[847] Ojibway, meaning "to roast till puckered up," referred to the puckered seam on the moccasins. Chippewa is the popular adaptation of the word.

[848] W. Jones, _Ann. Arch. Rep._ 1905 (Toronto), 1906, p. 144. Cf. note on p. 372.

[849] W. J. Hoffman, "The Midewiwin or 'grand medicine society' of the Ojibwa," _7th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am. Eth._ 1886 (1891).

[850] From the Algonkin word meaning "real adders" with French suffix.

[851] A decoction made by boiling the leaves of _Ilex ca.s.sine_ in water, employed as "medicine" for ceremonial purification. It was a powerful agent for the production of the nervous state and disordered imagination necessary to "spiritual" power.

[852] C. Wissler,_ loc. cit._ pp. 462-3.

[853] A. J. Pickett, _Hist. of Alabama_, 1851 (ed. 1896), p. 87.

[854] Cf. A. S. Gatschet, "A migration legend of the Creek Indians,"

_Trans. Acad. Sci. St Louis_, V. 1888.

[855] F. G. Speck, "Some outlines of Aboriginal Culture in the S. E.

States," _Am. Anth._ N. S. IX. 1907; "Ethnology of the Yuchi Indians,"

_Anth. Pub. Mus. Univ. Pa._ I. 1, 1909.

[856] W. H. Holmes, "Areas of American Culture," etc., _Am. Anth._ XVI.

1914, p. 424.

[857] _L'Anthropologie_, 1897, p. 702 sq.

[858] _16th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am. Eth._, Washington, 1897, p. lvi sq.

[859] Walpi, Sichumovi, Hano (Tewa), Shipaulovi, Mishongnovi, Shunopovi and Oraibi.

[860] Zuni proper, Pescado, Nutria and Ojo Caliente.

[861] Taos, Picuris, San Juan, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, Pojoaque, Nambe, Jemez, Pecos, Sandia, Isleta, all of Tanoan stock; San Felipe, Cochiti, Santo Domingo, Santa Ana, Sia Laguna and Acoma, of Keresan stock.

[862] For this area see A. F. Bandelier, "Final Report of Investigations among the Indians of the S. W. United States," _Arch. Inst. of Am.

Papers_, 1890-2; P. E. G.o.ddard, "Indians of the Southwest," _Handbook Series, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist._ 2, 1913; F. Russell, "The Pima Indians,"

_26th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am. Eth._ 1904-5 (1908); G. Nordenskiold, _The Cliff Dwellers of Mesa Verde, S. W. Colorado_, 1893; C. Mindeleff, "Aboriginal Remains in Verde Valley, Arizona," _13th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am.

Eth._ 1891-2 (1896). For chronology cf. L. Spier, _Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.

Anth._ XVIII.

[863] _16th Ann. Report_, p. xciv. Cf. E. Huntington, "Desiccation in Arizona," _Geog. Journ._, Sept. and Oct. 1912.

[864] For the religion consult F. H. Cushing, "Zuni Creation Myths,"

_13th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am. Eth._ 1891-2 (1896); _Zuni Folk Tales_, 1901; Matilda C. Stevenson, "The Religious Life of the Zuni Child," _5th Ann.

Rep. Bur. Am. Eth._ 1887; "The Zuni Indians, their mythology, esoteric fraternities, and ceremonies," _23rd Rep._ 1904; J. W. Fewkes, "Tusayan Katcinas," _15th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am. Eth._ 1893-4 (1897); "Tusayan Snake Ceremonies," _16th Rep._ 1894-5 (1897); "Tusayan Flute and Snake Ceremonies," _19th Rep._ 1897-8, 11. (1900); "Hopi Katcinas," _21st Rep._ 1899-1900 (1903), and other papers. For dances see W. Hough, _Moki Snake dance_, 1898; G. A. Dorsey and H. R. Voth, "Mishongnovi Ceremonies of the Snake and Antelope Fraternities," _Pub. Field Col. Mus. Anth._ III. 3, 1902; J. W. Fewkes, "Snake Ceremonials at Walpi," _Jour. Am.

Eth. and Arch._ IV. 1894 and "Tusayan Snake Ceremonies," _16th Ann, Rep.

Bur. Am. Eth._ 1897; H. Hodge, "Pueblo Snake Ceremonies," _Am. Anth._ IX. 1896.

[865] p. xcvii.

[866] _Amer. Anthropologist_, Jan. 1898.

[867] p. 13.

[868] G. W. James, _Indians of the Painted Desert Region_, 1903, p. 90.

[869] L. Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 1904, p. 184.

[870] W. H. Holmes, "Pottery of the ancient Pueblos," _4th Ann. Rep.

