with the Spanish text'before it is accepted.

A very curious error in translation oecurs on pp. 48 and 172,
. but this time it must be charged .to the account, not of the
Abbe, but of the Bishop himself. On p. 48, bottom, there is the
extraordinary statement that as an article of defensive armor

I

1887.] 7 [Brin‘ton.

the natives wore “jacos fuertes de sal y de algodon,” “strong
jackets (made) of salt and cotton!” And this is repeated, p.
172, with the speciﬁcaddition that these jackets were “quilted
doubly with salt for grinding!” No wonder the Abbe was non-
plussed by this outrageous assertion! (See his note to p. 49.)
The explanatibn is interesting. The word in the Maya language
for salt is taab, while that for a twisted strand or cord is tab, the
only difference being in the length of the vowel. Evidently
Bishop Landa, or the person from whom he derived his infor‘

. .mation, mistook the native description of these quilted jackets.

 

They were of cotton and twisted cords (tab), the layers of the
former being quilted to the latter. The historian of Yucatan,
Father Cogolludo, refers to them, stating that they were called
by the Mexicans (Nahuas), tchcavipiles. This is a sound Na-
huatl word, found in Molina’s Vocabulario, and shows that the
,same' defense was known and employed by the Aztecs. It Was
also familiar to the tribes of Maya lineage in Guatemala.

The Maya Characters.

A close comparison of the various Maya characters printed 1n
Brasseur’ s edition with those 1n the Madrid copy proves that 111
the main his tracings were accurate.

The Calendar beginning on p. 240 reveals, however, a'number
of minor differences. All of Brasseur’s characters tend more to
the circular form than those in the later edition which are ap-
proximately quadrangular. Occasionally points of detail differ
' considerably as for instance, on p. 240, the signs Ix and Oil).
The lines for the month signs are much fainter and sharper" 1n
Blasseur, and that of the month Jlltnan ls incomplete, lacking a
bracket- shaped appendage to the left.

The Katun- wheel on p. £112 in the Madrid edition has the in-
scription in its centre. The Maya words should read a uaza/clom
Katun, “ their return the Katuns,” 2'. e., the return or revolution
of the Katuns. Brasseur translates the Spanish rendering of
this, “'gerra de los Katunes ” by “ la guerre on le jeu des Ka-
tuns.” The word gem-a means neither game nor war, but is dia-
lectic for gira or giro, from girar, to turn around.

In the important matter of the alphabet on p. 320, Brasseur _
makes only one serious error, that is, that he places the ﬁrst
form of the letter b (No. 4 of his list) lengthwise instead of up-

Brinton.] 8 [Jam 7, 1887.

right. He was led into what I think was another error by the
disposition of the letters in the MS. As the Madrid edition
gives a photo-lithograph of the two pages of the original text
containing the alphabet and its explanation, we are in a position
to examine it satisfactorily. The ﬁgures are arranged in three
parallel lines across the page, and the two ﬁgures for u, stand,
the ﬁrst at the end of one line, the second at the beginning of
the next. From their evident connection with the sign for the
sky at night, I am of opinion that they belong together as mem-
bers of the same sign. Or did either member of the pictographic
composite serve as indicating its phonetic value 17

The designs of buildings as given by Brasseur, pp. 328, 332,
342, are much neater and more regular than in the original,
Where they are simply out-lined with a pen neither steady nor
skillful. The disposition of the parts is, however, the same in
both.

From these remarks it will be seen that Dori Juan de Dios de
la Rada y Delgado has laid students of Maya culture under posi-
tive obligations by this new and complete edition of Landa’s
most important work, and it should ﬁnd a place in those public
and private libraries which aim to have at all a complete list of
consulting Americana.

  

UéHANE-ABAL (POUR-LANGUAGE) TRIBE AND
‘ DIALECT or CHIAPAS.

 

BY DANIEL G. BRINION 111.1).

PrefeSsor oi} Amencan Archaeology and Linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania

Of the numerous branches of the Mayan linguistic stock that re-
maining the least known 15 the Chane- abal, Chanabal, or Chaﬁabal,
spoken iii a remote corner of the Mexican State of Chiapas i The
explanation of this ignorance is easy enough when we consider how
small is the tribe, how isolated its locality, and how indifferent the
ordinary traveler is to ethnological and especially linguistic sub-

   
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
 
  
 

jects. lam gratiﬁed, therefore, to be able to offer sufﬁcient ma-

3;, _ terial about this people and their tongue to dispel various "errors

3‘7 found in the authors, and to assign to both their correct ethnologic
2, posmons.

Name and Synonyms.——In his “‘ Geographical Description of Chi—
apas,’,’ Pineda describes the city of Comitan in these words: “ Its
' ., . __population is a mixture of whites and natives ,- the latter speak four
languages besides the Spanish, and on this account tlieir maternal
tongue is called C/zaﬁaéal, and is compounded of the Zotzil,’ Casdal,

4 Maya, and Trokek.”*
., This extraordinary statement has given some trouble to later
writers. Nowhere else do we hear of any such languages as the
Casdal and the ﬂoéeé. Orozco y Berra, indeed, was so affected
by their solitary appellations as to exclaim, “ I‘hese languages have
disappeared, and their names alone remain to recall those ancient
tribes, onCe posSessors of the land, who gave way to the later nations.
' “who precipitated themselves upon the territory of Chiapas,” etci‘
"mentel also classiﬁes these among the extinct languages of Mex—

:I'fa; i

dzafter him various later writers.

1

 
 
   
  
   

 

 

*Dfscrlﬁtzon Geogra’ﬁcz a’e C/ziapar 1/ Soconusro. Por Emeterio Pi11eda,p. 58.
(Niexico, r845. ) '

. J31

1791-4.

iCuadtro Derrnpfwo d: [as Lengua: lna’z’gena: a’e Méxzm. Por Francesco Pi-
~ mantel. Tome III, p. 280.

TGepgrafia de 107‘: Lenguas a’e Méxzca. For Manuel Orozco y Berra, pp. 21,

 

78 THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [V0]. 1.

In view of the dissemination of this opinion by such well-known
authors on Mexican linguistics, it is worth while saying that Casa’al
is nothing more than a blunder for Cakchiquel and Trokek for
Zoque, and both Cakchiquel and Zoque are well-known tongues,
still spoken by thousands of active citizens. This will be evident
by a study of the vocabulary I present, and suggests itself, indeed,
from the names themselves.

Another error of Pineda is to assign the name Chaﬁabal to the
language spoken at Comitan; and this, too, is repeated by Orozco
y Berra, Pimentel, and others down to the Count de Charencey
and Mr. Pilling. The proper form is Clzcme-aéal, which is short-
ened to C/za/zaéa/ in the writings of Father Ximenezﬁl< who is the
ﬁrst to mention the tongue (about 1720), and in the Bibliography
of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg.

The name C/zaize-aéal means, as Pineda says, “ four languages,”
(llama being the numeral four, and aéal, literally, word or words,
and, by extension, language.

As synonyms, Orozco y Berra gives the names]ojo[aéal,focola—
12a], and Coizzz'z‘eco.'l‘ Evidently the two former are modiﬁcations of
the same, and both are corruptions of the term lo/zoZ—alml, which
means. to speak clearly, distinctly, or the clear, distinct language.

I ﬁnd a note in the late Dr. Berendt’s papers on these names, to
this effect: “The two names which the people who speak this
tongue themselves give to it are C'ﬁamaéal and ToIzoZaéaZ, and, in
preference, the latter. They do not say Chaﬁabal nor C/zalzaéal,
but distinctly C/zmzeaédl. The words to/zol aéa/ mean ‘to speak
straightly, clearly, or distinctly;’ and they do speak it in this
manner.” '

The term Cami/em is merely an adjective in Spanish form from
the place name Coniz'z‘lazz, itself a Nahuatl word, compounded of
vomit], vase or vases, and MM, at: “the place of pots,” doubtless
referring to some ancient active industry in pottery which was there
carried 011.1 In general, the natives refer to themselves as “ Comi-
tecos,” whether they reside directly in Comitan or not. ’

*In his Arie d2 [(15 Trey Lkngruas, Cn/éc/zz'guel, Quit/16' y Zuz‘uﬁz'l, quoted by
Brasseur, Hist. des [Vm’z'om Cz'vz‘lfsées a’u M’xz'que, Tome I, p. to; note. See
also Brasseur, Bz'b/z'ot/ze‘gue Mexico- Guatemalz'enne, pp. 36, 119.

'l- Geogmjz’a de la: Leng'zms a’e Méxz'co, p. 167.
1Comp. Buschmann, Ueéer die azte/éz'sbm Ortmamen, s. 807.

 

,.-:;m}§.-“"WW‘,““' 5.3 :‘I.:: ,1;

 

,.,7,...x.—gsquv~ gr ‘ ‘ sat. a ._

 

Jan. 1888.] CHANE-ABAL, DIALECT or CHIAPAS. 79

Biblz'ograpﬁy.~The sources of our knowledge of the Chane-abal
may be brieﬂy stated. '

The oldest is comparatively recent. It is a Confesz'mzarz'a y
‘Doa‘rz’na C/zrzltz‘z'aﬂa, in the dialect of Comitan, translated by a
Dominican, Father Domingo Paz, in 1775?!<

A second Confesz'onarz‘o was prepared in 1813 by Manuel Campo—
seca, apparently a native, for the use of Father Benito Correa, also
in the Comitan dialect. Both these were secured by the Abbe
Brasseur de Bourbourg and formed part of his library at its sale.
The Abbé also stated in a letter published in the New Yer/e Trial/72c),
November 21, I851, that he had obtained a manuscript grammar
of the tongue, but of this ldo not ﬁnd any mention in his later
Writings. The Con/esz'onarz'o of Camposeca has been published by
the Count de Charencey in the Revue a’e Lz'agza'slz'gue, July 15, 1887.

In 1871 the Abbe Brasseur announced the above as the only ex—
tant monuments of the tongue. The late Orozco y Berra, however,
had in his possession a translation of the Lord‘s Prayer into Chane-
abal, which was published by Pimentel in his work already quoted.

My own special facilities for the study of the tongue are derived
from two manuscripts. One of these is entitled Voeaéa/arz'o Com-
faratz'w a’e [as Leﬂguas Zegae a’e Tuxtla, Zoz‘zz'! de San Bart/20102725?
tie [or/rrllanos, C/zaﬂeaéa/ a’e Camila”, [bee Don fose’ Maria Sam/zez,
Cara (z’e Oeosoeoanﬂa. It is the original, in-folio, not dated, but
apparently about 18570 or 1860, and contams 261 words and
phrases in Chane-abal. The second is a small quarto of 25 pages,
containing a vocabulary of about 500 words, obtained by the late
Dr. Karl Hermann Berendt in Tuxtla Gutierrez in 1870. His in~
formants were a Spanish Mexican lady, Dona Agnede de Figueroa,
and two of her servants, all of whom had passed years in Comitan
and spoke its dialect ﬂuently. The Cura Sanchez expresses the
sOunds with the Spanish alphabet, while Dr. Berendt employs that

' which he had devised for this group of tongues.

Geographical Distribution—The Chane-abal is conﬁned to the .
' parz‘z'a’o of Chiapas, known as the Parade de [a From‘era, on account

of its proximity to Guatemala. This par/Mo includes Comitan,

 

* Confetz'onarz'o y Doelrz'na- C/zrz’stz'ana en Lengua C/zamzba/ de Comitan y
Taeﬁimdla en las Céz'apas. See Brasseur, Bib/z'ol/ze‘que [l/exz'eo- Gualemalzenne,

I). [19

a

80 THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [V0]. I.

Zapaluta, Chicomucelo, and Socoltenango. In the last Zotzil is
the prevailing tongue—in the others, Chane-abal.* According to
the census of 1862 the natives speaking the latter numbered about
13,000, which is approximately the ﬁgure obtained by Pineda twenty
years before, and probably remains to-day nearly the same. On
the north they adjoin the territory of the Zotzils and Tzendals,
while both to the east, south, and west they are separated by wide
uninhabited areas from the Maya dialects of Guatemala and the
Nahuas, etc., of Soconusco. The statement advanced by Brasseur
that the Chane-abal is spoken in the extreme north of the province
of Huehuetenango, in Guatemala, remains unsupported by evi-
deuce”L and the town or place called Tammy/la, in the title of

Paz’s Confesz’onarz’o, is not mentioned on any map nor by any other
author. ,

Et/mo/ogz'az/ Train—Pineda gives this tribe the credit of being
the most industrious of any in the department of Chiapas. They
devote themselves to raising stock, to agriculture, to the manufac-
ture of basket work, straw and cotton goods, to distilling brandy
from the maguey, and to hunting. Formerly there were mining
industries in this locality, and a mysterious rumor continues among -
the whites that the Indians still know rich mines of gold and silver,
but that they keep them secret, and send the precious metals they
obtain far into Guatemala to be sold.

Physically, Dr. Berendtdescribes them ofsmall stature, less ro-
bust than the Tzendals and Zotzils, darker in hue, and with a more
pronounced mongoloid expression. Pineda says that the climate»
is less favorable to the growth of the men than of the women, and
hence that the latter appear to best advantage.

Mentally, they are inoffensive and mild in disposition, not prone
to quarrels, but of active intelligence.

Thelr country is rather level, with numerous streams and Swamps,
and IS in consequence not healthy, especially to Europeans.

 

* All these places are mentioned by Remesal, in I6I7, as under the jurisdiction '

ofthe Dominican Convent of Copanabastla. Hz'storizz de C/zz'apa: y Guatemala,
P- 746’- ' ‘

1- Compare Brasseur, Arc/1. (it [:1 Com. Scientif. du Mexz’gue, Tome I, p. I30,
and‘Stoll, Et/mogmp/zz'e tier li’epuélz'xé Guatemala, p. 88. Berendt, in his Geo-
graﬂa d: [as Lenguas Maya-[(2256 MST, gives no support to the assertion.

 

   
 
  
   
  

 

  
 
   
  
 
 
  
   
   

I

12.11.1888,] CHANE-ABAL DI'ALECT 0F CHIAPAS. 81'

Phonetics—The phonetics of this dialect reveal at once its close
relationship to the Mayan linguistic stock. It has the well-known
“ cut ” letters, the “ consonantes heridas ” of Spanish authors,

‘le'éué’p, ft, t’ts, t’z‘x, which may be described as a repetitipn of the

' sound of the single letter, with a slight hiatus between the two.
There are also the gutturals, the c/z’, as 6/2 in the German But/z, and
12s, and the soft x, like $12 in share.

The vocabulary prepared by Dr. Berendt was written by him in
his own “Analytical Alphabet for Mexican and Central-American
Languages,” which contains a number of letter forms not obtain-
able in type.’l< In transcribing it I have indicated the cut letters
and gutturals by an apostrophe, as é/é’ and c/z’. The other princi-
pal peculiarities of this alphabet are: is =' German x; ix: the
English (/2 in c/zurc/z; ks = the English as in fax. The vowels have
their Continental sound, but when one is written above the line it is

to be pronounced in one syllable with the vowel following and
w1thout losing its independent character.

Companlvom.-—A feature of much interest in Dr. Berendt’s v0-

cabulary is the extensive analogies he has indicated between the ‘
Chane-abal and other dialects of the Mayan group. These are dis-
tinguished by the following initials:

C., - — — , the Cakchiquel.

Ch., - - ‘~ the Chontal.

E., - - — the Echolchi, or Chorti.
H., - — - the Huasteca.

I., - — — the Ixil.

K., - - - the Kiche or Quiche.
M., - - - the Maya.

Mm., - ,, -' the Mame or Mam.
P., - - - the Putum or Chol.
P0,, - - — the Pocoman.

Tz., - - -* the Tzendal.

Z., - - - the Zotzil.

-All the above are dialects of the Mayan group. A‘ﬂinities of '
tOngues beyond-this group are indicated by—

,Mex.,, - ~ - the Mexican or Nahuatl.
» . ‘un - -‘ -_ the Zoque.‘

* This alphabet was published, lithographed in fac-simile, by the American
- Ethnological Society, in 1869.
i ‘ II ‘

82 ' THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [VOL I.

Cal/zparaz‘im Voazézg/ary of C/zaize—aéal, from MSS. of .Dr. C. H.
Berma’z‘, 1870: ’ V

Achiote, ch’ooX.——Ch., Tz., Z., P., kuxub, M.
After, tsanto.——See before.

Aguacate, OIL—M., Tz., Z., un, Ch., um, P., och’, K.
Alive, saganil.—sasapo, Zq.

All, petsanil.——See lift/afew.

Always, chaxan ya—taxtal, Z.

Animal, txanté—txon, Z.

Airona, ke“ex.-—Z.

Ant, xanitx.~Tz., Ch., Z., P., M., C., K.
Ann—See ﬁcmzz’.

Armadillo, iboi.—C., ibotx, M., Ch.

Arse, anus, top—top, to bore, M.

Artisan, ayatel—lit. “he has business.”

Ashes, tan—M., Tz., K., Ch.

Atole, mats.

Bad, mi lek—ma lek uk, not good, Tz, Z.
Banana, lobal.—Z.

Bark, patik te’—pat te’, R, Z.

Basket, métx.-——Tz., Z.

Bat, 11etX (?)—See wz'izg.

Bean, txenek.——Z, Tz., H.

Beard, itsimalaisim, Z., ismatxi, C. _

Beard (of the chin), ch’uti—xékti, Ch.

Bed, tt’sat.—C., tt’xak, M., P., tsees, Zq.
Bee, txachnul, ahau txab—yikil kab, M., yaltxab, Tz.
Before, “anto’.——Qy? Spanish.

Belly, lukum—tsek uku’, Zq.

Below, koel—kaa’i, Zq.

Bench, kan konots, Zq., kanche, M.

Bitter, kk’ a“.——M., K., tt’xa, Z, txach’, Ch., kk’ ai, H.
Black, kk’ikk’.——C., K. 5 ik, Ch., Tz., Z, etc.
Bladder, be txulal—lit. passage, urine.

Blind, tupel sat—See eye.

Blood, txik.-—Tz., Ch., Z., P., M., etc.

Bone, bak.-——M., Ch., Tz., Z., P., C., K., Zq.

Brain , txich’nab—txinam, Z, ‘ "

 

 

a *4,w\)wl w, Mv-“JY'lol-r'vrr u p u
xx: -

 

  
  
   

Jan. 1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALECT 0F CHIAPAS. 83

Branch ofa tree, kk’ab té——lit. arm, tree.

Brandy, pox—opox, Z., petxtio, P.

Breast, snak f1 Chol———uakk’ux, C., K.

Bridge, ka té—k’am, C., K.

Brother, elder, bankil.—Z., Tz.

Brother, younger, ich’tsinal.——Tz., Ch., Z., M.
Bug (chinche), potX—Zq., Z.

Cacao, kaka—M., Tz., R, Z., Ch.

Calabash, for eating, kk’um.—M., K., C., tt’xum, Tz., Ch., Z., P.
Calabash, for water, tsu.—Z., K., C., Ch., M.
Cat, mistu.—Zq., M., Tz., Ch., Z., P., ,C., K. ; all from Nahuatl
' mz'zz‘lz', the American lion. '
Cave, kk’en—txen, Tz., Ch., Z., P., M.

Cedar, txuch’te’.—Ch., P., tente’, Z., kk’uche, 'M.
Chayote, txoyol.

Cheek, txoch’——-txo, Ch., Z., Tz., P.

Chemise, kolob.

Chief, leader, olom, achal.——See Iwaa’ and warren
Child, a' la.——-Tz.; R, Z., see 5072..

Chile, itX.—Ch., Tz., Z., P.; ik, M., C., K.
Church, na Dios—lit. house, God.

Clay, lum.—-—See earl/z. '

Cloak, nok.—M., Z.

Clothes, in general,'nok.——M., P.

Cloud, ason. '

Coal of ﬁre, txakalkakk’.

Coast, bank, sti ch’a,——See mow/z, wafer.

Cock, rooster, kere mut—kelemut, Ch. comp. lze/z.
Cold, tsae’ txel—tsu“an, P.; keel, M.

Collar, gualal—“al, Z.

Comal (a ﬂat dish), samet.‘——Tz., semet, Ch., Z., P.
Comb, Xixab—Xichob, Ch., K.

Corn, ear of, ch’al.——K., C.

Cord, rope, yagil tXi.—See hemp.

Cornﬁeld, alach’.- _

Cotton, teinok—tuxnok, Z., tinion, P.

Coyote, wolf, ogil—okk’il, z. ‘

Crab, tenten.

Cricket, txultxul—txil, Z., C., K.,' tsiltsim, H,

/

l

84 THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [V0]. 1.

Daughter (of a woman), al akix.——Comp. 5072.
Day, kk’agr’i—kk’atzal, Z. '

Dead, txamta—txamel, Tz., Z’., Ch., P., kimen, M., etc. See sic/é.
Deaf, pakatxikim. See ear.

Deer, kuch’lal txech’.—See woody; txech’, Mm., Z., Tz., etc.
Devil, pukuch’——temptation, Z.

Dish, olla, oxom.

Dog, tt’si.—Tz., Z., P., C., K., Po.

Drawers, breeches, ueX.———M., Ch., Tz., Z., P., C., K.
Dumb, mix kumani—lit. “he speaks not.”

Ear, txikin.—Tz., Ch., Z., P., etc.

Earth, land, lum——M., Tz., Z., P., etc.

East, the, bauaxel kk’agr'l.

Egg, nolob—-—moloch’, Po., C.

Elbow, xich’ kk’abuxﬁch’ku, P. See arm.
Entrails, txan lukum~—lit. snake, belly.
Excrement, kot.

Eye, sat—Z., sitch, Tz.

Face, sat—See eye. .

Far, nachat C., K., Ch., P. '

Fart, .tsis—Z., kis, M., C., K.

Fat, tolan, pim‘—pim, M., C., R, Z., K.

Father, tat—Zq., Tz, Po, etc.

Fear, txiuel—Z.

Feather, kk’ukk’um—M., Tz., Z., P., C.
Female, men—ma, Z.

I. Finger, ni kab tik—lit. “ son of the hand.”

‘ Finger, little, yal kk’ab. _

Fire, kakk’——M., Ch., Tz., Z., P., C., K.

- Fish, Dial—Tz., Z., 1).; kai, M.

Fisherman, mul“anum. . ' '
Flea, kak—C., K., tt’xik, M., tsak, H.

Flesh, meat, baket—-—Tz., Z., Ch., M.

Flint stone, tonil kich’k.———Seeﬁre.

Flower, nitxim—Z., Tz., 13.; nikte, M.

Fly (a), 113—3qu Z., K., M., etc.

Foam, froth, pqu—puluch’, C., K., upu, Zq.
Foot, (Bk—M., Ch., Tz., Z., P., E., Po.
Forehead, patan—-pan, P., Ch. 5 palak, K., Mm.

 

Jan.1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALECT 01“ (IHIAPAS. 85

\

Fork (of a tree, etc.), oi—Z.
'Fox, uch’txum——utx, Ch., Z., P., M.
. Frog, txutx'—Z.
Fruit, lekk’ul té—kuti, Zq.
Gall, k“a—M., C., K., Ch., H
Girl, akix.
God, chu‘tik—txultatik, Ch., Tz.
Good, 1ek—Ch., Tz.
Goose, petx—Z., Zq., Tz.
Grass, sacate, ak—Tz., C.
Green, yax—M., Tz., Z., P., etc.
Guayava (a fruit), pata—Zq., Ch., potol), Z.
Gum, resin, yalmix té.——See milk, tree. ‘
Hail, bat—M.
Hair, tsots—M.,Tz., Z., P.
‘ Hammock, ak———Z.
Hand or arm, kk’ab—M., Tz., C., K., Ch., kk’o, P., kﬁ, Zq.
Hand, left, kexan kk’ab.
' Hand, right, “ael kk’ab.
Hard, tsats—Z., Ch. ; txitx, M.
Hat, pisolom—pixol, Z. See lzwa’.
Hatchet, etxéch’—ekk’el, Z. ,ykach’, C.
He, that one, yena
,, Head, olom—cholom, C., H., ch01, M., Tz., Z., P., E.
Heart, snich’koch’ol.—See éreasz‘. Kuskolot, Mm.
Heart, of an ear of corn (cob), bakal—M., Tz., Z., P., Ch., H.
Heaven, sky, kultxan—txultxan, Tz., kaan, M., kach’, C., K.
VHeavy, 3.1— M., Ch., K., Z.
Hell, katimbak—Z.
Here, ili— li, Z., Tz.
Hemp, tXi—Z., Tz.,‘P.
- Hen, nia mut—mutio, P.
High, txaan—txan, P., caanel, M.
Hill, “its—M., Ch., Tz., Z., P., I., Mm.
Hog, txitam—Tz., Ch., Z., P., etc.
H'Oney, txab—Tz., kab, M., C., K.
Horn, xulubeM., Tz., R, Z.
House, na—M., Tz., Z.
HOW? chastal. '

 

f

 

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

86 THE AMERICAN AN'I‘HROPOLOGIST. [VoL 1.

How much? ch’ai—M., Ch., H.

How often? chai elele—ch’ail, H., ch’—aite, M., ch’ai tual, I. ‘
Hungry, uain—“aich’, C., K., M.

Husband, tatam.

I, kena.

Jar, tsima—Zq., R, K.

Jar for water, tt’xub.

King, chief, ahau—M.

Lake, istinian ch’a—lit. shut-in’ water.

Large, nig“an—ni1n, C., P0., Min.

Leaf (of corn), ch’éch’otX—Tz., Z., ch’omotx, Ch., P.
Leaf (of a tree), pa“ilté.—See free.

Leather, tt’suin—C., K.

Leg, etxmal.

Light, mialuk—lit. “ it is not heavy” (P), mooluk, Z.
Lightning, txauk Tz., Z., M.

Lime, tan—Ch., Tz., Z., P.; taan, M.

Lion, txoch’—-—Tz., koh, M., C., K.

Lioness, si—M., Ch., Tz., C., etc.

Lip, bakel ti—lit. ﬂesh, mouth.

Little (a), tusan—uxan, Zq.

Liver, tsech’yub—sekum, Z., sase, C., K.

Lizard, och’kots—Tz.; otxo, H.

Lizard, large, ayin—M., Mm., Tz., Z., P.

Load, kutX———M.

Locust, kfich’li‘lb—kk’ulum, Z.

Louse, Ilk—M., C., K., Ch., Tz., uts, H.

Magician, pﬁkuch’. See devil.

Maize, brim—M., Tz., Ch., Z., P., C., K., Po.

Maize, green, ach’an—Tz., Z.

Male, kerem.—See do}, your/z. '

Man (Vir), uinik—T2., Ch., Z., P.

Market place, plaza, txinub—txiuitz, Z.——See tow/z.
Master, ruler, ach’ual—Tz., Z.
Mecapal, pek—Tz., Z.
Messenger, ch’ekubal.

Mat, pop—M., Ch., Tz., Z., C., K.
Milk, yalelmix—lit. water, teat.
Mill, millstone, txa—txam, Z., M., Ch., etc.

 

 

 

 

Jan. 1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALEC’I‘ OF (THIAPAS.

Money, takk’in—M., Z., P. ~
Monkey, bats—Z, M., P., C., K.
Monkey, 1113.X—-M., Ch., Z., P.
' Moon, ixa“—Mm.; ixacha“, “queen,” M.
Month, ixa“.~See moon.
Mother, nan—Tz., Zq.; na, M., Ch., etc.
Mouth, ti—P., Ch., tich, Z., txi, M., C., K., Po., E., Mm.
Much, ch’itsanukk’i, C., K.
Much, very, “achel.
Mud, lokol—lukk’, M.
Nail (of ﬁnger), etX—Tz., P., Z., M., etc. -
Name, bile—TL, Z.,' bi, C., K., M., etc.
Narrow, txin sat—See eye and Wild/Z.

Navel, 1nuxuk—C., K., Ch., P.

Near, mOch’an. .

Neck, ch’nuk—nuk, Tz., H.

Nest, tso—nose, Zq., zok, C., K.

Net-bag, enub—nuti, Tz., P.

New, ach’kats—aats, Z.

Never, mich’ai nach’ke.

Night, ak“al—Z., P.; akab, M., K.

No, not, mi.—See éaa’, [lg/ll; ma, M., K., mu, Z. etc.

Nopal, pechtak—petok, Z.

Nose, nii—M., Tz., P., Ch., Z.

Nothing, m‘inch’asai.

Oak tree, yaxté—yax txe, M., ceiba tree.

Old (of things), poko’—peka, Zq.

Onion, tuyal—ui, M.

Opossum, ﬁsochmos, Tz., P.

Orphan, meba—meba, P., widow, widower.
, Otter, tt’sich’a—ch’atsi, P., Z., Tz.

Owl, tuchkul—tunkul utxu’, M., tukur, C.
' Pain, ya—-M. ‘

Palm (of the hand), tan kk’atf—M.

Palm tree, pooh.

Petticoats, ch’ﬁnal.

Physician, ach’ nanum,

Pine (ocote), tach—Ch., Z., P. ,

Pine, White, zakal tach’.

 

 

88 ‘ , THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [Vol.I. )3

Plate, dish, sek—sets, Z.

Plum, p6m—-Tz.

Polecat, pal—M. ‘

Potato (camote), isak—Z., iz, M., C., K.

Prairie, savanna, ch’ob—ch’on, Zq.

Pregnant, kutxan txamel.—See load, sir/e.

Pretty, tsamal—sam, Z.

Priest, ch’“atik.—Seef(zz‘/‘zcr.
Quail, poch’“ik. **
Rabbit, tXitX—utxib, T2, istxik, Mm. '

Rain, ch’a“.—See wafer. '

-Rat, txitam txo~ttxo, M., Tz.

Red, txak—-—M., P., Tz., Ch., Z., kak, C., H., K.

Reed (bejuco), ak—M., Ch., Z., P.

