The London Vampire Lynn Shepherd download

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-vampire-lynn-
shepherd-47645888

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The London Vampire Panic First Edition Michael Romkey

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-vampire-panic-first-edition-
michael-romkey-2263374

The London Vampire A Pulseracing Intensely Dark Historical Crime Novel

Lynn Shepherd

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-vampire-a-pulseracing-
intensely-dark-historical-crime-novel-lynn-shepherd-46871834

The London Vampire Lynn Shepherd

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-vampire-lynn-
shepherd-47645892

Penny Dreadful Multipack Vol 1 Wagner The Wehrwolf Varney The Vampire
The Mysteries Of London George W M Reynolds

https://ebookbell.com/product/penny-dreadful-multipack-vol-1-wagner-
the-wehrwolf-varney-the-vampire-the-mysteries-of-london-george-w-m-
reynolds-9452722
Vampire The Masquerade Fall Of London Onyx Path

https://ebookbell.com/product/vampire-the-masquerade-fall-of-london-
onyx-path-36123710

The London Cut James Sherwood

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-cut-james-sherwood-46522684

The London Thames Path Updated Edition 2nd Edition David Fathers

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-thames-path-updated-
edition-2nd-edition-david-fathers-47176728

The London Train Tessa Hadley

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-train-tessa-hadley-47754542

The London Cage The Secret History Of Britains World War Ii

Interrogation Centre Helen Fry

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-london-cage-the-secret-history-of-
britains-world-war-ii-interrogation-centre-helen-fry-50353452
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
thumb was called u nā kab, literally “the mother of the hand” or arm,
and as a measure of length the distance from the first joint to the end
of the nail was in use and designated by the same term.
With the hand open and the fingers extended, there were three
different measures or spans recognized by the Mayas.
1. The nāb, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the middle
finger.
2. The oecnab, or little nāb, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of
the index finger. This is the span yet most in use by the native
inhabitants of Yucatan (Dr. Berendt).
3. The chi nāb, or the nāb which extends to the edge, from the tip
of the thumb to the tip of the little finger (Pio Perez).
The kok was a hand measure formed by closing the fingers and
extending the thumb. Measuring from the outer border of the hand
to the end of the thumb, it would be about seven inches.
The cuc or noch cuc (noch is a term applied to a bony prominence,
in this instance to the olecranon) was the cubit, and was measured
from the summit of the olecranon to the end of the fingers, about
eighteen inches.
The most important of the longer measures was the zap or zapal.
It was the distance between the extremities of the extended arms,
and is usually put down at a fathom or six feet.
The half of it was called betan or pātan, meaning “to the middle of
the chest.” Canes and cords were cut of the fixed length of the zap
and bore the name xapalche, zapsticks, as our yard-stiçk (che ==
stick), and hilppiz, measuring rods (hil, a species of cane, and ppiz, to
measure, Dicc. Motul).
On this as a unit, the customary land measure was based. It was
the kaan, one shorter, hun kaan tah ox zapalche, a kaan of three
zap, and one longer, hun kaan tah can zapalche, a kaan of four zap.
The former is stated to be thirty-six fathoms square, the latter forty-
eight fathoms square. Twenty kaan made a vinic, man, that amount
of land being considered the area requisite to support one family in
maize.
 The uncertainty about this measure is increased by the evident
error of Bishop Landa, or more probably his copyist, in making the
vinic equal to 400 square feet, which even in the most favored soils
would never support a family. He probably said “400 feet square,”
which in that climate would be sufficient. The kaan is said by
Spanish writers to be equal to the Mexican mecate, which contains
5184 square feet. I acknowledge, however, that I have not reconciled
all the statements reported by authors about these land measures.
Greater measures of length are rarely mentioned. Journeys were
measured by lub, which the Spaniards translated “leagues,” but by
derivation it means “resting places,” and I have not ascertained that
it had a fixed length.
The Mayas were given to the drawing of maps, and the towns had
the boundaries of their common lands laid out in definite lines. I
have manuscripts, some dated as early in 1542, which describe these
town lands. In most of them only the courses are given, but not the
distances. In one, a title to a domain in Acanceh, there are distances
given, but in a measure quite unknown to me, sicina, preceded by the
numeral and its termination indicating measures, hulucppiz sicina,
eleven sicinas.[399]
The maps indicate relative position only, and were evidently not
designed by a scale, or laid off in proportion to distance. The
distinguished Yucatecan antiquary, the Rev. Don Crescencio Carrillo,
in his essay on the cartography of the ancient Mayas,[400] apparently
came to the same conclusion, as he does not mention any method of
measurement.
I do not know of any measurements undertaken in Yucatan to
ascertain the metrical standard employed by the ancient architects. It
is true that Dr. Augustus LePlongeon asserts positively that they
knew and used the metric system, and that the metre and its
divisions are the only dimensions that can be applied to the remains
of the edifices.[401] But apart from the eccentricity of this statement, I
do not see from Dr. LePlongeon’s own measurements that the metre
is in any sense a common divisor for them.
 From the linguistic evidence, I incline to believe that the oc, the
foot, was their chief lineal unit. This name was also applied to the
seventh day of the series of twenty which made up the Maya month;
and there may be some connection between these facts and the
frequent recurrence of the number seven in the details of their
edifices.[402]

THE CAKCHIQUELS.