Bur. Am. Eth. 1882-3_ (1886); F. H. Cushing, "A study of Pueblo Pottery," etc., _ib,_; J. W. Fewkes, "Archaeological expedition to Arizona," _17th Rep. 1895-6_ (1898); W. Hough, "Archaeological field work in N.E. Arizona" (1901), _Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus._ 1903.

[871] "Zuni Kin and Clan," _Anth. Papers, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist._ XVIII.

1917, p. 39.

[872] p. 167.

CHAPTER XI

THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES (_continued_)

Mexican and Central American Cultures--Aztec and Maya Scripts and Calendars--Nahua and Shoshoni--Chichimec and Aztec Empires-- Uncultured Mexican Peoples: _Otomi_; _Seri_--Early Man in Yucatan--The Maya to-day--Transitions from North to South America--_Chontal_ and _Choco_--The _Catio_--Cultures of the Andean area--The Colombian _Chibcha_--Empire of the Inca--_Quichuan_ Race and Language--Inca Origins and History--The _Aymara_--_Chimu_ Culture--Peruvian Politico-Social System--The _Araucanians_--The _Pampas Indians_--The _Gauchos_--_Patagonians_ and _Fuegians_-- Linguistic Relations--The _Yahgans_--The _Cashibo_--The _Pana Family_--The _Caribs_--_Arawakan Family_--The _Ges (Tapuyan) Family_--The _Botocudo_--The _Tupi-Guaranian Family_--The _Chiquito_--_Mataco_ and _Toba_ of the Gran Chaco.

In Mexico and Central America interest is centred chiefly in two great ethnical groups--the _Nahuatlan_ and _Huaxtecan_--whose cultural, historical, and even geographical relations are so intimately interwoven that they can scarcely be treated apart. Thus, although their civilisations are concentrated respectively in the Anahuac (Mexican) plateau and Yucatan and Guatemala, the two domains overlap completely at both ends, so that there are isolated branches of the Huaxtecan family in Mexico (the Huaxtecs (Totonacs) of Vera Cruz, from whom the whole group is named, and of the Nahuatlan in Nicaragua (Pipils, Niquirans, and others)[873].

This very circ.u.mstance has no doubt tended to increase the difficulties connected with the questions of their origins, migrations, and mutual cultural influences. Some of these difficulties disappear if the "Toltecs" be eliminated (see p. 342), who had hitherto been a great disturbing element in this connection, and all the rest have in my opinion been satisfactorily disposed of by E. Forstemann, a leading authority on all Aztec-Maya questions[874]. This eminent archaeologist refers first to the views of Seler[875], who a.s.sumes a southern movement of Maya tribes from Yucatan, and a like movement of Aztecs from Tabasco to Nicaragua, and even to Yucatan. On the other hand Dieseldorff holds that Maya art was independently developed, while the link between it and the Aztec shows that an interchange took place, in which process the Maya was the giver, the Aztec the recipient. He further attributes the overthrow of the Maya power 100 or 200 years before the conquest to the Aztecs, and thinks the Aztecs or Nahuas took their G.o.d Quetzalcoatl from the "Toltecs," who were a Maya people. Ph. J. Valentini also infers that the Maya were the original people, the Aztecs "mere parasites[876]."

Now Forstemann lays down the principle that any theory, to be satisfactory, should fit in with such facts as:--(1) the agreement and diversity of both cultures; (2) the antiquity and disappearance of the mysterious Toltecs; (3) the complete isolation at 22 N. lat. of the Huaxtecs from the other Maya tribes, and their difference from them; (4) the equally complete isolation of the Guatemalan Pipils, and of the other southern (Nicaraguan) Aztec groups from the rest of the Nahua peoples; (5) the remarkable absence of Aztec local names in Yucatan, while they occur in hundreds in Chiapas, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, where scarcely any trace is left of Maya names.

To account for these facts he a.s.sumes that in the earliest known times Central America from about 23 to 10 N. was mainly inhabited by Maya tribes, who had even reached Cuba. While these Mayas were still at quite a low stage of culture, the Aztecs advanced from as far north as at least 26 N. but only on the Pacific side, thus leaving the Huaxtecs almost untouched in the east. The Aztecs called the Mayas "Toltecs"

because they first came in contact with one of their northern branches living in the region about Tula (north of Mexico city)[877]. But when all the relations became clearer, the Toltecs fell gradually into the background, and at last entered the domain of the fabulous.

Now the Aztecs borrowed much from the Mayas, especially G.o.ds, whose names they simply translated. A typical case is that of Cuculcan, which becomes Quetzalcoatl, where _cuc_ = _quezal_ = the bird _Trogon resplendens_, and _can_ = _coatl_ = snake[878]. With the higher culture developed in Guatemala the Aztecs came first in contact after pa.s.sing through Mixtec and Zapotec territory, not long before Columbian times, so that they had no time here to consolidate their empire and a.s.similate the Mayas. On the contrary the Aztecs were themselves merged in these, all but the Pipils and the settlements on Lake Nicaragua, which retained their national peculiarities.