Rib, xaclf—saya apat, Zq.

Ring, circle, maka’——Zq., Z.

River, ch’ag“anyok—lit. “ water that ﬂows.”

Rivulet, yokch’a—M. , ' T
Road, street, be—M., Z., K.
Roof, sbolom naits—lit. head, house. a

Root,'yetx té—yetal, T z.—See tree.

Salt, att’sam—Ch.,-Z., C., K., Tz., P.

Sand, ch’ich’kab—ch’i, Ch., Tz., R, Z.

Scorpion, tsek—Tz., Z.

Sea, niguan ch’a—lit. great water.

Seed, inat—inach’, H.

Sheep, alagal txech’—lit. “domestic deer,” alakk’, M.,=domes—'
tic animal.

Shoe, xanab—M., Tz., Ch., P., etc.

Shoulders, patik—Ch., Z., M.

Sick, txamel—Z., Tz., P. Comp. dead.

Side, tt’set—M., tselat, Tz., Z., P.

Sinew, txutxu‘—Z., Zq.

Sister, “ats—K.

Skin, hide, tt’sum—C., K.

Sleepy, “ayel—Z., H. ‘

Small, tt’xi‘n—Mm.

Smoke, tab (?)

Smooth, bilits—lilitts’, M., H.

 

Jan. 1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALECT OF CHIAPAS.

Snake, txan—tsan, Zq., Ch., T2,, R, Z., kan, M., K., Mm.
Snake, rattlesnake, ach’autxan—lit. “king snake.”
Snow, ter (P).

Soft, ch’ul. ~

Son, of a man, kunin (my son; agunin, thy son)—une, Zq.
Son, of a woman, al—M., Ch., Tz., P., C., K.
Sound, uaitxinel—Z., M.

Sour, pach’—M., Ch., P., poch’, Z.

Spindle, petet——Zq., Ch., M.

Spittle, yalel ti~—lit. water, mouth.

Spoon, letX—lek, M., a gourd used in taking food.
Spring, fountain, yech’lub ch’a’.

Squirrel, txu—txutx, Ch., Tz., Z., P., txuki, Zq.‘
Star, kanal——Z.,' kanai, “above,” M.

Stepmother, mach’an nan—M., Ch.

Stepfather, machan tat—lit. “loaned father.”
Stomach, spa.

Stone, ton—Tz., Z., tun, M., Ch., etc.

Stone, for grinding meal, txa—Zq., H.,' ka, M., C., «K.
Stone, for cooking on, yoch’ket—Tz., Z., P.
Stone, for sharpening, nuk ch’ux—ch’ux, M., Z.
Stranger, tuk txa nab.

Sun, the, kk’agu—kk’akk’ul, Z., Tz.

Sweat,‘ teka“.

Sweet, tXi—I-Z” M., C., K., H.

Tail, ne——M., Z., Ch.

Tapir, tsemen—,Z., tsimin, M., Ch., Tz., P.

Tear, a, yalel sat—lit. water, eye.

T eat (nipple), mix.

That, itukote'wchastuk, Z.

There, tikote.—See t/zaz‘. _

They, those, yenalé.—See 1w.

Thick, koch’lel.

Thief, elkk’anum—elek, Z., C.

Thin, bikit—Tz., M.

Thirsty—takintin—Z. -

This, itu.

Thorn, kk’iix—M., K., Ch., Tz.,..P., Z., H.
Thread (of cotton), txalal. '

l I 2

89

90 . THE AMERICAN. ANTHROPOLOGIST. ' [Vol 1.

Throat, tsoch’os.’

Tick (wood—tick), Sip—TL, Z., P.
Toad, go—fro, VI.

Tobacco, inai—Tz., C., K., H., Z.
To—day, uaxa’—nax, T Z., Z.

Toe, yal 0k.—Seefooz‘.

Tomato, pix—K.

To-morrow, ch’etxel.

Tongue, ak—M., Mm., Ch., P., Z., etc.
Tooth, ke—Z., P., k0, M.

Tortilla, “ach’ M., Ch., TL, Z. '
Town, txonab

Tree, te——Ch., TL, Z., H., P.

Trunk (of a tree), top te’——lit. arse, tree.-
Tusk, tsich’yej—tsie’, P., K., C., M.
Ugly, milek sat-—lit. “'face had.”

Urine, txulal—C., K.

Wall, pakk’ab pakk’, M.

, Warm, kk’ixin—Z.

Water, ch’a—M., Ch., TL, 13., K., E.
\Vax, txabek—Tz.

We, tuk (P)

Well, ch’okom—ch’ok, Z., P., T7,.
West, the, bauax inuxik kk’agr’l.

\Vhat? ch’aX—bax, M., Tz.

When? ch’aimach’ke.

Where, baa—C, Tz., P., Z.

White, sak—M., Tz., Z., C., K., P0., Ch., P.
Who? matX—Tz., M., Ch., P.

Wide, nig“an sat.~See aye and great.
Wife, xtxeurn—X=fe1n. preﬁx.

Wind, ikk’.——M., Ch., T2,, P., etc.
Wing, “etX—J‘itx, Ch., P.

Woman, ixuk—C., K, Po., P, 1., etc.
Woman, old, 1nern——inim, M.

, Wood, te.—-—See 2771?.

Woods, kk’ul.

World, sat kinal.—~See eye,- kin, M.=sun.
Worm, yal txan—lit. son, snake.

 

 

 

 

Jan.1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALECT OF CHIAPAS, 91

Year, ch’abil—M., Ch., Z.
Yellow, kk’an—M., Tz., K., Po, kk’c'm, P, Ch., kam, Mm.
Yesterday, eke—~6kk’obi’, Ch., “och’ei, 'l‘z., akbi, I).

You, “enale.

Young of an animal, yal—Z., M., alach, C. See 50/1.
Youth, a, kerem—Z.
Yucca, tsinté—M., Z., Ch.

Muzzy/2113‘.

I. ch’uné I7. ch’uklach’uné

.2. txabe ii I8. uaxaklach’une

3. oxé p 19. balach’une

4. txané » 20. ch’untach’be

~5. ch’oe 21. ch’unextxa “inike

6. “ake’ 3o. lach’unextxa “inike

7. ch’uké 4o. txa “inike’

8. “axake’ 6o. ox “inike’

9. balune 8o. txan “inike'

IO. lach’uné Ioo. ch’o uinike

II. buluké ‘ 120. “ak “inike’

12. lach’txane' 160. uaxak “inike’

I3. oxlach’uné . 200. lach’ “inike’

I4. txanlach’uné 400. ch’un xane
' 15. ch’olach’uné 8oo. txa xane'

16. uaklach’uné 8ooo. 'ch’un ch’ikipil

 

Vocaéulary of Sam/265. The vocabulary of the (1/711 of ()coso—
cantla is much less satisfactory than that of Dr. Berendt. Not
only is the manuscript written in a hand far from readily legible,
but evidently the writer had no personal knowledge of the tongue,
and managed with difﬁculty its consonantal asperities. Neverthe—
less, it contains a number of words not in Dr. Berendt’s, especially
verbs and verbal phrases, and throws some light on the syntax. The
alphabet employed is the Spanish, without any deﬁned system for
expressing sounds not in that tongue.

92 THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [VOL I.

Vocaéu/ary of C/zaizcﬂllal, from MSS. 0/ Rev. fosé Maria Sam/162.;

(aéom‘ 186(5).

Afternoon, late, xhocheaqui. Much, very, guajel.
Bride, yajrnul. ‘ Plain (level area), job; .
Ceiba tree, aqueuc. Pretty, tramal. - . .
Cold, chee. Rat, choho.
Cooked, coxhoxh. Reed, cane, caem.
Do‘g, tri. . i Ripe, taqan.
Drum, pumpumquajat ‘ Rosary, quentexhal.
Dry, taquinxha. Scorpion, tree.
Enemy, mivojite (not-friend). Soul, attrilla.
Frog, chuxh. Tarantula, xhulatmut.
Half, a, snatan. Thief, lum.
Hill, quitz. Track, ootprint, yoqui.
Hog, chitam. 'l‘urpentine, cataq.
Kernel, seed, saquil. , Unripe, yahan.
Little, a, tuzan. Uncooked, trehe.
Married,amarriedmau, napamel. Whistle, a, aymai. \
Monkey, machin. Word, abal. ;
Mountain, lutu. ii

Vz’r/u‘ am! Phi/axes.
To kill - — — - . — milqi.
To hear — — — - — aquavi. ‘
To know — — - — — capticon; ‘
To pluck, to gather — - - yaj. ,
To ask — — i - —' — canalli. :
T o wrap — - — — ~ quaxhuay. ?’
To break - — - — - tama.
To chew - — — - « loxha. v f:
T 0 sin - — — — — ae mul (thou sinnest P) j§
To carry ‘ — — ‘— ~ culan. E
To burn — — » - — quaxhohayh.
Open ! . - — — — — jama.
Say! - — — - - ala. .
Thou seest me not — - - mi xhaquel aquon.
Leave thy bride — - — ya cari yajrnul.
Sit down - - - - — guaxhacuyi.
Before or in the presence of God - satagel-Dios. ‘
Make the sign (of the cross) ; siqan haba.*
We went to the river with John — Soc ha Juani quaqiontini qua ja.

 

* Camposeca gives this phrase : Aid w'z d M. (Confesz’onarz'o, U. S.)

 

Jan. 1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALEC'I‘ OF CHIAPAS. 93

P675072d/P70/20u725.—111 neither of the vocabularies before me is
the scheme of the personal pronoun satisfactorily developed. As
far as they go it is as follows:

FIRST PERSON.

 

Sant/zez. 86767207.

I — ~ — — agunen - ~ — — kena.
Of me ‘— - — ua. '
For or with me - svaquena.
We — — - quenticon — - - tuk.
Of us — — - sva hay.
For or with us - — sva quentiqhon.

SECOND PERSON.
Thou — — - jasta lavil — - — uena.
Of thee — — -. uaquena.
For or with thee —‘ svaquena.
You - — — svaquenalexh - - — uenales.
For or with you - svaqueualexh.

THIRD PERSON.
He, it — — — jastu — — — — f itukote’
Of him — — — svagmo — — — - [ yena.
For or with him — svagmo.
They — — — - jahé — — — — yenale.
Of them — — — — . svatue.
For or with them - — svagmotic.

Besides allowance for the imperfect phonetics of Father Sanchez,
there are other obvious misunderstandings in his expressions. The
third person jaw; is the Zotzil c/z’asz‘zz/c, “ that one there; ” and the
second person singular is apparently this word combined with the
possessive “ that is thine.” Dr. Berendt is also in error in giving
tuk we, and z'z‘uéqz‘é he. The word 2m means “this one,” and
tzkole, “there.” The correct form of the personals is:

I, é—eiza. We, fe-eizz‘z'lzoiz.
Thou, “2724. You, u«ma/6X3.
He, y-ma. They,- y-ma/aé.

7

The termination ma is, I believe, the word for “body," as in
’ Zotzil gh’mza, my body or_ ﬂesh; z’mm, his body. In a similar man-
ner it is used in the English indeﬁnite pronouns “ somebody, any-
body,” and in the French Creole of Hayti it has supplanted the
reﬂexive 53, as in the phrase I

65ka [o‘z‘e ’d jz'zz’é 01/.

aid you.

jz'zz’é corps—ow,
help body you, and then others

94 THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST. [VOL I.

Help yourself and others will help youii<
We thus reduce the personals to the-initial sounds—
' /c, w, ,1'.
Comparing these with the scheme of the personal pronouns in the
Quiche, Pokomchi, Maya, Zotzil, and Huasteca, presented by the
Count de Charencey, we ﬁnd no complete analogies with any one of
these dialects, though more or less with all.)L This indicates that
the Chane-abal is a distinct dialect of the Mayan family, and not

merely a sub—dialect‘of Cakchiquel or Zotzil.

131155225522?p2'02202/225.——'1‘l1e possessives have the same form in the
singular and plural, number being indicated when necessary by the
termination of the thing possessed. The forms of the pronouns,
however, change with reference to the initial sound of the following
word. This will be seen in the subjoined table:

FIRST PERSON.

25/2’2‘122‘, my father, the fo1n1 2/2’ being employed before all conso—
nants except5 , 22, and 15; with these 5 is required, as, 5- 420%, my
clothes. I; a], my son (a woman speaking, as the word a! refers to
bearing the child). .

(/27—Z‘a2‘lX’, our father, our fathers, or my fathers.

k-aZz‘zZ’, our son, our sons, or my sons.

52512221), our eye, our eyes, or my eyes.

. SF COND PERSON.
(2— 2‘222‘, thy father, (2“al, thy son.
(2— —2‘a2‘ex, thy fathers, your father, or your fathers.
a-zm/ex, thy sons, your son, or your sons.
THIRD PERSON.
5- -,2‘222‘ his 01 her father, 12- -,22[ her son.

52‘¢22‘2X2, his or her fathers, thei1 father, or their fathers
1'— ~2z/f212, her sons, their sons.

Tex2‘5.—'lhe only published texts in this language are the C022-
fe52'mzarz'o of Camposeca, already mentioned, and a version of the
Lord’s Prayer, printed by Pimentel in the ﬁrst and third volumes of
his work 011 the languages of Mexico. Pimentel states that he ob-
tained his copy from Senor Orozco y Berra, who, in turn, had it
from “ a reliable source” (116 522372 organ): It is as follows:

* See Van Name, Contributions 2‘0 Creole Grammar, p. 139, in Transarz‘ions
of [be A mericmz P/zz'lo/og‘z'm/ Association, 1869370.

1" Charencey, Le Pronom Pawn/12’! dam [as Ia’z'omes lie I I Famille T afar/m-
[22223—17221252‘5g222, in the ﬁlémoirm (z’e Z’Amu’émie Impérz'ale a’: Caen, 1868.

iszdro Descrip/z'w 1 Comparatiw a’e [as Lenguas Indz’gmas (it Méxz'co. "
Tom. I, p. F31, Tom. III, p. 280.

 

       
 

Jan.1888.] CHANE-ABAL DIALICCT or CHIAI’AS. 95

7112722 Izayd mic/za/za/z fan/[7211124] (i 7127117 jazz/é (jg
awz‘m d guaéal ﬂit/22w 272' [ll/£71772 jasta/ cult/za/zaiz.

Y? 2'! (cl/1‘22] W 012192? L127 tz’r a 15227; ma 1'a/Ja7z/zz' 506 czz/(m (71727012 gar

(5 O . _, , (S

hzgz‘z'zf d glut/(m

' \mu/z‘z’c lift/m; gztcj gaizz‘z'm/z gnazz‘ (ll/(172276012 7567727012 mar/ad ﬂag V mm!

szgz'lz‘z‘cmz a); mi wag/m (012502727 wit/1'! mm [cc (ﬁn/fag 1'02‘2'6 rat/2

ﬁzrag/
fat/1m.

Pimentel does not attempt to analyze this text, and Dr. Berendt has
a note upon it to the effect that it is in many points erroneous and

that persons in Comitan well acquainted with Chane—abal, to whom
he read it, did not recognize a number of the words. Perhaps it is

in a dialect other than that of Comitan. At any rate most of the
words are easily recognizable.

Tank, for c/z’z‘atz'é, our father.

ﬁaya’, a demonstrative frequently used by Camposeca.
Michal/Mil, for A’zt/fxcm, heaven.

l‘tlﬂ/Zﬂztédl, verbal noun, “something to be guarded.” 'l‘zendal
M72271, to take care of, to guard.

d, possessive pronoun, second person singular.
22274227, for 52'], name.

jacué, sign of the optative.
6g éacz‘z'c, to come, like T zendal z‘zu/ezéa.’l‘

(i gag/2112 and d. gnaw], both from a/um, of Berendt’s vocabulary,
meaning thy rule, sovereignty. The possessive, d, thy, has taken
the place of the ﬁrst vowel; it should read d agz/czéal.

ﬂit/22w, even as; see Vomit

272', here

[u/zzmz, earth, on earth.

java], in that manner.

7

This analysis need not be extended. It is enough to show that

the text is a genuine one, though either dialectic or imperfect.

I shall also insert a sentence from the Conyesz‘mzarz'o of Camposeca,
as published by the Count pde Charencey, in order to illustrate the
method employed by that native in reducing his tongue to writing:

Hay ama 0141' and [ﬁrm yacéz'l xs/zcz imdg [jam/ZZZ d fagzmz Mot/1'
xsagua w'que‘ d ﬂaw/z .2 0 [om ma m1 arguing, 772a ta/paxrz‘a/f
‘f,Hast thou past the days in drunkenness, drinking away all the

money which thou oughtest to give to thy wife? Or in idleness, on
the corners, or in walkingP']L

 

*Voméularz’o an [mgma 7%eldal (sic) d: Copanabasﬂa, 1620. MS. in my
possession.

T Revue de linguz'stz'gue, Tome XX, p. 238 (Paris, 1887).

96 TH E AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIS’I‘. [\701. I.

Aﬁm’z‘z’w inn/zerfra/{y m‘z‘z'llzaz‘ezz’.——lt is an odd characteristic, which

must be markedly prominent in the language, which gave it the

name “the four languages,” or “the fourfold tongue.” We may
expect to ﬁnd in it, in a double degree, the traits which Iriarte, in
his Faint/as, attributes to the speech of one of his characters:

“ Mezclando dos hablas, la nueva y la Vieja.”

To ascertain the precise percentage of other dialects present in __

the Chane-abal, Dr. Berendt submitted his vocabulary of 416 words,

excluding numerals and pronouns, to a close comparison, and drew
up the following table:

Comparison of 271:) C/ld/lc’~(l/)(l/ wit/z of/wr (Zia/662‘s of 1/16 Maya Family.
Of 461 Chane—abal words there are—

Identical with the Zotzil - - — a - _ 185 ,
- with the Maya - - _ ‘ - - , _ 147
with the 'l‘zendal — - — _ _ - - ‘ 121
with the Cholti - — — _ - _ ' 118
with the Chontal - — — - - _ 106
with the Cakchiquel — - - _ _ 85
with the Kiche — - _ - - _ 84
with the Huasteca — - — — - ‘ 30
with the Mame , - — _ - - - 17
with the Pocomame — -‘ - - — — 14
with the Ixil — — - - - _ _ 6
with the Chorti — — - - _ _ 4

Undoubtedly these afﬁnities would have been more numerous but ,

for the deﬁcient vocabularies we have of several of these dialects.
Enough remain, however, fully to vindicate the correctness of
Ximenez in classing the Chané-abal among the Maya dialects.‘
Furthermore, noting the large percentage of words from Guatemalan
dialects, we may safely assume that the line of migration of this
tribe was from Guatemala to its present abode.

The Zoque (Troke/c of Pineda) is not a Maya dialect, and it is
not strongly represented in the vocabulary. Of the whole 461
words only 30 show Zoque affinities, and many of these are common
to the adjacent dialects of the Maya stock. It is noticeable that
most of them refer to manufactured objects or to the materials from
which such objects were made in primitive times. Thus the words
for seat, bed, bench, spindle, jar, mealing-stone, nest, bone, sinew
(a string), and foam (in boiling), are approximately the same.
This seems to indicate that the inﬂuence of these diverse stocks
upon one another arose after a certain degree of culture had been ob-

tained by one in excess of the other, and that with the introduction
of this culture its terms were also adopted.

 

, ’ J

 

 

 

 

WEE
' Language

 

 

‘ BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

 

 

Reprint from American Antiquarian, January, 1886.
THE STUDY OF THE NAHUATL LANGUAGE.

Under the stimulus of, peace and an enlightened administra-
tion, Mexico is throwing open her vast and varied territory to the
capital and energy of the world. No nation is more interested in
this than ourselves, her nearest neighbors, and all that pertains to
her history, her geography and her ethnology has assumed re-
doubled importance for us. '

ther population, it may be roughly said that one-ﬁfth is of pure
white blood, two-ﬁfths of mixed white—negro and Indian stocks——
and two-ﬁfths pure Indian. The latter are ofvarious linguistic fami—
lies, but it is true to-day, as it was in the period ofthe discovery,
that of them all the Nahuatl speaking tribes are the most numer-
ous and widely extended. They are found to-day in all the states
(estados) which lie between the port of Vera Cruz and the Paciﬁc
Coast and along the latter northward to SonOra and with few in—

terruptions south to Escuintla, in Guatemala. _'~s early as the
thirteenth century this tongue had penetrated as far as the Gulf
9» of Nicaragua, where there was a ﬂourishing Aztec colony; it was
5 the recognized trading language throughout Gautemala; mercen—
if ary troops had carried it early in the fourteenth century into the

heart of Yucatan, and the learned Buschmann in his great work

, , on the subject has followed its traces as far as the river Gila, and

quite into the Utah or Shoshonee dialects of New Mexico, Ari—
zona and Upper California.

According to the principles of linguistic science, we have a
right to expect some peculiar merits in a language which had
this power of extension and self-propagation. ' These character-
istics usually belong to languages of structurally a high grade in
comparison with those with which they are brought in contact,

_ nor in this case is the presumption in error. The Nahuatl lan—
guage turns out on examination to be one of the most highly or—
ganized on 'the American continent. Its phonetics are admirable,
confessedly equalling those of the purest Castilian ; its grammar
is in accordance with simple and regular rules; its formative are
distinguished from its material elements, and are even ﬂectional
in nature, and its lexicography is ample and varied.

The term [Va/mall, which means sonorous, well sounding, was
- applied to it in very early times on account of its softness to the
ear. Its modern synonyms are “ Mexican” and “ Aztec.” The
Mexican Antiquary, Orozco y Berra, has, indeed, criticised the
application of the word [Va/mat! in this wide sense, basing his ob-

:1 313‘s -’ -’ 1..

   
 

'V'Saﬁffazm 3&7; ‘ 7' ﬁg” ,4," fa: ‘

m

 
 

\

4 i THE STUDY OF THE NAHUATL LANGUAGE,

jections on a passage from the sztorz'a of Father Sahagun, Where
that learned writer conﬁnes the expression to one dialect of the
general tongue. But with all due deferen e to this gr eat author-
ity, Nahuatl seems better than Aztec, for t at was the tribal name
of a very small though powerful segment of the stock; and better
than Mexican, for that is a geographical adjective which includes
the languages of the whole country. .

The Nahuatl is not at all a difﬁcult language for the European
to learn; at least it is inﬁnitely easier than, for instance, the Choc-
taw, the Cherokee or the Chipeway, in the United States, or its
immediate neighbors, the Othomi or Tarascan. For this reason,
and especially because it was so widely current, the Spanish mis—
sionaries paid a good deal Of attention to it, and published in it a
large number of works, chieﬂy devotional. In 1870 Dr. Berendt
collected the names of 82 authors in it, and the list could now be
increased to the even hundred, if not beyond.

Besides these religious works, which include, by the way, nu-
merous collections of sermons, there is quite a body of Nahuatl
literature ofa general character. Thus we have a very compen-
dious treatise on the manners and customs ofthe Mexicans, com-
posed by Father Sahagun, the MS. of which is now in Madrid,
and of which his published history is but an imperfect translation,
as he himself says; several historical works by Ixtlilxochitl,
Chimalpahin and anonymous writers; native poetry to a limited
extent; specimens of the ancient orations, called lute/zz/e’i/al’ollz‘,
and the like. Most of these are still in manuscript, and the last
mentioned, lute/mellaz‘ollz', though printed in 1599; is so rare a vol-
ume that only two copies are known, both imperfect,one of which
is in my library. ,

The greater number of these historical and literary works owe
their preservation to the labors of the celebrated antiquary, the
Chevalier Boturini, who devoted seven years to collecting them
in Mexico. in the ﬁrst half of the last century. His collection was
sequestrated by the Spanish government, and in part dispersed
and lost, but in this century the unfortunate Irish peer, Lord
Kingsborough, Whose enormous work on Mexican Antiquities'is
familiar to every student of the subject, made strenuous efforts to
gather together the remnants of the Boturini collection. . He was
in-a measure successful, but less so than M. Aubin, a French
gentleman who was a resident in Mexico between 1830 and 1840.
This collector,with unwearied assiduity,tracked every article nam—
ed by Boturini in his catalogue, and succeeded in securing many
of them—just how many it is not possible to say, for M. Aubin,
who is still living, an advanced octogenarian, in Paris, has many pe—
culiarities, among others, that of not allowing a soul to look at his
literary treasures. They are destined, however, to become a part
of the great Bz'élz'othe’que Natz'onale: and therefore, without wish—
mg to abbreviate in the slightest the days of such a worthy col-

'_‘nws"‘."" .

 

THE STUDY OF THE NAHUA'I‘L LANGUAGE. I

U!

lector, we may be sure that these documents will at no distant
date be accessible to students.

It is thus seen that the Nahuatl is a living language, spoken by
perhaps half a million people; that it has a literature of consider—
able extent for an American language; that it is comparitively
easy of acquisition; and that it presents structurally one of the
highest types of American tongues. For these reaso IS it can be
particularly recommended to those who would like to turn their
attention to the many interesting problems presented by Ameri—
ican linguistics. To aid any who may be ﬁred by this laudable
ambition, I will give a brief sketch of some of the most useful
text—books, and add a few words about what other laborers in
this vineyard are accomplishing.

Beginning with Grammars, the earliest written was that of
Andre de Olmos, one of the ﬁrst missionaries and a man of extra—
ordinary linguistic talents. It was concluded in 1547, but was
not printed until 1865,when it was published by the French gov—
ernment under the editorial supervision of M. Remi Simeon, one
of the ablest living Nahuatl scholars. It can be ordered through
any importing bookseller,and will cost the purchaser about $3.50.
As a grammar of that date, it is remarkably thorough, but it is
not the best. This position must without hesitation be assigned
to the grammar of Carochi, ﬁrst printed in [645, and edited by
Father Paredes in 1759. This is a most complete and satisfactory
w‘ork. Unfortunately, it is scarce and dear. I paid $5.00 for

’ my copy in Paris, but the learned Mexican scholar, Dr. Antonio

Penaﬁel, writes 'me'that he is going to publish a new edition of it
in that city. Numerous other grammars have been printed, but
they are all decidedly inferior to these two. The latest issues in
this direction have been efforts to teach the language on the

"‘Ollendorf” system. In 1869 Sr. Faustino Chimalpopoca, a

Mexican scholar of partly native blood, published in the City of
Mexico an “Epitome, or Easy Method of Learning the Nahuatl
Language.” It is a little duodecimo of 124 pages, and. while it
is a creditable effort to the author, it will not. carry the learner '

" far. A larger volume is that of Dario Julio Caballero, printed in

Mexico in 1880 with the title, “Grammar of the Mexican Lan—
guage According to the System of Ullendorff.” It has a number
of reading lessons in prose and verse, and well—selected vocabu—
laries.

As to chtzommes, we are still dependent on that of Alonzo de
Molina, the second enlarged edition of which was printed at Mexi-
coin 1577. Ofcourseit IS scarce and dear, a good copy being cheap

‘ at ﬁfty dollars. But through the enlightened 'liberality ofthe de-

voted Americanist, Mr, Julius Platzman, of Leipzig, scholars can
obtain a most accurate reprint of it published by that gentleman
in 1880. - The price in Leipzig is 50 marks—$12.50. It is merely
a reprint of the edition of 1571, without addition or correction,

6 THE STUDY OF THE NAHUATL LANGUAGE.

and contains about 13,000 Nahuatl words. But we may shortly
look for a very much more valuable work in this direction from
the hands of M. Remi Simeon, the president of the Sociez‘e Amer-
z'caz'rze de France, and whom I have already mentioned as the eds
itor of Olmos’ Grammar. He has been engaged for twenty-ﬁve
years in preparing an exhaustive lexicon of the Nahuatl, and he
writes me in a recent letter that it is now in press and’will appear
through the well—known Parisian publishing house of Hac/zrz‘te (‘5‘
Cir. It will contain over 25,000 words, besides many locutions.
We may hail the appearance of this monument of industry as
laying for all time a secure foundation for researches in Nahuatl
philology. It is to be‘ hoped that all the leading libraries of the
United States will provide themselves with an early copy.

For printed Zexfs on which the student may exercise his gram—
matical and lexical acquirements, we are not as well off as we
should be, and very easily could be, were such publications prop-
erly encouraged. In the line of religious writings, a volume is
issued by Paredes—the same whose grammar I have already
mentioned has long enjoyed a just celebrity. It is a small
quarto of nearly 500 pages, with the title Promﬁzarz'o Mam/a!
Méxz'cano,and was printed in M‘exico in 1759. Most ofit con—
sists of sermons in Nahuatl, but the difﬁcult passages are explained
in Spanish, so the book is a very valuable aid for mastering the
idioms of the native tongue It is, of course, rare, and a copy
costs even more than the grammar. A few weeks ago I saw a
copy in New York marked $25.00, but that was a “ fancy ﬁgure,”
as it can generally be picked up for about $15.00. One or two
of the sermons in the Prompz‘z/arz'o have been published separately,
with grammatical comments, within the last ten years,‘ by Prof.
Agustin de la Rosa, at Guadalajara, Mexico; but, like all the
works of that ﬁnished Nahuatl scholar, they are extremely difﬁ-
cult to procure, as they were intended merely for the use of his
classes in the seminary and not for general sale.

An ample and excellent text was issued in a handsome quarto
volume at Milan in 1858—60, under the editorship of Professor
Bernadino Biondelli. It was the Evange/z'arz'um, Episz‘o/arz'zzm g!
Leclz'onarizzm Azte’cum, prepared by Father Sahagun in the six-
teenth century, and never previously printed. It is composed 'of
selections from the Bible in Nahuatl, with the vulgate translation
in an adjoining column. The editor adds a useful preface and a
comprehensive vocabulary, all in Latin. As Sahagun was per—
fectly acquainted with Nahuatl, We may accept his version ofthe
vulgate as a correct mirror of the native language such as it was
at the period of the conquest; though from the nature of his
subject it was necessarily forced into the expression of ideas for-
eign to the native mind.

