Hubert Bancroft - The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

The tradition of a flood would naturally arise, 1st, from the destruction of a tribe or part of a tribe by the sudden rising of a river or mountain stream – that is from a modern event such as has occurred at some time in the history of nearly every people, and which a hundred years and a fertile imagination would readily have converted into a universal inundation. 2d. From the finding of sea-shells and other marine relics inland, and even on high mountains, suggesting to the natives' untutored mind what it proves to later scientific research – the fact that water once covered all. 3d. From the actual submersion of some portions of the continent by the action of volcano or earthquake, an event that geology shows not to be improbable, and which would be well calculated to leave a lasting impression on the minds of savages. 4th. From the deluge of the scriptural tradition, the only one of the many similar events that may have occurred which makes any claims to have been historically recorded. The accompanying particulars would be naturally invented. Some must have escaped, and an ark or a high mountain are the natural means.

A traditional migration from north, south, east, or west may point to the local journeying of a family or tribe, either in search of better hunting-grounds, or as a result of adverse fortune in war; in a few cases a general migration of many tribes constituting a great nation may be referred to; and finally, it is not quite impossible that a faint memory of an Old World origin may have survived through hundreds of generations.

So with the giant tradition, resulting, 1st, from the memory of a fierce, numerous, powerful, and successful enemy, possibly of large physique. No tribe so valiant that it has not met with reverses, and the attributing of gigantic strength and supernatural powers to the successful foe, removes among the descendants the sting of their ancestors' defeat. 2d. From the discovery of immense fossil bones of mastodons and other extinct species. It is not strange that such were deemed human remains by the natives when the Spaniards in later times have honestly believed them to be the bones of an extinct gigantic race. 3d. From the existence of grand ruins in many parts of the country, far beyond the constructive powers of the savage, and therefore in his eyes the work of giants – as they were intellectually, in comparison with their degenerate descendants. 4th. From an actual traditional remembrance of those who built the ruined cities, and intercourse with comparatively civilized tribes. 5th. From the existence in primitive times of a race of giants.

Numerous additional sources for each of these traditions might doubtless be suggested; but those given suffice for illustration, and, as I have remarked, they are arranged in each case in what would seem the natural order of probability. The near and natural should always be preferred to the remote and supernatural; and the fables mentioned should be referred to Noah's deluge, Asiatic origin, and the existence of a gigantic race, only when the previous suppositions are proved by extraneous evidence to be untenable. The early writers on aboriginal America, using their reason only when it did not conflict with their faith, reversed the order of probability, and thus greatly impaired the usefulness of their contributions to history. The supposition of a purely imaginary origin, common to aboriginal legend and modern romance, should of course be added to each of the preceding lists, and generally placed before the last supposition given.

Passing from the wild tribes to the civilized nations of Mexico and Central America, we find tradition, or what is generally regarded as such, much more complete and extensive in its scope, less childish in detail, and with a more clearly defined dividing line between history and mythology. Theoretically we might expect a higher grade of tradition among a partially civilized people; but on the other hand, what need had the Nahuas or Mayas of oral tradition when they had the art of recording events? In fact, our knowledge of Aztec and Maya history is not in any proper sense traditional, although commonly spoken of as such by the writers. Previous to the practice of the hieroglyphic art – the date of whose invention or introduction is unknown, but must probably be placed long before the Christian era – oral tradition was doubtless the only guide to the past; but the traditions were recorded as soon as the system of picture-writing was sufficiently perfected to suggest if not to clearly express their import. After picture-writing came into general use, it is difficult to imagine that any historical events should have been handed down by tradition alone. Still in one sense the popular knowledge of the past among the Mexicans may be called traditional, inasmuch as the written records of the nation were not in the hands of the people, but were kept by a class of the priesthood, and may be supposed to have been read by comparatively few. The contents of the records, however, except perhaps some religious mysteries which the priests alone comprehended, were tolerably well known to the educated classes; and when the records were destroyed by Spanish fanaticism, this general knowledge became the chief source whence, through the 'talk of the old men,' the earlier writers drew their information. It is in this light that we must understand the statement of many able writers, that the greater part of our knowledge of early American history is traditional, since this knowledge was not obtained by an actual examination of the records by the Spaniards, but orally from the people, the upper classes of whom had themselves read the pictured annals, while the masses were somewhat familiar through popular chants and plays with their contents. The value of history faithfully taken from such a source cannot be doubted, but its vagueness and conflicting statements respecting dates and details may be best appreciated by questioning intelligent men in the light of nineteenth century civilization respecting the details of modern history, withholding the privilege of reference to books or documents.

Of the Nahua hieroglyphic system and its capabilities enough has been said elsewhere. 264By its aid, from the beginning of the Toltec period at least, all historical events were recorded that were deemed worthy of being preserved. The popular knowledge of these events was perpetuated by means of poems, songs, and plays, and this knowledge was naturally faulty in dates. The numerous discrepancies which students of the present day meet at every step in the investigation of aboriginal annals, result chiefly from the almost total destruction of the painted records, the carelessness of those who attempted to interpret the few surviving documents at a time when such a task by native aid ought to have been feasible, the neglect of the Spanish priesthood in allowing the art of interpretation to be well-nigh lost, their necessary reliance for historical information on the popular knowledge above referred to, and to a certain degree doubtless from their failure to properly record information thus obtained.

But few native manuscripts have been preserved to the present time, and only a small part of those few are historical in their nature, two of the most important having been given in my second volume. 265Most of the events indicated in such picture-writings as have been interpreted are also narrated by the early writers from traditional sources. Thus we see that our knowledge of aboriginal history depends chiefly on the hieroglyphic records destroyed by the Spaniards, rather than on the few fragments that escaped such destruction. To documents that may be found in the future, and to a more careful study of those now existing, we may look perhaps for much corrective information respecting dates and other details, but it is not probable that newly discovered picture-writings or new readings of old ones will extend the aboriginal annals much farther back into the past. These remarks apply of course only to the Aztec documents; the Maya records painted on skin and paper, or inscribed on stone, are yet sealed books, respecting the nature of whose contents conjecture is vain, but from which the future may evolve revelations of the greatest importance.