THE KNICKERBOCKER.

AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES.

NUMBER FOUR.

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 cöincidence 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,) is so obscure, and so much involved in fable, as to render it not merely a most difficult matter for solution, but totally impossible to come at the truth.' These and similar declarations of the most accredited writers upon the early history of the inhabitants of Central America, one would think quite conclusive. If there had been other facts to be obtained, calculated to settle the question as to the origin of the first Americans, these, or other writers would have obtained them. Instead of this, however, they merely speak of works which 'probably' contained the facts announced as truth, without ever having seen them themselves, or stating plainly that they had, in reality, any facts within their reach. Thus numerous authors, whose means of information are said to have been complete on this subject, are mentioned by Cabrera; yet he professes to know nothing beyond conjecture or hearsay of the contents of their works. We will notice one or two instances, to show what confidence can be placed upon his assertions and gratuitous inferences in relation to Votan, and as samples of the whole.

After parading the titles of a great number of works, which may or may not exist, so far as his own knowledge of their contents is concerned, or perhaps that of any one else, he says: 'There is in the Jesuits' College of Tepozotlan,' (preserving the same particularity, as to titles, localities, dates, etc.,) 'a history of the voyages of the Aztecas to the country of Anahuac, written by a noble Mestee Mexican. The title of this manuscript,' he continues, 'shows it to be one of importance, as it very probably contains an account of the voyage of the Mexicans, who are the Aztecas, and of the primitive families of the Culebras, (snakes) who, I shall demonstrate, were from the old continent to the new, with an account of the first empire they founded in America, its duration, and their expulsion