The origin of the American Indian has puzzled Europeans from the day Columbus' sailors set foot on the Caribbean isle. Yet, just four centuries earlier, the New World was common knowledge to the educated in North Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. Its natives were even embracing the faith of the Roman Church, which had appointed an Icelander of noble birth as bishop over Iceland, Greenland and the lands of the New World! How did these facts all become lost?
THE LITTLE ICE AGE
One is so accustomed to read of "Ice Ages" as events of the remote past, that it hardly occurs to the mind that thirteenth century Europeans witnessed a veritable Little Ice Age that completely severed communications between Europe and the New World. The Baltic froze over. Vikings ceased to traverse the inhospitable Atlantic. In the New World the Land of the White Man — Hvitramanna Land in Icelandic literature — lost contact with Europe. Centuries later remnants of their population were found among the natives which had early traversed the Atlantic with them. This chapter unfolds what really happened in Western Europe, and especially the British Isles and Denmark, from the days of Solomon to long after the fall of the Roman Empire. It will explain the astounding chronological connection between the rise of New World civilization and the sudden flight of tribes out of Northwest Europe.
WHITES DID NOT BECOME INDIANS
First, let us immediately banish a myth. White Europeans did not become Indians by merely settling in the New World and becoming lost! The American Indians are not the "Lost Tribes of Israel," or Egyptians. The American Indian looks as he does because his ancestors appeared that way before they traversed the waters of the Atlantic. It may come as a surprise to learn it, but Europe and the Mediterranean world was early — and comparatively late — inhabited by "Red Men." Everyone has heard of the famous Phoenician sailors of the ancient Mediterranean world. They are known to have traveled far out into the Atlantic and to Northwestern Europe. The Greeks called them Phoenicians because that is what they were — "Red Men." The word "Phoenician" is derived from the Greek word for reddish dye. The ancient Egyptians painted the Phoenicians on their walled tombs and on papyri. Their skin color? Reddish. The Egyptians painted other peoples of Palestine white and black. They recognized three races of men living in Palestine in early ages. Julius Firmicus, an early writer, stated that "in Ethiopia all are born black; in Germany, white; and in Thrace, red." Thrace was north of Greece and originally populated by the children of Tiras, son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2). It was from Thrace that Odin led the Agathyrsi and other tribes to Northwestern Europe when he founded the Danish kingdom. Many of the warriors employed by the early princes of western Europe were fierce, of swarthy skin, naked and often tatooed and painted. Strabo, the Roman geographer, wrote that areas of Ireland and Britain were inhabited "by men entirely wild." Jerome, writing in one of his letters in the fifth century, characterizes some of them as cannibals: "When they hunted the woods for prey, it is said they attacked the shepherd, rather than his flock; and that they curiously selected the most delicate and brawny parts, both of males and females, for their horrid repast." In the eighteenth century, Martin, in his volume "Western Islands of Scotland", remarked that the complexion of the natives of the isle of Skye was "for the most part black;" and the natives of Jura were "generally black of complexion," and of Arran, "generally brown, and some of a black complexion." The inhabitants of the Isle Gigay were "fair or brown in complexion." The American Indian — commonly called the Red Man — varies from copper brown to almost black, and, of course, almost white in some tribes. And the famous literary companions Johnson and Boswell several times took notice of the swarthy color of some of the natives in the north and west of Scotland (Croker's "Boswell", 1848, pp. 309-310, 316, 352). "There was great diversity in the faces of the circle around us," wrote Boswell; "some were as black and wild in their appearance as any American savages whatever." "Our boatmen were rude singers, and seemed so like wild Indians, that a very little imagination was necessary to give one an impression of being upon an American river." A writer at the beginning of the nineteenth century characterized the people of Harris: "In general the natives are of small stature .... the cheek bones are rather prominent. The complexion is of all tints. Many individuals are as dark as mulattoes, while others are nearly as fair as Danes" ("Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal", No. vii, pp. 142, 143). In "Pennant's Second Tour", 1772, is a line drawing of the wigwams of the half-breed natives of the Scottish Island of Jura. Here are natives, like American Indians, living in the remote islands of Europe, whose last remnants died out as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century.