The root-word for measuring length is, in Cakchiquel, et. Its

primitive meaning is, a sign, a mark, a characteristic. From this root
are derived the verbal etah, to measure length, to lay out a plan, to
define limits; etal, a sign, mark, limit; etabal, measuring field;
etamah, to know, i. e., to recognize the signs and characters of
things; etamanizah, to cause to know, to teach, to instruct, etc.
My authorities do not furnish evidence that the Cakchiquels used
the foot as the unit of measurement, differing in this from the Mayas.
They had, however, like the latter, a series of measurements from the
ground to certain points of the body, and they used a special terminal
particle, bem (probably from be, to go), “up to” to indicate such
measurements, as vexibem, up to the girdle (vex, girdle, i,
connective, bem, up to, or “it goes to”).
These body measures, as far as I have found them named, are as
follows:
quequebem, from the ground to the knee.
ru-vach a, from the ground to the middle of the thigh; literally “its
front, the thigh,” ru, its, vach, face, front, a, the muscles of the thigh.
vexibem, from the ground to the girdle, vex.
qaalqaxibem, from the ground to the first true ribs.
kulim, from the ground to the neck (kul).
The more exact Cakchiquel measures were derived from the upper
extremity. The smallest was the finger breadth, and was spoken of as
one, two, three, four fingers, han ca, cay ca, ox ca, cah ca
(ca=finger). This was used in connection with the measure called
tuvic, the same that I have described as the Maya kok, obtained by
closing the hand and extending the thumb. They combined these in
such expressions as ca tuvic raqin han ca, two tuvics with (plus) one
finger breadth.[403]
The span of the Cakchiquels was solely that obtained by extending
the thumb and fingers and including the space between the
extremities of the thumb and middle finger. It was called qutu, from
the radical qut, which means to show, to make manifest, and is hence
akin in meaning to the root et, mentioned above.
The cubit, chumay, was measured from the point of the elbow to
the extremities of the fingers. We are expressly informed by Father
Coto that this was a customary building measure. “When they build
their houses they use this cubit to measure the length of the logs.
They also measure ropes in the same manner, and say, Tin chumaih
retaxic riqam, I lay out in cubits the rope with which I am to
measure.”
The different measures drawn from the arms were:
chumay, from the elbow to the end of the fingers of the same hand.
hahmehl, from the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the opposite
hand, the arms being outstretched.
telen, from the point of the shoulder of one side to the ends of the
fingers of the outstretched arm on the other side.
tzam telen, from the point of the shoulder to the ends of the
fingers on the same side. Tzam means nose, point, beak, etc.
ru vach qux, from the middle of the breast to the end of the
outstretched hand.
hah, from the tips of the fingers of one hand to those of the other,
the arms outstretched.
Another measure was from the point of the shoulder to the wrist.
The hah, or fathom, was one of the units of land measure, and the
corn fields and cacao plantations were surveyed and laid out with
ropes, qam, marked off in fathoms. The fields are described as of five
ropes, ten ropes, etc., but I have not found how many fathoms each
rope contained.
Another unit of land measure in frequent use was the maaoh. This
was the circumference of the human figure. A man stood erect, his
feet together, and both arms extended. The end of a rope was placed
under his feet and its slack passed over one hand, then on top of his
head, then over the other hand, and finally brought to touch the
beginning. This gives somewhat less than three times the height. This
singular unit is described by both Varea and Coto as in common use
by the natives.
There were no accurate measures of long distances. As among the
Mayas, journeys were counted by resting places, called in Cakchiquel
uxlanibal, literally “breathing places,” from uxla, the breath, itself, a
derivative of the radical ux, to exist, to be, to live, the breath being
taken as the most evident sign of life.
There was originally no word in Cakchiquel meaning “to weigh,” as
in a balance, and therefore they adopted the Spanish peso, as tin
pesoih, I weigh. Nor, although they constructed stone walls of
considerable height, did they have any knowledge of the plumb line
or plummet. The name they gave it even shows that they had no idea
what its use was, as they called it “the piece of metal for fastening
together,” supposing it to be an aid in cementing the stone work,
rather than in adjusting its lines.[404]

THE AZTECS.

