of the Mexican paintings destroyed by the Spanish clergy, it has now been shown that those which have been preserved contain but a meager account of the Mexican history, for the one hundred years preceding the conquest, and hardly anything that relates to prior events. The question naturally arises, from what source those writers derived their information, who have attempted to write not only the modern history of Mexico, but that of more ancient times? It may, without hesitation, be answered, that their information was traditional. The memory of important events is generally preserved and transmitted by songs and ballads, in those nations which have attained a certain degree of civilisation, and had not the use of letters. However blended with fable and poetical ornaments, the truth may still in many instances be extracted. Unfortunately, if we except the hymns of the great monarch of Tezcuco, which are of recent date, and allude to no historical fact of an earlier date than his own times, no such Mexican remnants have been transmitted to us, or at least been published. On the other hand, the recollection and oral transmission of events may, in Mexico, have been aided by the hieroglyphics, imperfect as they were. Thus, those of the significative names of a king and of a city, together with the symbol of the year, would remind the Mexicans of the history of the war of that king against that city, which had been early taught him, whilst a student in the Temple. It appears to me indubitable that the knowledge of their code of laws as described in the most valuable memoir of Zurate, must have been transmitted orally in some such manner, and could not have been expressed intelligibly by their hieroglyphics alone."

Among the early Spanish writers was Sahagun, a Franciscan monk, who went to Mexico in the year 1529. His work is considered among the best, as well as the most ancient authority. It is referred to and quoted by modern writers, though it has been but lately published.

"The most remarkable feature in Sahagun's historical notices is, that he, the most early Spanish author who collected Indian traditions and paintings, whilst his accounts are substantially the same as those of subsequent writers, does not attempt to give a single date

prior to the twelfth century. The most ancient actually designated, is that of the year 1246. He gives the

names, duration of reigns and dates, as he received them from the oral communications of the best informed Indians in each place respectively."

The coincidence between the statements of this author and the Mexican painting belonging to Botturini's collection, heretofore described, is a strong evidence of the correctness of the date affixed to the latter.

Another early writer on Mexican history was Don Fernando D'Alva Ixtlilxochitl, the Indian interpreter of the Viceroyalty of Spain. He begins with the fabulous accounts of the Mexicans respecting the successive ages of the world and renewals of the sun. The destruction of the world by a flood, the existence of giants, and other traditions, form a part of his history. He dates the arrival of the Toltecs in Old Tlapallan, from California, in the year 387 after Christ. The reigns of various sovereigns, their wars, conquests, and civil history, together with the periods in which they respectively took place, are given with great precision.

"The account given by Fernando D'Alva shows clearly that the knowledge of these events was not derived from any painted records, kept at the time when the supposed events took place, but from a vague tradition disfi gured by fables. He was evidently credulous and ignorant. He believed in the miraculous feeding of mil lions of people, without suspecting that, if true, it was miraculous; and he maintains seriously that, three hundred years before the time when he wrote, it was no unusual occurrence amongst his ancestors to attain the age of 300 years."

Subsequent writers have attempted to reconcile the gross inconsistencies of D'Alva; and Clavigero, in speaking of him, says, that "he was so cautious in writing, that, in order to remove any grounds for suspicion of fiction, he made his accounts conform exactly with the historical paintings, which he inherited from his illustrious ancestors." Yet, in the course of his history, he rejects D'Alva's dates, and substitutes others, as being more consistent with common sense.

Mr. Gallatin proceeds to examine the works of the several writers on Mexico, comparing their statements, and show

ing discrepancies were they occur. He has exhibited the principal events in Mexican history in tables, with the dates assigned them in Mendoza's collection, in the Codex Tellerianus, and by the historians Acosta, Siguenza, D'Alva, Sahagun, Veytia and Clavigero. A great discrepancy appears in the dates of those who go back beyond the middle of the 13th century, but from that time to the conquest there is not much variation in the dates assigned to particular events. But even these variations our learned and correct author deems inexcusable.

"If the difference of dates between the several authors, even for the events which took place within one hundred years of the Spanish conquest, throws some doubts on the authenticity of the documents from. which they were derived, there can be no doubt with respect to more ancient times. It is evident that the accounts given by the several authors are not derived from any contemporaneous historical records, and are purely traditional. Facts may be misunderstood or misrepresented by contemporaneous writers. But men who keep a diary, priests charged with the care of recording facts as they occur, cannot be mistaken as to the dates of such plain and simple facts as the death of a king and the accession of his successor, which take place in their town and under their eyes. We may safely conclude, therefore, that within a few years after the conquest, there did not exist a single original historical painting, in which events prior to the 15th century were faithfully recorded under the proper date."

