



Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, JoAnn Greenwood,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net









THE KNICKERBOCKER.

VOL. X. DECEMBER, 1837. NO. 6.




AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES.

NUMBER FOUR.

    'KINGDOMS are shrunk to provinces, and chains
    Clank over sceptred cities; nations melt
    From power's high pinnacle, when they have felt
    The sunshine for a while, and downward go.'


IN view of the reasons heretofore suggested, why it is improbable
that either the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, or the Romans, were the
first inhabitants of this continent, and why, from the present state
of our knowledge, no other distinct nation of people is entitled to
the exclusive reputation of having been the primitive discoverers
of America, the reader is very naturally led to inquire for the
evidences assigned by the advocates of particular theories for the
sources of their origin. These evidences, although important to the
antiquarian, cannot, from the brevity and popular mode proposed
by us in treating this subject, be critically stated. We have,
nevertheless, offered some reasons and inferences of our own, why
those evidences cannot be conclusive; and we would refer others to
our own or other means of information, should they feel disposed to
make farther investigations. However plausible the story of Votan
may have appeared, as testimony in point, the reader shall judge,
from a few facts which will be here noticed, whether even that has
much probability to support it. No one at least can deny the greater
safety of doubting, where there is no better proof, should he not,
with others, arrive at the ultimate conclusion, that the best
evidence of all may be in favor of the opinion that these people
originated where their relics are now found.

It has been said that the occasional resemblance observed among the
ruins of Tulteca to those of the Egyptians, Romans, etc, affords
no just grounds for attributing their origin to those nations, any
more than to others whose remaining arts they equally resemble.
Almost every ancient people might, in fact, from similar points of
resemblance, claim the same distinction. Beside the particulars
noticed in previous numbers, it might be mentioned, _en passant_,
that had the Tultecans been Egyptian, they would most certainly have
retained the language of Egypt, the signs, the worship, etc.; but
this was not the fact. Had they been Romans, they would likewise have
continued the language, the customs, and the religion of Romans;
yet this was not the case; and so it would have been, had they been
derived from any other nation. Above all, perhaps, would they have
borne a personal resemblance to their progenitors, a circumstance
far from truth. Religion, without doubt, is the last thing in which a
people becomes alienated; yet we see no coeincidence in this respect
between these people and their reputed originals. How then shall
we account for their origin, but by supposing them, _sui generis_,
Tultecans? Finally, it will be admitted, that unless the story of
Votan presents some clue by which to solve the problem--and we do not
see that it has even the claim of probability--we are not permitted,
by the facts in evidence, to attribute the first American population
to any other people of the earth.

The illustrious Fegjro, quoted as the best authority by the
very author of Votan's story, and himself as much interested in
propagating a theory favorable to popular Catholic opinions as any
one of his clerical brethren, says upon this subject: 'After long
study and attentive examination of so many and such various opinions,
I find no one having the necessary appearance of truth, to satisfy
a prudent judgment, and many that do not possess even the merit
of probability.' Again, Cabrera says: 'To the present period, no
_hypothesis_ has been advanced, that is sufficiently probable to
satisfy a mind sincerely and cautiously desirous of arriving at the
truth.' And yet this is the man who holds forth the story of Votan
as a true 'hypothesis.' It is plain, in all this writer says, by way
of comment, that he himself doubts the truth of the whole matter,
although he has pompously styled his treatise 'The Solution of the
Grand Historical Problem of the Population of America!' The bishop,
we will do him the justice to say, manifests much candor in speaking
of the conduct of his brotherhood toward the relics of the people
whose religion they had resolved to destroy. 'The injudicious and
total destruction of the annals and records of the American nations,'
says he, 'has not only proved a most serious loss to history, but
very prejudicial to _that religion_ whose progress it was supposed
would thereby have been accelerated.' He asserts what is very true,
in this; and also in his conclusion, that 'both in the means and the
object, this practice is too frequently the result of prejudice or
of ignorance.' Antonio Constantini, also cited as primary authority,
declares, that 'whatsoever may be advanced upon this subject does not
pass beyond the limit of mere opinion, as we have neither histories,
manuscripts, nor traditions of the Americans!' And with the design
farther to prevent all belief by posterity that their conquered
subjects, whose admirable relics and records they had destroyed,
possessed any knowledge of the arts, or the means of governing
themselves, he says, 'when they were discovered, they were ignorant
and uncultivated!' etc. Clavigero justly concludes, likewise, that
'the history of the primitive population of Anahuac, (Central
America,)