In turning to the Mexicans or Aztecs, some interesting problems

present themselves. As far as I can judge by the Nahuatl language,
measures drawn from the upper extremity were of secondary
importance, and were not the bases of their metrical standards, and,
as I shall show, this is borne out by a series of proofs from other
directions.
 The fingers, mapilli, appear to have been customary measures.
They are mentioned in the early writers as one equal to an inch. The
name mapilli, is a synthesis of maitl, hand, and pilli, child, offspring,
addition, etc.
The span was called miztetl or miztitl, a word of obvious
derivation, meaning “between the finger nails,” from iztetl, finger
nail. This span, however, was not like ours, from the extremity of the
thumb to the extremity of the little finger, nor yet like that of the
Cakchiquels, from the extremity of the thumb to that of the middle
finger, but like that now in use among the Mayas (see above), from
the extremity of the thumb to that of the index finger.[405]
There were four measures from the point of the elbow; one to the
wrist of the same arm, a second to the wrist of the opposite arm, a
third to the ends of the fingers of the same arm, and the fourth to the
ends of the fingers of the opposite arm, the arms always considered
as extended at right angles to the body. The terms for these are given
somewhat confusedly in my authorities, but I believe the following
are correct.
1. From the elbow to the wrist of the same arm;
cemmatzotzopatzli, “a little arm measure,” from ce, a, one, ma from
maitl, arm or hand, tzotzoca, small, inferior, patzoa, to make small,
to diminish.
2. From the elbow to the wrist of the opposite arm, cemmitl, an
arrow, a shaft, from ce, and mitl, arrow, this distance being the
approved length of an arrow. We may compare the old English
expression, a “cloth-yard shaft.”
3. From the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the same arm,
cemmolicpitl, one elbow, ce, one, molicpitl, elbow. This is the cubit.
4. From the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the opposite arm.
The following were the arm measures:
Cemaçolli, from the tip of the shoulder to the end of the hand (ce,
one, maçoa, to extend the arm).
Cemmatl, from the tip of the fingers of one hand to those of the
other. Although this word is apparently a synthesis of ce, one, maitl,
arm, and means “one arm,” it is uniformly rendered by the early
writers una braza, a fathom.
Cenyollotli, from the middle of the breast to the end of the fingers
(ce, one, yollotl, breast).
It is known that the Aztecs had a standard measure of length which
they employed in laying out grounds and constructing buildings. It
was called the octacatl, but neither the derivation of this word, nor
the exact length of the measure it represented, has been positively
ascertained. The first syllable, oc, it will be noticed, is the same as the
Maya word for foot, and in Nahuatl xocopalli is “the sole of the foot.”
This was used as a measure by the decimal system, and there were in
Nahuatl two separate and apparently original words to express a
measure of ten foot-lengths. One was:
Matlaxocpallatamachiualoni, which formidable synthesis is
analyzed as follows: matla, from matlactli, ten, xocpal, from
xocpalli, foot-soles, tamachiuia, to measure (from machiotl, a sign
or mark, like the Cakchiquel etal) l, for lo, sign of the passive, oni, a
verbal termination “equivalent to the Latin bilis or dus.”[406] Thus the
word means that which is measurable by ten foot-lengths.
The second word was matlacyxitlatamachiualoni.
The composition of this is similar to the former, except that in the
place of the perhaps foreign root xoc, foot, yxitl, foot, is used, which
seems to have been the proper Nahuatl term.
As these words prove that the foot-length was one of the standards
of the Aztecs, it remains to be seen whether they enlighten us as to
the octacail. I quote in connection an interesting passage by the
native historian, Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl in his Historia
Chichimeca, published in Lord Kingsborough’s great work on Mexico
(Vol. ix., p. 242). Ixtlilxochitl is describing the vast communal
dwelling built by the Tezcucan chieftain Nezahualcoyotl, capable of
accommodating over two thousand persons. He writes: “These
houses were in length from east to west four hundred and eleven and
a half [native] measures, which reduced to our [Spanish] measures
make twelve hundred and thirty-four and a half yards (varas), and in
breadth, from north to south three hundred and twenty-six
measures, which are nine hundred and seventy-eight yards.”
This passage has been analyzed by the learned antiquary, Señor
Orozco y Berra.[407] The native measure referred to by Ixtlilxochitl
was that of Tezcuco, which was identical with that of Mexico. The
yard was the vara de Burgos, which had been ordered to be adopted
throughout the colony by an ordinance of the viceroy Antonio de
Mendoza. This vara was in length 0.838 metre, and, as according to
the chronicler, the native measurement was just three times this
(411½ x 3 = 1234½, and 326 x 3 = 978), it must have been 2.514
metre. This is equal in our measure to 9.842 feet, or, say, nine feet
ten inches.
This would make the octacatl identical with those long-named ten-
foot measures, which, as I have shown, were multiples of the length
of the foot, as is proved by an analysis of their component words.
This result is as interesting as it is new, since it demonstrates that
the metrical unit of ancient Mexico was the same as that of ancient
Rome—the length of the foot-print.
Some testimony of another kind may be brought to illustrate this
point.
In 1864, the Mexican government appointed a commission to
survey the celebrated ruins of Teotihuacan, under the care of Don
Ramon Almaraz. At the suggestion of Señor Orozco, this able