AMERICAN INDIAN TRADITION
The common idea that American Indians had no means of preserving their history is a fiction based on the assumption that all Indians were on the same level of culture. Wild, rude tribes there were. But civilized nations existed too. They carefully preserved, among other things, the history of their journeys, and the duration of their habitation in the New World. When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in the New World they were amazed to find the Maya and Aztecs using bark paper to preserve history and daily records. It was obtained from the FICUS, a tree related to the mulberry. Bark was peeled off, beaten with a rubber mallet, and folded into sheets to make books. In Moctezuma's palace Bernal Diaz followed an "accountant" who showed him "all the revenue that was brought ... (and recorded) in his books which were made of paper which they call "amatl", and he had a great house full of these books" (pages 184-185 of "The Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas", by von Hagen). Only a few escaped the book burning of the Spanish zealots, who sought to wipe out all vestiges of the previous culture and the lineage of their royal houses. Some rare codices have been preserved, however. One is the "Popol Vuh", a sacred book of the ancient Quiche Maya. In it are recorded the migrations and wanderings of their ancestors. It traces their origin eastward across the Atlantic Ocean to the Old World. Other Indians had similar origins of having to cross a great body of water from the northeast to reach their present land. (Later migrations, once they had arrived from the east, could take any direction.) The writer of the Popul Vuh declared: "They also multiplied there in the East .... All lived together, they existed in great numbers and walked there in the East .... There they were then, in great numbers, the black man and the white man, many of many classes, men of many tongues .... The speech of all was the same. They did not invoke wood nor stone, and they remembered the word of the Creator and the Maker The Maya record continues: "... they came from the East ... they left there, from that great distance .... they crossed the sea" (pp. 181, 183). When they sought to establish their kingdom "they decided to go to the East .... It had been a long time since their fathers had died East, there whence came our fathers.' Certainly they crossed the sea when they came there to the East, when they went to receive the investiture of the kingdom" (pp. 206-207). To what line of great kings in the east were these Quiche Maya journeying? To the successors of the great ruler who conducted them, about 1000 B.C., to the Usumacinta River in Mexico.
The Mayas claim that their kingdom was founded by a great eastern ruler named Votan or Oden or Dan by various tribes. He was a white man who came by sea from the east and settled them in their new land. The time of their migration, according to Ordonez, was ten centuries before the present era. This Votan — who was also worshipped as a god — was famous for having himself journeyed to a land where a great temple was being built. Do we have a king in Europe, living at the time Solomon's temple was being built (around 1000 B.C.), who had dominion over the seas, who was worshipped as a god, and whose name sounded like Votan? Indeed — Woden or Odin, king of Denmark from 1040-999. He was worshipped later as a great god. Scandinavian literature is replete with accounts of his distant journeys which took him away from his homeland for many months, sometimes years. Just as king Odin or Danus gave his name to Denmark — Danmark — so Odin gave his name to the "forest of Dan" in the land of the Quiche Indians. (See pages 549 and 163 of volume V, "Native Races of the Pacific States", by Hubert H. Bancroft.) "Dan ... founded a monarchy on the Guatemalan plateau" (Bancroft, vol. I, p. 789). His capital, built for the Indians and their white suzerains, was named Amag-Dan. Here we have the records of Danish kings, as early as 1000 years before the birth of Christ, sailing to the New World and planting colonies of Red Men from Europe in the Yucatan and Guatemalan highlands. Is it any wonder that it was the Danes, of all nations of Europe, who continued to communicate with the New World in the days of Eric the Red? It was the king of Denmark who ruled over Iceland in the days of Christopher Columbus. Before Columbus awakened the sleepy Mediterranean world by his important journey across the Atlantic, he first sailed to Iceland where he obtained information for his fateful voyage. And is it not significant that it was an Icelandic nobleman, Eric Gnupson, who was consecrated by Pope Pascal II as Bishop of Greenland and the neighboring regions ("regionumque finitimarum") in 1112? (See "Conquest by Man", Paul Herrmann, p. 287.)
