In the following résumé I wish neither to tear down nor to build up, but simply to give an account of what has been thought and written upon the subject, and to show, with as little criticism as possible, the foundation upon which each theory stands. Of the comparative value of the opinions the reader must be his own judge. Of the value of this discussion of the subject there is this to be said; as a curiosity, showing the color given to mind by its environment, showing the blind and almost frenzied7 efforts of different men of different epochs, creeds, and culture, to fathom a hitherto unfathomable mystery, – this, together with the collateral light thrown upon the subject of aboriginal America, if there be no other advantage in it, will amply repay the investigation.
The earliest writers required three propositions to be taken for granted:8 First, that the entire human race are descended from one original pair, and from Noah through Shem, Ham, and Japheth; second, that America was peopled from one of three sources – Asia, Africa, or Europe; third, that all knowledge arises from one of four sources – knowledge pure and absolute, from a knowledge of causes; opinion more or less uncertain; divine faith, sure and infallible, based upon the holy scriptures as interpreted by the Church; human faith, dependent upon the statements of men. The first of these four sources of knowledge throws no light upon the subject; the third is equally useless here, since the scriptures are silent after the time of Noah, though, as we shall presently see, huge endeavors have been made to make them speak; as for the fourth, Europeans, even if they conjectured the possible existence of an undiscovered continent, were certain that it was not inhabited,9 while the Americans were entirely ignorant of the part of the world from which they sprang.
The first of the three propositions mentioned above, namely, that all mankind are descended from one original pair, seems to have been taken for granted by almost all the writers, ancient and modern, who have had some theory to sustain respecting the origin of the Americans.10 The question of the unity of the human race, as considered without bias by modern scientific men, remains, however, undetermined; though it may be fairly said that the best of the argument is on the side of those who maintain the primitive diversity of man. It happens that those who are most earnest in upholding the biblical account of the creation, and consequently the unity of man, must, to be consistent, also uphold the biblical system of chronology, which teaches that man has not existed on the earth for more than six thousand years. This is unfortunate, since it is evident that the higher we believe the antiquity of man to be, the easier it is for us to admit the unity of origin of the strongly marked varieties that now exist.11
The honor of peopling America has frequently been given to Noah and his immediate descendants. But even were we sure that the tradition recorded in the Bible of Noah's strange doings is accurate in every respect, the narrative does not throw any definite light upon his subsequent proceedings, and we must invent wonders to add to wonders if we make anything more out of it. The subject cannot be discussed intelligently, but I will give some of the opinions that have been held on the subject.
Noah's ark, says Ulloa, gave rise to a number of such constructions; and the experience gained during the patriarch's aimless voyage emboldened his descendants to seek strange lands in the same manner. Driven to America and the neighboring islands by winds and currents, they found it difficult to return, and so remained and peopled the land. He thinks the custom of eating raw fish at the present day among some American tribes, was acquired during these long sea voyages. That they came by sea is evident, for the north, if, indeed, the continent be connected with the old world, must be impassable by reason of intense cold.12 Ulloa, although he would not for a moment allow that there could have been more than one general creation, does not attempt to account for the presence of strange animals and plants in America; and I may observe here that this difficulty is similarly avoided by all writers of his class.13 Lescarbot cannot see why "Noah should have experienced any difficulty in reaching America by sea, when Solomon's ships made voyages lasting three years."14
Villagutierre,15 on the contrary, thinks it more probable that Noah's sons came to America by land; an opinion also held by Thompson, who believes, however, that the continents were not disconnected until some time after the flood, by which time America was peopled from the Old World.16 Orrio remarks that many have supposed that Noah, in order to be able to people the New World as well as the Old, must, during his three hundred and fifty years of post-diluvian life, have had more children than are mentioned in the bible; but in his opinion there was no necessity for more progenitors, since one woman can in two hundred and ten years become the ancestor of one million six hundred and forty-seven thousand and eighty-six persons. He thinks that Ham was the father of the American race.17 Montanus considers it quite in accordance with Noah's character and mission that he should have attended to the peopling of the world during his long life.18 L'Estrange is of opinion that Shem and his children, who were not among the builders of Babel, moved gradually eastward, and were, further, forced in that direction even to America, by the progeny of Japheth.19 We read in one of the Abbé Domenech's works,20 that Ophir, one of Noah's descendants, went to Peru and settled there, ruling those who went with him. Sigüenza and Sister Agnes de la Cruz, conjectured that the Americans were descended from Naphtuhim, the son of Mizraim and grandson of Ham, whose descendants left Egypt for America shortly after the confusion of tongues.21 Piñeda thinks the same.22 Clavigero considers it proven by the native flood-myths and traditions of foreign origin that the Americans are descendants of Noah. He quotes the tradition of Votan,23 who is declared to have been closely connected with the Babel-builders, the originator of that enterprise being his uncle.24
Let us see, now, what these flood-myths are. This I may say first, however; some of them are doubtless spurious, and few have escaped the renovating touch of the Spanish priests and chroniclers, who throughout their writings seem to think it their bounden duty to make the ideas and history of the New World correspond to those of the Old. And what the old writers have added or invented, the modern writers are, in most cases, ready and glad to accept as genuine, without doubt or question. "It is impossible," says Viscount Kingsborough, "when reading what Mexican Mythology records of the war in heaven, and of the fall of Zontemonque and the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word of Tonacatecutli, and of the division of the waters; of the sin of Yztlacoliuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal, and her disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all her posterity, – not to recognise Scriptural analogies. But the Mexican tradition of the Deluge is that which bears the most unequivocal marks of having been derived from a Hebrew source."25
We have seen in a preceding volume how, according to the common version of the Mexican