engineer ran a number of lines of construction to determine what
had been the metrical standard of the builders. His decision was that
it was “about” met. 0.8, or, say, 31½ inches.[408] This is very close to
an even third of the octacatl, and would thus be a common divisor of
lengths laid off by it.
I may here turn aside from my immediate topic to compare these
metrical standards with that of the Mound-Builders of the Ohio
valley.
In the American Antiquarian, April, 1881, Prof. W. J. McGee
applied Mr. Petrie’s arithmetical system of “inductive metrology” to a
large number of measurements of mounds and earthworks in Iowa,
with the result of ascertaining a common standard of 25.716 inches.
In 1883, Col. Charles Whittlesey, of Cleveland, analyzed eighty-
seven measurements of Ohio earthworks by the method of even
divisors and concluded that thirty inches was about the length, or
was one of the multiples, of their metrical standard.[409]
Moreover, fifty-seven per cent of all the lines were divisible
without remainder by ten feet. How much of this may have been
owing to the tendency of hurried measurers to average on fives and
tens, I cannot say; but leaving this out of the question, there is a
probability that a ten foot-length rule was used by the “mound-
builders” to lay out their works.
It may not be out of place to add a suggestion here as to the
applicability of the methods of inductive metrology to American
monuments. The proportions given above by Ixtlilxochitl, it will be
noted, are strikingly irregular (411½, 326). Was this accident or
design? Very likely the latter, based upon some superstitious or
astrological motive. It is far from a solitary example. It recurs
everywhere in the remarkable ruins of Mitla. “Careful attention,”
says Mr. Louis H. Aymé, “has been paid to make the whole
asymmetrical. * * * This asymmetry of Mitla is not accidental, I am
certain, but made designedly. M. Desiré Charnay tells me he has
observed the same thing at Palenque.” These examples should be a
warning against placing implicit reliance on the mathematical
procedures for obtaining the lineal standards of these forgotten
nations.[410]
Whatever the lineal standard of the Aztecs may have been, we have
ample evidence that it was widely recognized, very exact, and
officially defined and protected. In the great market of Mexico, to
which thousands flocked from the neighboring country (seventy
thousand in a day, says Cortes, but we can cut this down one-half in
allowance for the exaggeration of an enthusiast), there were regularly
appointed government officers to examine the measures used by the
merchants and compare them with the correct standard. Did they fall
short, the measures were broken and the merchant severely
punished as an enemy to the public weal.[411]
The road-measures of the Aztecs was by the stops of the carriers,
as we have seen was also the case in Guatemala. In Nahuatl these
were called neceuilli, resting places, or netlatolli, sitting places; and
distances were reckoned numerically by these, as one, two, three,
etc., resting places. Although this seems a vague and inaccurate
method, usage had attached comparatively definite ideas of distance
to these terms. Father Duran tells us that along the highways there
were posts or stones erected with marks upon them showing how
many of these stops there were to the next market-towns—a sort of
mile-stones, in fact. As the competition between the various markets
was very active, each set up its own posts, giving its distance, and
adding a curse on all who did not attend, or were led away by the
superior attractions of its rivals.[412]
So far as I have learned, the lineal measures above mentioned were
those applied to estimate superficies. In some of the plans of fields,
etc., handed down, the size is marked by the native numerals on one
side of the plan, which are understood to indicate the square
measure of the included tract. The word in Nahuatl meaning to
survey or measure lands is tlalpoa, literally “to count land,” from
tlalli land, poa to count.
The Aztecs were entirely ignorant of balances, scales or weights.
Cortes says distinctly that when he visited the great market of
Mexico-Tenochtitlan, he saw all articles sold by number and
measure, and nothing by weight.[413] The historian Herrera confirms
this from other authorities, and adds that when grass or hay was
sold, it was estimated by the length of a cord which could be passed
around the bundle.[414]
The plumb-line must have been unknown to the Mexicans also.
Their called it temetztepilolli, “the piece of lead which is hung from
on high,” from temetzli, lead, and piloa, to fasten something high up.
Lead was not unknown to the Aztecs before the conquest. They
collected it in the Provinces of Tlachco and Itzmiquilpan, but did not
esteem it of much value, and their first knowledge of it as a plummet
must have been when they saw it in the hands of the Spaniards.
Hence their knowledge of the instrument itself could not have been
earlier.
The conclusions to which the above facts tend are as follows:
1. In the Maya system of lineal measures, foot, hand, and body
measures were nearly equally prominent, but the foot unit was the
customary standard.
2. In the Cakchiquel system, hand and body measures were almost
exclusively used, and of these, those of the hand prevailed.
3. In the Aztec system, body measurements were unimportant,
hand and arm measures held a secondary position, while the foot
measure was adopted as the official and obligatory standard both in
commerce and architecture.
4. The Aztec terms for their lineal standard being apparently of
Maya origin, suggest that their standard was derived from that
nation.
5. Neither of the three nations was acquainted with a system of
estimation by weight, nor with the use of the plumb-line, nor with an
accurate measure of long distances.
 THE CURIOUS HOAX OF THE TAENSA
LANGUAGE.

