228 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 28 



thus far been found, but the description of this manuscript agrees 

 perfectly with our manuscript, fragment XVI (plate xxi). For our 

 manuscript is also written on agave paper, and in the representations 

 the numerals alongside the pictures are very conspicuous. I therefore 

 deem it not only possible, but highly probable, that our fragment XVI 

 is the manuscript described by Boturini, number 2, section 25. 



Our manuscript, inferior as it is to the paintings of the old pagan 

 time, is nevertheless superior to the manuscripts of a religious char- 

 acter in the Aubin-Goupil collection by reason of a certain vigorous 

 style. I am under the impression that the Aubin-Goupil picture 

 catechisms were executed by European priests, but that the old 

 aboriginal Indian training is evident in the drawing of our fragment 

 XVI (plate xxi). 



CONCLUSION 



The 16 (properly 14) picture manuscripts in the Alexander 

 von Hmnboldt collection, however limited the contents of the separate 

 fragments (excepting the first one) present a good synopsis of the 

 various styles and of the various purposes for which it became 

 necessary to ejnploy hieroglyphs in old pagan and early Christian 

 times. They are not only of archeologic interest and of interest in 

 the history of civilization, but some of them, as we have seen, are also 

 of positive historic value; for, as I have shown, it seems possible 

 to establish a firm chronologic basis only by acting on the indications 

 offered by fragment I of our collection. Some fragments, namely, 

 I, III, and IV (plate ii to vi, viii, and ix), belong to the old pagan 

 period. Others certainly originated in early Christian times: VI 

 (plate xi) is to be attributed to a period prior to A. D. 1545; II 

 (plate vii), before A, D. 1565; XIII (plate xviii) bears the date 

 1569; VII (plate xii), the date 1571, and the other fragments also 

 can not be much later than these. As for the place where they origi- 

 nated, I can unfortunately say nothing positive in regard to I (plates 

 II to vi) ; III (plate viii) and IV (plate ix) came from Huamantla, 

 in the state of Tlaxcallan; II (plate vii) came from the immediate 

 neighborhood of the Mexican capital; while VI (plate xi) and VIII 

 (plate xiv) are from the kingdom of Tezcuco; VII, XII, XIII, and 

 XVIII, from Mizquiyauallan, in the land of the Otomi; and XIV 

 (plate XIX ) possibly from the kingdom of the Chalcas. Several of 

 the manuscripts seem to express plainly the differences which existed 

 among the Mexican-speaking races in spite of all their similarity in 

 civilization, mode of living, and ways of thinking, and they are 

 otherwise very instructive, as we have seen. 



Our great countryman, whose field of labor lay in quite another 

 domain, rescued these fragments from among a number of docuinents, 

 which at the time were the prey of chance in Mexico. Since then 