This last objection, which is a serious one, does not apply to
a recent issue of the M1560 Nacz'onal of Mexico. That institution

 

\

THE STUDY OF THE NAHUATL LANGUAGE. 7

has lately completed the publication of a document known as the
Codex C/zz‘ma/popoca, or “The Annals of Cuauhtitlan.” It is a
native composition of unknown authorship, of ancient date, and
treats of the precolumbian history ofthe country. Hence it is in
‘ several respects a work of the ﬁrst order of importance. It is ex—
tremely difﬁcult to translate, and in many passages the text is
probably more or less corrupt. What is'worse, the latter part of
the MS. in the hands of the Museo Nacional is said to be illegi—
ble, and the earlier part of the original text has been included in
their publication. There is, however, two perfect copies of this
Codex in the possession of M. Aubin, of Paris, andiwe may look
forward to a complete publication of it in the future.

Another work of similar character and probablyxnot less valu-
able is that known as “The Annals of Chimalpahin.” ‘A partial
copy of these, also derived from the Aubin collection, Where the
original and complete MS. exists, is now in the hands of M.Sim—
eon, who promises the publication of it as soon as his others la—
bors will admit. These Annals begin with the year 50 Ofour era,
which is interesting, but suggests some loose guessing on the
part of their author. -

It would not be just to close this brief sketch of modern Na-
huatl studies without mentioning with particularity the zeal which
a number of learned Mexicans have recently exhibited in the cul-
tivation of this beautiful and powerful tongue. For many years
Senor Joaquin Garcia 'Icazbalceta has been engaged in collecting
MS. and printed books in or relating to it. Many of these have
been utilized with great advantage by his brother—in-law, Sr.
Francisco Pimentel, in a standard work on the tongues of Mexico.
The late Sr. Gumesindo Mendoza, director ofthe Museo Nacion-
al, .Was a thorough Nahuatl scholar, and with the aid of Don
Sanchez Solis, also deceased, gave an independent renderin * of
the Annals of Cuauhtitlin. The historian, Orozco y Berra, had
studied the native language diligently, and the fruit ofhis resarches
are seen on many pages of his great work on the ancient history

‘of Mexico. Dr. Antonio Penaﬁel has very recently published a
careful analysis of Nahuatl proper names with their hieroglyphics,
and has in preparation a series of reprints and new publications
bearing on the tongue. In Guadalajara, professor Agustin de la
Rosa teaches, or until lately did teach, the old tongue in “annual
courses of lectures ; and in the City of Mexico, Professor Troncoso
y Paso is a master of the idiom, and will, it is to be hoped, receive
a government appointment fOr giving regular instruction in it.
Other names might be mentioned, but these are sufﬁcient to show
that the scholars of our sister republic are not unmindful of the
rich ﬁeld offered to students in the investigation of this the an-

cient dominant tongue of their land.
Media, Pa. ' DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

 

A REVIEW OF THE DATA FOR THE STUDY OF THE PREIIISTORIC’
CHR OJVOLOGY 0F AAIERICA.

ADDRESS

DANIEL Gr; BRINTON, M.D., ’

Professor of American Archaeology and Linguistics in the
University of Pennsylvania.

1

V101; PRESIDEET, SECTION H.

BEFORE THE

SECTKHQCW‘ANTHROPOLOGY,

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE,

AT THE N [CW YORK MEETING,

‘ , AUGUST 10, 1887.

From the PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
‘ , OF‘ SCIENCE, Vol. XXXVI.

PRINTED AT THE SALEM PRESS.
SALEM, MASS.

1887.

 

A REVIEW OF THE DATA FOR THE STUDY OF THE PREHISTORIC
CHRON’OLOGY 0F AJIERIC’A.

ADDRESS I

BY

DANIEL Gr. BRINTON, M.D.,

Professor of American. Archaeology and Linguistics in the
University of Pennsylvania.

VICE PRESIDENT, SECTION H.
BEFORE THE
SECTION OF ANTHROPOLOGY,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE;
AT THE NEW YORK MEETING,

AUGUST 10, 1887.

From the PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF SCIENCE, Vol. XXXVI.

PRINTED AT THE SALEM PRESS.
SALEM, MASS.

1887.‘

 

 

ADDRESS

BY

DANIEL G. BRINTON, M.D.,

VICE PRESIDENT, SECTION H.

A REVIEW OF THE DATA FOR THE STUDY OF THE
PREHISTORIC CHRONOLOGYOF AMERICA.

EARLY in this century the doubt was expressed by Alexander
von Humboldt whether it is philosophical to inquire into the origin
of any of the human races or sub—species. Although he expressed
this doubt with particular reference to the American race, I believe
I am right in assuming that the hesitancy he felt in pushing in-
quiry so far, should now disappear in View of new methods of re-
search and a wider range of observations on which to found opinions.
We may not, in fact we shall not, be able to trace the American or
any other subspecies directly back to its origin in place or time;

.but by reviewing all the data which have been offered in mlution of

such a problem, we may perceptibly narrow the question, and also
estimate the relative value of the means proposed. It is to such a
review, applied to the American race, that I now invite your atten-
tion.

The prehistoric antiquity of America dates back from the ex-
ploration of the continent by the Europeans. It is therefore not
the same in all parts ;but in this respect we merely follow the anal-
Ogy of European archaeology, which also is obliged to begin its,
studies of prehistoric times from different dates. A savage tribe .
enters history when its records ﬁrst become; preserved in writing,
and all time anterior is its prehistoric period. To reconstruct the
story of its life, its growth, its migrations and actions during
the indeﬁnitely long lapse of years before it appears in history is
the task of the archaeologist. I propose to examine, so far as this
task refers to America, what means have been suggested for ac-
complishing it, and what they are worth. In such a wide survey

you must pardon the unavoidable superﬁciality of treatment.
(3)

4 SECTION H.

The data upon which theories of the antiquity, the genealogy
and the afﬁnities of this race have been constructed are varied.
For convenience of treatment I shall class them under six heads.
They are:

I. Legendary, including the traditions of the native tribes and
their own statement of their history.

II. ﬁfonamental, where we have to do with those structures
whose age or character seems to throw light on the question.

III. Industrial, under which heading we may inquire as to the
origin of both the useful and the decorative arts in the New World.

IV. Linguistic, broaching the immense and important questions
as to the diversity and afﬁnities of languages.

L V. Physical, which takes into consideration the anatomic and
morphologic peculiarities of the American race; and ﬁnally

VI. Geologic, where its position in the geologic horizons is to
be determined, and the inﬂuence upon it of the physical geography
of the continent.

Legendary. Turning to the ﬁrst of these, the legendary data, I
confess to a feeling of surprise to discover that very learned schol-
ars should still hold to the opinion that the native tribes, even
some of the most savage of them, retain to this day traditions
which they had brought from their supposed Asiatic homes. Thus
the learned missionaries, Bishop Henry Faraud and the Abbé
Emile Petitot, both entirely familiar with the Cree and the Atha-
paskan languages and lore, insist that the myths and legends of
these tribes bear such strong resemblances to the Semitic tradi-
tions that both must have had a common origin. No one can deny
the resemblance ; but the scientiﬁc student of mythology discovers
such identities too frequently and at points too remote, to ask any
other explanation for them than the common nature of the human
mind.

The question has been often raised how long a savage tribe, ig-
norant of writing, is‘likely to retain the memory of past deeds.
From a great many examples in America and elsewhere, it is prob-
able that the lapse of ﬁve generations, or say two centuries, com-
pletely obliterates all recollection of historic occurrences. Of
course, there are certain events of continuous inﬂuence which may
_ be retained in memory longer : for example, the federation of prom-
inent tribes ; and perhaps a genealogy may run back farther. My
learned friend, Dr. Boas, informs me that some tribes on Vancou-

 

ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 5

ver’s Island pretend to preserve their genealogies for twelve or
ﬁfteen generations back; but he adds that the remoter names are
clearly 0f mythical purport.

It appears obvious that all efforts to establish a prehistoric chro-
nology on the legends of savage tribes, are and must be vain.

The case is not much better with those semi-civilized American
nations, the Mayas and Nahuas, who possessed a partially phonetic
alphabet, or with the Qui’chuas, who preserved their records by the
ingenious device of the quipu. Manco Capac, the alleged founder
of the Peruvian state, ﬂoats before us as a vague and mythical
ﬁgure, though he is placed in time not earlier than the date when
Leif the son of Eric anchored his war-ship on the New England
coast. Historians are agreed that the long lists of Incas in the
pages of Montesinos, extending about two thousand years anterior
to the Conquest, are spurious, due to the imagination or the easy
credulity of that writer.

The annals of Mexico fare no better before the ﬁre of criticism.
It is extremely doubtful that their earliest reminiscences refer to
any event outside the narrow valley parcelled out between the
petty states of Tenochtitlan, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan. The only
fact that bears out the long and mysterious journey from the land
of the Seven Caves, Chicomoztoc, in the distant northwest, by the
great water, is that the learned and indefatigable Buschmann has
conclusively shown that the four languages of Sonora and all the
dialects of the Shoshonian family reveal marks of continued and
deep impressions of the Nahuatl tongue. But the chronicles of
Mexico proper contain no ﬁxed date prior to that of the founding
of the city of Tenochtitlan, in the year 1325 of our era.

I am aware that there are still some writers who maintain that
both the Mexican and the Maya astronomic cycles assume a com-
mencement for their records centuries, even thousands of years,
before the beginning of our era. These opinions, however, have
not obtained the assent of other students. We are too ignorant
both of the astronomy and the methods of writing of these nations
to admit such claims ; and the facts advanced are capable of quite
'other interpretation.

It is, on the whole, rare for the American tribes to declare them-

. selves autochthonous. The Mayas, on the peninsula of Yucatan,
stated that their earliest ancestors came there from beyond the
seas, some from the far east, others from the west. So the Toltecs,

6 SECTION H.

under Quetzalcoatl, were fabled to have entered Mexico from be-
yond the Eastern Ocean. The Creeks and Choctaws pointed to the
west, the Algonkins generally to the east, as their primal home.
These legends are chieﬂy mythical, not much truer than those of
other tribes who 'claimed to have climbed up from some under-
world. Sifting them all, we shall ﬁnd in them little to enlighten
us as to the prehistoric chronology of the tribes, though they may
furnish interesting vistas in comparative mythology.

That in which we may expect the legends of tribes to be of most
avail is their later history, the record of their wars, migrations
and social development within a few generations. The spirit of
the uncivilized man is, however, very careless of the past. We
have means of testing the exactness of such traditions in some
instances, and the result is rarely such as to inspire conﬁdence in
verbal records. Those of you who were present at the last meet-
ing will remember 110w diversely two able students of Iroquois tra-
dition estimated its value. Even when remarkable events are not
forgotten, the dates of their occurrence are generally vague. The
inference, therefore, is that very few data, dependent on legendary
evidence alone, can be accepted.

Monumental. \Vhen we tuln to the monumental data, to the
architecture and structural relics of the ancient Amelicans, we
naturally think ﬁrst of the imposing stone-built fortresses of Peru,
the massive pyramids and temples of Yucatan and Mexico, and
the vast brick-piles of the Pueblo Indians.

It is doubtful if any of these notable monuments supply prehis-
toric dates of excessive antiquity. The pueblos, both those now
occupied and the vastly greater number whose ruins lie scattered
over the valleys and mesas of New Mexico and Arizona, were
constructed by the ancestors of the tribes who still inhabit that
region, and this at no distant day. Though we cannot assign ex-
act dates to the development of this peculiar civilization, there are
abundant reasons, drawn from language, physical geography and
the character of the architecture, to include all these structures
well within the period since the commencement of our era.

There is every reason to suppose that the same is t1ue of all the
stone and brick ediﬁces of Mexico and Central Ameiica. The
maj01ity of them were occupied at the period ofthe Conquest;
others were in process of building, and of others the record of
the date of their construction was clearly in memory and was not

 

 

ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 7

distant. Thus, the famous temple of Huitzilopochtli at Tenoch-
titlan, and the spacious palace—or, if you prefer the word “com-
munal house” — of the ruler of Tezcuco, had been completed with-
in the lifetime of many who met the Spaniards. To be sure,
even then there were once famous cities fallen to ruin and sunk to
oblivion in the tropical forests. Such was Palenque which could
not have failed to have attracted the attention of Cortes had it
been inhabited.

Such also was T’Ho, on the site of the present City of Mérida,
Yucataanhere the earliest explorers found lofty stone mounds
and temples covered with a forest as heavy as the primitive
growth around it. But tradition and the present condition of
such of these old cities, as have been examined, unite in the prob-
ability that they do not antedate the conquest more than a few
centuries.

In the opinion of some observers, the enigmatical ruins on the
plain of Tiahuanaco, a few leagues from the shore of Lake Titi-
caca, in Peru, carry us far, very far, beyond any such modern date.
“ Even the memory of their builders,” says‘ one of the most recent
Vistprs to these marvellous relics, General Bartolomé Mitre, “ even
their memory was lost thousands of years before the discovery of
America.”

Such a statement is neither more nor less than a confession of
ignorance. We have not discovered the period nor the people con-
cerned in the ruins of Tiahuanaco. It must be remembered that
they are not the remains of a populous city, but merely the foun-
dations and beginnings of some vast religious ediﬁce which was
left incomplete, probably owing to the death of the projector or
to unforeseen difﬁculties. If this is borne in mind, much of the
obscurity about the origin, the purpose and the position of these
structures will be removed. They do not justify a claim to an age of

thousands of years before the Conquest; hundreds will sufﬁce.
Nor is it necessary to assent to the opinion advanced by General
Mitre, and supported by some other archaeologists, that the most
ancient monuments in America are those of most perfect con-
struction, and, therefore, that in this continent, there has been, in
civilization, not progress but failure, not advance but retrogres-
sion.

The uncertainty which rests over the age of the structures at Tia-
huanaco is scarcely greater than that which still shrouds the origin

8 SECTION H.

of the mounds and earthworks of the Ohio and Upper Mississippi
valleys. Yet I venture to say that the opinion is steadily gaining
ground that these interesting memorials of vanished nations are
not older than the mediaeval period of European histOry. The
condition of the arts which they reveal indicates a date that we
must place among the more recent in American chronology. The
simple fact that tobacco and maize were cultivated plants is evi-
dence enough for this.

There is, however, a class of monuments of much greater an-
tiquity than any I have mentioned. These are the artiﬁcial shell-
heaps which are found along the shores of both oceans and of
many rivers in both North and South America. They correspond
to the kitchen-middens of European archaeology.

In several parts of the continent they have been examined by
competent observers and the question of their antiquity approxi-
mately ascertained. I need not say this differs widely, for these
refuse heaps of ancient villages or stations were of course begun
at wide intervals. Those along the coast of Maine, as reported
upon by Prof. Jeﬁ'ries Wyman, did not yield the bones of any ex-
tinct animal, although the presence of the remains of the great
auk, now found only in the arctic regions, speaks for a condition
of climate different from that obtaining at present. There is one
fact, however, which must be borne in mind in examining the shell-
heaps of Maine and of other localities immediately bordering the
ocean. The shores of that state have been steadily yielding to the
encroachment of the waves, and therefore the most ancient shell-
heaps may reasonably be supposed to have been washed away.

The same observer, Professor Wyman, assigns a vastly greater
age to the maritime shell-heaps of Florida.

Further to the south, in Costa Rica, Dr. Earle Flint has exam-
ined the extensive artiﬁcial shell deposits which are found along
the shores of that republic. They are many feet in height, covered
by a dense forest of primeval appearance, and are undoubtedly of
human origin. He does not hesitate to assign to them an age of
20,000 years, but I have not learned whether they contain the re-
mains of extinct species.

In Brazil such shell-heaps are called sambaquis, and they are of
frequent occurrence along the bays and inlets of the coast. Some
of them are of extraordinary dimensions, rising occasionally to
more than a hundred feet in height. The lower layers have been

ADDRESS BYIDANIEL G. BRINTON. 9

consolidated into a ﬁrm, stony breccia of shells and bones, while
the surface stratum, from six to ten feet thick, is composed of sand
and vegetable loam, supporting a growth of the largest trees.
Yet even the lowest layers of this breccia, or shell-conglomerate,
yield tokens of human industry, as stone axes, ﬂint arrowheads,
chisels, and fragments of very rude pottery, as well as human
bones, sometimes split to extract the marrow. The shells are by
no means all of modern type. Many are of species now wholly

‘ extinct, or extinct in the locality. This fact alone carries us back

to an antiquity which must be numbered by many thousands of
years before our era. At that remote period not only did a ﬁsh-
ing and hunting race dwell along the Brazilian coast, but this race
was fairly advanced on the path to culture, it was acquainted with
pottery, with compound implements, and with the polishing of
stone. We further know that this race was not that which occu-
pied the land when the whites discovered it; for the human skulls
disinterred from the sambaquis are, craniologically, almost dia~
metrically opposite those of the Botocudos and the Tupis. Yet if
we can trust the researches of Dr. Lund in the caverns of Brazil,
the oldest skulls in these deposits, found in immediate Connection
with the bones of extinct mammalia, belonged to the ancestors of
these tribes. Markedly dolichocephalic, they present an entire
contrast to the brachycephalic type from the sambaquis.

This class of monuments, therefore, supply us data which prove
man’s existence in America in what some call the diluvial, others
the quaternary and others again the pleistocene epoch, that char-
acterized by the presence of extinct species.

Industrial. Let us now.turn to the industrial activity of the
American race, and see whether it will furnish us other data con—
cerning the prehistoric life of the New World. We may reasona-
bly look in this direction for aid, since it is now universally con-
ceded that at no time did man spring into being fully armed
and equipped for the struggle for existence, but everywhere fol-
lowed the same path of painful effort from absolute ignorance and
utter feebleness to knowledge and power. At ﬁrst, his only weap-
Ons or tools were such as he possessed in common with the anthro-
poid apes: to Wit, an unshapen stone ‘and a broken stick. Little
by little, he learned to ﬁt his stone to his hand and to chip it to an
edge, and with this he could sharpen the end of his stick, thus
providing himself with a spear and an axe.

10 SECTION H.

It was long before he learned to shape and adjust the stone
to the end of the stick, and to hurl this by means of a cord at-
tached to a second and elastic stick, in other words, a bow; still
longer before he discovered the art of polishing and boring stones
and fashioning clay into vessels. These simple arts are landmarks
in the progress of the race : the latter divides the history of culture
into the palzeolithic or rough stone period; and the neolithic or
polished stone period ; while the shaping of a stone for attachment
to a handle or shaft marks the difference between the period of
compound implements and the early period of simple implements,
both included in the older or palaeolithic age. With these princi-
ciples as guides, we may ask how far back on this scale do the in-
dustrial relics in America carry us?

I have spoken of the great antiquity of some of the American
shell~heaps, how they carry us back to the diluvial epoch, and that
of numerous extinct species. Yet it is true that in the oldest
hitherto examined in Brazil, Guiana, Costa Rica and Florida,
fragments of pottery, of polished stone, and compound implements
occur even in the lowest strata. Venerable though they are, they
supply no' date Older than what in Europe we should call the neo-
lithic period. The arrowheads which have been exhumed from the
loess of the ancient lakebeds of Nebraska, and the netsinkers and
celts which have been recovered from the auriferous gravels of
California, prove by their form and finish that the tribes who fash-
ioned them had already taken long strides beyond the culture of
the earlier palaeolithic age. The same is true, though in a less
degree, of the chipped stones and bones which Ameghino exhumed
from the lacustrine deposits of the Pampas, although he proves
that these relics were the products of tribes contemporary with
the extinct glyptodon and mylodon, as well as the fossil horse and
dog. In the very oldest station which he examined, there appears
to have been found a quartz arrowhead; yet he argues that this
station dated from the pliocene division of the tertiary, long an-
terior to the austral glacial epoch. This leaves another such open
conﬂict between geology and the history of culture, as Professor
Ran has already pointed out as existing in Californian archaeology.

The only station in America which has furnished an ample line
of specimens, and among them not one, so far as I know, indica-

j ting a knowledge of compound implements, is that of the Trenton
gravels, New Jersey. There alone do we appear to be in face

 

ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 11

of a stage of culture as primitive as that of the stations of Chelles
and St. Acheul, in France, absolutely without pottery, without
polished stone, without compound implements.

Assuming that these post‘glacial gravels about Trenton supply
us the earliest authentic starting point in the history of culture on
this continent, the later developments of industry will furnish us
a number of other data. This ﬁrst date was long before the ex-
tinction of the native American horse, the elephant, the mammoth,
and other animals important to early man. There is nothing un-
likely therefore in the reported discoveries of his pointed ﬂints or
his bones in place along with the remains of these quadrupeds;
nor would it be surprising to ﬁnd that he had scratched rudely
their outlines on stones or bones, or imitated their forms in his uten-
sils as did the savages of La Madeleine. There is no 0L priori
argument against mastodon mounds or pipes ; their authenticity is
merely a question of evidence.

In a recent essay, Dr. Richard Andree has shown by a wide col-
lation of instances how readily even the least cultured savages turn
to an imitation of natural objects by lines and colors. Drawing
and painting were among the earliest acquisitions of man. Paint-
pots and scratched bones are exhumed from deposits of the rein-
deer age in Europe, and in America scarcely a tribe but exhibited
a taste for such amusements. ’

It is not enough to stop by proving this. In these childish
markings we note the infancy of the arts of sculpture and paint-
ing. They contain the ﬁrst chapters of the history of the aesthetic
senses, of the effort to body forth in representations the concep-
tions of the mind. To the extent that they display an apprecia-
tion of organic symmetry of form, and an approach toward the
ideally beautiful, they reveal those subtle and delicate perceptions
which lead up to the highest levels of art.

I should like to emphasize this point, because collectors and
archaeologists are inclined to limit their attention to the relative
degrees of mere technical skill displayed in the products of indus-
try. There may, however, be really wonderful technical skill with
a total absence of the idea of the beautiful. Yet as a test of na-
tional psychical endowments, the latter is inﬁnitely the more indic-
ative. Compare one of those ﬁgurines from Tenagra in Boeotia
with a Chinese god elaborately chiselled from ivory or bronze:
the one is a hurriedly moulded toy of clay, the other the labor of

2

12 SECTION H.

painful years; but the former reveals a potentiality in the nation
which designed it far beyond the possibilities of the latter. In
prehistoric art the germs of the sense of symmetry, of ideal beauty,
in outline and form, offer us data by which we can measure the
psychical development of tribes more accurately than by any other
objective test.

Not only the form but the material of implements supplies us
data. If man in his earliest stages, was, as some maintain, quite
migratory, it is certain that he did not carry his stone implements
with him, nor did he obtain by barter or capture those of other
tribes. All the oldest implements are manufactured from the rocks
of the locality. When, therefore, we ﬁnd a weapon of a material
not obtainable in the vicinity, we have a sure indication that it be-
longs to a period of development considerably beyond the earliest.
When the obsidian of the Yellowstone Park is found in Ohio, when
the black slate of Vancouver’s Island is exhumed-in Delaware, it
is obvious we must assume for such extensive transits a very notice-
able aesthetic and commercial development. But what shall we say
when thejade of an implement from Central America is pronounced
identical with that from Central China, or the copper of a chisel
from Ohio is asserted to have been derived from Peru? We must
hold our judgment in suspense till this identity is proved.

I can but touch in the lightest manner on the data offered by
the vast realm of industrial activity. The return it offers is abun-
dant, but the harvesting delicate. In the dissemination of certain
arts, certain inventions, certain decorative designs and aesthetic
conceptions from one tribe to another, we have a most valuable
means of tracing the prehistoric intercourse of nations: but we
must sedulously discriminate such borrowing from the synchronous
and similar development of independent culture under like condi-
tions.

In one department of industry we shall be largely free from this
danger, that is, in the extension of agriculture. One of America’s
ablest ethnologists, Dr. Charles Pickering, as the result of a life-
time devoted to his science, ﬁnally settled upon the extension of
cultivated plants as the safest guide in the labyrinth of prehistoric
migrations. Its value is easily seen in America when we reﬂect
that the two tropical plants, maize and tobacco, extended their
area in most remote times from their limited local habitat about
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the north as far as the St. Lawrence

v“. a

\ ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 13

river and to the south quite to the Archipelago of Chiloe. Their
presence is easily traced by the stone- or earthenware implements
required for their use. How many ages it must have required for
these plants to have thus extended their domain amid hostile and
savage tribes through ﬁve thousand miles of space I

The squash, the bean, the potato and the mandioca are native
food plants offering in a less degree similar material for tracing
ancient commerce and migration. Humboldt and others have
claimed as much for the banana (Ilium paradisiaca), but the re-
cent researches of Dr. Karl von den'Steinen have removed that
valued fruit from the list of native American plants. Both species
of" banana (M. pm'adisiaca and M. sapientz‘um) were undoubtedly
introduced into the New World after the discovery. Indeed, sum-
ming up the reply to an inquiry which has often been addressed
to the industrial evolution of the indigenes of our continent, I
should say that they did not borrow a single art 01' invention nor a
single cultivated plant from any part of the Old World previous
to the arrival of Columbus. What they had was their own, dew
veloped from their own soil, the outgrowth of their own lives and
needs.

“Linguistic. This individuality of the race is still more strongly
expressed in their languages. You are all aware that it is upon
linguistic data almost exclusively that American ethnology has
been and must be based. The study of the native tongues be-
comes therefore of transcendent importance in' the prehistoric
chronology of the Continent. But to obtain its best results, this
study must be conducted in a much more thorough manner than
has hitherto been the custom.

In America we are confronted with an astonishing multiplicity
of linguistic stocks. They have been placed at about eighty in
North and one hundred in South America. It is stated that there
are that many radically diverse in elements and structure. To
appreciate the vista in time that this fact opens to our thoughts,
we must recognize the tenacity of life manifested by these tongues.
Some of- them have scores of dialects spoken by tribes wandering
ever the widest areas. Take the Athapascan or Tinné, for exam-
ple, found in its greatest purity amid the tribes who dwell on the
Arctic sea, and along the Mackenzie river, in British America,
but‘also the tongue of the Apaches who carried it almost to the
valley of Mexico. The Algonkin was spoken from Hudson Bay

14 SECTION H.

to the Savannah river and from Newfoundland to the Rocky
Mountains. The Guarani of the Rio de la Plata underlies dialects
which were current as far north as Florida.

How, then, in spite of such tenacity of American languages
have so many stocks come into existence? This was the question
which my predecessor in this chair last year undertook to answer.
His suggestions appear to me extremely valuable, and only 111 one
point do I widely differ from him, and that is, in the length of
time required for these numerous tongues to be originated, to sever
,into dialects and to be carried to distant regions. According to
the able linguist, Doctor Stoll, the difference which is“ presented
between the Cakchiquel and Maya dialects could not have arisen
in less than two thousand years; and any one who has carefully
compared the earliest grammars of an American tongue with its
present condition will acknowledge that the changes are surpris-
ingly few. To me the exceeding dive1sity of languages 1n Amer'
ica and the many dialects into which these have split, are cogent
proofs of the vast antiquity ot the race, an antiquity stretching
back tens of thousands of yeais. Nothing less can explain these
multitudinous f01 ms of speech.

Unde1lying all these varied forms of expression, however, I
think future investigation will demonsti ate some curious identities
of internal form, traits almost or entirely peculiar to American
languages, and never quite absent from any of them.

Such was the opinion of the two earliest philosophical investi-
gators of these tongues, P. S. Duponaceau and Wilhelm von Hum-
boldt. They called these t1aits polysynthesis and incorporation,
and it was p1oposed to apply the term incorporative as a distin-
guishing adjective to all American languages. Of late years this
opinion has been earnestly combatted by M. Lucien Adam and oth-
e1s; but my own studies have led me to adopt the views of the older
analysts against these modern critics. I do not think that the
student can compare any two stocks on the continent without be-
ing impressed with the lesemblance of their expression of the
relations of being, through the incorporative plan.

Along with this identity of plan, there coexists the utmost inde-
pendence of expression. An American language is usually per-
fectly transparent. Nothing is easier than to reduce it to its
ultimate elements, its fundamental radicals. These are few in
numbers and interjectional in character. The Athapascan, the

 

ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRTNTON. 15

Algonkin, whose wide extension I have already referred to, have
been reduced to half a dozen particles or sounds expressive of the
simplest conceptions. Upon these, by combination, repetition,
imitation and other such processes the astonishing structure of the
tongue has been erected, every portion of it displaying the mech—
anism of its origin. It is this transparency which renders these
tongues so attractive to the philosophic student of human ex-
pression, and so valuable to him who would obtain from them the
record of the progress of the nation.

A thorough study of such a language would embrace its mate-
rial, its formal and its psychologic contents. Its material ele-
ments include the peculiarities of its vocabulary: for example, its
numerals and the system they indicate, its words for weights and
measures, for color and direction, for relations of consanguinity
and afﬁnity, for articles of use and ornament, for social and d0-
mestic conditions and the like. Few studies of American lan-
guages go beyond this material or lexicographic limit; but in truth
these are merely the externalities of a tongue, and have nothing
to do with linguistic science proper. This concerns itself with the
forms of the language, with the relation of parts of speech to
each other and t0 the sentence, and with the historical development
of the grammatical categories. Beyond this, again, is the deter-
mination of the psychical character of the tribe through the forms
instinctively adopted for the expression of its thoughts, and re-
ciprocally the reaction'exerted by these forms on the later intel-
lectual growth of those who were taught them as their only means
of articulate expression.

These are data of the highest value in the study of prehistoric
time, but so far as America is concerned, I could name but very
few scholars who have pursued this promising line of research.