Mr. Gallatin believes that a civilisation much more ancient than the Mexican and Tezcucan dynasties existed in that region. "The memory was preserved of the dismemberment of an ancient monarchy as extensive as that of the Mexicans, and founded by a people of the same language and family. The monuments still existing, which the Mexicans ascribed to their predecessors, or to some more ancient nation, and the numerous ruins of ancient cities, beyond the limits of Montezuma's empire, are speaking and irrecusable evidences of that ancient civilisation, the date of which is unknown to us. The comparative dilapidated state of those ruins indicates rather the time when they were abandoned, than that

VOL. XVII.-NO. LXXXV.

5

ruins of Central America and Yucatan are to be classed with the older Mexican monuments, though the majority are doubtless to be assigned to the age immediately preceding the conquest. "The style of the sculpture and ornamental architecture of the edifices of Mitla in Oaxaca, of Palenque, and Yucatan, appears superior to that of the Mexican monuments; and there is a far greater number of buildings in a tolerable state of preservation in Yucatan than in Mexico. This last circumstance is accounted for by the fact, that the Spaniards in Mexico almost universally occupied the sites of the Indian towns, which they utterly destroyed, and on their ruins erected new cities."

The origin of civilisation among the Mexican nations forms one of the most interesting chapters in this learned essay, as the conclusions arrived at are deduced from a rigid investigation into their languages, arithmetic, science, history, chronology, etc., although our space will not permit us to go into detail as much as we wish to.

The most striking points of resemblance between the Americans and the inhabitants of the other hemisphere refer to Asiatic countries. The physical type of the Americans more nearly approximates to that of the Eastern Asiatics than with that of other nations. Their proximity, or greater facility of communication is in favor of Asia. Some of the manners and customs of our aborigines bear a striking resemblance with those of some of the Asiatic nations, but when the test of language is applied, not the least resemblance is apparent, either in etymology or grammatical construction." Philology has not yet enabled us to draw any positive inferences on the subject, nor is it probable that vocabularies alone can throw any light on it. We find in America more than an hundred languages which, however similar in structure, differ entirely in their vocabulary or words. This difference must have originated either before or after America was inhabited. The first supposition implies that of America having been settled, not by a few distinct nations, which is very possible, but by more than one hundred distinct tribes of nations of different origin, and speaking entirely different languages. This supposition, so utterly improbable in itself,

is moreover inconsistent with the great similarity in their physical type and the structure of their languages, between almost all the several nations and tribes who inhabited America, when discovered in modern times by the Europeans. If, as is highly probable, the prodigious subdivision of languages took place in America, after making every allowance for the greater changes to which unwritten languages are liable, and for the necessary subdivisions of nations, in the hunter state, into separate communities, yet, for producing such radical diversities and great multiplication of languages, we want the longest time that we are permitted to assume. There is the highest probability, that America was inhabited, at a date as early as is consistent with the laws which govern the multiplication of the human species, and with the time necessary for the spreading of men to the extreme shores of the other hemisphere."

The question of Mexican civilisation, as found at the period of the discovery of this continent, is one of the most interesting topics for consideration. "Was this civilisation of domestic or foreign origin? Had those civilized nations another origin than those of the other American tribes? and, of the same family and stock, did they receive their knowledge from a foreign quarter, or did it naturally and gradually grow among themselves without any foreign assistance? This is the most interesting problem of the obscure and, it may be said, unknown antiquities of America. It involves two most important questions in the history of man: that of the presumed inferiority of some races; and whether savage tribes can, of themselves and without any foreign assistance, emerge from the rudest and lowest social state, and gradually attain even the highest degree of civilisation known to us. If only a certain portion of mankind has reached that point, and even supposing an indelible inferiority of the red to the white race, it is at least certain that the Mexicans and Peruvians had faculties sufficient to acquire the degree of knowledge and civilisation which they possessed prior to the Spanish conquest. If we ascend to the first stages of man's existence, though we may believe that the benificent Creator gave him something more than his bare faculties, probably an ele

mentary language; yet it is most certain that man has in the main been left to his own resources, and that the whole mass of his present knowledge and acquirements is the result of a progressive accumulation, and a gradual develope ment of his faculties. This, if correct, would only show the possibility of similar progressive improvement in America; but the question of fact, in the total absence of historical documents, is one of probabilities and conjecture."

