THIS question may have nothing to do with Mexico from an archæological point of view; but in its ethnographical bearings it is highly important.

No one has ever raised the question, What is the origin of cannibalism, or why did a civilized people like the Aztecs observe so barbarous a custom? I believe I can answer this question, and from its solution deduce consequences of very high importance.

However savage they may be, men do not eat one another unless they are compelled by absolute necessity-starvation or racepreservation.

In our day we see shipwrecked mariners drawing lots to decide who shall be eaten, or devouring the one that is weakest.

Cannibalism has never been observed among tribes, however savage or ruthless, which occupy hunting-grounds wide enough to meet their wants, any more than among pastoral or agricultural tribes possessing grain or cattle. Thus the red-skins of North America were not cannibals. They used to scalp and torture their captives, but did not eat them; and, if the phenomenon is observed among civilized nations, it is exceptional, as in the Chinese famine, or as in cities reduced to extremity by a protracted siege. Then, as at Jerusalem, at Paris, and other places, we see mothers devouring their own children. This observation gives us the explanation of this abominable custom.

In short, cannibalism had its rise among tribes having no cattle, no hunting-grounds, and having for their maintenance only vegetable food, or an insufficiency of other food.

You find cannibalism in America at the time of the conquest VOL. CXXXI.-NO. 287.

21

among the Caribs; in the islands of the Pacific, where the natives. had for their only sustenance cocoanuts and fish; and in Australia, where the soil was so poor that not only was man a cannibal, but he was furthermore constrained to limit the population.

But no tribe, however savage, having at hand, whatever the trouble might be of securing the prey, bears, reindeer, horses, or oxen, is ever cannibalistic; while, as we have said, the natives of the Pacific islands, not following the chase, and having no cattle, used to make war on their neighbors with the view of taking prisoners and eating their flesh. This they did at first from necessity; afterward the custom was consecrated by religious tradition.

Now, the natives of South and Central America and of Mexico, in the high state of civilization in which they were found at the time of the conquest, were cannibals, though the time had gone by when necessity compelled them to be such. They had become farmers; they cultivated several species of grain, and they derived from the chase and from various domesticated animals food sufficient to support life. Besides, as historians tell us, they were extremely gentle in their manners. Why, then, were they cannibals? The reason is, though they would not themselves account for it in that way, that they were complying with a religious tradition.

The fact is, that they never devoured their captives till after they had made an offering of them to their gods; and, apart from the seasons of the religious sacrifices, they never touched human flesh. It was not necessity, therefore, that perpetuated this cruel custom among them: it was religion.

But whence came this religious tradition? Not from the north, where the pastoral races of Asia had never practiced it; it came not from China or from Japan, whose agricultural populations had never known of it: it came from the islands of the Pacific, and this is one of the strongest proofs of the influence of the Malay races on the American races.

The earliest migrations, whether voluntary or not, coming from the west to the coasts of South America, must have been made up of cannibals, who were such from necessity, like their ancestors. Then, becoming civilized, and developing their means of subsistence, they were still cannibals by tradition—a tradition which they cherished, and which they propagated in the most civilized states coming after them, as we see in Central America and Mexico at the date of the conquest. This custom, practiced as it was in conformity with a religious principle, is, taken in connection with many other cir

cumstances, positive proof of a Polynesian influence on American civilizations.

THE INDIAN BACCHUS, TEZCATZONCATL OR IZQUITECATL, CALLED BY LE PLONGEON CHAC-MOOL.

In June, 1877, Señor Herrera y Perez published in the "Voz de Mexico" newspaper an essay on the subject of Chac-Mool, in which he describes this statue, and compares it with another that for a long time has been in the National Museum, and which is said to have been found in the State of Tlascala.

Notwithstanding the well-known resemblance existing between these two monoliths, Señor Herrera holds that they represent two very different personages. In his opinion the statue from Tlascala represents a chief of the Olmecs, Cuapintzintli. The Yucatecan statue he holds to represent Providence, the goddess of the waters.

Señor Jesus Sanchez, author of the article we are translating, and which was published in Part VI of the "Annals of the National Museum," does not accept Herrera's argument as conclusive, for, if the two statues are identical, how can it be supposed that the one represents an Olmec chief and the other a divinity worshiped by the Itzaës? They both represent a nude man lying horizontally on his back with legs flexed upward and the soles of his feet resting on the ground. Both hold with their hands a round vessel or bowl. The figures wear ornaments only on their heads, wrists, and ankles. The foot-gear, which Le Plongeon compares to the sandals found on mummies in the Canary Islands, is the same in both. Finally-and this is a very noteworthy point of resemblance-both statues have the head raised to the same height, the one looking to the right, the other to the left. In fact, the only difference worthy of remark is the absence of ornaments on the breast in the Tlascala statue.

We are not to suppose that all these circumstances are fortuitous; and to me the logical conclusion seems to be that the two statues represent one symbolic personage. Could the Itzaës have held in so high esteem Cuapintzintli, the Olmec chief, as to wish to preserve his image? On the other hand, could the Tlascaltecs have known and worshiped Chac-Mool, the king of Chichen-Itza? Both suppositions to me seem inadmissible, and I prefer to believe that the two monuments were dedicated to one divinity worshiped both in Yucatan and Tlascala, as also at Mexico, as we shall see later. This supposition is not so very improbable, for from the little information afforded us by historians concerning the religion of the

Yucatecans we know that their religious system was the same as that of the Toltecs. Says Torquemada: "The inhabitants of Yucatan worshiped the god Quetzalcohuatl, whom they named Kukulcan; and they said that he came from the west; also that their kings were descended from him.” Further, the Tlascaltecs worshiped the same gods as the Mexicans: thus their favorite god was Huitzilopochtli, whom they called Camaxtl. Like all the nations of antiquity, the Mexicans, having no notion of the existence of one almighty Creator, multiplied their gods.

But what especially attracts notice in the statues we are comparing is their horizontal position—a thing which makes them exceptional among the many idols in the National Museum. In reading the descriptions of the gods constituting the American Olympus, as written by Gomara and Torquemada, we find only the statue of Quetzalcohuatl represented as assuming this horizontal position. "In the city of Tula," writes Torquemada, "he had a grand and gorgeous temple, with many steps to reach its top, but so narrow that there was hardly room for the foot. His statue was very ugly in form, its head very big, and heavily bearded. This statue was reclining and not standing, and was covered with a veil," etc. The thick, tufted beard characteristic of Quetzalcohuatl is seen in neither of the statues we are considering, and consequently we must look for some other divinity whose description and attributes will correspond.

Gama, in his learned work upon the ancient monuments found in the plaza at Mexico when it was graded in 1790, thus describes the Mexican god of wine, Tezcatzoncatl: "The idol represented by this statue is the god Tezcatzoncatl, which means mirror-locks (chevelure des miroirs); and he was the first god of wine, or one of the two principal gods of wine, hence his surname of Tezcatzoncatl Ometochli. His festival was celebrated with that of Izquitecatl.

"The figure,” adds Gama, "seems to be a faithful copy of the original worshiped in its proper place in the temple. The head appears to be covered as with a convex mirror, or with burnished metal of some kind, if we are to judge by the polish of its surface. The ornaments of the ears, neck, arms, and legs are different from those worn by the other gods. But what especially distinguishes him is the basin full of liquor which he holds in his arms, and in the bottom of which, as in a mirror, is seen represented the paneled roof of the temple."

In this description Gama has in view an idol which he purposed