Physical. Much more attention has been paid to the physical
than the linguistic data of the native Americans, but it may freely
be said, with not more satisfactory results. This failure is partly
owing to the preconceived notions which still govern the study of
ethnology. Linnaeus offered the cautious division of the human
species into races named from the ﬁve great geographical areas it
inhabited ; Blumenbach pointed out that this roughly corresponded
with the division into ﬁve colors, the White, black, yellow, brown
and red races occupying respectively Europe, Africa, Asia, Poly-
nesia and America. Unfortunately, Cuvier chose to simplify this

I 6 SECTION H.

scheme, by merging the brown and red races, the Polynesian or
Malayan and the American, into the yellow or Mongolian. The
latest writers of the French school and I am sorry to add various
Americans servilely follow this groundless rejection of the older
scheme, and speak of Malayans and Americans alike as Mongoli-
ans or Mongoloids. Neither in language nor ethnic anatomy is
there any more resemblance than between whites and Mongolians.

It is gratifying to see that the more accurate German investiga-
tors decidedly reject the blunder of Cuvier, and declare that the
American race is as independent as any other of those named.
Thus Dr. Paul Ehrenreich who has lately published an admirable
monograph on the Botocudos of Brazil, a tribe often quoted for
its so-called “ mongoloid” aspect,'declares that any such assertion
must be contradicted in positive terms. Both in osteology and
anatomy, in formation of the hair and shape of the skull, the dif—
ferences are marked, permanent and radical.

What is true of the Botocudos is not less so of the other Amer-
ican tribes which are claimed to present Mongolian traits. Such
assertions are based on the superﬁcial observations of travellers,
most of whom do not know the ﬁrst principles of ethnic anatomy.
This is sufﬁciently shown by the importance they attach to the ob-
lique eye, a slight malformation of the skin of scarcely any weight.

The anatomy and physiology of the various American tribes
present, indeed, great diversity, and yet, beneath it all, is a really
remarkable ﬁxedness of type. We observe this diversity in the
shape of the skull, which may be, as among the Botocudos, strictly
dolichocephalic, while the Araucanians are brachycephalic ; the na-
sal index varies more than in the extremest members of the white
race; the tint of the skin may be a dark brown with an under color
of red, or of so light a hue that a blush is easily perceptible. The
beard is usually absent, but D’Orbigny visited a tribe who wore
it full and long. The height varies from an average of six feet
four inches for adult males in Patagonia to less than live feet among
the Warraus of Guiana; and so it is with all the other traits of the
race. There is not one which isnot subject to extensive variation.

On the other hand, these variations are not greater than can be
adduced in various members of the white or black race. In spite
of them all, there is a wonderful family likeness among tribes of
American origin. No observer well acquainted with the type
would err in taking it for another. Darwin says that the Fue-

_ ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 17

gians so closely resemblethe Botocudos that they seemed mem-
bers of the same tribe. I have seen Arawacks from Guiana who
in the northwest would have passed for Sioux.

In spite of the total dissimilarity of climate and other physical
surroundings, the tribes of the tropics differ no more from those near
the Arctic circle than they do among themselves. This is a striking
lesson how independent of environment are the essential charac-
teristics of a race, and it is a sweeping refutation of those theories

. which make such characteristics dependent upon external agencies.

A still more remarkable fact has been demonstrated by Professor
J. Kollmann of Bale: to wit, that the essential physical identity of
the American'race is as extended in time as it is in space. This
accurate student has analyzed the cranioscopic formulas of the
most ancient American skulls, those from the alleged tertiary de-
posits of the Pampas, those from the caverns of Lagoa Santa in
Brazil, that obtained from Rock Bluﬁ", Illinois, the celebrated Ca1-
averas skull from California, and one from Pontemelo in Buenos
Ayres ofgeologic antiquity. Hisresults are mostinteresting. These
very ancient remains prove that in all important craniologic in-
diciae the earliest Americans, those who were contemporaries of the
fossil horse and other long since extinct quadrupeds, possessed the
same racial character as the natives of the present day, with similar
skulls and a like physiognomy. \Ve reach therefore the momentous '
conclusion that the American race throughout the whole continent,
and from its earliest appearance in time, is and has been one, as
distinct in type as any other race, and from its isolation prob-
ably the purest of all in its racial traits. This is afact of the ﬁrst
order in establishing its prehistoric chronology.

Geologic. I have left the geologic data to the last as it is these
which carry us with reasonable safety to the remotest periods.
No one who examines the evidence will now deny that man lived
in both North and South America immediately after the glacial
epoch, and that he was the contemporary of many species of ani-
mals now extinct. As you are aware, the attempt has several times
been made to ﬁx the date for the ﬁnal retrocession of the glaciers
of North America. The estimates have varied from about 12,000

' years ago up to 50,000, with a majority in favor of about 35,000

years.
There have also been various discoveries which are said to place

18 SECTION H.

Q

the human species in America previous to the appearance of the
glaciers. Some remains of his industry have been reported from
interglacial, others from tertiary deposits. Unfortunately, these
ﬁnds have not been sufficient or not of a character to convince the
archaeologist. I have before adverted to the impossibility, for in—
stance, of an archaeologist accepting the discovery of a ﬁnely pol-
ished stone implement in a tertiary gravel, except as an intrusive
deposit. It is a violent anaehronism, which is without a parallel
in other countries. Even the discovery of acompound implement,
as a stemmed arrowhead, in strata of tertiary date, is, with our
present knowledge, quite out of the question. .

Although there are well recognized signs of glacial action in
South America, it is not certain that the glacial epoch coincided
in time in the two continents. That there was a reasonable ap-
proximation is probable from the appearance of later deposits.
We may suppose therefore that the habitable area of the New
World was notably less at that period and that the existing tribes
were conﬁned to a much narrower space. This would force them
into closer relations, and tend powerfully to the production of that
uniformity of type to which I have before referred.

We might also expect to discover in the tropical regions of
America more frequent evidence of the primitive Americans than in
either temperate zone. This has not been the case probably because
the geologic deposits of the tropics have been less investigated.
. Throughout the West Indies there is an entire absence of palaeo-
lithic remains. Those islands were ﬁrst peopled by tribes in the
polished stone stage of culture. In the valley of Mexico human re-
mains have been disinterred from a volcanic deposit of supposed
tertiary age, and you have all heard of those human footprints
which Dr. Earl Flint has unearthed in Nicaragua. These are found
under layers of compact volcanic tufas, separated by strata of sand
and vegetable loam. There can be no doubt of their human origin
and of their great antiquity ; but no geologist need be informed of
the difﬁculty of assigning an age to volcanic strata, especially in
a tropical country, subject to earthquakes, subsidence and ﬂoods.

It would not be in accordance with my present purpose to ex-
amine the numerous alleged ﬁnds of human remains in the strata
of the tertiary and quaternary. All such furnish data for the
prehistoric chrdnology of America, and should be carefully scru-
tinized by him who would obtain further light upon that chronol-

ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 19

ogy. I must hasten to some other consideration which touch the
remote events to which I am now alluding.

Since a comparison of the fauna of South America and Africa,
and a survey of the sea-bottom between those continents have dis-
pelled the dream of the ancient Atlantis, and relegated that land
connection at least to the eocene period of the tertiary, no one
can suppose the American man to have migrated from Africa or
southwestern Europe. For other and equally solid reasons, no
emigration of Polynesians can be assumed. Yet zoologists,
perfectly willing to derive man from an anthropoid, and polyge-
nists to the utmost, hesitate to consider man an autochthon in the
New World. There is too wide a gap between the highest mon-
keys and the human species in this continent. Discoveries of fos-
sil apes might bridge this, but none such has been reported.

If. we accept the theory that man as a species spread from one
primal centre, and in the higher plasticity of his early life sepa-
rated into well defined races which became unalterably ﬁxed not
much later than the close of the glacial epoch—and this theory
appears to be that now most agreeable to anthopologists—then the
earliest Americans made their advent on this continent as immi-
grants. This is our ﬁrst fact in their prehistoric chronology; but
before we can assign it an accurate position on the scale of geo—

logic time we must await more complete discoveries than we now

have at our command.

We must also wait until our friends, the geologists, have come
to some better understanding among themselves as to what took
place in the pleistocene age. You have heard me talking freely
about the glacial epoch and its extension in America; but geo-
logists are by no means of one mind as to this extension, and a re-

‘spectable minority of them, led by Sir J. William Dawson, deny
the existence or even possibility of any continental glacier. What

others point out as a terminal moraine they explain to be “nothing
but the southern limit of the ice-drift of a period of submergence.”

It is clear that when we speak about the migration of the Amer-
icans at a time when the polar half of each continent was either

covered with a glacier thousands of feet thick, or submerged to

that depth beneath an arctic sea, we have to do with geographical
conditions totally unlike those of to-day. I call attention to this
obvious fact because it has not been obvious to all writers.

In your archaeological reading you will rarely come across a

3

20 SECTION H.

prettier piece of theoretical history than Mr. Lewis A. Morgan’s
description of the gradual peopling of the two Americas by trac-
ing the lines of easiest subsistence. He begins at the ﬁshy rivers
of the northwest coast, and follows the original colony which he
assumes landed at that point, all the way to Patagonia and Florida.
But how baseless becomes this vision when we consider the geog-
raphy of America as it is shown by geology to have been at a pe-
riod contemporary with the earliest remains of man! We know
to a certainty that the human race had already spread far and wide
over both its continental areas before Mr. Morgan’s lines of easi'est
nutrition had come into existence.

Properly employed, a study of those geologic features of a coun-
try which determine its geography will prove of vast advantage in
ascertaining the events of prehistoric time. These features un-
doubtedly ﬁxed the lines of migration and of early commerce.
Man in his wanderings has always been guided by the course of
rivers, the trend of mountain chains, the direction of ocean cur-
rents, the positiOn of deserts, passes and swamps. The railroad
of to-day follows the trail of the primitive man, and the rivers
have ever been the natural highways of nations. The theories of
Morgan therefore remain true as theories; only in their application
he fell into an error which was natural enough to the science of
twenty years ago. Perhaps when twenty years more shall have
elapsed, the post-tertiary geology of our continent will have been
so clearly deﬁned that the geography of its different epochs will
be known sufﬁciently to trace these lines of migration at the va-
rious epochs of man’s residence in the western world, from his
.ﬁrst arrival.

I have now set before you, in a superﬁcial manner, it is true, the
warious sources from which we may derive aid in establishing the
.pnehistoric chronology of America. I have also endeavored, to a
limited extent, to express myself as to the relative value of these
sources. None of them can be neglected, and it will be only from
an exhaustive study of them all that we can expect to solve the
numerous knotty problems, and lift the veil which hangs so darkly,
.on all that concerns the existence of the American race before the
sixteenth century.

We are merely beginning the enormous labor which is before us ;
we have yet to discover the methods by which we can analyze
fruitfully the facts we already know. But I look forward with the

 

ADDRESS BY DANIEL G. BRINTON. 21

utmost conﬁdence to a rich return from such investigations. The
' day is coming and that rapidly, when the prehistoric life of man
in both the New and the Old World will be revealed to us in a
thousand unexpected details. We have but to turn backward
about thirty years to reach a time when the science of prehistoric
archaeology was utterly unknown, and its early gropings were
jeered at as absurdities. Already it has established for itself a
position in the ﬁrst rank of the sciences which have to do with the
highest of problems. It has cast a light upon the pathway of the
human race from the time that man ﬁrst deserved his name down
to the commencement of recorded history. Its conquests are but
beginning. Year by year masses of new facts are brought to
knowledge from unexpected quarters, current errors are corrected,
and novel methods of exploration devised.

A‘s Americans by adoption, it should be our ﬁrst interest and
duty to study the Americans by race in both their present and past
development. The task is long and the opportunity is ﬂeeting. A
century. more, and the anthropologist will scarcely ﬁnd a native of
pure blood ; the tribes and languages of to-day will have been ex-
tinguished or corrupted. Nor will the archaeologist be in better
case. Every day the progress of civilization, ruthless of the mon-
uments of barbarism, is destroying the feeble vestiges of the ancient
race ; mounds are levelled, embankments disappear, the stones of
temples are built into factories, the holy places desecrated. We
have assembled here to aid in recovering something from this wreck
of a race and its monuments; let me urge upon you all the need
of prompt action and earnest work, inasmuch as the opportunities
we enjoy will never again present themselves in such fulness.

 

 

ON THE SO-CALLED

ALAGUILAC LANGUAGE

OF GUATEMALA.

By DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 4, 1887.

 

 

ON THE SO-CALLED

ALAGUILAC LANGUAGE

OF GUATEMALA.

By DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 4, 1887.

3
[Brintom 36b [NOV- 4,

021 [he so-called Alaguilac Language of Guaz’emala.

By D. G. B-rz'nlon, MD.
(Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 4, 1887.)

I11 his valuable treatise on the ethnography of the Republic
Guatemala, Dr. Otto Stoll classes the Alaguilac language, once
spoken by a tribe resident on the Motagua river in that country,
among the languages of unknown affinities, Sprachen unbe/cann-
ter Stellung ; and he also adds, that at the time of his visit to
the vicinity—now about five years ago—the tongue was entirely
extinct, being supplanted by the Spanish.*

It were greatly to be regretted that any language or dialect
should perish completely, leaving no record behind it by which
we can assign its place in the linguistic scheme. I am happy to
say, this is not the case with the Alaguilac. I have in my hands
materials from several sources from which to identify this now
extinct tongue, and also to cast some interesting glimpSeS on the
ancient civilization of the tribe which once spoke it. These
sources are :-—- _

1. Four leaves in folio, originals, from the archives of the
Parish of San Cristobal Acasaguastlan, dating from 1610 to
1637, in bad condition, but mostly legible.

II. A collection of words and phrases obtained in 1878 by
Francisco Bromowicz from an Indian woman at the village of

* Stoll, Zur Ethnographic der Republik Gualemala, s.172 Also, Guatemala, Reisen med
Schildmmgen, s. 304.

1887.] 367 [Brinton.

San Augustin Acasaguastlan, named ‘Dolores Corral, then sup-
posed to be one hundred years old or over, and the last of her
tribe who could recall the native tongue. Bromowicz appears
to have visited the village on the instigation of Don Juan Ga-
varrete, the well-known Guatemalan antiquary, or of Dr. C.
H. Berendt, or of both.

III. Several informes of Don Eligio Pais, municipal judge of
Chiquimula, and of the cura or parish priest of San Cristobal
Acasaguastlan, Don José Inocente Cordon, dated in 1878.

With these means I am enabled to throw sufﬁcient light on
the aﬂ‘inities of the Alaguilac language, and add something to
our knowledge of the archaeology of the locality.

First, a few words on its geographical location.

The parish of San Cristobal Acasaguastlan is situate on the
Motagua river in Guatemala, department of Chiquimula, forty-
ﬁve miles northwest of the city of Guatemala. Its dependen—
cies are the hamlets of Chimalapan, Usumatlan and Tecolutan.
About eight miles to the east of it, is the parish of San Augus-
tin Acasaguastlan, whose inhabitants formerly spoke the same
tongue.

In the letter descriptive of this region sent to the King of
Spain, in 1576, by the Licentiate Diego Garcio de Palacio, he
says brieﬂy, “in the valley of Acacevastlan is spoken the Tlaca-
cebastleca.”* In the list of languages current in Guatemala as
given by the historian Juarros, at the beginning of this century,
no such tongue is mentioned, but in place of it, apparently, he
names the Alaguilac.T The ordinary native tongue of that part
of the valley is the Chorti, a dialect of the Maya of clear afﬁnities,
and all the surrounding tribes belong to the Maya stock.

At present, as we have seen, travelers agree in the statement
that all the Indians of Acasaguastlan speak Spanish only, and
the Alaguilac is reckoned therefore among the extinct tongues
of America.

The place-names mentioned in these accounts are clearly of
, Nahuatl origin. Acasaguastlan: is a slight modiﬁcation of acaga-

'1‘ Carla de Garcia Diego de Palacio, p. 20. Ed. Squier.

'l' Histmia de Guatemala, Tom. ii. p. 35.

I The term given by Palacio—Tlacacebastleca—is a derivative under the ordinary
rules of Nahuatl grammar from Acaeacatlan, the termination eca being the plural of the
suﬁizc gentilis. ecatl, and the preﬁx tla, meaning here the thing possessed by or peculiar to

these people.

Brinton ] 368 [Nov. 4,

callan the place of rushes or reeds; .Chimalapan is compounded
of chimallz‘,a shield,with the post-position pan, in or at; Usuma-
tlan means the place of monkeys, from ozumatl, monkey, and
tlan, locative ending; and Tecolotan, the place of owls,.from
tecolotl, owl, and tlan. The word Alaguilac is stated in the M88.
before me to be the Mexican name of a species of edible fruit;
though were it not for this authority, one might suppose it to
be from the nomen gentile, atlacuz’lecatl, which means “the people
who live at the place of drawing water” (all, water, cuz', to take,
ecatl, terminatio gentilis). '

Evidently, therefore, we ﬁnd ourselves in a Nahuatl colony,
one of those which were scattered through Central America,like
the Pipiles of Escuintla, and the Nicaraos in Nicaragua. It has
been shown recently that this active race extended its settlements
almost to the isthmus of Panama, and established a colony on

the borders of the Chiriqui Lagoon.*

Everywhere they carried with them reminiscences of that
advanced culture which they had developed in the Valley of
Mexico. This is manifest to-day by the superior make of pot-
tery and the fragments of stone and brick ediﬁces which mark
the site of their ancient abodes.

Acasaguastlan is no exception to this rule. In the informe
of the worthy cura above mentioned, he writes as follows:—

“ At the conﬂuence of the Rio Grande de Acasaguastlan [22 6.,
the Motagua river] with that of Teculutan, which is to the east ,
of this parish, there are some prominent and remarkable relics
of a dense native population, which prove this to have been the
capital of a province. There are ‘neat, level pavements which
lead from the buildings to the river. The buildings themselves
indicate that they were towers or pyramids. The base is circular
and they must have had an altitude of ﬁfty Spanish yards (varas).
At present they are covered with lofty trees, and the ruin on the
promontory, now the highest, is sixteen or twenty yards in
height. In the midst of these ediﬁces, at the place named, there
is a large open space, circular in form,1ike a plaza. A centinu-
ous row of mounds extends from these ediﬁces and pyramids, on
both sides of the main river, to the village of Acasaguastlan.

l

* A. Pinart, in the Revue d’ Ethnographic, Tome vi, p. 121, identiﬁes the Seguas Indians
of the Chirlqui Lagoon with the Nahuas.

1887.] 369 [Brintom

One of these has been demolished, and proved to be of stone,
yielding as much as two hundred perches, without counting the
cement. Each of them contains an arch either complete or in
ruins. In the one mentioned, three small arches were found,
constructed with some symmetry, but it was not ascertained
whether the material was joined by lime, as at present it looks
more like clay. Portions of the wall were smoothly plastered
and some nearly erased paintings were visible. In the structure
were found earthen pots, some roughly made, others of excellent
workmanship, and with them incense burners, such as the Indians
use at the present day in their Brotherhoods (cofradias). There
were also found pieces of brick, much like foreign brick, meal-
stones in the shape of large shells, arrow points of glass [21 6.,
volcanic glass, obsidian], and human bones. No one has taken
special interest in investigating these remains, and I have known
persons who seemed quite intelligent pass by them without
awarding them the least attention, and as if they did not see
them. Finally, I add that I am assured that no precious metal
has been discovered in them, although they may have had anti-
mony, which the Indians used to polish their “earthenware as it
is quite lustrous.”

Such is the interesting description furnished by the parish
priest, and it reveals plainly that the ancient race of Acasaguas-
tlan belonged among the more highly cultivated nations of the
continent. .

I have not found in the historians of Guatemala the record
of the ﬁrst exploration of this portion of the valley of the Mota-
gua, nor in later travelers the account of any visit to these ruins.
It would be of especial interest to determine whether they ap-
proach the distinctively Mexican or the Maya style of architec-
ture. The presence of the arch points to the latter, but this
architectural element was not altogether foreign to the former.

Fifty miles as the bird ﬂies, lower down the Motagua river,
are located the remarkable ruins of Quirigua, with their elabo-
rately carven monoliths, twenty feet or more in height. Accord-
ing to the nr§§t recent observers,* these relics present evidences
of an antiquity greatly'exceeding that of Gopan or Palenque,
both which venerable sites had long been deserted at the period

* See Copan and Quirigua, by Heinrich Meye and Dr. Julius Schmidt, Berlin, 1883.

Brinton.) 370 [Nov. 4,

of the Conquest. The valley of the river Motagua, therefore,
was probably one of the centres of Central American civiliza-
tion, and a study of its archaeology might prove peculiarly pro-
ductive. ‘

The reduction and conversion of the tribe dwelling at Acasa-
guastlan probably took place before the middle of the sixteenth
century. The intelligent members of the community were taught
to read and write their native tongue, and the records in my
hands are by native scribes, who kept these notes or accounts in
order to submit them from time to time to their civil or ecclesi-
astical superiors.

These records are in a dialect of Nahuatl closely akin to that
of the Pipiles of Escuintla and the neighborhood. Both dialects
are but slight modiﬁcations of the tongue as spoken in its purity
in the Valley of Mexico. Perhaps much of the apparent differ-
ence is due to an uncertain orthography and the inexpertness of
the writers.

The subjoined extracts from the archives under the dates
1610, 1634, 1636 and 1637, will show conclusively that the Na-
huatl was the current tongue of the parish at that time. The
entries relate to ﬁnes which were imposed on the natives for
various misdemeanors, and of which the civil ofﬁcers were obliged
to pay a portion from time to time to their superiors. The re-
ceipts of these superiors are entered in Spanish in the archives
and present the honored autographs of Juan de Montoya and G.
de Mendieta.

Although various Spanish words occur, and the imperfect
handwriting as well as the poor condition of the M88. render
these specimens less satisfactory than could be wished, it will
nevertheless be apparent at a glance that the dialect is a toler-

ably pure Nahuatl, such as was common in Mexico a century
after the Conquest. »

Extracts from the Parochial Archives of San Augustin Acasa-
guastlan.

Y nipan 20 de Octubre 1610 aﬁos niman in teguantin Sor Don
Fra°° Castro Bernabe de Chaves Christ'obal Hernandez attos J u°
Perez nigo Melcjior Perez tiri Gaspar Lopez Chuvuru Augustin
Hernandez rexidores nican vticchiuaque condenat yei tupilhuan

1887 ] 37 1 [Brinton.

ypanpa onomictique (two words illegible) ica ce ciuat itoca Mag-
dalena ica iztaca tihi vquichiuaque yuan nican Catalina Curmi
quezqui ipanpa vticpenaltique vquitali ome tostones Gaspar ci
timal vquitali chiquacen tomin Catalina Curmi yuan Di° Salu-
altierra vquitali chiquacen tomin quezquiz ypanpa vneci nican
macuili tostones.

* * >l< *- >l< >l< *

Y nipan ome tonalli mesti de Mayo 1634 aﬁos ticpenaltique yei
'ciuathue ipanpan omoqualantique ypan ytequiuh yquiti ce yc xi
ticmati ypalta ermita sancta vn'eci nican m“ J uana ce ynamic Frc°
cucu, ce ynamic P° mendes ce ynamic X°bal Herdz yuqui ticpen-
altique vneci nican matlacti tomin Andres Mendes Alcalde
Gaspar Lopez Chucuru Alcalde Dg0 herdez D0 Felipe Regidores
noyxpau‘neuatl Baltasar de Gabes escribano cabildo.

)1: >1< >1< >1< >1< >1< >1:

1636 aﬁos.

Y nipan 24 de Abril 1636 aﬁos ypan vticpenaltique ome
tupiluan om‘o tatani J ustia ypanpa omohaci ychau nican ciuatl
yquitatani J ustia X°ual permesso yuqui vneci yca auilnemiliz
yeuatl ipanpa vticpenaltique X°ual Buy mucuc yuan bernaldina
yuqui ypanpa vneci nican chiquacen tostones teuantin alcaldes
Frco caynac Diego Felipe yuan Regidor—es Anton mucho X°ual
brmebico Miguel Estorca Regidores.

>l< * >I< >|< >)< >l< *

Y nipan 23 tonali mesti de J unio 1637 aﬁos ypan'vticpenal-
tique ome tupiluan omotatani J usti“ nican X°ua1axpalypanpa
can qui talili y ciuauh yuqui vtictatanique ytic nican tu cabildo
auin quitoua X°bal ypan vniquita vquia ce tacatl nochan ayac
vniquixmati quitoua vqui melaua nican y ciuauh melauac yeuat
X°bal her‘lez ypanpa yeuat niquixmati opa espa ni mauilli yuan
quitoua to yxpan teuantin altos Regidores yuqui ypanpa ticpenal-
tique vneci nican naui tostones Can ixquich nican timoticmatique
x°bal chururu Diego Felipe alcaldes gaspar macaua J u° lopez alo
I cauil Ju“ basqz Regidores no yxpan neuat Baltesar de Chabes

es° cabildo. .
>1: >1< >1< >1< >1: >1< >1:
The words collected by Mr. Bromowicz number about 150,and
according to the informes accompanying his report, were obtained

n
Brinton.] 072 [Nov. 4,

from the only person then living in the region Who could recall
the tongue of former generations. In the ten years Which have
elapsed since his visit, Dolores Corral has, doubtless, been gath-
ered to her fathers, and the words of this vocabulary remain to
us as the sole monument of the original speech of her tribe.
Fortunately they are sufﬁcient in number and clear enough in
their afﬁnities as to leave no doubt concerning their linguistic
afﬁnities. I present them in one column, arranged in alphabetical

order, and by their side, their correspondents in the pure Nahuatl
of the Valley of Mexico. 0

Comparative Vocabulary of the Alaguz‘lac and Nahuatl.

Alagutlac of San Augustin

Acasaguastlan. Nahuatl.
Achko, above, aco
achpoco, much, ixachi
achtko, monkey, quauhchimal
aktakaki, deaf, nacatzatza
aschka, day, tlacatli
at, water, atl
atemet, a louse, atemitl
atenko, spring, well, (atenco, full of water)
atschi, man (Vin), oquichtli
checheltek, red, chichiltic
cholo, toad, mma-golin
chuvechka, far, uehca
culut, a scorpion, colotl'
echegat, Wind, ehecatl
este, blood, eztli
iagak, nose, yacatl
ictle, good, yectli
ikschi, foot, ixitl
ima, hand, maitl
imits, leg, metztli .
imperao, bad (Span. imperilb),
inachtaval, Wing, atlapalli
inagas, ear, nacaztli

inenguajo, root, nelhuayotl '

1887.] -

ischko, eye,

ischte, thread (Span. pita,the thread
obtained from the Manguey),

isoko, nest (of a bird),
istak, white,
istat, salt,

istet, nail ( of ﬁngers or toes),

isutschio, ﬂower,
itckses, egg,

iti, mouth,

itscha, house,
itschkat, cotton,
itsulteko-kali, roof,

kaits, shoes,
kiskuetspal, iguana,
koehko, horn,

koets, naguas (skirt),
kot, tree,

kotoschte, skin, leather,
kott, ﬁrewood, 7
kuat, snake,

kujol, jakal, coyote,
kumit, pot, jar (011a),
kusti, yellow,

meste, moon,

metat, metate,
mischte, clouds,
misto, cat,
munantse, mother,
muss, ﬁre,

musta, to-morrow,
mutuchtsé, squirrel,
mutsungal, hair,
nagat, ﬂesh, meat,
nekte, sweet,
neschta, ashes,
niamigi, thirsty,

373

[Brinton .

ixtololotli

ichtli

colli

iztac

iztatl

iztetl

xochitl

tetototl (from tetl, stone,

tototl, bird)
from itia, to drink. The

Nahuatl for mouth is camatl

Chane

ichcatl

ceuacaltia (22%., to shade
the house, calli)

cactli

quaquauitl

cueitl

quauitl

cuetlaxtli

quauitl

coatl

coyotl

cumitl

coztic

meztli

metlatl

mixitl

miztli

mo-nantzin (thy mother)
tlecocomoctli, ﬂame
mOZtli

moétzuntli, thy hair
nacatl
necutic

nextli
nisamiqui, I am thirsty

Brinton.] 374 [Nov. 4,

nimikukua, sick, ni-mocuiqui, I am sick

notapetschko, bed,’ no-Llapechtli, my bed

numitschi, ﬁsh, no-michin, my ﬁsh

numpa, near, ompa '

nupiltsi, son, -no-piltzin,~ my son

nusiguapiltsi, daughter, no-ciua-piltzin, my female
child ‘

pallo, dog (Spanish, perm), -

piltzinte, child, piltzintli '

pisti, hungry, napizti

pittatsi, father, tatzin

pokte, smoke, pochotl

puran, plantain (Spanish, platano),
sachti, wax,

sagat, leaf of a tree, zacat1,straw, grass
sajuli, a mosquito, ’ ' grayulin

schali, sand, xalli

schigal, jicaro, Xicalli

schinamit, town, chinamitl
schuguscho, sour, chichic V
schupanta, rain, » chachapani, to rain heavily
schuschuk, green, . xoxoctic I
sesek, cool, ‘ cecec

sigwat, woman, eihuatl

sinti, maize, cintli

soguitz, mud, ooquitl

tali, earth, ground, tlalli

taloa, yesterday, yalhua

taschi, tortilla, tlaxcalhuia
tecumat, calabash, tecomatl

tekpe, ﬂea, tecpin

temesch, lime, tenextli

teng-uej, very big, cenca-uey
tepitschi, little, tepiltan

tepitschil, grown-up child, tepiltzin
teschuste, coal of fire, tlexochtli, a spark
tet, stone, tetl '
tiltek, black, tliltic

timaga, bat,
temutalpa, a bee, temoli

 

1887.]

teng-totonki, very warm,
tepitschi, small,
totonki, warm,
tschikaguaste, comb,
tschitschik, bitter,
tsigat, an ant,

tuschte, rabbit,

tutuli, a chicken,
tutumuschti, ear of corn,

uchte, path, road,
uej, big, ‘

uiste, thorn,

umasat, deer,

umit, bone,

unka, to-day,
tsotsogal, water pitcher,
, tsunteko, head, .
tuak, night,

tucha, leaf of maize,
tutot, bird,

tugat, a spider,

tim, sun,

375

A totomochtli (the

[BrintorL

cenca-totonia

totonia
tziquauaztli
chichic.
tzilazcatl
tochtli
tototl
dried
husk or shuck of corn)
otli
huey
uiztli
mezatl
omitl
axcan
tzotzoeolli
tzontli
youalli
tocyzuatl
tototl
tocatl
tonatiuh

Phrases in Alagu-z'lao.