O ne might think it a difficult task to manufacture a new language

“from the whole cloth;” but, in fact, it is no great labor. We have
but to remember that within the last dozen years more than a dozen
“world-languages” have been framed and offered for acceptance, and
we at once perceive that a moderate knowledge of tongues and some
linguistic ingenuity are all that is required.
It is an innocent amusement so long as no fraudulent use is made
of the manufactured product; but the temptation to play a practical
joke, and to palm off a deception on overeager linguists, is as great in
languages as it is in archæology—and every antiquary knows how
suspiciously he has to scrutinize each new specimen.
A curious hoax, which deceived some of the best linguists of
Europe and America, was perpetrated about a decade ago by two
young French seminarists, Jean Parisot and A. Dejouy. Interested by
reading Châteaubriand, and by various publications on American
languages which appeared in France about that time, they made up a
short grammar and a list of words of what they called the Tansa
language, from a name they found in Châteaubriand’s Voyage en
Amerique, and into this invented tongue they translated the Lord’s
Prayer, the Creed, an Algonkin hymn published in Paris, and other
material.
At first, the two students pursued this occupation merely as an
amusement, but it soon occurred to them that more could be made of
it; so M. Parisot sent a batch of the alleged “fragments” of the
“Tansa” to the publishers, Maisonneuve et Cie, Paris, for publication.
The manuscripts were passed over to M. Julien Vinson, editor of the
Révue de Linguistique, who addressed the young author for further
particulars. M. Parisot replied that these pieces were copies of
originals obtained many years before by his grandfather, from what
source he knew not, and on the strength of this vague statement, they
duly appeared in the Révue.
Their publication attracted the attention of the eminent French
linguist, M. Lucien Adam, who had long occupied himself with
American tongues, and he entered into correspondence with M.
Parisot. The latter’s stock meanwhile had considerably increased. He
and his friend had published at Epinal, apparently privately, a small
pamphlet, with an introductory note in bad Spanish, containing a
number of “songs” in the “Taensa,” as they now called their language.
They claimed in the note that the songs had been obtained by a
traveler in America, in the year 1827 or 1828, “in the Taensa town, on
the banks of the Mississippi or the Alabama”(!)[415]
With this abundant material at hand, young Parisot replied
cheerfully to M. Adam, and supplied that scientist with “copy” from
the alleged ancestral MSS. quite enough to fill a goodly volume of
grammar, songs, lexicon, and the various paraphernalia of a
linguistic apparatus, all of which eager M. Adam and his
collaborator, Mr. A. S. Gatschet, the expert linguist attached to our
Bureau of Ethnology, received in good faith and without a suspicion
of the joker who victimized them; and what is more singular, without
having a doubt excited by the many and gross blunders of the young
seminarist.
Their joint work reached the United States in 1883, and for two
years was received both here and in Europe as a genuine production.
My attention was first attracted to it in 1883, and then I referred to it
as a “strange” production; but I did not give it a close examination
until the close of 1884. This examination led me to prepare the
following article, which was published in the American Antiquarian
for March, 1885:
THE TAENSA GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY.