EARLY TIME OF MIGRATION
Tradition universally assigns white leadership to every major recorded historic migration of the American Indian from far to the northeast. The later history of Mexico commences with the establishment of a monarchy by the Toltecs of Mexico. The Toltecs were of white descent. They led and ruled over the Indians and spoke their languages. Charnay wrote in the "North American Review", October 1881, "Physically Veytia describes the Toltec as a man of tall stature, white, and bearded." A carved head of a "noble Aztec," on display in the National Museum, may be seen on plate 40 in George C. Vaillant's "Aztecs of Mexico". The noble Aztec was not an Indian at all, but a Norseman! Little wonder that wherever the Spanish journeyed they found the ruling classes much lighter than the people over whom they ruled. On occasion the conquistadors thought their women as fair or fairer than their Spanish women. "The Annals of the Cakchiquels — Lords of Totonicapan" contains direct reference to the racial descent of the nobles who led and governed the natives to the New World. "These, then, were the three nations of the Quiches, and they came from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel, of the same language and the same customs .... When they arrived at the edge of the sea, Balam-qitze (a native title for one in a religious office) touched it with his staff and at once a path opened, which then closed up again, for thus the great God wished it to be done, because they were the sons of Abraham and Jacob. So it was that those three nations (the "mixed multitude" of Exodus 12:38) passed through, and with them thirteen others called Vukamag" — meaning the 13 tribes. Israel had altogether 13 tribes including Levi. "We have written that which by tradition our ancestors told us, who came from the other part of the sea, who came from Civan-Tulan, bordering on Babylonia" page 170. Page 169 says they ".... came from the other part of the ocean, from where the sun rises." (Translated by Delia Goetz; published by University of Oklahoma Press, 1953.) Was the mysterious Civan-Tulan — meaning in Indian dialects a place of caves or ravines — the region of Petra, where Moses led the Children of Israel? Petra is famous for its caves. Canaanite Hivites, mixed with Egyptian stock, dwelt at Petra, or Mt. Seir, at the time of the Exodus (Genesis 36:2, 20, 24). They lived at peace with the Hebrews. This settlement of Hivites was a region dominated by Midian. A high priest who visited the land of Midian and Moab in Moses' day was named Balaam — almost the exact spelling in the Quiche-Maya title Balam used for priests! The people led by Odin or Votan across the Atlantic to the New World were not exclusively the sons of Tiras from Thrace; some tribes were called Chivim, reports Ordonez the early Spanish writer. It is the very Hebrew spelling used for the English word Hivites, some of whom once lived in Mt. Seir, the land of caves, near Babylonia! So the Mexican Indians were a mixed people.