Mr. Gallatin is exceedingly cautious in all his statements. He arrives at conclusions only on the strongest evidence, and his conjectures are offered with as much caution as most writers would use in adopting theories. This chapter of the volume is full of interest, and is the most satisfactory we have seen on the subject of ancient Mexican civilisation.

The author has put in an appendix his grammatical notices of the languages which come within the scope of his investigations. These are the Mexican, the Tarasca, the Huasteca, and the Otomi of Mexico; the Maya of Yucatan and the Poconchi of Guatimala. In these notices Mr. Gallatin has given a grammatical analysis of each in the most lucid and comprehensive manner. The inflections of the nouns, the system of compounding, and the conjugations of the verbs are exhibited with great clearness, which is not an easy task for such complicated languages as those of Mexico. For these facts the learned author studied the original grammars and dictionaries of the several languages in question. This chapter closes with a table or comparative view of the most common words in each language, which is useful for those who would make only an etymological comparison.

A second appendix is devoted to an examination or analysis of the great work of Lord Kingsborough on the an cient paintings of Mexico, which is of interest, as so little is known in this country of this celebrated and costly work.

An account of some ancient remains in Tennessee, by Dr. Troost, of Nash ville, makes the second article in this volume. In this we have an account of the mummies found in the saltpetre caves of Tennessee, and of the exten sive burial places in that State, as well as in the adjoining States of Kentucky

and Missouri. Much has been said about the bodies found in these graveyards, from the fact that they were buried in stone coffins. Their stature, too, being only about four and a half feet, it was said that they must have belonged to a race of pigmies, which once inhabited that region. "Within the space of ten miles there are six of these extensive burial-grounds. * * As to the form of the graves, they are rude fabrics, composed of rough, flat stones. Each flat stone was laid on the ground, in an excavation made for the purpose; upon it were put (edgewise) two similar stones, about the same length as the former, and two small ones were put at both extremities, so as form an oblong cavity lined with stones, of the size of a man. When a coffin was to be constructed next to it, one of the side stones served for both, and, consequently, thus lay in straight rows, in one layer only." From an examination of trinkets and other articles found within the coffins, Dr. Troost is of opinion that they came from some tropical country.

The most curious part of this essay is the evidence that the Phallic worship was once practised in that region. Many idols have been found, engravings of which accompany this paper, showing that such was probably the case. This worship was extensively practised among the ancients, of Europe as well as of Asia. Mr. Stephens, too, found traces of it in Yucatan.

The third article is on the "GraveCreek Mound in Western Virginia; the antique inscription discovered in the excavation; and the connected evidences of the occupancy of the Mississippi Valley during the Mound period, and prior to the discovery of America by Columbus," by Henry R. Schoolcraft.

The great Tumulus of Virginia, which forms the subject of Mr. Schoolcraft's article, is the most remarkable in the United States, not only as being the largest known, but for the inscribed tablet and other relics found within it. Engravings of the inscription and the various articles found in the mound accompany the paper. As the tablet is the most interesting, we shall appropriate what space we have to its notice. The annexed engraving is an exact copy or fac-simile of the tablet and inscription, from an impression taken by Mr. Schoolcraft, in wax.

"Of the general type of the alphabet (from which this inscription is composed) but one opinion has been expressed by philologists who have made an incipient examination of it; while the particular nation and people who employ it, and the language itself, are unknown. This species of alphabet, consisting of simple strokes, intersecting each other at right or acute angles, was in use by the Phoenicians prior to or cotemporary with, the introduction into that border of the Mediterranean of the Hebrew alphabet. Modifications of it existed in the Etruscan, Pelasgian, Oscan and Arcadian, as exhibited in Gesenius and other kindred works. It is seen that this geometrical style of alphabet extended westward over Europe, spreading through ancient Gaul and the Spanish peninsula, and following the Celtic and Saxon stocks to the British Isles. Modifications of it existed throughout Scandinavia and the northern confines of Europe. That it came from the East to the West, crossing the Atlantic, at some early and unknown period, on the tide of early maritime adventure, or wafted by adverse winds, would seem to have been not an improbable extension."

Of the twenty-two characters, which are confessedly alphabetic, ten correspond, with general exactness, with the Phoenician of Gesenius; fifteen coincide with the Celtiberic, as exhibited by Mr. Rafn, in the Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaries du Nord, Copenhagen, 1840-43; fourteen correspond with the old British or Anglo Saxon, as exhibited by the same author; five coincide with with the old Northern, or Runic proper; but four with the Etruscan; six with the ancient Gallic; four with the ancient Greek; and seven with the old Erse. This comparison is given from data not complete in all cases, and without attempting to have entered on a critical study of the inscription. It