Unica at, there is water.

Akten at, there is no water.
Schiwa/ca, come here.
Kapatz’a, Where goest thou?
Schm’esmaga muss, Give me some ﬁre.
Qualiga taschi, Bring tortillas.
Qualiga, se plato, Take the plate.
' Queschki que lscho, HOW much is it?
Kalenait agua, I want to eat.

Schitagua, Eat.

Brinton.] - 376 [Novl 4,

Numerals.

Alaguilac. Nahuatl.

1. se ce

2. umi ome

3. jei yei

4. nagui nahui

5. makuil macuilli

6. tschikuasi , chiquace

7. tschikume chicome

8. tschikwei chiculy

9. matakticumi chicunaui
10. matakti matlactli
20. sempual cempvalli

The N ah uatl which I have placed in the comparative list rep-
resents that tongue in its oldest and purest form as given in the
Dictionary of Alonso de Molina, printed in 1571. The compari-
son leaves no doubt whatever, that the Alaguilac was a quite
pure form of the Nahuatl, and when we'allow for the difference
in the orthography of Bromowicz, who writes as a German, from
that of Molina, the variation is surprisingly little. In the
phrases the schz‘ represents the usual Nahuatlimperative form 902',
the x in that tongue having the sound of thquerman sch and
the English sh 1n “ she.”

The only change which has taken place in the numerals IS in
the numbe1 nine, the substitution for chicunam‘,“ one hand and
four ﬁngers,” of matalctz'cumi; but I have no doubt this was a
piece of forgetfulness on the part of the venerable Dolores, and
that she gave the w01d for twelve, mallactliome (10 + 2),instead
of that for nine.

Two questions will arise in the mind of the critical reader:
1. Did any other language exist at Acasaguastlan to which the
name Alaguilac could have been applied? If not, and allowing
it to have been me1ely a slightly altered form of the Nahuatl,
was it introduced into that locality bef01e or after the Conquest?

To the ﬁrst of these questions, we may safely reply with a
clear negative. There is not a native proper-name in the vicinity
but belongs either to Nahuatl or Chorti. There is not the slightest.

     

r-
1887.] 3 ‘ 7 [Brinton,

evidence in the Nahuatl vocabulary of the inﬂuence of any ter-
tium quid. We may positively exclude the supposition of a
third. wholly lost and unknown tongue7 aud unhesitatingly
identify the “ Alaguilac ” of Juarros, with the “ Tlacabastleca ’7
of Palacio, and both with the ordinary Nahuatl.*

With this identiﬁcation the last remaining problem in the
aberiginal linguistics of Guatemala is solved. We may now
conﬁdently say that there was not a tribe found anywhere on its
surface by the ﬁrst explorers of whose linguistic afﬁliations we
are ignorant. Every one can be assigned to its proper ethno-
graphic group so far as this is practicable by a knowledge of its
dialect.

As to the second query, whether this Nahuatl colony immi-
grated before or after the Conquest, we are without positive
evidence. But the letter of Palacio, written in 1576, from
observations extending over years previous to that date, indicates
distinctly that the language of Acasaguastlan had a recognized
and independent existence in his day, and, therefore, that the
people who spoke it had been found in place when the Spaniards
first mapped out the land.

This colony of Nahuas, which had wandered into the upper
valley of the Motagua river, was probably an off-shoot from the
extensive settlements which their kindred possessed on the Pa-
ciﬁc slope in the present Department of Escuintla, some eighty
or ninety English miles distant.

* The language called the “ Apay" mentioned by Pal acio as spoken at Acasaguastlan
has been identiﬁed by Dr. Stoll as the Chorti (Zur Ethnographic der Rep. Guatemala,
1.). 106).

I

 

0N
Hm anient Human Hootprint

FROM NICARAGUA.

Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 18th, 1887.

 

 

Vol. XXIV. H0. 126.

Proceedings Amer. Philos. Suc.

 

 

 

 

 

Icaragua.

from N

fa,

tonTu

111

1; Human Footpr

len

Anc

 

 

1887.] 437 [Brintom

On an Ancient Human Footprint from Nicaragua.

By D. G. Brinton, MD.
(Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 18th, 1887.)

The discovery of human footprints in volcanic rocks near the
shore of Lake Managua, Nicaragua, under circumstances which
seemed to assign them a remote antiquity, has been announced
for several years.* We owe thanks especially to Dr. Earl Flint,
of Rivas, Nicaragua, for information about this discovery, and
for sending several specimens to the United States. Four of
these are in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Cambridge,
and recently, I have myself received one from Dr. Flint, to-
gether with several letters describing the locality. The posses-
sion of this material has induced me to present, along with its
description, a general review of the subject.

The surface of the Republic of Nicaragua presents in nearly
all parts the signs of enormous volcanic activity. It is broken
by a complex series of mountain ranges whose sides are scored
with vast lava streams. Frequent earthquakes attest the con-
tinued energy of the subterranean forces and prepare us for
incidents of elevation and subsidence on an uncommon scale.

The great lakes of Nicaragua and Managua are divided by a
low plain through which ﬂows the river Tipitapa connecting these
sheets of water. South of this lowland rises a mesa or table-
land 400 or 500 feet above the level of the lakes, and upon this
stand the volcanic cones of Mombacho (4588 feet) and Masaya
(2972 feet). Beyond these, the land still rising, reaches its
height in the Sierras de Managua, presenting the craters of the
. extinct volcanoes of Tizcapa, Nezcapa (Nehapa), and Asososco;
, and further to the north-west, immediately upon the shores of the

Lake Managua, the still smoking peaks of Chiltepec (2800 feet)
and Momotombo (6121 feet).

The last named (Momotombo) was active in 1852, and Masaya

in 1858 and 1872,while Mombacho,though quiet, so far aswe know,

‘ since the conquest, according to tradition, destroyed an impor-

tant townjust before that epoch, and its sides still reveal signs

* The following are the puncip'al references : Letter of Dr. Flint, dated Jan. 7, 1884, in
the‘Amertcan Antiquarian, March, 1884; 17th Report of the Peabody Museum for 1884, page
356; 18th. Report of the same, 18%, page 414; Proceedings of the American Antiquarian So—
ciety, 1884, p. 92. Letter of Dr. Flint in American Antiquarian, May, 1885.

.Brinton.] 4:38 [Nov. 18,

of terriﬁc outbursts at no distant date. In the eruption of
March, 1872, Masaya vomited a lava stream two miles in width.*

I quote these facts to show the volcanic character of the
country and the powerful agencies at work there.

For our present purpose, we have to conﬁne our attention to
the extinct volcano of Tizcapa. Like its neighbors, the cones
of Nezcapa and Asososco, it has long since burnt out its ﬁres,
and all three have changed their ﬂaming craters into deep and still
lakes, encircled by precipitous walls of congealed masses. Tiz-
capa is about two and a-half miles from the shore of Lake Mana-
gua, and in ancient times its molten streams found their way
into the waters of the lake. Its eruptions were irregular, and
evidently long periods of quiescence intervened between those of
violent action, periods extended enough to allow the earlier tufa
beds and lava streams to become covered with vegetation, the
relics of which we ﬁnd imbedded beneath later overﬂows. How
much time this would require is a vital question in deciding the
age of the footprints. These are found on the surface of the
ﬁrst or lowest tufa bed, which itself rests upon a bed of yellow
sand.

Before proceeding to a discussion of the antiquity we may
fairly assign to the relic, I shall insert Dr. Flint’s description
of the locality, and add a vertical section of the cutting in the
quarry 011 the lake shore, in which the footprints are found.
Both of these he has kindly sent me in a recent letter.

“The Cordilleras east of Lake Nicaragua are a continuous
succession of low mountains, spread out and gradually diminish-
ing to the depression, where the outlet of Lake Nicaragua passes
seaward by the San Juan river. In past ages the spur west of
the lakes Nicaragua and Managua (formerly part of an ocean
inlet) was the theatre of volcanic action seldom exceeded; and
its latent ﬁres, out of the axial line, at Ometepetec and Momo—
tombo, still smoke. These magniﬁcent cones may continue to
burn for ages, until they disappear, like their neighbors, leaving
like them, an abyss to mark their location.

“ Zapatero has its deep lake, whose surface is but slightly above
the wate1s of the one suriounding it; north- west and near
Granada, we look down from the edge of the old crater on a

* See Pablo Levy, Nota's sobre la Republica de Nicaragua, pp. 83, 84 (Paris, 1873), and A.
Schiffman, Una Idea sob? e la Geolojia de Nicaragua, p. 125 (Managua, 1873).

1887.] 4:39 [Brinton.

placid lake, Whose four square miles of water are seldom stirred
by the wind, and whose depth has not yet been fathomed.
When were the ﬁres of this immense crater extinguished?

“ Lake Masaya far exceeds that of Apoyo; as we descend the
deep ravines cut through the tufas to its margin, we see the work
of centuries carrying back this detritus to reﬁll the abyss, and no
perceptible diminution is noted. Passing on, we ﬁnd the lakes
Nehapa, Asososco, and Tizcapa, under similar conditions; the
latter near Managua, furnished the material forming the tufas
on which the footprints occur.

“ These lakes at the time of the Spanish occupation, now nearly
four centuries, presented nearly the same aspect as they do now;
their rock-bound shores were covered with inscriptions,of which
no tradition could be obtained of the tribes then occupying
this region. The country was clothed with impenetrable forest
' that had sprung up on these arid wastes of tufa. We dig below
this fertile soil, and after removing ﬁve well-marked beds of tufa,
including a lower one of pure ash, we encounter a deposit of
clay, a soil of other times, accumulated under circumstances
familiar to that now on the surface. It also had its plants and
trees. Among the former we see long liriaceous leaves impressed
.~on the friable deposit. We ask, is this the soil of the ﬁrst in-
habitants? Before deciding, we dig below, through four more
deposits, with other accumulations in the seams, of pumice and
volcanic sand. We reach a thin friable tufa, nearly black, about
two inches thick; removing it, we ﬁnd a heavy deposit of tufa
lying on yellow sand. This is the last in the series; on its
upper surface we ﬁnd innumerable footprints of a people who ,
had passed over it, at different times, when in a plastic state.
Some sank deep in the mass, while others left superﬁcial impres-
sions. Now and then, a stray leaf of that horizon was trodden
into the imprints; others are on the friable under-surface; they
seem to differ from those above under the ash.”

Dr. Flint sends me a vertical section of the quarry from which
the present specimen was taken. The location is about 300 feet
from the shore and‘ close to the town of Managua. At that
point the overlying strata present a thickness of twenty- one feet
beneath the surface soil, the most of the mass being compact
tufa, similar 1n general appearance to the block bearing the' 1m-

print.

B'rinto'n.]

4:40 (Nov. 18,

Verticalseeta‘on, 21 feet in depth, of a Quarry on Lake Managua, showing

5

10'

11
12

14
15

16

17,

 

 

1.

2

.00

10.

11.
12.

13.
14.
_ 15.

16.

17.

strata overlying human footprints.

Surface soil, about 18 inches.

. Compact tufa, 20 inches, separated from No. 3, by a sand

$63,111.

Compact tufa, 20 inches, separated from N o. 4 by a sand
seam.

Compact tufa, 17 inches, separated from No. 5 by a. sand
seam.

. Compact building tufa, 28 inches, resting on a seam of‘

black sand.

. Solid, dark-blue ash, 14 inches.

. Hard clay, 12 or more inches, its surface presenting nume-

rous leaves (impressions, fossils), and remains of the
mastodon.

. Pumice, about two inches, unequally distributed.

. Sand drift, supporting the clay.

Compact building tufa, 47 inches, separated from No.11
by a sand seam.

Compact tufa, 5 to 7 inches.
Black sand, 1 inch.

Dark, friable tufa, 2inches.

Volcanic sand, containing fossil leaves, 1 inch.

The dotted line ...... shows the horizon of the foot—
prints impressed upon number

I

Compact building tufa, 47 inches.

Yellow sand, believed to be Eocene (‘1) of undetermined
thickness, containing numerous small shells.

1857.] l v 44]- [Brintom

Beginning with the lowest stratum, the yellow sand, the only
clue offered to ascertain its age, believed by Dr. Flint to be
Eocene,is the shells which it offers in abundance, but apparently
only of one species. They are small and well preserved. Dr.
Flint transmitted a number of them for examination to Prof.
Newcombe,of Cornell University, who considered them a new
species, and has called them provisionally Pyrala nicaraguensis,
and adds that the genus is represented in North America by but
one other species, P. nevadensz‘s Stearn.

I submitted a number of them to my colleague at the Academy
of Natural Sciences, Prof. Angelo Heilprin, who writes me 2——
“I should not like to pronounce positively upon the age of the
deposit represented by the Nicaraguan shells, as by themselves
they scarcely give direct evidence. But I should incline to the
opinion that the deposit in question is more nearly Post-pliocene
than Eocene, the specimens having a decidedly new look, and
lacking the Eocene tertiary characters.”

Dr. Flint sent to the Peabody Museum a number of leaves
from the deposit marked 14 on the section ; and I have recently
inquired of the authorities of the Museum whether their age
and character have been determined. They reply, that these
characters have not yet been made out.

The hard clay deposit, No. 7 of the plan, increases in thick-
ness in other localities to ten or twelve feet. It is considered by
Dr. Flint to represent a period of repose of many centuries,
and on its surface, bones of the mastodon have been found at
other points along the lake. It is the only deposit in the section
which seems to demand considerable time; and even here, the
question will suggest itself whether a submergence of the lake
- shore for a few centuries or less might not be suﬁicient to pro-
duce this deposit. The presence of the mastodon bones is no
evidence of great antiquity. That huge herbivore lived in
tropical America almost in historic times. A complete skeleton
of one Was found not long since in an artiﬁcial salt pond, con-
, structed by the Indians, near Concordia, Colombia. The pond,
With its bottom of paved stones together with the animal, had _
been entombed by a sudden landslide.*

* See R. B. White, “Notes on the Aboriginal Races of the Northwestern Provinces of

South America,” in the Journal of the Anthropological Instttute of Great Britain, February,
1884, p. 244. '

‘ Brinton.] 442 [Now 18,

The deposit of ashes, No.6 on the section, is held by Dr.
Flint to mark a period of volcanic energy of wide extent and
important consequences in modifying the physical geography of
the region. It led to the elevation of the coast range and the
separation of Lake Nicaragua, previously a bay of the ocean,
from the sea. Dr. Flint’s expressions are:

“ West of J inotepe a well was sunk one hundred and nineteen
varas in search of water; there this ash deposit is ﬁfteen feet
thick, at least twenty miles from the nearest crater.

“ We see many proofs, that the cataclysm enclosing Lake Nica-
ragua (formerly salt water) was at the time of this ash. erup-
tion; while the tufas, previously ejected, pushed over the sea
inlet at Tipitapa, enclosing that of Managua; they were not
broken up by the cataclysm, nor those at the quarry, and all on

the northern slope; nor the slip of coast north and south of
San Rafael.”

Eassing to a study of the tracks themselves, they are described
by Dr. Flint as quite numerous and passing in both directions,
that is, to and from the lake shore, from which the average dis-
tance of those found is about 300 feet. The maximum stride
was 18 inches, and the longest foot measured 10 inches.

The specimen which he has sent me, and which is offered for in-
spection [specimen presented], is the impression of a left foot.
The total length of the impression is 9% inches, the breadth at the
heel 3 inches, at the toes 4—5 inches. The apparent length of the
foot itself was 8 inches. The instep was high, and the great toe
large, prominent and exceeding in length the second toe. This
last peculiarity has been by some considered of ethnic import-
ance.* The greatest depth of the impression is at the ball of
the foot, the weight being evidently thrown forward as in vigor-

ous walking. At this part the maximal depression below the
plane of the superﬁces. is 2 inches.

The footprints on the tufas at Managua are not the only ones
discovered in that Republic by Dr. Flint. Others were seen on
the southern slope of the Sierra de Managua, near the town of

* See J. Park Harrison, “ 0n the Relative Length of the First Three Toes of the Human
Foot,” in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, February, 1884. The

general conclusion seems to be that a long second toe indicates a lower stage of develop-
ment .

b

. 1887.] 4:43 [Brinton.

- ”San Rafael. The character of this horizon is thus described by

Dr. Flint in a letter to me:

“Collateral evidence touching man’s antiquity here, not less
weighty, is found in the neighborhood. The eruptions covering
the south-west slope, and the disturbance caused by one, alOng
the ocean beach, elevating the coast range, affords us indisput-

able evidence of Pliocene man. In descending the slope through

immense ravines formed by the annual ﬂoods, we see enormous
blocks of tufa, isolated by the removal of the material surround-

ing them, showing that they had been uplifted by some mighty

ferce and re-embedded in the resultant debris.

“ In 1875—8 and 1883, I spent over a month visiting the coast-
hills to the south-west about San Rafael, seeking out the limits

of the cataclysm.

“A strip of land, commencing at Bocano, extends along the

,coast about forty miles and widens out about San Rafael, termi-
nating some eighteen miles above the latter place, at the base of

the old primitive range. Southeast of the town, a notable break
in the upheaval shows that this strip was undisturbed, while the
succession of hills to the east and south-east widens out and
extends to the south at San Juan del Sur, and thence to Salinas

bay. The force culminated against the south-west slope of the

old primitive volcanoes mentioned, also shown north-west of San
Rafael, where the tufa of the ﬁrst eruption, on the slip of land
mentioned, was unbroken, while in ravines near, the ocean sedi-
ment of the upheaval overrides it, forced over it as the rise
occurred near by to the east.

“ This sediment has been carried seaward by the rivers since
formed. As they removed the debritus from the tufa, these were
found covered with footprints of animals and man. One of these
(sandal shod) was forwarded to the Peabody Museum.

“Where the rivers have cut through the old sea sediment down
to the primitive rock, we see beds of shells of many species,

among them enormous oysters of an oblong ﬁgure, perfect fossils,
yet unnamed. They are in situ. Their contents resemble slaked

lime. All this shows a sudden elevation. A few can be seen at
the National Museum with the fossil leaves in the rock above
them, similar to those on the Managua clay under the ash erup-
tion. The latter eruption broke up the clay and elevated the

Brinton.] 444 [Nov. 18. 1887.

coast range. On the neighboring hills innumerable shells are-
adherent to the fractured limestone, and south to those west of .
Rivas; from there the limestone dips to south-east and is only
about sixty metres above the sea between San Juan and Virgin
bay, while part of the Rivas plateau was undisturbed.”

It will be observed that one of these footprints indicates the
use of sandals or moccasins by the pedestrians of that day.
None of this character have been reported from Managua. Un-
doubtedly a society which wears shoes cannot be assigned to the
earliest stages of human culture. Many of the natives of Gen-
tral America to this day never protect the feet in any manner.

In conclusion, I should say, that there can be no doubt of
these being genuine human footprints. They are not of that
mythical origin which the fancy of savage nations delights to
imagine,* nor can there be the least doubt of their authenticity.
Their antiquity remains uncertain. In regions at once tropical,
fertile and volcanic, we may expect sudden upheavals and sub-
sidences, and the ravages of the most violent outbursts are re-
paired by a luxuriant vegetation with surprising rapidity. My
own opinion is, that there is not sufﬁcient evidence to remove
them beyond the present Post-pliocene or Quaternary period.

* See Dr. Richard Andree, on “ Fussspuren," in his Etlmogmphische Parallelen und Ver-
gleiche, s. 94 (Stuttgart, 1878).

 

 

 

POLYSYNTHESIS “AND INCORPORATION  

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

g AW LANGUAGES.

DANIEL G. BRINTON, A.M., M.D., .

Professof of Et/mology and Archeology at z‘lze Academy of [Vellum] Sciences,

PHILADELPHIA

 

 

 

Wﬁi‘lauhﬁa'n‘». ,

ON

YNTH AN NCORPORATl

'AS CHARACTERISTICS OF

AMERICAN LANGUAGES.

BY

DANIEL G. BRINTON, A. M., MD,

Professor of Ethnology and A rc/zreology at [/16 A (ads/lay
of Natural Sciences, P/zz'laa’elp/zz'a.

President of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, Member of the
American Philosophical Society, The American Antiquarian Society, The His-
torical Societies of Pennsylvania and New York, etc. Membre de la
Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, de la Société Americaine
de France, (10 la Sociéte d’ Anthropologie de Paris, Délégue
General de l‘ Institution (1‘ Ethnographic, Vice—Presi-
dent du Congres International des Améri—
canistes, Corresponding Member of
the Anthropological Society of
Washington, etc., etc.

PHILADELPHIA:
MCCALLA & STAVELY, PRINTERS, 237-9 DOCK STREEIX
1885‘

 

ON POLYSYNTHESIS AND INCORPORATION AS
CHARACTERISTICS OF. AMERICAN
LANGUAGES.

SYNOPSIS.

Races of mankind as co-extensive with linguistic groups—Problems of
American languages—~History of the doctrines of Polysynthesis and
Incorporation.—Preliminary cautions.——Erroneous statements about
aboriginal tongues—Teachings of Duponceau.——Of Wilhelm von
Humboldt—Of Francis Lieber.—Of H. Steinthal.—Of Lucien Adam.
—Of Friedrich Mullen—Of J. W. Powell.—Deﬁnitions of Polysyn-
thesis, Incorporation and Holophrasis.——Examples of these processes.
—Examinations of American tongues in which they are alleged to be
absent—(1) The Othomi and associated dialects—(2) The Bri-Bri
and other Costa Rican dialects—(3) The Tupi-Guarani dialects—(4)
The Mutsun.—Conclusions.

The division of the species Man into subspecies or races is
not as yet a settled point in ethnology. The tendency, however,
is to return to the classiﬁcation proposed by Linnaeus, which, in
a broad way, subdivides the species with reference to the con-
tinental areas mainly inhabited by them in the earliest historic
times. This is found to accord with color, and to give ﬁve sub-
species or races, the White or European, the Black or African,
the Yellow or Mongolian (Asiatic), the Brown or Malayan
(Oceanic), and the Red or American Races.

, N o ethnologist nowadays will seek to establish ﬁxed and ab-
solute lines between. these. They shade into one another in all
their peculiarities, and no one has traits entirely unknown in the
others. Yet, in the mass, the characteristics of each are promi-
nent,permanent and unmistakeable; and to deny them on account
of occasional exceptions is to betray an inability to estimate the
relative value of scientiﬁc facts.

‘ In the Science of Language it becomes of the highest impor-
tance to ascertain whether any such general similarity can be
demonstrated between the tongues spoken by members of the
same race.

4

I

On the surface, this is not apparent. Only one of the races
named—the Malayan—is monoglottic. All the others seem
to speak tongues with no genetic relationship, at least none in-
dicated by etymology. The profounder study of language, how-
ever familiar to modern science, leads to a different conclusion—
to one which, as cautiously expressed by a recent writer, teaches
that “every large, connected terrestrial area develOped only one,
or scarcely more than one, fundamental linguistic type, and this
with such marked individuality that rarely did any of its lan-
guages depart from the general scheme.”*

This similarity is not to be looked for in likeness between
words, but in the inner structural development of tongues. To .
ascertain and estimate such identities is a far more delicate
undertaking than to compare columns of words in vocabularies;
but it is proportionately more valuable.

This has yet to be done in any general way for the native
tongues of America, and what I here present may be considered
as merely clearing the road for some'later investigator, well
equipped from the arsenal of the higher linguistics.

The task—no light one—which such an investigator would
have, would be, ﬁrst, to ascertain what structural traits form the
ground-plan or plans (if there are more than one) of the lan-
guages of the New World. Upon this ground-plan he would
ﬁnd very different ediﬁces have been erected, which, nevertheless,
can be classiﬁed into groups, each group marked by traits com-
mon to every member of it. These traits and groups he must
carefully deﬁne. Then would come the separate question as to
whether this community of traits has a genetic explanation or
not. If the decision were afﬁrmative, we might expect conclu-
sions that would carry us much further than etymological‘com-

. t ‘ - u .

* ‘ Diese thatsachen schemen darauf hinzudeuten, dassjeder grossere 1n srch
zusarnmenhangende landercomplex nur einen oder doch nur ganz wenige
sprachgrundtypen herausbildet, so eigenartig, class selten eine sprache ganz aus

dem allgemeinen rahmen heraustritt.” Dr. Heinrich Winkler, Umlaltaische
Vol/oer and Sprachcn, s. 147 (Berlin, 1881).

 

5

parisons, and will form a truly scientiﬁc basis for the classiﬁ~
cation of American nations.

Acting merely as a pioneer to this vast scheme, I shall con-
ﬁne myself to the examination of two closely-related traits, said
by some to be common to the ground-plan of all American
tongues, while by others they are dropped from consideration
altogether, or are asserted to be absent in many instances. These
traits are Polysynthesis and Incorporation.

I shall ﬁrst sketch the history of these linguistic doctrines;
next explain their nature ; and then proceed to examine in detail
several groups of tongues of this continent in which they are
saidvnot to appear. If I succeed in showing that when correctly
understood, one or the other, or both of them, are really present
in these tongues, then I shall have taken a step towards deﬁning
the “ ground-plan ” which I have referred to. As I shall show
that they are both expressions of the same psychological motive,
if/either is present in a tongue it will make for my position, and
the propriety of discussing them together will be obvious.

I would note at the outset that there are a few cautions which
one must observe in the search for structural peculiarities in
general, and especially of these.

Thus, it will become obvious to the student of the subject that
those American languages which have been lauded for their sim-
plicity are quite sure to be those of which we know very little!
The Bri-Bri, the Mutsun, Chibcha, and the Othomi, are exam-
ples. Just in proportion as our means of studying them in-
crease, their complexity becomes apparent.' The little we know
about a tongue is often the safe refuge of those who claim for it
an exceptional character.

There is good reason to believe that such apparent simplicity
arises from the slight knowledge of the tongues possessed by the
whites, to whom we are indebted for our information about. them.
The trading jargons are always extremely simple, and even the
most 'complex native language readily lends itself to the formation

6

of a lingo as simple as “pigeon English.” I have illustrated this-
in a recent work by a specimen of the Lenape (Algonkin) Ian-V.
guage, as in ‘use by the settlers on the Delaware river in the
seventeenth century. We know that an early-missionary trans-
lated a catechism and preached sermons in this jargon. :No
doubt he thought he was using pure Lenapehand .had that diaa
lect shared the fate of so many others, and become extinct at. an
early date, we should at this day be obliged to accept Campa—
nius" worksas authentic examples of it, and should thus derive
an entirely erroneous notion of its character.* I urge, therefore,
that we should be extremely cautious about pronouncing on the
structure of a language unless we have specimens of native com-
position—texts of aboriginal literature.

Even here we are not on perfectly safe ground, for there can
be no doubt but that many native tongues have materially
changed since their speakers have been brought more or less
directly into contact with the whites.

On this point, the Rev. J ohn Kilbuck, a very intelligent native
Delaware Indian, writes me that most of his people speak Lenape
only, but that they have come “ to think like white men,” and
that the structure of the language is materially different from
what it was formerly. This difference, as explained to me, is
clearly that it is becoming more analytic, and is losing the ﬂexi—

bility, the power of polysynthesis, which it formerly possessed
to a striking degree.

I

As I shall show later, Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti says the same of

*See The Lenape and their Legends. By D. G. Brinton, pp. 74—5. (No. v. of
Brinton’s “Library of Aboriginal American Literature.) The Lenape, as pre-
sented in Campanius’ Catechism, oﬁ‘ers no signs of incorporation, although it is
really a markedly incorporative tongue; and polysynthesis does not appear,
although it was on this very dialect that Duponceau chieﬂy founded his
theories! The pretended oration bya native chief which Campanius gives in
the original in his History of New Sweden is in this same ungrammatical jar-
gon. His works should be a standing warning to students of American
languages to be extremely solicitous about their authorities. Campanius lived
seven years among the Lenape and studied their language zealously. Even
Zeisberger, who lived sixty years among them, does not appear to have recog-
nized the signiﬁcance of the vowel changes in the verbs, the use of the obvia-

tives, and such like delicate points of their syntax.
\

7

the Tupi; and the modern Maya, as it appears in the volumi-
nous religious writings of Father Joaquin Ruz, is pronounced
by so excellent a judge as Seﬁor Pio Perez (author of the Maya
Dictionary) and others to be almost a different tongue from the
real spoken Maya of the natives themselves.*

The generalization that American languages constitute in cer-
tain essential structural features an independent group of
tongues was ﬁrst propounded in the second decade of this cen-
tury by Mr. Peter Stephen Duponceau, at one time President of
the American Philosophical Society, and his statements to this
effect ﬁrst saw the light in the publications of that society. He
did not, indeed, fully analyze these features, and from this de-
ﬁciency in comprehending them, was led to retract their appli-
cation in certain examples (especially the Othomi) in which I
shall endeavor to show they are actually present. He named,
indeed, only one of them, to Wit, poly/synthesis, although it is
evident that he perceived the second and equally important pro-
ceSS, now known to linguists by the term incorporation.