CHRONOLOGY OF MEXICO
No continuous history of the Quiche-Maya civilization is extant. We have now to turn to the Valley of Mexico for direct and surprising connection with the movement of events in Scotland where dwelt the Picts and the Maiatai (Greek for Maia folk). From Scottish history, covered in the previous chapter and in the first volume of the Compendium, it can be established that major migrations occurred in the years 376 — when the Scots and allies were driven out and the Picts miserably oppressed — and in 503 — when the Scots from Ireland drove out most of the remaining wild Picts or painted men. Where did these folk flee to? Can we establish a direct connection between these events in Pictland with the history of migration to the Valley of Mexico of the Toltecs and others in the New World? Indeed we can. The nation of the Scots was utterly driven out by the Romans in the year 376. The Cruithne and Picts, who remained in the land as Roman allies, were soon miserably oppressed. Rebellion broke out. The Romans dealt severely with the fleeing rebels. The Cruithne and Picts besought and obtained Scottish help to drive out the Romans and their British allies. Now compare this with the migration of the Toltecs and their white chieftains to Mexico. The historian of the Toltecs was Ixtlilxochitl. He reports several migrations over the centuries. But the one he takes special note of — for its chronological import — commenced in 387. (See Bancroft's "Native Races of the Pacific States", Vol. 5, pp. 209, 214.) The events were these — a rebellion broke out that led to a protracted struggle for eight years. The rebels were finally forced to flee in 384 for protection. After remaining 3 years (to 387) they continued their lengthy migration. It was now 11 years after the initial rebellion. Eleven years before 387 is 376 — the very year the Romans drove out the Scots and suppressed the Painted Red Men of Pictland! Is this mere coincidence? Their migration took them over water and land till they reached Jalisco in Mexico. To do so they must have landed in the traditional area of the Usumacinta River, crossed the isthmus, and coasted to Jalisco on the southern extremity of the Gulf of California. After wandering many years they settled in Tulancingo. "The third year of their stay in Tulancingo completed ... one hundred and four years since the departure from the country," records Bancroft from Ixtlilxochitl (vol. v, p. 213). (The 104 years compose two Indian calendar cycles of 52 years each.) It was now 488. At Tulancingo they remained another 15 years — to 503. In 503 they migrated to the Valley of Mexico to the region of Lake Texcoco. What caused them to migrate in 503? Is this a significant date in Scottish history? Indeed. That was the year the Scots from Ireland finally settled in Scotland and drove the wild Pictish tribes out of the country. Strengthened by a new influx of migrants, the Toltecs journeyed (in 503) to the already-settled shores of the lake on which Mexico City now stands. There, at Tullan, for six years the Toltecs lived under a theocratic republic, each chief directing the movement of his band in war and directing their needs in times of peace. "But in the seventh year," records Bancroft, "after their arrival in Tollan, when the republic was yet in a state of peace and prosperity, undisturbed by foreign foes, the chiefs convened an assembly of the heads of families and the leading men. The object of the meeting was to effect a change in the form of their government, and to establish a monarchy." It was agreed to accept, as king, a son of a neighboring Chichimec king to be supreme ruler. "Immediately after the accession of the young monarch" in 510, "a law was established by him and his counsellors to the effect that no king should reign more than fifty-two years, but at the expiration of this term should abdicate in favor of his eldest son, whom he might, however, still serve as adviser. Should the king die before the allotted time had elapsed, it was provided that the state should be ruled during the unexpired term by magistrates chosen by the people" (pp. 244, 246). This custom continued firmly established among the Toltecs at Tullan for many years. Later the practice was discontinued, though the Mexican Indians still continued to count time by 52 year cycles. The history of the American Indian from 510 to the coming of the Spanish has been carefully preserved by Ixtlilxochitl and in the Annals of Cuauhtitlan. Modern writers in previous decades often carelessly discounted the value of these Indian records. But archaeology is forcing a renewed respect for the history of the New World as preserved by the native writers during the earliest days of the Spanish colonial period. The most readily accessible — and one of the best works — on early Mexico is — "Aztecs of Mexico", by G. C. Valliant, revised by Suzannah B. Valliant. Another useful source is Stokvis' "Manuel".
THE HISTORY OF TOLTECS AT TULLAN
The history of Tullan is the history of the Mayapan culture of Mexico. Earlier cultures are commonly found, but no continuous history exists before 510. The Toltecs were not the carriers of the culture of Teotihuacan, as is often stated by archaeologists (see p. 6 of Penguin edition of "The Aztecs of Mexico" by Valliant). The following is a summary of the history of Tullan (or Tula), restored in accordance with the earliest extant Aztec and Toltec records. Bancroft's "Native Races of the Pacific States" may be consulted for the full story of events. It is a treasure-house of information.
(Note that the "x" in Aztec names is pronounced as "sh.")