A Deception Exposed.
The student of American languages is under many obligations to
the editors and publishers of the Bibliothéque Linguistique
Américaine, nine volumes of which have been issued by the firm of
Maisonneuve et Cie., Paris. Most of these contain valuable authentic
original material, from approved sources, and edited with judgment.
The exception to this rule is the volume last issued, which from its
character deserves more than a passing criticism.
This volume bears the following title: Grammaire et Vocabulaire
de la Langue Taensa, avec Textes Traduits et Commentés par J. D.
Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam. Pp. 19, III. It contains what professes
to be a grammar of the Taensas Indians, who lived near the banks of
the lower Mississippi, in the parish of that name in Louisiana, when
it was first discovered, but who have long since become extinct.
Following the grammar are the “Texts,” a remarkable series of native
songs in the alleged Taensa tongue, with a French translation,
accompanied by a commentary and a vocabulary.
All this array has been received by scholars without question. It
looks so extremely scientific and satisfactory that no one has dared
assail its authenticity. Moreover, the book appears with an historical
introduction by Mr. Albert S. Gatschet, of our Bureau of Ethnology,
and one of the editors is M. Lucien Adam, a gentleman who stands at
the head of European Americanists. Mr. Gatschet, moreover, fully
recognizes the authenticity of the whole in his latest work, and up to
the present I know of no one who has doubted it, either in this
country or in Europe.
It is, therefore, only after a great deal of consideration and
hesitation that I now give publicity to the opinion I have long
entertained, that a gross deception has been somewhere practiced in
the preparation of this book, and that it is not at all what it purports
to be. Let it be understood that I distinctly exculpate the gentlemen I
have named from any share in this; they can only be charged with the
venial error of allowing their enthusiasm for knowledge to get the
better of their critical acumen.
I shall proceed to give with as much brevity as possible the reasons
which have led me to reject the pretended character of this work.
And first I may note that both the history of the alleged original
manuscript and the method in which it has been presented are to the
last degree unsatisfactory. About the former, M. Haumonté tells us
that among the papers of his grandfather, who died as mayor of
Plombères, in 1872, he found a manuscript in Spanish, without date
or name of author, and that it is this manuscript “translated and
arranged,” which is the work before us. M. Adam adds that for his
part he had revised this translation and advised the omission of
certain passages not “profitable to science.” I have been informed by
a private source that M. Adam was not shown the original Spanish
manuscript, although he asked to see it. We are deprived therefore of
any expert opinion as to the age of the manuscript, or its authorship.
We naturally ask, how did this manuscript come to be in Spanish?
No one has been able to point out in the voluminous histories of the
Spanish Missions a single reference to any among the Taensas.
Moreover, this tribe was constantly under French observation from
its first discovery by La Salle in 1682, until its entire destruction and
disappearance about 1730–40, as is minutely recorded by
Charlevoix, who even adds the name of the planter who obtained the
concession of their lands. With the knowledge we have of the early
Louisiana colony, it would have been next to impossible for a
Spanish monk to have lived with them long enough to have acquired
their language, and no mention to have been made of him in the
French accounts. That a Spaniard, not a monk, should have
attempted it, would have excited still more attention from national
distrust.
This preliminary ground of skepticism is not removed by turning
to the grammar itself. As M. Adam remarks, the language is one “of
extreme simplicity,” such simplicity that it excites more than the
feeling of astonishment. How much liberty M. Haumonté allowed
himself in his translation he unfortunately does not inform us; but I
suppose that he scarcely went so far as to offer original opinions on
the pronunciation of a language which no man has heard spoken for
more than a century. If he did not, then the writer of the original
manuscript must have been a pretty good linguist for his day, since
he explains the pronunciation of the Taensa by the French, the
English, the German, and the Spanish!! (p. 4). I suppose the
references on p. 11, to the Nahuatl, Kechua and Algonkin tongues are
by the translator, though we are not so told; at any rate, they are by
some one who has given a certain amount of study to American
languages, and could get up one not wholly unlike them. There is,
however, just enough unlikeness to all others in the so-called Taensa
to make us accept it “with all reserves,” as the French say. That an
American language should have a distinctively grammatical gender,
that it should have a true relative pronoun, that its numeral system
should be based on the nine units in the extraordinarily simple
manner here proposed, that it should have three forms of the plural,
that its verbs should present the singular simplicity of these,—these
traits are indeed not impossible, but they are too unusual not to
demand the best of evidence.
But the evidence which leaves no doubt as to the hum-buggery in
this whole business is found in the so-called “Cancionero Taensa,” or
Taensa Poems. There are eleven of these, and according to M. Adam,
“they give us unexpected information about the manners, customs
and social condition of the Taensas.” If he had also added, still more
unexpected information about the physical geography of Louisiana,
he would have spoken yet more to the point. For instance, our
botanists will be charmed to learn that the sugar maple flourishes in
the Louisiana swamps, and that it furnished a favorite food of the
natives. It is repeatedly referred to (pp. 31, 34, 45, 67). They will also
learn that the sugar cane was raised by the Taensas, although the
books say it was introduced into Louisiana by the Jesuits in 1761 (p.
45). The potato and rice, apples and bananas, were also familiar to
them, and the white birch and wild rice are described as flourishing
around the bayous of the lower Mississippi! It may be urged that
these are all mistranslations of misunderstood native words. To this I
reply, what sort of editing is that which not only could commit such
unpardonable blunders, but send them forth to the scientific world
without a hint that they do not pretend to be anything more than
guesses?
But no such apology can be made. The author of this fabrication
had not taken the simplest precaution to make his statements
coincide with facts. How dense was his ignorance of the climate of
Louisiana is manifested in the pretended “Calendar of the Taensas,”
which is printed on p. 41 of his book. He tells us that their year began
at the vernal equinox and consisted of twelve or thirteen months
named as follows:

1. Moon of the sugar maples (April).

2. Moon of flowers (May).
3. Moon of strawberries (June).
4. Moon of heat (July).
5. Moon of fruits (August).
6. Moon of the summer hunts (September).
7. Moon of leaves, (falling leaves) (October).
8. Moon of cold (November).
9. Moon of whiteness (i. e. of snow) (December).
10. Moon of fogs (January).
11. Moon of winter hunts (February).
12. Moon of birds (returning). } (March).
13. Moon of green (returning green). }

How absurd on the face of it, such a calendar would be for the
climate of Tensas Parish, La., need not be urged. The wonder is that
any intelligent editor would pass it over without hesitation. The not
infrequent references to snow and ice might and ought to have put
him on his guard.
The text and vocabulary teem with such impossibilities; while the
style of the alleged original songs is utterly unlike that reported from
any other native tribe. It much more closely resembles the stilted and
tumid imitations of supposed savage simplicity, common enough
among French writers of the eighteenth century.
As a fair example of the nonsense of the whole, I will translate the
last song given in the book, that called

THE MARRIAGE SONG.

1. The chief of the Chactas has come to the land of the warriors “I
come.” “Thou comest.”
2. Around his body is a beautiful garment, he wears large leggings,
sandals, tablets of white wood, feathers behind his head and behind
his shoulders, on his head the antlers of a deer, a heavy war club in
his right hand.
3. What is the wish of the great warrior who has come?
4. He wishes to speak to the chief of the numerous and powerful
Taensas.
5. Let the warrior enter the house of the old men. The chief is
seated in the midst of the old men. He will certainly hear thee. Enter
the house of the old men.
6. Great chief, old man, I enter. Thou comest. Enter; bring him in.
What wishes the foreign warrior? Speak, thou who hast come.
7. Old men, ancient men, I am the chief of many men; at ten days’
journey up the river there lies the land of poplars, the land of the
wild rice, which belongs to the brave warriors, the brothers of the
Taensas.
8. They said to me—since thou hast not chosen a bride, go to the
Taensas our brothers, ask of them a bride; for the Chactas are strong;
we will ask a bride of the Taensas.
9. That is well; but speak, warrior, are the Chactas numerous?
10. Count; they are six hundred, and I am stronger than ten.
11. That is well; but speak, do they know how to hunt the buffalo
and the deer? does the squirrel run in your great forests?
12. The land of the wild rice has no great forests, but cows, stags
and elks dwell in our land in great numbers.
 13. What plants grow in your country?
14. Poplars, the slupe tree, the myrtle grow there, we have the
sugar maple, ebony to make collars, the oak from which to make war
clubs; our hills have magnolias whose shining leaves cover our
houses.
15. That is well; the Taensas have neither the slupe tree nor the
ebony, but they have the wax tree and the vine: has the land of the
wild rice these also?
16. The Taensas are strong and rich, the Chactas are strong also,
they are the brothers of the Taensas.
17. The Taensas love the brave Chactas, they will give you a bride;
but say, dost thou come alone? dost thou bring bridal presents.
18. Twenty warriors are with me, and bulls drag a wain.
19. Let six, seven, twenty Taensa warriors go forth to meet those
who come. For thee, we will let thee see the bride, she is my
daughter, of me, the great chief; she is young; she is beautiful as the
lily of the waters; she is straight as the white birch; her eyes are like
unto the tears of gum that distil from the trees; she knows how to
prepare the meats for the warriors and the sap of the sugar maple;
she knows how to knit the fishing nets and keep in order the
weapons of war—we will show thee the bride.
20. The strangers have arrived, the bulls have dragged up the wain.
The warrior offers his presents to the bride, paint for her eyes, fine
woven stuff, scalps of enemies, collars, beautiful bracelets, rings for
her feet, and swathing-bands for her first born.
21. The father of the bride and the old man receive skins, horns of
deer, solid bows and sharpened arrows.
22. Now let the people repose during the night; at sunrise there
shall be a feast; then you shall take the bride in marriage.
And this is the song of the marriage.