As even quite prominent authorities have seriously misunder-
stood these processes, and in some instances have done grave
injustice to their discoverer, I shall give an outline of their
history. '

Mr. Duponceau ﬁrst developed. his theory of the structure of
American languages in his correspondence with the Rev. Mr.
.Heckewelder, in the summer of 1816. Referring to the forms
A of the Delaware verb as set forth by Zeisberger in his Grammar

of that tongue, he observes: “ I am inclined to believe that these
V , ‘

‘ Crescencio Carrillo writes in his Dise’rlacion sobre la, Historia de la Lengua
Maya, sec. xvii, “ E1 estiio del P. Ruz, como escritor maya, no ha sido de buena
y general acceptacion en el pais: hasele censurado por falta de claridad, y de
. que ha forzado mucho y de una manera extraﬁa. e1 giro y caracter proprio y
genuine de la. iengua yucateca.” This was not through ignorance, for Father
Ruz was thoroughly conversant with the Maya; but he wished to force it into
accordance with the rules and structure of European tongues—a not uncom-
mon tendency of missionary writers, and one quite as much to be watched for
L by the student of American languages as the simple ignorance of such authors
as Campaniusr

8
forms are peculiar to this part of the world, and that they do
not exist in the languages of the old hemisphere.” To express
this peculiarity, he ﬁrst employed the adjective syntactic, but
later preferred polysynthetz‘c.”*

In his “ Report on the General L haracter and Forms of Ameri-
can Languages,” in 1819. he explained his views at greater
length, and then ﬁrst distinguishes, though not with desirable
lucidity, between the two varieties of synthetic construction,
the one (incorporation) applicable to verbal forms of expression,
the other (polysynthesis) to nominal expressions. His words
are——

“ A polysynthettc or syntactic construction of language is that
in which the greatest number of ideas are comprised in the least
number of words. This is done principally in two ways. 1. By
a mode of compounding locutions which is not conﬁned to join-
ing two words together, as in Greek, or varying the inﬂection or
termination of a radical word as in most European languages,
but by interweaving together the most signiﬁcant sounds or
syllables of each simple word, so as to form a compound that
will awaken in the mind at once all the ideas singlylexpressed
by the words from which they are taken. 2. By an analogous
combination [of] the various parts of speech, particularly by
means of the verb, so that its various forms and inﬂections will
express not only the principal action, but the greatest possible
number of the moral ideas and physical objects connected with:-
it, and will combine itself to the greatest extent with those con-
ceptions which are the subject of other parts of speech, and in
other languages require to be expressed by separate and distinct

words. . Such I take to be the general character of the Indian
languages.”“{‘

* Correspondence between the Rev. John Heckewelder and Peter S. Duponcea'u, Esq.
Letters viii, xvi, and xxiii. i

1' Report of the Corresponding Secretary to the Committee, of his progress in the In-
vestigation committed to him of the General Character and Forms of the Lan-
guages of the American Indians. Read 12th Jan., 1819, in the Transactions of the

Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society, Vol.1.
1819, pp. xxx, xxxi,

I,
1}

In his thesis, which received the prize of the Institute of
France, in 1835, he was less explicit in his statements, deﬁning
the distinguishing trait of the American languages to be “the
formation of words, not only by preﬁxes and sufﬁxes, but by the
intercalation, not merely of syllables, but of signiﬁcant simple
sounds, by which they can multiply words indeﬁnitely.”<

It should be distinctly stated ' on the part of Mr. Duponceau,
that he at no time claimed this as a peculiarity universal to
American languages. His mind was of altogether too scientiﬁc a
cast to venture such a rash generalization. He guards himself
repeatedly and with care against being so understood, and 1e-
iterates that his opinion must not be held to extend beyond the
tongues he had studied, although he was inclined to believe that
all would be found to reveal these characteristicsd‘

The incorporative plan—alas Einverlez‘bungssystem—of Ameri—
can languages attracted early the attention of Wilhelm von
Humboldt, and in his monumental treatise, Ueber die Versehz’e-
derailed des menschlichen Sprachbaues and ihren Einﬂuss auf
die geistige Entwickelung des Jilenschengeschlechts, he explains,
illustrates, and analyses it at considerable length. In a previous
essay I have dwelt in detail on Humboldt’s theory of the psy-
, chology of the incorporative system, and shall here conﬁne my—
self to his objective description of it:

Its purpose be deﬁnes to be, “ to impress the unity of the
sentence on the understanding by treating it, not as a whole
composed of various words, but as one word.”§

A perfect type of incorporation will group all the elements of
the sentence in and around the verbal, as this alone is the bond
of union between the several ideas. The designation of time
and manner, that is, the tense and mode-signs, will include both

* Mémoz're sur le Systéme Grammatical des Langues de quelques Nations I ndz'emzes
de l’Amérique du Nord, p. 217 (Paris, 1836).

1' Ibid, pp. 67, 436.

1 The Philosophic Grammar of American Languages as set forth by TVz'lhelm von
- Humboldt. By Daniel G. Brinton, pp: 24—27 (Philadelphia, 1885).
é Ueber die Verschiedenheu des Menschlichen Sprachbaues, etc., 5. 166.

'10

the object and subject of the verb, thus subordinating them ‘to
the notion of action. It is “an indispensable basis” of this
system that there should be a difference in the form of words
when incorporated and when not. This applies in a measure to
nouns and verbals, but especially to pronouns, and Humboldt
names it as “the characteristic tendency” of American lan-
guages, and one directly drawn from their incorporative plan,
that the personal pronouns, both subjective and objective, used
in connection with the verbs, are of a diﬁerent form from the
independent personal pronouns, either greatly abbreviated or
from wholly diﬂerent roots. Outside of the verbal thus formed
as the central point of the sentence, there is no syntax, no in-
ﬂections, no declension of nouns or adjectives.*

Humboldt was far from saying that the incorporative system,
was exclusively seen in American languages, any more than that
of isolation in Chinese, or ﬂexion in Aryan speech. On the con.
trary, he distinctly states that every language he had examined
shows traces of all three plans; but the preponderance of one,
plan over the other is so marked and so distinctive that they
aﬁ‘ord us 'the best means known for the morphological classiﬁca-
tion of languages, especially as these traits arise from psycho-.
logical operations widely diverse and of no small inﬂuence on
the development of the intellectd‘

Dr. Francis Lieber, in an essay on “ The Plan of Thought in
American Languages/’3; objected to the terms polysynthesis and
incorporation that “ they begin at the wrong end ; for these names
indicate that that which has been separated is put together, as if
man began with analysis, whereas he ends with it.” He there-
fore proposed the noun holophrasts with its adjective holophras-

* See erer die Verschiedenheit, etc., pp. 170—173, 325-6, etc.

1' Ibid, p. 167. All references are to the edition of 1848.. For a. full discussion of
Wilhelm von Humboldt’s views on this and allied topics see the work above
referred to, The Philosophtc Grammar of American Languages as set forth by Wit-
helm von Humboldt; with the Translation of an unpublished Memoir by him on the
American Verbs (Philadelphia, 1885). ‘

1 Published in H. R. Schoolcraft’s History and Statistics of the Indian Tribes of
the United States. Vol. ii,pp. 346—849 (Washington, 1853).

9

11

tic, not as a substitute for the terms he criticized, but to express
the meaning or purpose of these processes, which is, to convey
the whole of a sentence or proposition in one word. Polysyn—
thesis, he explains, indicates a purely etymological process, holo-
phrasis “refers to the meaning of the word considered in a
philosophical point of view.” '

If we regard incorporation and polysynthesis as structural
processes of language aiming to accomplish a certain theoretical
form of speech, then it will be convenient to have this word
holophrasis to designate this theoretical form, which is, in short,
the expression of the whole proposition in a single word.

The eminent linguist, Professor H. Steinthal, has developed
the theory of incorporation more fully than any other writer.
He expresses himself without reserve of the opinion that all
American languages are constructed on this same plan, more or
less developed.

I need not make long quotations from a work so well-known
as his Chamktem'stz'lc der hauptsdchlz‘clasten Typen des Sprach-
baues, one section of which, about thirty pages in length, is de-
voted to a searching and admirable presentation of the character-
istics of the incorporative plan as shown in American languages.
But I may give with brevity, what he regards as the most strik-
ing features of this plan. These are especially three :—

1. I The construction of words by a mixed system of derivation
and new formation. .

2. The objective relation is treated as a species of possession ;
and

3. The possessive relation is regarded as'the leading and sub-
,stantival one, and controls the form of expression.

' The ﬁrst of these corresponds to what I should call polysyn-
'I thesis; the others to incorporation in the limited sense of the

term.

‘ Some special studies on this subject have been published by
i 'M. Lucien Adam, and he claims for them that they have refuted

12

and overturned the thesis of Duponceau, Humboldt, and Stein-
thal, t0 the effect that there is a process called incorporative or
polysynthetz’o which can be traced in all American languages, and
though not in all points conﬁned to them, may fairly and proﬁt-
ably be taken as characteristic of them, and indicative of the
psychological processes which underlie them. This opinion M.
Adam speaks of as a “stereotyped phrase which is absolutely
false.”*

80 rude an iconoclasm as this must attract our careful con-
sideration. Let us ask what M. Adam understands by the terms
polysynthesz’s and incorporation. To our surprise, we shall ﬁnd
that in two works published in the same year, he advances deﬁ-
nitions by no means identical. Thus, in his “Examination of
Sixteen American Languages,” he says, “polysynthesis consists -
essentially in the afﬁxing of subordinate personal pronouns to
the noun, the postposition and the verb.” In his “‘Study of Six
Languages,” he writes: “By poly/synthesis I understand the ex-
pression in one word of the relations of cause and effect, or of
subject and object.”T

Certainly these two deﬁnitions are not convertible, and we are
almost constrained to suspect that the writer who gives them
was not clear in his own mind as to the nature of the process.
At any rate, they differ widely from the plan or method set
forth by Humboldt and Steinthal as characteristic of American
languages. M. Adam in showing that polysynthesis in his un-
derstanding of the term is not confined to or characteristic of
American tongues missed the point, and fell into an ignoratio
clenchi.

* “ Je suis donc autorise a conclure qu’il faut tenir pour absolument fausse
cette proposition devenue faute d’y avoir regardé de pres. une sorte de cliche :
que si les langues Americaines diﬂ'crent entre elles par la. lexique, elles posse-
dent néanmoins en commun une seule et meme grammaire.” Examen gram-
matical comparé ole seize langues Américaines, in the Compte-rendu of the Con-
gres international des Américanistes, 1877, Tome ii, p. 242. As no one ever main-
tained the unity or American grammar outside of the Einverleibungssystem, it
must be to this theory only that M. Adam alludes.

T Etudes sur Six Lungucs Américaines, p. 3 (Paris, 1878); and compare his Ex-
amen Grammatical above quoted, p. 21, 243.

 

13

Equally narrow is his deﬁnition of incorporation. He writes,
“ When the object is intercalated between the subject and the
verbal theme, there is incorporation.” If this is to be under-
stood as an explanation of the German expression, Einverlei—
bung, then it has been pared down until nothing but the stem is
left.
As to Dr. Lieber’s suggestion of holophrastz'c as an adjective
expressing the plan of thought at the basis of polysynthesis and
incorporation, M. Adam summarily dismisses it as “a pedantic
succedaneum ” to our linguistic vocabulary.
I cannot acknowledge that the propositions so carefully worked
up by Humboldt and Steinthal have been refuted by M. Adam ;
I must say, indeed, that the jej une signiﬁcance he attaches to
the incorporative process seems to me to show that he did not
grasp it either as a structural motive in language, or as a wide
reaching psychological process.
Professor Friedrich Miiller, whose studies of American lan-
guages are among the most extended and proﬁtable of the present
time, has not given to this peculiar feature the attention which
we might reasonably expect. Indeed, there appears in the
standard treatise on the science of language which he is now
engaged in publishing almost the same vagueness as to the nature
of incorporation which I have pointed out in the writings of M.
Adam. Thus, on one page he deﬁnes incorporating languages as
those “which do away with the distinction between the word and
' the sentence ;” while on another page he explains incorporation as ,
“ the including of the object within the body of the verb.” * He
calls it “a peculiarity of most American languages, but not of
all.” That the structural process of incorporation is by no means

. exhausted by the reception of the object within the body of the
verb, even that this is not requisite to incorporation, I shall en-
deavor to show.

‘Grﬂndriss der Spraehwissenschaﬂ. Von Dr. Friedrich Muller. Compare Bd.
i., s. 68, und Bd. ii, 5. 182.

'14

Finally, I may close this brief review of the history of these
doctrines with a reference to the fact that neither of them ap-~
pears anywhere mentioned in the ofﬁcial “Introduction to the
Study of Indian Languages ” issued by the United States
Bureau of Ethnology! How the author of that work, Major
J. W. Powell, Director of the Bureau, could have written a trea-
tise on the study of American languages, and have not a word to
say about these doctrines, the most salient and characteristic
features of the group, is to me as inexplicable as it is extraordi-
nary. He certainly could not have supposed that Duponceau’s
theory was completely dead and laid to rest, for Steinthal, the
most eminent philosophic linguist of the age, still teaches in Ber-
lin, and teaches what I have already quoted from him about these
traits. What is more, Major Powell does not even refer to this
structural plan, nor include it in what he terms the “ grammatic
processes ” which he explains.* This is indeed the play of “Ham-
let ” with the part of Hamlet omitted!

l believe that for the scientiﬁc study of language, and especially
of American languages, it will be proﬁtable to restore and clearly
to differentiate the-distinctiOn between polysynthesis and incor-
poration, dimly perceived by Duponceau and expressed by him
in the words already quoted. With these may be retained the

neologism of Lieber, holophrasz's, and the three deﬁned as fol- L
lows:

Polysynthesis is a methodof word-building, applicable either
to nominals or verbals, which not only employs juxtaposition
with aphaeresis, syncope, apocope, etc., but also words, forms of
words and signiﬁcant phonetic elements which have no separate
existence apart from such compounds. This latter peculiarity
marks it oﬁ" altogether from the processes of agglutination and
collocation.

Incorporation, Einverleibung, is a structural process conﬁned-

*‘Introdaction to the Study of Indian Languages. By J. W. Powell, p. 55, Second
edition. Washington, 1880.

15

to verbals, by which the nominal or pronominal elements of the
proposition are subordinated to the verbal elements, either in
form or position; in the former case having no independent
existence in the language in the form required by the verb, and
in the latter case being included within the speciﬁc verbal signs
of tense and mood. In a fully incorporative language the ver-
bal exhausts the syntax of the grammar, all other parts of speech
remaining in isolation and without structural connection.

Holophrasz’s does not refer to structural peculiarities of lan-
guage, but to the psychological impulsewhich lies at the root of
polysynthesis and incorporation. It is the same in both instances
——the eﬂ"ort to express the whole proposition in one word. This
in turn is instigated by the stronger stimulus which the imagi-
nation receives from an idea conveyed in one word rather than
in many.

These words, when understood, are good enough, without in-

. venting others. Professor J ulien Vinson would like to substitute
“syncopated composition” for] polysynthesis."< But the process
is not simply syncopated composition; and if it were, why sub-
stitute two words for one?

A few illustrations will aid in impressing these deﬁnitions on
the mind.

Aspolysynthetz‘c elements, we have the inseparable possessive
pronouns which in many languages are attached to the names of '
the parts of the human body and to the words for near relatives;
’ also the so-called “generic formatives,” particles which are pre-
ﬁxed, suﬁixed, or inserted to indicate to what class or material
objects belong ; also the “numeral terminations ” affixed to the
ordinal numbers to indicate the nature of the objects counted ;
.the negative, diminutive and ampliﬁcative particles which convey
certain conceptions of a general character, and so on. These are

* “ Le polysynthétisme, ou, pour employer une meilleure expression: la com-
_ position syncopée. ” M. J ulien Vinson in the Compte- -Rendu du Obngrés Interna-
tional des Américanistes, 1883, p. 365.

 

‘16.

constantly used in word-building, but are generally not words
themselves, having no independent status in the language. They
may be single letters, or even merely vowel-changes and con-
sonantal substitutions ; but they have well deﬁned signiﬁcance.

In incorporation the object may be united to the verbal theme
either as a preﬁx, suﬂix or inﬁx; or, as in Nahuatl, etc., a pro-
nominal representative of it may be thus attached to the verb,
while the object itself is placed in isolated apposition.

The subject is usually a pronoun inseparably connected, or at
least included within the tense sign; to this the nominal subject
stands in apposition. Both subjective and objective pronouns
are apt to have a different form from either the independent
personals or possessives, and this difference of form may be ac-
cepted as a priom’ evidence of the incorporative plan of structure
———though there are other possible origins for it. The tense and
mode signs are generally separable, and, especially in the com-
pound tenses, are seen to apply not only to the verb itself, but
to the whole scope of its action, the tense sign for instance pre—
ceding the subject.

Some further observations will set these peculiarities in a yet
clearer light.

Although in polysynthesis we Speak of preﬁxes, sufﬁxes, and
juxtaposition, we are not to understand these terms as the same
as in connection with the Aryan or with the agglutinative lan-
guages. In polysynthetic tongues they are not intended to form
words, but sentences ; not to express an idea, but a proposition.
This is a fundamental logical distinction between the two classes
of languages.

With certain preﬁxes, as those indicating possession, the form
of the word itself alters, as in Mexican, amatl, book, no, mine,
but nmnauh, my book. In a similar manner sufﬁxes or post-
positions affect the form of the words to which they are added.

As the holophrastic method makes no provisions for the syntax
of the sentence outside of the expression of action (2'. 0., the

4, Ar,";« 7 ..

  

as“ "Era: r

17

verbal and what it embraces), nouns and adjectives are not de-
clined. The “ cases ” which appear in many grammars of Ameri.
can languages are usually indications of space or direction, or
of possession, and not case-endings in the sense of Aryan
grammar.

A further consequence of the same method is the absence of
true relative pronouns, of copulative conjunctions, and generally
of the machinery of dependent clauses. The devices to intro-
duce subordinate propositions I have referred to in the pre-
vious essay already mentioned.

As the eﬁ“ort to speak in sentences rather than in words entails
constant variation in these word-sentences, there arise both an
enormous increase in verbal forms and a multiplication of ex-
pressions for ideas closely allied. This is the cause of the
apparentlyendless conjugations of many such tongues, and also
of the exuberance of their vocabularies in words of closely simi-
lar signiﬁcation. It is an ancient error—which, however, I ﬁnd
repeated in the ofﬁcial “Introduction to the Study of Indian
Languages” issued by our Bureau of Ethnology—that the
primitive condition of languages is one “where few ideas are
expressed by few words.” On the contrary, languages structu-
rally at the bottom of the scale have an enormous «and useless
excess of words. The savage tribes of the plains will call a
color by three or four different words as it appears on different
objects. The Eskimo has about twenty words for ﬁshing, de-
pending on the nature of the ﬁsh pursued. All this arises from
the “ holophrastic ” plan of thought.

twill be seen from these explanations that the deﬁnition
of Incorporation as given by M. Lucien Adam (quoted above)
is entirely erroneous, and that of Professor Miiller is visibly in-
adequate. The former reduces it to a mere matter of position
or placement; the latter either does not distinguish it from poly-

, synthesis, or limits it to only one of its several expressions.

’ In fact, Incorporation may take place with any one of the six

‘18

possible modiﬁcations of the grammatical formula, “subject +'
verb + object.” It is quite indifferent to its theory which of
these comes ﬁrst, which last; although the most usual formula
is either,

subject + object + verb, or

object + subject + verb;
the verb being understood to be the verbal theme only—not its
tense and mode signs. Where either of the above arrangements
occurs, we may consider it to be an indication of the incorpora-
tive tendency ;, but as mere position is insufﬁcient evidence, In-
corporation may be present in other arrangements of the ele-
ments of the proposition.

As a fair example of polysynthesis in nouns, we may select the
word for “ cross” in the Cree. The Indians render it by “ pray-
ing-stick” or “ holy wood,” and their word for “our praying-
sticks” (crosses) is: ..

N’ t’ ayamihewdttz’kumindnalc.

This is analyzed as follows:

n’t’, possessive pronoun, % person plural.

ayamn’, something relating to religion.

he, indicative termination of the foregoing.

w, a connective.

tittilc, suﬁix indicating wooden or of wood.

u, a connective.

m, sign of possession.

2', a connective.

min, termination of —§— person plural.

ak, termination of animate plural (the cross is spoken of as
animate by a ﬁgure of speech).

Not a single one of the above elements can be employed as
an independent word. They are all only the‘ raw material, to
weave into and make up words.

As a characteristic specimen of incorporation we may select
this Nahuatl word~sentence;

 

19-

om'ctemaeac,
I have given something to somebody ;
which is analyzed as follows :

0, augment of the preterit, a tense sign.

m', pronoun, subject, 1st person.

0, “semi-pronoun.” object, 3d person.

256, “inanimate semi-pronoun,” object, 3d person.

maca, theme of the verb, “to give.”

0, suffix of the preterit, a tense sign.

Here it will be observed that between the tense-signs, which
are logically the essential limitations of the action, are included
both the agent and the near and remote objects of the action.

Or we may take the Cakehiquel

xbina camizah,
Thou wilt not kill me.

Composed of

x, sign of the future tense.

b, for be, negative.

in, for quin, pronoun, 1st person, object.

a, pronoun, 2d person, subject.

camizah, verbal theme, “ to kill.”

Here the object does not come between verb and subject, but~
precedes the latter; but it is a true specimen of incorporation,
as is proved by the preﬁxed tense sign.

In the modiﬁcations of meaning they undergo, American ver-
bal themes may be divided into two great classes, either as they
express these modiﬁcations (1) by sufﬁxes to an unchanging
radical, or (2) by internal changes of' their radical.

‘ ‘ The last mentioned are most characteristic of synthetic tongues.
In all pure dialects of the Algonkin 'the vowel of the verbal
root undergoes a peculiar change called “ﬂattening” when the
proposition passes from the “positive” to the “ suppositive”

‘20

mood.* The same principle is strikingly illustrated in the Choc-
taw language, as the following example will show :1”

talcchz', to tie (active, deﬁnite).

takchz', to be tying (active, distinctive).

tak’chz’, to tie (active, emphatic).

taialcchz‘, to tie tightly (active, intensive).

tahakchz‘, to keep tying (active, frequentative).

tah/cchz', to tie at once (active immediate). \

tullalcchz', to be tied (passive deﬁnite).

talla/cchz’, to be the one tied (passive distinctive), etc., etc.

This example is, however, left far behind by the Qquichua of
Peru, which by a series of so-called “verbal particles” afﬁxed
to the verbal theme confers an almost endless variety of modiﬁ‘
cation on its verbs. Thus Anchorena in his Grammar gives the
forms and shades of meaning of 675 modiﬁcations of the verb
munay, to love)“~ I

These verbal particles are not other words, as adverbs, etc.,
qualifying the meaning of the verb and merely added to it, but
have no independent existence in the language. Von Tschudi,
whose admirable analysis of this interesting tongue cannot be
too highly praised, explains them as “verbal roots which never
reached independent development, or fragments handed down
from some earlier epoch of the evolution of the language.”§
They are therefore true synthetic elements in the sense of Du-
ponceau’s deﬁnition, and not at all examples of collocation or
juxtaposition.

In contrast to this we may take the Maya-Quiche dialects, where
there are only slight traces of these internal changes, most of
the modiﬁcations being effected by afﬁxes. Thus Francisco

*This obscure feature in Algonkin Grammar has not yet been satisfactorily ex-
plained. Compare Baraga, Grammar of the Otchipwe Language, p. 116 (Montreal,
1878), and A. Lacombe, Grammaire de la Langue des Gris, p. 155 (Montreal, 1874).

TSee Grammar of the Choctaw Languages. By the Rev. Cyrus Byington. Edited
by 1). G. Brlnton, pp. 35, 36 (Philadelphia, 1870).

iGra'mdtz‘ca Quechua, 6 del Idioma del Imperio de los Incas. For 61 Dr. Jose
Dionisio Anchorena, pp. 163—177 (Lima, 1874).

{g Organismus dew KhetsuarSpytache. Von J , J _. von Tschudi, p. 368 (Leipzig, 1884-).

 

 

21

Ximenez in his Quiche Grammar gives twenty-four variations
of the theme bale, bored, all by suﬂixes, as :*

bank, ﬁrst passive.

balcatuh, second passive.

balcou, ﬁrst absolute.

balcon, second absolute.

bake, ﬁrst neuter.

baker, second neuter, etc., etc.

While the genius of American languages is such that they per-
mit and many of them favor the formation of long compounds
Which express the whole of a sentence in one word, this is by no
means necessary. Most of the examples of words of ten, twenty
or mOre syllables are not genuine native words, but novelties
manufactured by the missionaries. In ordinary intercourse such
compounds are not in use, and the speech is comparatively
simple.

6f two of the most synthetic languages, the Algonkin and the
Nahuatl, we have express testimony from experts that they can
be employed in simple or compound forms, as the speaker prefers.
The Abbe Lacombe observes that in Cree “sometimes one can
employ very long words to express a whole phrase, although the
same ideas can be easily rendered by periphrasis.”1L In the sylla-
bus of the lectures on the Nahuatl by Prof. Agustin de la Rosa
of the University of Guadalaxara I note that he explains when
the Nahuatl is to be employed in a synthetic, and when in an ana-
lytic form}: V

I shall now proceed to examine those American tongues which

* Gramatica de la Lengua Quiche. ‘ Ed. Brasseur de Bourbourg, p. 8 (Paris, 1862).

T “ Ces exemples font comprendre combien quelquefois on pent rendre des
mots tres longs, pour exprimer toute une phrase, quoiqu’ aussi on puisse facile-
Inent rendre ]es memes ideés par des périphrases.” Lacombe, Grammaz’re de la
Langue des Gris, p. 11 (Montreal, 1874).

. 1:“Se explicara 1a razon ﬁloséﬁca de los dos. modos de usar las palabras en
Mexicano, uno componiendo de varias palabras uno solo, y otro dejandolas
separadas y enlazandolas solo por el regimen ” From the programme of Prof.
A. de la Rosa’s course in 1870. It is greatly to be regretted that the works of this
author on the Nahuatl, though recent, are so scarce as to be unobtainable.

l—

have been authoritatively declared to be exceptions to the general
rules of American grammar, as being devoid of the incorporative
and polysynthetic character.

THE OTHOMI.*

As I have said, the Othomi was the stumbling block of Mr.
Duponceau and led him to abandon his theory of polysynthesis
as a characteristic of American tongues. Although in his earlier
writings he expressly names it as one of the illustrations sup-
porting his theory, later in life the information he derived from
Seﬁor Emmanuel Naxera led him to regard it as an isolating and
monosyllabic language, quite on a par with the Chinese. He ex-
pressed this change of view in the frankest manner, and since
that time writers have spoken of the Othomi as a marked excep-
tion in structure to the general rules of synthesis in American
tongues. This continues to be the case even in the latest writ-

ings, as, for instance, in the recently published Anthropologie du
Jilexz'que, of Dr. HamyqL

Let us examine the grounds of this opinion.

The Othomis are an ancient and extended family who from
the remotest traditional epochs occupied the central valleys and
mountains of Mexico north of the Aztecs and Tezcucans. Their

*The original authorities I have consulted on the Othomi are:
Reglas de Orthographia, Diccionario, y Arte del Idioma Othomi. By Luis (16 N eve
y Molina (Mexico, 1767).

.De Lingaa Othomitm‘um Dissm‘tayio. By Emmanuel Naxera. (Philadelphia,
1835). ‘

C’ateiesmo en Lengua Otomt’. By Francisco Perez (Mexico, 1834).

THe speaks of the Othomi in these terms :—-“ Une langue aux allures toutes
spéciales, fondamentalement distincte (ie toutes les langues qui se patient an.
jourd’ hui sur le continent américain.” Mission Scientiﬂque au Mexique, Pt. 1.
AnthrOpologie, p. 32 (Paris, 1884). This is the precise opinion. strongly ex-
pressed, that it is my object to controvert. Manyother writers have maintained
it. Thus Count Piccolomlni in the Prolcgome'na to his version of Neve’s Othomi
Grammar says: “ La ioro lingua che con nessuna altradei mondo conosciuto ha.
in menomaanalogia, e semplice. * * * (La. formazione dei loro verbi, nomi.
ed altri derivati ha molta sempiecita,” etc. Grammatical, della Lingua Otomi. p.
3 (Roma, 1841). This writer also offers an illustration of how imperfectly Du-
ponceau’s theory of polysynthesis has been understood. Not only does Picco-
lomini deny it for the Otomi, but he denies that it is anything more than merely

running several words together with some phonetic syncopation. See the Anna-
tatiom‘ at the close of his Othomi Grammar.

 

23

language, called by themselves nhidn hiii, the ﬁxed or Current
speech* (nhidn, speech, hm, stable, ﬁxed), presents extraordinary
phonetic difficulties on account of its nasals,guttura1s and ex-
plosives. M. A. Pinart has informed me that of the many Ameri-
can tongues which he has studied from the lips of the natives,
it is far the most difﬁcult to catch.
It is one of a group of related dialects which may be arranged
as follows:
[ The Othomi.
The Mazahua.
1 The Fame and its dialects.
The Meco or Jonaz.

'It'was the opinion of M. Charen'cey, that another member of
this group was the Pirinda or M atlazinca; a position combatted
by Seﬁor Pimentel, who acknowledges some common property in
words, but considers them merely borrowedd‘

At the outset, it is well to express a caution about accepting
without reserve Naxera’s opinions on the tongue. N o doubt
he had practical familiarity: with it in its modern and
rather corrupt form, but his treatise was largely written to
prove that it was not only structurally similar but lexico-
graphically related to the Chinesez—and we all know how
such a prepossession obscures the judgment. ’ Thus, part of his
object was to prove that every syllable of the polysyllabic words
had an independent meaning which it always retained in the
compound. It is easy to think out deceptive etymologies of this
kind, especially in languages where there are many monosyl-
lables. Thus the participle rowing might plausibly be com-
pounded of the two monosyllables row, and wing, as the oarmen
are seated in a row, and the blade of the oar resembles a wing.

*This is the orthography of Neve. The terminal vowels are both nasals;
nhidn is from the radical hid to breathe, breath.