Toltec Kings of Tulan Lengths of Reign Dates according to Ixtlilxochitl
Period of the Tullan 7 503-510 Republic under chieftains
Chalchiuhtlanetzin 52 510-562
Ixtlilcuechahauac 52 562-614
Huetzin I 52 614-666
Totepeuh I 52 666-718
Nacoxoc 52 718-770
Mitl-Tlacomihua 59 770-829
Queen Xihuiquenitzin 4 829-833
Izaccaltzin 52 833-885
Topiltzin I 74 885-959
A struggle with Chichimecs occurred during the reign of Topiltzin. Topiltzin was forced to flee leaving authority in the hands of the royal family of Ihuitimal. The confused conditions are reflected in the joint rulership presented in the next short succeeding chart. The parallel reigns also indicate that Toltec leadership was divided among powerful city-state princes in the growing Toltec Empire which spread itself in the Valley of Mexico.
Toltec Kings Lengths of Reign Dates
Mixcoatl Mazatin 65 804-869
Texcaltepocatl Huetzin 28 869-897
Ihuitimal 28 897-925 (or 36) (887-923)
Topiltzin I 22 925-947 (or 24) (923-947)
The above chart indicates Ihuitimal succeeded his father in 897, but, according to the Annals of Cuauhtitlan, he replaced the fleeing Topiltzin in 887. Topiltzin returned in 923. Ihuitimal ended his reign two years later. Though Topiltzin continued on the throne to 959 (see first chart), he was succeeded in 947 as follows.
Kings of Tullan Lengths of Reign Dates according to the Annals of Cuahtitlan
Matlacxochitl 36 947- 983
Nauhyotzin I 14 983- 997
Queen Xiuhtlaltzin 4 997-1001
Matlaccoatzin 24 1001-1025 (or 28) (997-1025)
Tlilcoatzin 21 1025-1046
Huemac 75 1046-1121
Huemac is another name of Quetzalcoatl (Bancroft Vol. III, pp. 267, 283-4). He was a ramous white man who came from the east with a religion that banned human sacrifice and used the symbol of the cross. The name Quetzalcoatl, was originally that of an early Aztec god. It was applied by Aztecs to any great priest who claimed to represent the deity. Huemac Quetzalcoatl disappeared and returned on several occasions during his 75 years, leaving the supreme government, in his absence, to contemporaries of the royal house. This white priest became famous over much of the New World. Who was he? And what religion was he bringing? The answer is found by the date of his death 1121. Was there a famous white priest, with jurisdiction over areas of the Western Hemisphere who died in 1121? Yes! Icelandic Bishop Eric Gnupson, whose domain included the New World! He died in 1121, the same year that Quetzalcoatl did. At his death in 1121 the Icelandic Thing (Parliament) met to request the pope that a new bishop be appointed (Conquest by Man, by Herrmann, pp. 286 -287) . The religion of Quetzalcoatl was Roman Catholicism. When the Spanish missionaries later came to the Indians they were amazed to find so many parallels to the Catholic religion — holy water, nuns, rosaries, the cross, penances and other traditions! Contemporary with Huemac Quetzalcoatl were the following Tullan rulers:
Huemac II Atecpanecatl 35 1046-1081
Topiltzin Acxitl 33 1081-1114
Matlacxochitl Huemac III 2 1114-1116
Veytia gives 1116 as the date of the final overthrow of Tullan at the coming of the Aztecs (Hist. Ant. Mej., bk. 1, pp. 287-304. ) See also Bancroft, vol. 5., p. 325.
THE CITY-STATE OF CULHUACAN
A major expansion of the Toltecs occurred at the close of the end of the fourth 52 year cycle — in 718. In that year a branch of the royal lineage founded Culhuacan. It suffered a major reverse in the year 1063 at the hands of the Chichimecs who established a new dynasty in Texcoco. The following chart covers the kings of Culhuacan until that defeat.
Kings of Culhuacan Lengths of Reign Dates
Nauhyotl I 50 718- 768
Mixcohuatl Camaxtli 78 768- 846 Totepueh I Nonohyatcatl I
Yohuallatonac I 59 846- 905
Quetzallacxoyatl 49 905- 954
Chalchiuh-Tlatonac I 32 954- 986
Totepeuh II 41 986-1027
Nauhyotl II 36 1027-1063
For five years (1063-1068) the local government of Culhuacan was in the hands of a Toltec noble Xiuhtemoc, to whom the late king's children were confided. The year after the defeat, a young son of the king was placed on the throne under the tutelage of Xiuhtemoc.