The assurance which has offered this as a genuine composition of a

Louisiana Indian is only equalled by the docility with which it has
been accepted by Americanists. The marks of fraud upon it are like
Falstaff’s lies—“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” The Choctaws
are located ten days’ journey up the Mississippi in the wild rice
region about the head-waters of the stream, whereas they were the
immediate neighbors of the real Taensas, and dwelt when first
discovered in the middle and southern parts of the present State of
Mississippi. The sugar maple is made to grow in the Louisiana
swamps, the broad-leaved magnolia and the ebony in Minnesota.
The latter is described as the land of the myrtle, and the former of
the vine. The northern warrior brings feet-rings and infant clothing
as presents, while the southern bride knows all about boiling maple
sap, and is like a white birch. But the author’s knowledge of
aboriginal customs stands out most prominently when he has the up-
river chief come with an ox-cart and boast of his cows! After that
passage I need say nothing more. He is indeed ignorant who does not
know that not a single draft animal, and not one kept for its milk,
was ever found among the natives of the Mississippi valley.
I have made other notes tending in the same direction, but it is
scarcely necessary for me to proceed further. If the whole of this
pretended Taensa language has been fabricated, it would not be the
first time in literary history that such a fraud has been perpetrated.
In the last century, George Psalmanazar framed a grammar of a
fictitious language in Formosa, which had no existence whatever. So
it seems to be with the Taensa; not a scrap of it can be found
elsewhere, not a trace of any such tongue remains in Louisiana. What
is more, all the old writers distinctly deny that this tribe had any
independent language. M. De Montigny, who was among them in
1699, Father Gravier, who was also at their towns, and Du Pratz, the
historian, all say positively that the Taensas spoke the Natchez
language, and were part of the same people. We have ample
specimens of the Natchez, and it is nothing like this alleged Taensa.
Moreover, we have in old writers the names of the Taensa villages
furnished by the Taensas themselves, and they are nowise akin to the
matter of this grammar, but are of Chahta-Muskoki derivation.
What I have now said is I think sufficient to brand this grammar
and its associated texts as deceptions practiced on the scientific
world. If it concerns the editors and introducers of that work to
discover who practiced and is responsible for that deception, let the
original manuscript be produced and submitted to experts; if this is
not done, let the book be hereafter pilloried as an imposture.

As soon as I could obtain reprints of the above article I forwarded

them to M. Adam and others interested in American languages, and
M. Adam at once took measures to obtain from the now “Abbé”
Parisot the original MSS. That young ecclesiastic, however, professed
entire ignorance of their whereabouts; he had wholly forgotten what
disposition he had made of this portion of his grandfather’s papers!
He also charged M. Adam with having worked over (remanié) his
material; and finally disclaimed all responsibility concerning it.
In spite, however, of his very unsatisfactory statements, M. Adam
declined to recognize the fabrication of the tongue, and expressed
himself so at length in a brochure entitled, Le Taensa a-t-il été forgé
de toutes Pièces? Réponse à M. Daniel G. Brinton (pp. 22,
Maissonneuve Frères et Ch. Leclerc, Paris, 1885). The argument
which he made use of will be seen from the following reply which I
published in The American Antiquarian, September, 1885:

THE TAENSA GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY.

The criticism on the Taensa Grammar published in the American

Antiquarian last March has led to a reply from M. Lucien Adam, the
principal editor, under the following title: “Le Taensa a-t-il-été forgé
de toutes Piéces?” As the question at issue is one of material
importance to American archæology, I shall state M. Adam’s
arguments in defense of the Grammar.
It will be remembered that the criticism published last March
closed with an urgent call for the production of the original MS.,
which M. Adam himself had never seen. To meet this, M. Adam as
soon as practicable applied to M. Parisot, who alleged that he had
translated the Grammar from the Spanish original, to produce that
original. This M. Parisot professed himself unable to do; although
only two or three years have elapsed, he cannot remember what he
did with it, and he thinks it possible that it is lost or destroyed! The
investigations, however, reveal two facts quite clearly: first, that the
original MS., if there was one, was not in Spanish as asserted, and
was not in the handwriting of M. Parisot’s grandfather, as was also
asserted, as the latter was certainly not the kind of man to occupy
himself with any such document. He kept a sort of boardinghouse,
and the suggestion now is that one of his temporary guests left this
supposed MS. at his house. As its existence is still in doubt, this
uncertainty about its origin need not further concern us.
The more important question is whether the language as presented
in the Grammar and texts bears internal evidence of authenticity or
not.
M. Adam begins with the texts, the so-called poems. To my
surprise, M. Adam, so far as they pretend to be native productions,
tosses them overboard without the slightest compunction. “In my
own mind,” he writes, “I have always considered them the work of
some disciple of the Jesuit Fathers, who had taken a fancy to the
Taensa poetry.” This emphatic rejection of their aboriginal origin has
led me to look over the volume again, as it seemed to me that if such
was the opinion of the learned editor he should certainly have hinted
it to his readers. Not the slightest intimation of the kind can be found
in its pages.
The original MS. having disappeared, and the texts having been
ruled out as at best the botch-work of some European, M. Adam
takes his stand on the Grammar and maintains its authenticity with
earnestness.
I named in my criticism six points in the grammatical structure of
the alleged Taensa, specifying them as so extremely rare in American
languages, that it demanded the best evidence to suppose that they
all were present in this extraordinary tongue.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com