But whence came the hundreds of Aztec names in the lands between Chiapas and Nicaragua? Here it should be noted that these names are almost exclusively confined to the more important stations, while the less prominent places have everywhere names taken from the tongues of the local tribes. But even the Aztec names themselves occur properly only in official use, hence also on the charts, and are not current to-day amongst the natives who have kept aloof from the Spanish-speaking populations. Hence the inference that such names were mainly introduced by the Spaniards and their Mexican troops during the conquest of those lands, say, up to about 1535, and do not appear in Yucatan which was not conquered from Mexico. Forstemann reluctantly accepts this view, advanced by Sapper[879], having nothing better to suggest.

The coastal towns of Yucatan visited by Spaniards from Cuba in 1517 and onwards were decidedly inferior architecturally to the great temple structures of the interior, though doubtless erected by the same people.

The inland cities of Chichen-Itza and Uxmal by that time had fallen from their ancient glory though still religious centres[880].

The Maya would thus appear to have stood on a higher plane of culture than their Aztec rivals, and the same conclusion may be drawn from their respective writing systems. Of all the aborigines these two alone had developed what may fairly be called a script in the strict sense of the term, although neither of them had reached the same level of efficiency as the Babylonian cuneiforms, or the Chinese or the Egyptian hieroglyphs, not to speak of the syllabic and alphabetic systems of the Old World. Some even of the barbaric peoples, such as most of the prairie Indians, had reached the stage of graphic symbolism, and were thus on the threshold of writing at the discovery. "The art was rudimentary and limited to crude pictography. The pictographs were painted or sculptured on cliff-faces, boulders, the walls of caverns, and even on trees, as well as on skins, bark, and various artificial objects. Among certain Mexican tribes, also, autographic records were in use, and some of them were much better differentiated than any within the present area of the United States. The records were not only painted and sculptured on stone and moulded in stucco, but were inscribed in books or codices of native parchment and paper; while the characters were measurably arbitrary, _i.e._ ideographic rather than pictographic[881]."

The Aztec writing may be best described as pictographic, the pictures being symbolical or, in the case of names, combined into a rebus. No doubt much diversity of opinion prevails as to whether the Maya symbols are phonetic or ideographic, and it is a fact that no single text, however short, has yet been satisfactorily deciphered. It seems that many of the symbols possessed true phonetic value and were used to express sounds and syllables, though it cannot be claimed that the Maya scribes had reached that advanced stage where they could indicate each letter sound by a glyph or symbol[882]. According to Cyrus Thomas, a symbol was selected because the name or word it represented had as its chief phonetic element a certain consonant sound or syllable. If this were _b_ the symbol would be used where _b_ was the prominent element of the word to be indicated, no reference, however, to its original signification being necessarily retained. Thus the symbol for _cab_, 'earth,' might be used in writing _Caban_, a day name, or _cabil_, 'honey,' because _cab_ is their chief phonetic element.... One reason why attempts at decipherment have failed is a misconception of the peculiar character of the writing, which is in a transition stage from the purely ideographic to the phonetic[883]. From the example here given, the Maya script would appear to have in part reached the rebus stage, which also plays so large a part in the Egyptian hieroglyphic system. _Cab_ is obviously a rebus, and the transition from the rebus to true syllabic and alphabetic systems has already been explained[884].

The German Americanists on the other hand have always regarded Maya writing as more ideographic, and H. Beuchat adopts this view, for "no symbol has ever been read phonetically with a different meaning from that which it possesses as an ideogram[885]."

But not only were the Maya day characters phonetic; the Maya calendar itself, afterwards borrowed by the Aztecs, has been described as even more accurate than the Julian itself. "Among the Plains Indians the calendars are simple, consisting commonly of a record of winters ('winter counts'), and of notable events occurring either during the winter or during some other season; while the shorter time divisions are reckoned by 'nights' (days), 'dead moons' (lunations), and seasons of leafing, flowering, or fruiting of plants, migrating of animals, etc., and there is no definite system of reducing days to lunations or lunations to years. Among the Pueblo Indians calendric records are inconspicuous or absent, though there is a much more definite calendric system which is fixed and perpetuated by religious ceremonies; while among some of the Mexican tribes there are elaborate calendric systems combined with complete calendric records. The perfection of the calendar among the Maya and Nahua Indians is indicated by the fact that not only were 365 days reckoned as a year, but the biss.e.xtile was recognized[886]."

In another important respect the superiority of the Maya-Quiche peoples over the northern Nahuans is incontestable. When their religious systems are compared, it is at once seen that at the time of the discovery the Mexican Aztecs were little better than ruthless barbarians newly clothed in the borrowed robes of an advanced culture, to which they had not had time to adapt themselves properly, and in which they could but masquerade after their own savage fashion.