Kings of Culhuacan Lengths of Reign Dates
Nauhyotl III 60 1064-1124
Cuanhtexpetlatzin 57 1124-1181
Huetzin 21 1181-1202
Nonoalcatl 21 1202-1223
Achitometl 14 1223-1237
Cuauhtonal 14 1237-1251
NEW LINEAGE BEGINS
Mazatzin 23 1251-1274
Quetzaltzin 13 1274-1287
Chalchiuhtlatonac II 17 1287-1304
Cuauhtlix 7 1304-1311
Yohuallatonac 10 1311-1321
Tziuhtecatzin 13 1321-1334
Xihuitlemoc 18 1334-1352
Coxcox 24 1352-1376
Acamapichtli 12 1376-1388
Achitometl 12 1388-1400
Nauhyotl 13 1400-1413
The central government in the Valley of Mexico now passed into the hands of the Aztec ruler of Tenochtitlan. Prior to the Aztec dominion, the Chichimecs at Texcoco were a dominant Indian tribe. Their power commenced with the defeat of Tullan in 1063.
THE CHICHIMECS AT TEXCOCO
Chichimec Kings of Lengths of Reign Dates Texcoco
Xolotl 17 1063-1180 After the era of Xolotl a new lineage begins.
Nopaltzin 31 1180-1211
Tlotzin Pochotl 35 1211-1246
Quinantzin Tlaltecatzin 59 1246-1305
Techotlala 52 1305-1357
Istlilxochitl 61 1357-1418 (For this king Valliant has mistakenly dropped out an entire cycle of 52 years in his reign.)
Nezahualcoyotl 54 1418-1472
Nezahualpilli 44 1472-1516
Cacama 3 1516-1519
Spanish land in Vera Cruz, native rulers to 1550 continued with limited authority. During part of the reign of Istlilxochitl, two tyrants of Tepanec dominated the country. They are below.
Tepanec Tyrants at Lengths of Reign Dates Azcapotzalco
Tezozomoc 84 1343-1427
Maxtla 2 1427-1429
The Mexican Indians were, at the coming of the Spanish, under the Aztec sway. Many tribes readily accepted Spanish assistance to aid them in the overthrow of their oppressive rulers. They had yet to learn that new oppressors were coming in the guise of deliverers. The following outline illustrates the gradual rise to power of the Aztecs. The story of the final overthrow of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan is so generally narrated as to need no repetition here. The city was established under Tezcuecuex in 1202 at the end of the reign of Huetzin of Culhuacan.
Aztecs of Tenochtitlan Lengths of Reign Dates
Tezcuecuex 33 1202-1235
Huitzilhuitl, called Mexi, 63 1235-1298 after whom Mexico receives its name.
Culhuacan seized Tenochtitlan. The city again became independent under Tenoch in 1325.
Tenoch, after whom the city of 11 1325-1336 Tenochtitlan was named.
Tlacotin 1 1336-1337
Teuhtlehuac 12 1337-1349
Queen Ilancueitl 34 1349-1383
Acamapichtli, reigns 8 years 20 1375-1395 contemporary with previous queen.
Huitzilhuitl II 19 1395-1414
Chimalpopoca 14 1414-1428
Itzcoatl 12 1428-1440
Montezuma I 29 1440-1469
Azayacatl 12 1469-1481
Tizoc 5 1481-1486
Ahuitzetl 17 1486-1503
Montezuma II, in his reign 17 1503-1520 the Spanish arrived.
Cuitlahuac 4 months 1520 (murdered on way to Honduras)
The history of the Peruvian civilization must wait until Spanish history is presented. Other cities of lesser import have left us a record but those present here give the chronological outline from which a valid study of Mexican history can begin.