THOMAS.] MEXICANS AND MOUND-BUILDERS. 729 



sustained. The i)eoples of the two sections have been too long separated 

 from each other to render such a supposition admissible. 



Linguistic evidence leads to the same conclusion. Time is an element 

 in the development of languages that can not be overlooked, notwith- 

 standing the widely different views entertained in regard to it. Even 

 accepting the views of those assigning the most limited period to the 

 formaticm of languages and adopting the theory of more than one origi- 

 nal migration, the time required for the differentiation into the numer- 

 ous stocks and dialects of the different sections of the North American 

 continent must have been very great. That the various stocks and 

 dialects of the Mexican and Central American section, as also of the 

 Atlantic section or mound area, have been differentiated since separa- 

 tion from the main stock, if ever they were united, must be admitted; 

 and that this development took place chiefly in their respective areas 

 maybe safely assumed from the respective positions of the branches. 

 This must have required a long period of time and presents a very 

 formidable obstacle to any other view than that the Indians of the 

 mound area were the authors of the ancient works found therein. 



Analogy also leads to the same conclusion. The ancient remains of 

 other sections of North America and also of South America are trace- 

 able in most cases to the races found inhabiting those sections when 

 lirst discovered by Europeans. Few if any students of American arclie- 

 ology entertain any longer a doubt that the monuments of Mexico and 

 Central America are attributable to the direct ancestors of the people 

 found occupying those countries at the time of the Spanish conquest. 

 Hubert H. Bancroft, speaking of the remaining evidences of Central 

 American civilization, remarks as follows: "I deem tlie grounds suffi- 

 cient therefore for accepting this Central American civilization of the 

 past as a fact, referring it not to an extinct ancient race, but to the 

 direct anceistors of the people still occupying the country with the Span- 

 iards."' Dr. D. G. Brinton, in liis work entitled " Tlie American Eace," 

 makes the following statement : " We can not identify the builders of the 

 ruined cities of Palenque in Tobasco and Copan in Honduras with the 

 ancestors of any known tribe, but the archeological evidence is conclu- 

 sive that whoever they were they belonged to this stock (the Maya) and 

 spoke one of its dialects."^ A little further on he adds: "Atthetimeof 

 the conquest the stately structures of Copan, Palenque T'Ho and many 

 other cities were deserted and (^overeil with an apparently primitive 

 forest; but others not inferior to them, Uxmal, Chichen-Itza, Peten, 

 etc., were the centers of dense population, proving that the builders of 

 both were identical." ^ Marquis de Nadaillac, who embraces the Mayas, 

 Aztecs, and other Central American stocks in the " Nahaiitl race," says 

 that " it is to various branches of this conquering race that we owe the 

 ruined monuments still scattered over Mexico, Yucatan, Honduras, 



' Native Races, vol. ii, p. 117. ' P. 153. » P. 155. 