TSee the “Comparacion del Othomi con el Mazahua y el Pirinda,” in the
. Ouadro Descriptive 3/ Comparative de las Lenguas Indigenas de México, por Fran-
cisco Pimentel. Tomo iii, pp. 431—445 (Mexico, 1875).

‘24

Bayard Taylor’s humorous derivation of rcstaurantéres, taurus,
“bully thing ”—is of similar character. That Naxera was led
into this false route by his anxiety to prove the Othomi mono-
syllabic is evident, for example, from his treatment of the verbal
terminations tza, tze, tzz'; he makes them independent words,
characterizing the imperative, and meaning to happen, to effect,
and to carry; whereas Neve treats them as mere terminations,
which is shown to be correct by the fact that they are retained ~
with syncope and elision in other moods as well as in the im-
‘ perative itself.* Thus

Da phdx Oghd:
'Thee aid God.

Where phdx is an abbreviation of ph'dtzi.

Naxcra made the statement that the Mazahua is monosyllabic,
an error in which his copyists have obediently followed him ; but
Pimentel pointedly contradicts this assertion and shows that it
is a mistake, both for the Mazahua and for the Fame and its
dialectsrlL ' I

We may begin our study of the language with an examination
ot the
TENSE SIGNS IN OTHOMI.

PRESENT TE NSE.

]. I wish, dz‘ nee.
2. Thou wishest, guz‘ nee.
3. He wishes, y nee.

PAST AORIST.

1. I wished, da nee.
2. Thou wished, ga nee.
3. He wished, bi nee.

* Compare Naxera, Dissm'tat'io, p. 286, with Neve, Reglas, p. 149.
f See leentel, Cuadro Descr'iptivo, etc. Tomo iii, pp. 429 and 453.

 

25

PERFECT.
1. I have Wished, xta nee.
2. Thou hast wished, xca nee.
3. He has wished, xpz’ nee.
PLUPERFECT.
1. I had wished, :rta nee hma.
2. Thou hadst wished, arca nee 7mm.
3. He had wished, xpz‘ nee hm a.

FIRST FUTURE.

'1. I shall wish, ‘ga nee.
2. Thou wilt wish, gm} nee.
‘ 3. He will wish, da nee.

SECOND FUTURE.

1. I shall have wished, ‘ gua aria nee.

2. Thou wilt have wished, gua xca nee.
,3, He will have wished, gua xpz’ nee.

The pronouns here employed are neither the ordinary per-
sonals nor possessives (though the Othomi admits of a posses-
sive conjugation), but are verbal pronouns, strictly analogous to

those found in various other American languages. Their radicals
are:

I, ' d—.
Thou, 9—.
He, it, b—.‘

In the present, the ﬁrst and second are preﬁxed to what is
really the simple concrete form of the verb, y-nee. In the past
tenses the personal signs are variously united with particles de-
noting past time or the past, as a, the end, to ﬁnish, ma and
' hma, yesterday, and the preﬁx, x, which is very noteworthy as
being precisely the same in sound and use which we ﬁnd in the
Cakchiquel past and future tenses. It is pronounced sh (as in
' shove) and precedes the whole verbal, including subject, object,

26
and theme; while in the pluperfect, the second sign of past time
hma is a sufﬁx to the collective expression. _

The future third person is given by Neve as da, but by Perez
as di, which latter is apparently from the future particle m' given
by Neve. In the second future, the distinctive particle gua pre-
cedes the whole verbal, thus inclosing the subject with the theme
in the tense-sign, strictly according to the principles of the in-
corporative conjugation.

This incorporative character is still more marked in the objec-
tive conjugations, 0r “transitions.” The object, indeed, follows

.the verb, but is not only incorporated with it, but in the com-
pound tense is included within the double tense signs.

Thus, I ﬁnd in Perez’s Catechism,

d’i amba magetzz‘,
He will give-them heaven.

In this sentence, dz’ is the personal pronoun combined with the
future sign; and the verb is {Zn-ni, to give to another, which is
compounded with the personal ba, them, drops its ﬁnal syllable,
forming a true synthesis.

In the phrase,

(r1075 dn-ba hma imagetzi,
he had given-them (had) heaven,
both subject and object, the latter inclosed in a synthesis with
the radical of the theme, the former phonetically altered and co-
alesced with a tense particle, are included in the double tense-
sign, ac-hma. This is as real an example of incorporation as can
be found in any American language.

Ordinary synthesis of words, other than verbs, is by‘no means
rare in Othomi. Simple juxtaposition, which N axera states to
be the rule, is not all universal. Such a statement by him leads
us to suspect that he had only that elementary knowledge of the
tongue which Neve refers to in a forcible passage in his Reglds.
He writes :—-“A good share of the diﬂficulty of this tongue lies
in its Custom of syncope; and because the tyres who make use 7

27

of it do not syncopate it, their compositions are so rough and
lacking in harmony to the ears of the natives that the latter
count their talk as no better than that of horse-jockeys, as we
would say.”*
The extent of this syncopation is occasionally to such a degree
that only a fragment of the original word is retained. As :
The charcoal-vendor, 72a mdthz’d.
Here we, is a demonstrative particle like the Aztec in, and-
mdthz’d is a compound of pd, to sell, and théhﬁd, charcoal.
The expression,
y mahny oqha, he loves God,
is to be analyzed,
3/ mdhdi nuny oqha;
he loves him God;
where we perceive not only synthesis, but the object standing in
apposition to the pronoun representing it, which is incorporated
with the verb.
So : yot-gua, light here; from yottz’, to light, nugua, here.
These examples from many given in Neve’s work seem to me
to prove beyond cavil that the Othomi exhibits, when properly
spoken, precisely the same theories of incorporation and poly-
synthesis as the other American languages, although undoubtedly
its more monosyllabic character and the extreme complexity of
its phonetics do not permit of a development of these peculi-

arities to the same degree as many.

Nor am I alone in this opinion. It has already been announced
by my learned friend, the Count de Charencey, as the result of
his comparison of this to'ngue with the Mazahua and Pirinda.

“The Othomi,” he writes, “has all the appearance of a language
’ which was at ﬁrst incorporative, and which, worn down by attri-

*“Parte de la diﬁcultad de este idioma. consiste en la syncopa, pues e1 no
syncopar los principlantes artistas, es causa de quepsus periodos y oraciones
sean tan rispidos, y faltos de harmonia, por cuyo motivo los nativos los mur-
‘ muran, y tienen (como vulgarmente decimos), por quartreros.” Reglas de 07"-
thographia, etc., p. 146. '

28
tion and‘linguistic decay, has at length come to simulate a lan-
guage of juxtaposition.”*

Some other peculiarities of the language, though not directly
bearing on the question, point in the same direction. A certain
class of compound verbs are said by Neve to have a possessive
declension. Thus, of the two words puenguz‘, he draws,and hid,
breath, is formed the verb buehz‘d, which is conjugated by using
the verb in the indeﬁnite third person and inserting the posses-
sives ma, m}, na, my, thy, his; thus,

ybuemahia, I breathe.

ybuem‘ht‘a, thou breathest.

ybuenahz’a, he breathesd‘

Literally this would be “ it-is-drawing, my-breath,” etc.

In the Mazahua dialects there is a remarkable change in the
objective conjugations (transitions) where the whole form of the
verb appears to alter. In this language ti = I; In? or [due = thou.

I give, 152' une.

I give thee, ti da/clce.

He will give us, 252’ yakmel

The last example is not fully explained by my authorities ; but
it shows the verbal change.

Something like this occurs in the Pame dialects. They re-
veal a manifest indiﬁ'erence to the integrity of the theme, charac-'
teristic of polysynthetic languages. Thus, our only authority
on the Pame, Father Juan Guadalupe Soriano, gives the pret-
erit forms of the verb “ to aid :”

Ku putt, I aided.

K73 gait, thou aidedest.

Ku mait, he aided.

* “L’Uthomi nous a tout l’air d’une langue primitivement incorporante. et
qui, parvenu au dernier degré d’usure et delabrement, a ﬁni par prendre les

allures d’un dialecte a juxtaposition.” Melanges de Philologz’e et de Paléographie
Américame. Par 1e Comte de Charencey, p. 80 (Paris, 1883).

' t Neve, Reglas etc., pp. 159, 160.

i Pimentel, Cuad'ro Descriptive, Tom. iii, p. 424.

29

So, of “to burn :”

Knu aum, I burned.

Kuddu du taum, they burned.*

A large number of such changes run through the conjugation.
Pimentel calls them phonetic changes, but they are certainly, in
some instances, true syntheses.

All these traits of the Othomi and its related dialects serve
to place them unquestionably Within the general plan of struc-
ture of American languages.

The Bri-Bm' Language.

The late Mr. William M. Gabb, who was the ﬁrst to furnish
any satisfactory information about it and its allied dialects in
Costa Rica, introduces the Bri-Bri language, spoken in the high-
lands of that State, by quoting the words of Alexander von
Humboldt to the effect that “ a multiplicity of tenses character-
izes the rudest American languages.” On this, Mr. Gabb com-
ﬂinents: “This certainly does not apply to the Costa Rican
family, Which is equally remarkable for the simplicity of its in-
ﬁectionsj‘”

This statement, offered with such conﬁdence, has been accepted
and passed on Without close examination by several usually care-
ful linguists. Thus Professor Friedrich Miiller, in his brief des-
cription of the Bri-Bri (taken exclusively from Gabb’s work),
inserts the observation—“ The simple structure of this idiom is
suﬂ‘icient to contradict the theories generally received about
American languages”: And M. Lucien Adam has lately in-
‘stanced its verbs as notable examples of inﬂectional simplicity.§

* Pimentel, Cuadro Descm'ptz’vo, Tomo iii, p. 462. V
f Wm. M. Gabb, 0n the Indian Tribes and Languages of Costa Rica, in the Pro-
ceedings of the American Philosophical Society for 1875, p. 532.

I“Dessen einfacher Bau die uber die Amerikanischen Sprachen im Allge-
meinen verbreiteten'Theorien zu Widerlegen im Stande ist.” Grundm’ss der
Spraehwissenschaft, ii Band, s. 318 (Wien, 1882). _

é Le Taensa a-t-z'l été forgé de toutes Piéces? Réponse a M. Daniel G. Brinton.
Par Lucien Adam, p. 19 (Paris, Maisonneuve et Cie, 1885).

30

The study of this group of tongues becomes,therefore, of pecu-
liar importance to my present‘topic.

Since Mr. Gabb published his memoir, some independent ma-
terial, grammatical as well as lexicographical, has been furnished
. by the Rt. Rev. B. A. Thiel, Bishop of Costa Rica,* and I have
obtained, in addition, several MS. vocabularies and notes on the
languages prepared by Prof. P. J. J. Valentini (now of New
York City) and others.

The stock is divided into three groups of related dialects, as
follows :—

I. The Brunka, Bronka or Boruca, now in Southwestern Costa
Rica,but believed by Gabb to have been the earliest of the stock
to occupy the soil, and to have been crowded out by later
arrivals.

II. The Tiribi and Terraba, principally on the head-waters of
the Rio Telorio and south of the mountains.

III. The Bri-Bri and Cabecar on the head-waters of the Rio
Tiliri. The Biceitas (Vizeitas) or Cachis, near the mouth of the ‘
. same stream, are one of the off-shoots of the Bri-Bris; so also are
the small tribes at Orosi and Tucurrique, who were removed to
those localities by the Spaniards.

The Bri-Bri and Cabecar, although dialects of the same
original speech, are not sufﬁciently alike to be mutually intelligi-
ble. The Cabecars occupied the land before the Bri-Bris, but
weie conquered and are new subject to them. It 1s probable
that their dialect 1s more a1 chaic

The Bri-Bri is a language of extreme poverty, and as spoken
at present is plainly corrupt. Gabb estimates the total number
of words it contains as probably not exceeding ﬁfteen hundred.
Some of these, though Gabb thinks not very many, are borrowed

from the Spanish; but it is signiﬁcant, that among them is the
pronoun “that,” the Spanish 636.

* Apuntes Lexicogo aﬁcos de las Lenguas y Dialectos de los Indies de Costa-Rica.

Por Bernardo Augusto Thie1,0bispo de Costa- Rica (San José de Costa- Rica,
1882.1mprenta Naclonal).

31

Let us now examine the Bri-Bri verb, said to be so singularly
simple. We are at once struck by Mr. Gabb’s remark (just after
he has been speaking of their unparalleled simplicity) that the
inﬂections he gives “have been veriﬁed with as much care as the
difﬁculties of the case would admit.” Evidently, then, there
were difﬁculties. What they are become apparent when we

attempt to analyze the forms of the eighteen brief paradigms
which he gives. 1

The personal pronouns are

je, I. sa, we.
be, thou. I ha, you.
ye, he, etc. . ye-pa, they.

These are both nominative and objective, personal and, with
the sufﬁx cha, possessives.

The tenses are usually, not always, indicated by suffixes to the
theme ; but these vary, and no rule is given for them, nor is it
stated whether the same theme can be used with them all. Thus,

To burn, i—norlca. Present, i-nyor-lcet-lce.
To cook, i-Zu’. ' “ i-Zulc.
To start, i—be-te. “ i—bc-te.

Here are three forms for‘the present, not explained. Are they
three conjugations, or do they express three shades of meaning,
like the three English presents? I suspect the latter, for under
z'lcz'ana, to want, Gabb remarks that the form in-etlce, means “he
wants you,” 2'. e., is emphatic.

The past aorist has two terminations, one in ma, and one in -e,
about the uses and meaning of which we are left equally in the
dark. ' '

The future is utterly inexplicable. Even Prof. Miiller, just
‘ after his note calling attention to the “great simplicity ” of the
tongue, is obliged to give up this tense with the observation,
“the structural laws regulating the formation of the future are
- still in obscurity I” Was it not somewhat premature to dwell on

32
the simplicity of a tongue whose simplest tenses he acknowl-

edges himself unable to analyze?
The futures of some verbs will reveal the difﬁculties of this

tense :—
To burn, i-nyor-lca ,- future, i—nyor-wane-lca.
To cook, i-lu’; “ i-lu’.
To start, i—bete‘; “ i-bete.
To want, i-lci-ana ; “ i—lcz'e.
To count, ishtaung ; . “ mic slzta’we.

In the last example mic, is the future of the verb, imia, to go,
and is used as an auxiliary.

The explanation I have to suggest for these varying forms is,
either that they represent in fact that very “multiplicity of
tense-formations ” which Humboldt alluded to, and which were
too subtle to be apprehended by Mr. Gabb within the time he
devoted to the study of the language ; or that they are in modern
Bri-Bri, which I have shown is noticeably corrupted, survivals
of these formations, but are now largely disregarded by the
natives themselves. '

Signs of the incorporative plan are not wanting in the tongue.
Thus in the objective conjugation not only is the object placed
between subject and verb, but the latter may undergo visible
synthetic changes. Thus :

Je be sueng.

I thee see.

Kc je be wai su-na.
Not I thee (‘2) see-did.

In the latter sentence m1, is the sign of the past aorist, and the
verb in synthesis with it drops its last syllable. The waz' Gabb
could not explain. It will be noticed that the negative precedes
the whole verbal form, thus indicating that it is treated as _a
collective idea (holophrastically).

Prepositions always appear as sufﬁxes to nouns, which, in com-

wxvar - L; w

33

_ position, may suffer elision. This is strictly similar to the
Nahuatl and other synthetic tongues.

Other examples of developed synthesis are not uncommon, as

away, imibalc, from imz'a, to go, jcbalc, already.

very hot, palina, from ba + ilz'm'a.

The opinion that the Bri—Bri is at present a considerably cor-
rupted and worn-down dialect of a group of originally highly
synthetic tongues is borne out by an examination of the scanty
materials we have of its nearest relations.

Thus in the Terraba we ﬁnd the same superﬂuous richness of
pronominal forms which occurs in many South American tongues,
one indicating that the person is sitting, another that he is
standing, a third that he is walking.*

The Brunca has several distinct forms in the present tense:

I eat, cha adeh, and atqm} chem (atqui = 1).

Although Bishop Thiel supplies a number of verbal forms from
this dialect, the plan of their construction is not obvious. This
is/seen from a comparison of the present and perfect tenses in

. at uz’ 1.
various words.. The pronouns are e . q ’
zque, he.

For instance :—

BRUNKA VERBAL FORMS.
To kill (radical, at).
Present, I kill, cha atquz’ 2' aim. I
Perfect, he has killed, tang 2' ate.
To die (radical, cojt).
Present, I die, céjo drah.

Perfect, he has died, cojt crah.

> To hear (radical, déj).
Present, I hear, aarz’ déj ograh.
Perfect, I have heard, aquz’ déj crah,

*Gabb,‘ ubi supra, p. 539,

34
To forget.

Present, I forget, atqui chita uringera.

'Perfect, I have forgotten, ochz’ta uringea.

These examples are suﬂficient to show that the Brunka con-
jugations are neither regular nor simple, and such is the em-
phatic statement of Bishop Thiel, both of it and all these allied
dialects. In his introduction he states that he is not yet ready
to offer a grammar of these tongues, though well supplied with
lexicographical materials, and that “ their verbs are especially
diﬁicult.”* ’

The Cabecar dialect, in which he gives several native funeral
poems, without translations, is apparently more complicated
than the Bri-Bri. The words of the songs are long and seem
much syncopated.

The Tupi-Guarani Dialects.

Several writers of the highest position have asserted that these
dialects, spoken over so large a portion of the territory of Brazil,
are neither polysynthetic nor incorporative. Thus the late Prof.
Charles F. Hartt in his “Notes on the LingOa Geral or Modern
Tupi,” expressed himself :——“ Unlike the North American Indian
tongues, the languages of the Tupi-Guarani family are not poly-
synthetic in structure.” 1” With scarcely less positiveness Pro-
fessor Friedrich Miiller writes :—“ The objective conjugation of
the Tupi-Guarani does not show the incorporation usually .seen
in American languages, but rather a mere collocation.’v’1

It is, I acknowledge, somewhat hazardous to venture an opin-
ion contrary to such excellent authorities. But I must say, that
while, no doubt, the Tupi in its structure differs widely from the

* “ Especial diﬁcultad ofrecen los verbos.” Apuntes Lerlcograﬁcos, etc. Introd.
p. iv. This expression is conclusive as to the incorrectness of the opinion of M.
Adam, and Prof. Muller above quoted, and shows how easily even Justly emi-
nent linguists may fall into error about tongues of which they have limited
means of knowledge. The proper course in such a case is evidently to he ,qau-
tious about venturing positive assertions. ' i V i V i

1' Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1872, p. 58,

iGrundriss der Sprachwlssenschafl, Bu. ii, p. 887. I '

35

Algonkin or Nahuatl, it yet seems to present unmistakeable
signs of both an incorporative and polysynthetic character such
as would be difﬁcult to parallel outside of America.

I am encouraged to maintain this by the recent example of the
erudite Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti, himself well and practically versed
in the spoken Tupi of to-day, who has issued a learned treatise
to prove that “the dialects spoken by the Brazilian savages
present undoubtedly all the supposed characteristics of an
agglutinative language, and belong to the same group as the
. numerous other dialects or tongues of America.”* Dr. Caval-
canti does not, indeed, distinguish so clearly between agglutina-
tive and incorporative languages, as I should wish, but the trend
of his work is altogether parallel to the arguments I am about
to advance.

Fortunately, we do not suffer from a lack of materials to study
the Tupi, ancient and modern. There are plenty of dictionaries,
grammars and texts in it, and even an “ Ollendorﬁ’s Method,”
for those who prefer that intellectual (i) system. T

All recent writers agree that the modern Tupi has been
materially changed by long contact with the whites. The traders
and missionaries have exerted a disintegrating eﬂ'ect on its
ancient forms, and often directly in the line of erasing their
peculiarities, to some of which I shall have occasion to refer.

Turning our attention ﬁrst to its synthetic character, one can-

* The Brazilian Language and its Agglulination. By Amaro Cavalcanti, LL.B.,
etc., p. 5 (Rio J aneiro, 1883).

’r'The most valuable for linguistic researches are the following:

Arte de Grammatica da Lingua mnis usada na Costa do Brazil. By Joseph de
Anchieta. This is the oldest authority, Anchieta having commenced as mis-
sionary to the Tupis in 1556.

Arte, Vocabulario y Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani, 6 mas bien Tupi. By Antonio
Ruiz deMontoya. An admirable work representing the southern Tupi as it
.was in the ﬁrst half of the seventeenth century. '

Both the above have been republished in recent years. Of modern writings
I would particularly name :

Apontamentos sobre o Abaiieénga tambem chamado Guarani ou Tupi. By Dr. B.
C. D’A. Nogueira (Rio J aneiro, 1876).

. O Selvagem i Curse da Lingua Geral.‘ By Dr. Couto de Magalhaes (Rio de
Janeiro, 1876). .

36

no't'but be surprised after reading Prof. Hartt’s opinion above
quoted to ﬁnd him a few pages later introducing us to the fol-
lowing example of “ word building of a more than usually poly-
synthetic character.” *

akdyu, head ; ayz’t, bad.

akayayzi, crazy.

mualcayayu, to seduce (make crazy).

a‘ayumualcayayri, I make myself crazy, etc.

Such examples, however, are not rare, as may be seen by turn-
ing over the leaves of Montoya’s TesOro de la Lengua Guarani.

The most noticeable and most American peculiarity of such com-.

pounds is that they are not collocations of words, as are the
agglutinative compounds of the Ural-Altaic tongues, but of
particles and phonetic elements which have no separate life in
the language,

Father Montoya calls especial attention to this in the ﬁrst
words of his Aduertencz’a to his Tesoro. He says :—-“ The
foundation of this language consists of particles which frequently
have no meaning if taken alone; but when compounded with
the whole or parts of others (for they cut them up a great deal
in composition) they form signiﬁcant expressions; for this
reason there are no independent verbs in the language, as they
are built up of these particles with nouns or pronouns. Thus
ﬁemboé is composed of the three particles 736, m0, 6. The fie
is reciprocal; mo an active particle; 6 indicates skill; and the
whole means ‘to exercise oneself,’ which we translate, ‘to learn,’

or ‘to teach,’ indeterminately; but with the personal sign.

added, anemboe, ‘ I learn ’.”

This analysis, which Montoya carries much further, reminds
us forcibly of the extraordinarily acute analysis of the "Cree
(Algonkin) by Mr. James Howse.‘l‘ Undoubtedly the two

* Notes on the L'Ifngoa Geral, as above, p. 71.

TJames Howse, A Grammar of the Cree Language (London, 1844). A remark<

ableproduction which has never received the attention from linguists which it
men s.

n._-4..._,Az.,. VA

37

tongues have been built up from signiﬁcant particles (not
words) in the same manner.

Some of these particles convey a peculiar turn to the whole
sentence, difﬁcult to express in our tongues. Thus the element
é attached to the last syllable of a compound gives an oppositive
sense to the whole expression; for example, ajur, “I come”
simply; but if the question follows: “Who ordered you to
come 7” the answer might be, ajuré, “I com eof my own accord;
nobody ordered me.” *

Cavalcanti observes that many of these formative elements
which existed in the old Tupi have now fallen out of use. T This
is one of several evidences of a change in structure in the lan-
guage, a loss of its m01e pliable and creative powers.

This synthesis' 1s also displayed in the Tupi, as in the Cree,
by the inseparable union of certain nouns with pronouns. The
latter are constantly united with terms of consanguinity and
generally with those of members of the body, the form of the
noun undergoing material modiﬁcations. Thus:

tete, body; cete, his body; xerete, my body.

tuba, father; oguba, his father; xerub, my father.

mymbaba, domestic animal ; guc'ymba, his domestic animal.

tera, name; guera, his name.

Postpositions are in a similar manner sometimes merged into
the nouns or pronouns which they limit. Thus: tenonde, before ;
guenonde, before him.

It appears to me that the substratum, the structural theory,
of such a tongue is decidedly polysynthetic and not agglutina-
tive, still less analytic.

Let us now inquire whether there are any signs of the incor-
porative process in Tupi.

- We are at once struck with the peculiarity that there are two
special sets of pronouns used with verbals, one set subjective

* Anchieta, Arte de Grammatical, etc., p. 75.
i- The Brazilian Language, etc., pp. 49—9.

38
and the other objective. several of which cannot be employed in
any other construction.* This is almost diagnostic of the holo-
phrastic method of speech. The pronouns in such cases are
evidently regarded by the language-faculty as subordinate acces-
sories to the verbal, and whether they are phonetically merged.
in it or not is a secondary question.

The Tupi pronouns (conﬁning myself to the singular number
for the sake of brevity) are as follows :

Independent personals. Possessives. , Verbal aﬂixes.

Subject. Object.
22276 or we. se or we. a. we.
inde or me. ne or re. 're, yepe. oro.
ae or 0. ae or 2'. 0. ae or 2'.

The verbal afﬁxes are united to the theme with various pho-
netic changes and so intimately as to form one word. The gram-
mars give such examples as :—

areco, I hold; guereco, they hold him.
ahenoz’, I call; merenoi, they call me.
ayaca, I dispute him; oroaca, I dispute thee.

In the ﬁrst person, singular, the two pronominal forms are and
a are usually merged in the synthesis ma ; as, xamehen, I love.
Another feature pointing to the incorporative plan is the loca-
tion of the object. The rule in the old language was to place
the object in all instances before the verb, that is, between the
verb and its subject when the latter was other than a personal
sufﬁx. Dr. Cavalcanti says that this is now in a measure
changed, so that when the object is of the third person it is
placed after the verb, although in the ﬁrst and second persons
the old rule still holds goodsf Thus the ancient Tupis would
say:
boia aé o-sou, ‘
snake him he-bites.

* See Anchieta, Arte de Gramma-tica, etc., p. 52.
T The Brazilian Language, etc., p. 111.

* 39

But in the modern tongue it is :
bow 0-sou aé.
snake he-bites him.
With the other persons the rule is still for the object to pre-
cede and to be attached to the theme:
xeoroinca, I thee kill.
xepeinca, I you kill.
weincayepe, me killest thou.
Many highly complex verbal forms seem to me to illustrate a
close incorporative tendency. Let us analyze for instance the

word,
weremz’mboe,

which means “him whom I teach ” or “that which I teach.”
Its theme is the verbal mboe, which in the extract I have above
made from Montoya is shown to be a synthesis of the three ele-
mentary particles ﬁe, mo, and e; are is the possessive form of

the personal pronoun, “my”; it is followed by the participial
expression temz’ or tembz‘, which, according to Montoya, is equiva-
lent to “ illud quod facio ;” its terminal vowel is syncopated with
the relative y or 2', “him, it”; so the separate parts of the ex-
pression are :—

I are + tembz’ + y + 916 + mo + e.

.I will not pursue the examination of the Tupi further. It
weie, of course, easy to multiply examples. But I am willing
to leave the case as it stands, and to ask linguists whether, in
view of the above, it was not a premature judgment that pro-

nounced. it a tongue neither polysynthetic n01 incorporative.

The llIutsun.

This is also one of the languages which has been announced
- as “neither polysynthetic nor incorporative,” and the construc-
tion of its verb as “ simple to the last degree.”>l<

* “Kein polysynthesis und keine incorporation,” says Dr. Heinrich Wink-
ler (Uralauaz'sche Vblker und Sprachen, p. 149), who apparently has obtained all
his knowledge of it from the two pages devoted to it by Professor Friedrich
Muller, who introduces it as “ ausserst einfach._” Gr-undriss der Sprachwissen-
schaft, Bd. ii, p. 257.

40

We know the tongue only through the Grammar and Phrase-
Book of Father de la Cuesta, who acknowledges himself to be
very imperfectly acquainted with it.”< With its associated dia-
lects, it was spoken near the site of the present city of San
Francisco, California.

Looking ﬁrst at the verb, its “ extreme simplicity ” is not so
apparent as the statements about it would lead us to expect.

In the ﬁrst place, the naked verbal theme undergoes a variety
of changes by insertion and suffixes, like those of the Quiche
and Qquechua, which modify its meaning. Thus :

Ara, to give. ’
Arsa, to give to many, or to give much.
Ampu, to give to oneself.
‘ Amsi, to order to give, etc., etc.
Again:
02'0, to catch.
027177, to come to catch.
Oimu, to catchanother, etc.

The author enumerates thirty-one forms thus derived from
each verb, some conjugated like it, some irregularly. With re-
gard to tenses, he gives eight preterits and four futures; and it

cannot be said that they are formed simply by adding adverbs of
time, as the theme itself takes a different form in several of
them, cram, aras, aragts, etc. In the reﬂexive conjugation the
pronoun follows the verb and is united with it: As,

aragneca, I give myself,

where 00; is a sufﬁxed form of can, I; 726, represents nenissia, V
oneself; the g,is apparently a connective; and the theme is am.
This is quite in the order of the polysynthetic theory and is also
incorporative.

Such syntheses are prominent in imperative forms. Thus
from the above-mentioned verb, 02'0, to catch, we have,

atomityuts, gather thou for me,

* Grammatica Mutsun; Por el R. P. F. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta; and Vocabulario
Muzszm, by the same, both in Shea’s " Library of American Linguistics.”

 

41

in which mit is apparently the second person men, with a post-
position tsa, mintsa; while yuts is a verbal fragment from
yuyuts, which the author explains to mean “to set about,” or
“ to get done.” This imperative, therefore, is a verbal noun in
synthesis with an interjection, “get done with thy gathering.”
It is a marked case of polysynthesis. A number of such are
found in the Mutsun phrases given, as:

Rugemz'tz‘thsyuz‘s cmmz’s, Give me arrows.
In this compound canm’s, is for can + huas, me + for; yuts is
the imperative interjection for yuyuts ; the remainder of the
word is not clear. The phrase is given elsewhere

Rugemz‘tit, Give (thou) me arrows.
Without going further into this language, of which we know so
little, it will be evident that it is very far from simple, and that
it is certainly highly synthetic in various features.

CONCLUSIONS.

The conclusions to which the above study leads may be brieﬂy
summaiized as follows :

1. The structural processes of Incorporation and Polysynthe-
sis are much more inﬂuential elements in the morphology of
language than has been conceded by some recent writers.

2. They are clearly apparent in a number of American lan-
guages where their presence has been heretofore denied.

‘ 3. Although so long as we are without the means of examin-
ing all American tongues, it will be premature to assert that
these processes prevail in all, nevertheless it is safe to say that
their absence has not been demonstrated in any of which we
have sufﬁcient and authentic material on which to base a de-
cision.
if 4. The opinion of Duponceau and Humboldt, therefore, that
these processes belong to the ground-plan of American languages,
and are their leading characteristics, must be regarded as still
uncontroverted in any instance.

 

 

The Prophetic and Historic Records
of the Mayas of Yucatan.

By DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

VICEoPRESIDENT OF THE NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY OF
PHILADELPHIA ; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY; THE AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY;

DELEGUE OF THE INSTITUTION
ETHNOGRAPHIQUE;

ETC., ETC.

 

EDWARD STERN & CO.,

PHILADELPHIA.

 

THE BOOKS OF CHILAN BALAM,

The Prophetic and Historic Records
of the Mayas 0f Yucatan.

By DANIEL G. BRINTON, M. D.

VICE—PRESIDENT OF THE NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY OF
\ PHILADELPHIA; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY; THE AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY;
DELEGUE OF THE INSTITUTION
ETHNOGRAPHIQUE ;
ETC, ETC.

 

EDWARD STERN & CO.,

PHILADELPHIA.

 

PREFATORY NOTE.

THE substance of the present pamphlet was presented as an
address to the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia,
at its meeting in January, 1882, and was printed in the Pemz
/ Mani/£134 March, 1882. As the subject is one quite new in the
ﬁeld of American archaeology and linguistics, it is believed that a
republication in the present form will be welcomed by students of
these branches.

 

THE BOOKS OF CHILAN BALAM.*

IVILIZATION in ancient America rose to its highest level
C among the Mayas of Yucatan. Not to speak of the archi-
tectural monuments which still remain to attest this, we have the
evidence of the earliest missionaries to the fact that they alone, of
all the natives of the New World, possessed a literature written in
“ letters and characters,” preserved in volumes neatly bound, the
paper manufactured from the bark of a tree and sized with a durable
white varnishﬂr

A few of these books still remain, preserved to us by accident
in the great European libraries; but most of them were destroyed
by the monks. Their contents were found to relate chieﬂy to the
pagan ritual, to traditions of the heathen times, to astrological
superstitions, and the like. Hence, they were considered deleterious,
and were burned wherever discovered.

This annihilation of their sacred books affected the natives most
keenly, as we are pointedly informed by Bishop Landa, himself one
of the moSt ruthless of Vandals in this respectf}: But already

 

* Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, at its
twenty~fourth annual meeting, January 5th, 1882.

+ Of the numerous authorities which could be quoted on this point, I shall give the
words of but one, Father Alonso Ponce, the Pope’s Commissary-General, who travelled
through Yucatan in I 586, when many natives were still living who had been born before
the Conquest (I 54!). Father Ponce had travelled through Mexico, and, of course,had
learned about the Aztec picture—writing, which he distinctly contrasts with the writing of
the Mayas. Of the latter, he says: “ Son alaéados de z‘res cosas entrc todos [os demas
de [a [WWW Espan‘a, [a una de guc en su antzgruea’ad tem’an caracz‘eres y [ctras, can
guc escrz'éz'an sus nz'storz‘as y [as ccrcnzonz'as y orden dc [as sacrificios dc sus idolos y su
calendarz'o, en [z'éros [zecaos dc cortcza dc cz'erz‘o ar&o[, [as cualcs cran unas tiras may
[argas dc guarz‘a é z‘ercz'a en ancno, que sc doalaaan y recogz'an, y venia a gutder a
mancra dc un [z'a’ro encuardenada en cuarz‘z'ZZa, poco mas 6 menus. Estas [etras y
caractcres no [as entcndz'an, sz'no [0s saccrdotes dc [0s idoZos, (qua en aguella [engua se
[[aman ‘a/Mzz'nes,’) y a[gun z'ndz'o princz'paZ. Despues [as entendz'eron y supieron [écr
algunos fraz'[os nuestros y aun [as cscrz'éz'cn.”——(“Relacz'on Brew y Verdaa’era de
Algunas Cosas dc [as Muc/zas guc Succdz'cron a[ Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Cornis-
arz'o-Gencral an [as Prom'ncz'as dc [a Nun/a Espaﬁa,” page 392). I know no other
author who makes the interesting statement that these characters were actually used by
the missionaries to impart instruction to the natives; but I learn through Mr. Gatschet,
of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, that a manuscript written in this manner by
one of the early padres has recently been discovered.

1; “ Se [es guemamos fodos,” he writes, “ [o qual a maraw'lla sentian y [es den/a

pena.”—“Re[acz'on d: [as Casas de Yucatan,” page 316.

 

i 6

some of the more intelligent had learned the Spanish alphabet, and
the missionaries had added a sufﬁcient number of signs to it to ex-
press with tolerable accuracy the phonetics of the Maya tongue.
Relying on their memories, and, no doubt, aided by some manu—
scripts secretly preserved, many natives set to work to write out in
this new alphabet the contents of their ancient records. Much was
added which had been brought in by the Europeans, and much
omitted which had become unintelligible or obsolete since the Con-
quest; while, of course, the different writers, varying in skill and
knowledge, produced works of very various merit.

Nevertheless, each of these books bore the same name. In
whatever village it was written, or by whatever hand, it always was,
and to-day still is, called “ The Book of Chilan Balam.” To dis,
tinguish them apart, the name of the village where a copy was
found or written, is added. Probably, in the last century, almost
every village had one, which was treasured with superstitious ven-
eration. But the opposition of the padres to this kind of literature,
the decay of ancient sympathies, and especially the long war of
races, which since 1847 has desolated so much of the peninsula,
have destroyed most of them. There remain, however, either por—
tions or descriptions of not less than sixteen of these curious records.
They are known from the names of the villages respectively as the
Book of Chilan Balam of Nabula, of Chumayel, of Kaua, of Mani,
of Oxkutzcab, of Ixil, of Tihosuco, of Tixcocob, etc., these being
the names of various native towns in the peninsula.

When I 'add that not a single one of these has ever been
printed, or even entirely translated into any European tongue, it
will be evident to every archaeologist and linguist what a rich and
unexplored mine of information about this interesting people they
may present. It is my intention in this article merely to touch
upon a few salient points to illustrate this, leaving a thorough dis-
cussion of their origin and contents to the future editor who will
bring them to the knowledge of the learned world.

Turning ﬁrst to the meaning of the name “ Chzlan Balam, ” it
is not difﬁcult to ﬁnd its derivation. “ Chzlan,” says Bishop
Landa, the second bishop of Yucatan, whose description of the
native customs is an invaluable source to us, “ was the name of

. their priests, whose duty it was to teach the sciences, to appoint
holy days, to treat the sick, to offer sacriﬁces, and especially to

7

utter the oracles of the gods. They were so highly honored by
the people that usually they were carried on litters on the shoul-
ders of the devotees.” * Strictly speaking, in Maya “ chzlcm ”
means “interpreter,” “mouth-piece,” from “6/19,” “the mouth,”
and in this ordinary sense frequently occurs in other writings. The
word, “ éalam”—literally, “tiger,”—was also applied to a class of
priests, and is still in use among the natives of Yucatan as the
designation of the protective spirits of ﬁelds and towns, as I have
shown at length in a recent study of the word as it occurs in the
the native myths of Guatemala.1‘ “ Chilan Balam,” therefore, is
not a proper name, but a title, and in ancient times designated the
priest who announced the will of the gods and explained the
sacred oracles. This accounts for the universality of the name and
' the sacredness of its associations.

The dates of the books which have come down to us are vari—
ous. One of them, “The Book of Chilan Balam of Mani,” was
undoubtedly composed not later than I 595, as is proved by inter—
nal evidence. Various passages in the works of Landa, Lizana,
Sanchez Aguilar and Cogolludo—all early historians of Yucatan,“
prove that many of these native manuscripts existed in the six—
teenth century. Several rescripts date from the seventeenth cen-
tury,——~most from the latter half of the eighteenth.

The names of the writers are generally not given, probably be\
cause the books, as we have them, are all copies of older ma iu—
scripts, with merely the occasional addition of current items of note
by the copyist; as, for instance, a malignant epidemic which pre—g
vailed in the peninsula in 1673 is mentioned as a present occurrence
by the copyist of “ The Book of Chilan Balam of Nabula.”

 

* “Relacz'on de las Cams a’e Yucatan,” page 160.

+ “ The Names of the Gods in the Kiche Myths of Central America.” Proceed-
ings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol.XIX., 1881. The terminal letter in
both these words—“ Milan,” “ éalam,”——-may be either “ n ” or “ m,” the change being
one of dialect and local pronunciation. I have followed the older authorities in writing
“ C/zz'lmz Balam,” the modern preferring “ C/zz'lam Balam.” Senor Eligio Ancona,
in his -recently published “ Mstorz'a a’e Yucatan,” (Vol. 1., page 240, note, Merida,
1878,) offers 'the absurd suggestion that the name “ (Balam ” was given to the native
soothsayers by the early missionaries in ridicule, deriving it from the well-known per—
sonage in the Old Testament. It is surprising that Senor Ancona, writing in Merida,
had never acquainted himself with the Perez manuscripts, nor with those in the
possession of Canon Carrillo. Indeed, the most of his treatment of the ancient his-
tory of his country is disappointingly superﬁcial.

’8

I come now to the contents of these curious works. What they
contain may conveniently be classiﬁed under four headings:

Astrological and prophetic matters;

Ancient chronology and history;

Medical recipes and directions;

Later history and Christian teachings.

The last-mentioned consist of translations of the “Doctrinal,”
Bible stories, narratives of events after the Conquest, etc., which I
shall dismiss as of least interest.

The astrology appears partly to be reminiscences of that of their
ancient heathendom, partly that borrowed from the European a1-
manacs of the century I 550—1650. These, as is well known, were
crammed with predictions and divinations. A careful analysis,
based on a comparison with the Spanish almanacs of that time
would doubtless reveal how much was taken from them, and it
would be fair to presume that the remainder was a survival of an-
cient native theories. l

But ”there are not wanting actual prophecies of a much more
striking character. These were attributed to the ancient priests
and to a date long preceding the advent of Christianity. Some of
them have been printed in translations in the “ Hzlstorz'as ” of Lizana
and Cogolludo, and of some the originals were published by the ‘
late Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg, in the second volume of the
reports of the “ 11123192'072 Scz'em‘zﬁgue au Mexique (22‘ dam [’Amérz'que
Centrale.” Their authenticity has been met with considerable
skepticism by Waitz and others, particularly as they seem to pre-
dict the arrival of the Christians from the East and the introduc-
tion of the worship of the cross.

It appears to me that this incredulity is uncalled for. It is known
that at the close of each of their larger divisions of time (the so-called
“ kaz‘um,”) a “ chilan,” or inspired diviner, uttered a prediction of
the character of the year or epoch which was about to begin. Like
other would-be prophets, he had doubtless learned that it is Wiser
to predict evil than good, inasmuch as the probabilities of evil in
this worried world of ours outweigh those of good; and when the
evil comes his words are remembered to his credit, while, if, per-
chance, his gloomy forecasts are not realized, no one will bear him a
grudge that he has been at fault. The temper of this people was,
moreover, gloomy, and it suited them to hear of threatened danger

9

and destruction by foreign foes. But, alas !' for them. The worst
that the boding words of the oracle foretold was as nothing to the
dire event which overtook them,-—the destruction of their nation,
their temples and their freedom, ’neath the iron heel of the Spam-
ish conqueror. As the wise Goethe says:

“ Seltsam is! Prop/wtmlied,
Dock meﬁr seltsam was gescﬁz'eﬁz‘.”

As to the supposed reference to the cross and its worship, it may
be remarked that the native word translated “ cross,” by the mis-
sionaries, simply means “ a piece of wood set upright,” and may
well have had a different and special signiﬁcation in the old days.

By way of a specimen of these prophecies,I quote one from
“ The Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel,” saying at once that
for the translation I have depended upon a comparison of the Span-
ish version of Lizana, who was blindly prejudiced, and that in
French of the ‘Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, who knew next to
nothing about Maya, with the original. It will be easily under-
stood, therefore, that it is rather a paraphrase than a literal render-
ing. The original is in short, aphoristic sentences, and was, no
doubt, chanted with a rude rhythm :

“ What time the sun shall brightest shine,
Tearful will be the eyes of the king.
Four ages yet shall be inscribed,
Then shall come the holy priest, the holy god.
With grief I speak what now I see.
Watch well the road, ye dwellers in Itza.
The master of the earth shall come to us.
Thus prophesies Nahau Pech, the seer,
In the days of the fourth age,
At the time of its beginning.”

Such are the obscure and ominous words of the ancient oracle.
If the date is authentic, it would be about I480—the “ fourth age ” in
the Maya system of computing time being a period of either twenty
or twenty-four years at the close of the ﬁfteenth century.
I It is, however, of little importance whether these are accurate
copies of the ancient prophecies; they remain, at least, faithful
imitations of them, composed in the same spirit and form which the
‘ native priests were wont to employ. A number are given much
longer than the above, and containing various curious references to
ancient usages.

IO

Another value they have in common with all the rest of the text ‘3
of these books, and it is one which will be properly appreciated by
any student of languages. They are, by common consent of all
competent authorities, the genuine productions of native minds,
cast in the idiomatic forms of the native tongue by those born to
its use. No matter how ﬂuent a foreigner becomes in a language
not his own, he can never use it as does one who has been familiar
with it from childhood. This general maxim is ten-fold true when we'
apply it to a European learning an American language. The ﬂow of
thought, as exhibited in these two linguistic families, is in such
different directions that no amount of practice can render one equally.
accurate in both. Hence the importance of studying a tongue as
it is employed by natives; and hence the very high estimate I place
on these “ Books of Chilan Balam ” as linguistic material,——an esti—
mate much increased by the great rarity of independent composi-
tions in their own tongues by members of the native races of this
continent.

I now approach what I consider the peculiar value of these re-
cords, apart from the linguistic mould in which they are cast; and
that is the light they throw upon the chronological system and
ancient history of the Mayas. To a limited extent, this has already
been brought before the public. The late Don Pio Perez gave to
Mr. Stephens, when in Yucatan, an essay on the method of com-
puting time among the ancient Mayas, and also a brief synopsis ol
Maya history, apparently going back to the third or fourth century
of the Christian era. Both were published by Mr. Stephens in the
appendix to his “ Travels in Yucatan,” and have appeared re-
peatedly since in English, Spanish and French.* They have, up
to the present, constituted almost our sole sources of information
on these interesting points. Don Pio Perez was rather vague as
to whence he derived his knowledge. He refers to “ancient manu-
scripts,” “old authorities,” and the like; but, as the Abbe Bras-
seur de Bourbourg justly complains, he rarely quotes their words

 

* For example, in the “ Registro qu‘az‘eco,” T ome [I]. ; “ Dz'ccz'onarz'o Univerra
a’e [ﬁstorz'a y Geogmﬁa,” Tome V11]. (Mexico, 1855); “Diccz'onarz'o Historico d
Yucatan,” T omc I. (Merida, 1866) ; in the appendix to Landa’s “ Cams tie Yucatan ’
(Pmis, 1864), etc. ’1 he epochs, or latzms, of Maya history have been recently agail
analyzed by Dr. Felipe Valentini, in an essay in the German and English languages
the latter in the “Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1880.”

V.

II

and gives no descriptions as to what they were or how he gained
access to them.* In fact, the whole of Sefior Perez’s information
was derived from these “Books of Chilan Balam ;” and, without
wishing at all to detract from his reputation as an antiquary and a
Maya scholar, I am obliged to say that he has dealt with them as
scholars so often do with their authorities; that is, having framed
his theories, he quoted what he found in their favor and neglected
to refer to what he observed was against them.

Thus, it is a cardinal question in Yucatecan archaeology as to
Whether the epoch or age by which the great cycle (the ahau
karma) was reckoned, embraced twenty or twenty—four years.
Contrary to all the Spanish authorities, Perez declared for twenty-
four years, supporting himself by “the manuscripts.” It is true
there are three of the “ Books of Chilan Balam ”—those of Mani,
Kaua and Oxkutzcab,—which are distinctly in favor of twenty-
four years; but, on the other hand, there are four or ﬁve others
which are clearly for the period of twenty years, and of these Don

‘ Perez said nothing, although copies of more than one of them were

in his library. So of the epochs, or kaz‘zms, of Maya history; there
are three or more copies in these books which he does not seem to
have compared with the one he furnished Stephens. His labor
will have to be repeated according to the methods of modern criti—
cism, and with the additional material obtained since he wrote.
Another valuable feature in these records is the hints they fur—

' nish of the hieroglyphic system of the Mayas. Almost our only

authority heretofore has been the essay of Landa. It has suffered

~ somewhat in credit because we had no means of verifying his state-

ments and comparing the characters he gives. Dr. Valentini has
even gone so far as to attack some of his assertions as “fabrications.”

_ This is an amount of skepticism which exceeds both justice and

probability.

The chronological portions of the “Books of Chilan Balam ”
re partly written with the ancient signs of the days, months and
epochs, and they furnish us, also, delineations of the “ wheels ” which
the natives used for computing time. The former are so important
to the student of Maya hieroglyphics,that I have added photographic
reproductions of them to this paper, giving also representations of

 

 

* The Abbé’s criticism occurs in the note to page 406 of his edition 0f Landa’s
“ Cora: d2 Yucatan.” .

12

 

Q) 2/00 : 5:.1’32012}; ﬁél/fzw
u ‘65
: Cal sdcaZ,
f “ : : . r 6 ﬂ- 2;
£29 , 6/0 2; 4?? Wk 35““
z‘zem o/xe W 5:1:le
gec=4£oc£dxe Kan/{02 2.
£16sz
XuZ:24.— oclu _ ﬁzzzam22.a6rd
. I a 3 {
ZMZW ”$323,216
7250.],- Cayc . my .
O Q Deyaxﬂyzd3 Pow-x./2 :mu
3%‘69: I‘Cacm .90
ﬂ .7641 771111;.
. 15W]: 3: 2521222 Kayaé: %.
c a: . junib

Gem/(«21.12
7110. u ”a, a. Irk"
yaA 5.932, ' ‘
kin

     

  

. OctLLbre 2‘!-
$3me

NoviLembre I5

Diciemln‘e 3
$12K

 

' Daciembre 2.3

SIGNS OF THE MONTHS, AS GIVEN BY BISHOP LANDA.

I4

those of Landa for comparison. It will be observed that the signs
of the days are distinctly similar in the majority of cases, but that
those of the months are hardly alike.

The hieroglyphs of the days taken from the “ Codex T memo,”
an ancient Maya book written before the Conquest, probably about
1400, are also added to illustrate the variations which occurred in
the hands of different scribes. Those from the “ Books of Chilan
Balam ” are copied from a manuscript known to Maya scholars as
the “ Codice Perez,” of undoubted authenticity and antiquity.*

The result of the comparison I thus institute is a triumphant
refutation of the doubts and slurs which have been cast on Bishop
Landa’s work and vindicate for it a very high degree of accuracy.

The hieroglyphics for the months are quite complicated, and in
the “ Books of Chilan Balam ” are rudely drawn; but, for all that,
two or three of them are evidently identical with those in the cal-
endar preserved by Landa. Some years ago, Professor de Rosny
expressed himself in great doubt as to the ﬁdelity in the tracing of
these hierogylphs of the months, principally because he could not
ﬁnd them in the two codices at his command.T As he observes,
they are cor/zposz'z‘e signs, and this goes to explain the discrepancy;
for it may be regarded as established that the Maya script permitted ~
the use of several signs for the same sound, and the sculptor or
scribe was not obliged to represent the same word always by the
same ﬁgure.

In close relation to chronology is the system of numeration and.
the arithmetical signs. These are discussed with considerable ful-
ness, especially in the “Book of Chilan Balam of Kaua.” The
numerals are represented by exactly the same ﬁgures as we ﬁnd in
the Maya manuscripts of the libraries of Dresden, Pesth, Paris and
Madrid ; that is, by points or dots up to ﬁve, and the ﬁves by single
straight lines, which may be indiscriminately drawn vertically or
horizontally. The same book contains a table of multiplication in

 

* It is described at length by Don Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona, in his “Disen‘a-
ez'on solve [a Iiz'sz‘orz'a de [a Lengua Maya ” (Merida, 1870).
l “ 7e dais declarer gue l’examen dam tau: leurr details 0% ‘ Codex T roano ’ eta’u

‘ Codex Peresz'anus ’ m’z'nm'z‘e de la faeon la plus sérz'euse d n’accepter res signes, tout
au moins (m point de wee a’e Z’exactz'tua’e de leur trace, gu’az/ee une [ermine réserve.”-—

Leon de Rosny’s “ Essaz' sur le Dée/zéﬂrement tie Z’Ecriz‘ure Hieratz'que a’e Z’Amérz'gue . ’ :

Cemmle,” page 21 (Paris, 1876). By the “ CodexPeresz'anus,” he does not mean the
“ Codz'ce Perez,” but the Maya manuscript in the Bibliothéque Nationale. The iden-
tity of the names is confusing and unfortunate. ‘

 

15

Spanish and Maya which settles some disputed points in the use of
the vigesimal system by the Mayas.

A curious chapter in several of the books, especially those of
Kaua and Mani, is that on the thirteen akaa leaz‘zms, or epochs of
the greater cycle of the Mayas. This cycle embraced thirteen
periods, which, as I have before remarked, are computed by some
at twenty years each, by others at twenty—four years each. Each
of these ,éaz‘zms was presided over by a chief or king, that being the
meaning of the word akaa. The books above—mentioned give both
the name and the portrait, drawn and colored by the rude hand of
the native artist, of each of these kings, and they suggest several
interesting analogies.

They are, in the ﬁrst place, identical, with one exception, with
those on an ancient native painting, an engraving of which is given
by Father Cogolludo in his “History of Yucatan,” and explained by
him as the representation of an occurrence which took place after

the Spaniards arrived in the peninsula. Evidently, the native in
‘ whose hands the worthy father found it, fearing that he partook of
the fanaticism which had led the missionaries to the destruction of
so many records of the nation, deceived him as to its purport, and
gave him an explanation which imported to the scroll the character
of a harmless history.

The one exception is the last or thirteenth chief. Cogolludo
appends to this the name of an Indian who probably did fall a vic-
tim to his friendship to the Spaniards. This name, as a sort of
guarantee for the rest of his story, the native scribe inserted in
place of the genuine one. The peculiarity of the ﬁgure is that it
has an arrow or dagger driven into its eye. Not only is this men-
tioned by Cogolludo’s informant, but it is represented in the paint-
. ings in both the “ Books of Chilan Balam ” above noted, and also,
bya fortunate coincidence, in one of the calendar—pages of the “Co-
dex Troano,” plate xxiii., in a remarkable cartouche, which, from a
wholly independent course of reasoning,was some time since identi—
ﬁed by my esteemed correspondent, Professor Cyrus Thomas, of
Illinois, as a cartouche of one of the ahaa kaizms, and probably of
the last of them. It gives me much pleasure to add such conclu-
siveproof of the sagacity of his supposition.*

 

* “ The Manuscript Troano,” published in The American Naturalist, August, 1881,
page 640. This manuscript or codex was published in chromo-lithograph, Paris, 1879,
by the French Government.

 

sé'isééogm

 

9.
9..

\‘ .®®.”@@

€35,303

\ ‘

.- 1'4
"Ila

§§@§

a \1' k3

EEEE

E3 WW! @‘I 3%
§

LEE, 40 Elm

m 9.4mm

at.

§
\0

nd is from the “ Codex Tromz

the Book of Chilan Balam of Kaua.

0.” The remammg four are

the right is from Landa. The seco

The ﬁrst column on

18

There is other evidence to show that the engraving in Cogol-
ludo is a relic of the purest ancient Maya symbolism,—one of
the most interesting which have been preserved to us; but to
enter upon its explanation in this connection would be too far
from my present topic. .

A favorite theme with the writers of the “Books of Chilan
Balam ” was the cure of diseases. Bishop Landa explains the
“ ckz'lzmes ” as “ sorcerers and doctors,” and adds that one of their
prominent duties was to diagnose diseases and point out their ap-
propriate remedies.-* As we might expect, therefore, considerable
prominence is given to the description of symptoms and suggestions
for their alleviation. Bleeding and the administration of prepara-
tions of native plants are the usual prescriptions; but there are
others which have probably been borrowed from some domestic
medicine-book of European origin.

The late Don Pio Perez gave a great deal of attention to col—
lecting these native recipes, and his manuscripts were carefully ex-
amined by Dr. Berendt, who combined all the necessary knowledge,
botanical, linguistic and medical, and who has left a large'manu-
script, entitled “Recez‘arz'os dz 17241705,.” which presents the subject
fully. He considers the scientiﬁc value of these remedies ‘to be
next to nothing, and the language in which they are recorded to be
distinctly inferior to that of the remainder of the “ Books of Chilan
Balam.” Hence, he believes that this portion of the ancient
records was supplanted some time in the last century by medical
notions introduced from European sources. Such, in fact, is the state-
ment of the copyists of the books themselves, as these recipes, etc.,
are sometimes found in a separate volume, entitled “ The Book of
the Jew,”—“ El Libra del Yudz'o.” Who this alleged Jewish phys-
ician was, who left so wide-spread and durable a renown among the
Yucatecan natives, none of the archaeologists has been able to
ﬁnd out.1' '

The language and style of most of these books are aphoristic,

 

 

* “ Declarar la: necesz'dadesy ms remedios.”—“ Relation de la: Casas de Yucatan,”
page 160. Like much of Landa’s Spanish, this use of the word “ necqsia’aa’ ” is collo-
quial, and not classical.

1' A “Medicinal Domestica,” under the name of “ Don Ricardo Ossado, (alias, cl
judiog” was published at Merida in I834; but this appears to have been merely a
bookseller’s device to aid the sale of the book by attributing it to the “ great unknown.”

I9

elliptical and obscure. The Maya language has naturally under-
gone considerable alteration since they were written ; therefore, even
to competent readers of ordinary Maya, they are not readily
understood. Fortunately, however, there are in existence excellent
dictionaries of the Maya of the sixteenth and seventeenth centu-
ries, which, were they published, would be sufﬁcient for this purpose.
A few persons in Yucatan have appreciated the desirability of
collecting and preserving these works. Don Pio Perez was the
ﬁrst to do so, and of living Yucatecan scholars particular mention
should be made of the Rev. Canon Don Crescencio Carrillo y An
cona, who has written a good, and I believe the only, description of
them which has yet appeared in print.* They attracted the ear-
nest attention of that eminent naturalist and ethnologist, the late
Dr. C. Hermann Berendt, and at a great expenditure of time and
labor he visited various parts of Yucatan, and with‘remarkable skill
made fac-sz'mz'le copies of the most important and complete speci-
mens which he could anywhere ﬁnd. This invaluable and unique
collection has come into my hands since his death, and it is this which

has prompted me to make known their character and contents to
those interested in such subjects.

 

* In his “Dz'serz‘acz'on 5057': [a flirtoria de la Lengua Maya 6 Yucateca ” (Merida,
1870).

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Illlllllllll(III/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/Il/I/Illl/IIIIIl/III/III/Illlﬂill/llllllll

/055?E/ESEUX

 

 

E77

g! . .
in iufﬁqiigiulwﬁ. Suzi}. ‘ . .
. V....?§\:§Q\§v.\ . .1. .¥\ta§:$xi3 5.5 x
it}. wiéi} «A 31:... {fiftgiwi éxcumxi...
, A\}§§1.~ Y?

, gﬁivmwﬁvm a?“
i (T .3 \ise‘q.

Xxﬁva. “$5.. .JV
. t 1.. :t.\
. €3.34vgﬁitxkérﬁt , . h
a}. 1%... V . is. , _
i. _ . .v: , A , . .
. ,_ T. ‘ , salnﬂux. . L. .‘ ..,¥321 ..
_ . rt. ﬁiixﬁ. \ .. *YXXﬁKiQ. . . iﬁsxqmti .
. . . é‘m‘fn . $33.11.... “4101...? . ..1V.&x E15. \Euxx!
. “3 .r. Na}: .2 .__\.iiri\\¥?x)§§3i K2. : *toxeﬁﬁg
w? _h , .2§3$\;unm$§ﬁ n. 3‘ f
I ,3}. , .i}§‘§%_ 131:1 Rikig~§ .
.. . Ixﬂﬂﬁ.‘ it ‘ § . Wﬁgaikin. x. , ._ . .
. .. 3 k... .\ % mix§ui§si§t¢¢Ea€N§xvi‘3:3~5€.3»
., ..43\§§!-§ _ zgﬁgi§ﬂs§vmiiéﬁ$ul<§¥u§,.§3\ :Xanﬁ53!
. ksimgi iii . iigg \€§...rii£w_ \lexz .

. . «i x3?i.33¢nﬁﬁi§§i. $5333.. . :5 AR“ $5.31.}. .

, 3 ._ ‘33? Suyéévx .hV‘Jx-wwiﬁtg. _, , .I , “$513?! .

Ykﬂgza x1. 1%...visﬁuxuuﬁh kmnﬁ . ,
ixuﬁk?€§¥1§: 53‘, g _ . C H _1§..\.§‘1FEXW:§.
, . , . . . x n . . Xtt».«tf§é.\\\;

. , . ‘ flehgimrs‘iu
._ _ g 13.5“! 3..

u. r,

. z