DID THE ROMANS COLONIZE AMERICA ? 237 



their vitality. There were — and are yet — visible deep impresses in the character 

 of the Aborigines — the distinct marks of nationality — made by the silent but sure 

 forces of thought and habit for countless ages. These, doubtless, descended 

 from the earliest generations here. They indicate, beyond question, an antece- 

 dent type long existent somewhere in history, ^ Thirdly, the language of the 

 earliest colonists of America is full of evidences of illustrious birth. Those people 

 were neither beast nor savage. Their speech was not the gibberish of the untu- 

 tored barbarian ; it was, indeed, a speech which by common consent had origin 

 in cultured minds. 



The three factors in our problems are all productive or illustrative of civili- 

 zation. What era in the world's history does that civilization represent? 



The answer to this query — the index to the theory of these papers — lies in 

 the title we have chosen, "Did the Romans colonize America?" 



We consider first the most universal of the testimonies reflecting the Indian's 

 origin. We say universal, for whithersoever the man wandered over the conti- 

 nent, he left behind him as a testimonial, the shreds of his language. Let us see 

 if we can unravel the strange woof contained in the words found here represent- 

 ing the earliest peoples of the Western World. Mr. Jefferson in "Notes on Vir- 

 ginia," has said that " a knowledge of their several languages would be the most 

 certain evidence of their common derivation. . . . Were vocabu- 

 laries formed of all the languages spoken in North and South America, preserv- 

 ing their appellations ... it would furnish opportunities 



to construct the best evidence of the derivation of this part of the human 

 family." This, indeed, touches the very key-note of the subject. The appella- 

 tions of a nation are always indicative of their origin. This fact is observable all 

 over the world. German people usually do not adopt French names. Nor does 

 the nomenclature of France savor of Ireland or China. China does not borrow 

 her words from the Hottentot of Africa, nor from the nations of Britain. And 

 whence, then, came the "appellations" of the Aborigines of America? 



The most common, and the most universal, and at the same time the most 

 ancient, of the Indian "appellations" have been "preserved." They are the 

 river names of the continent. These words are the very oldest testimonies that 

 exist, delineating the speech of the earliest dominant races in America. Exactly 

 how old they are, it is impossible to tell. But it is well known that they are not 

 the coinage of the rude people found here in the 15th and i6th centuries, any 

 more than that the names of the rivers of the Old World are due to the present 

 nations there. All geographical nomenclature, with rare exceptions, belongs to 

 remote periods — much of it in the Old World, as well as in the New, to the pre- 

 historic ages. 2 The Indian names of our rivers belong to a period when one 

 common language was known, when one dominant race ruled, throughout the 



1 See Irviug's " Life and Voyages of Columbus," Vol. I, pages 139-141. This authority is 

 quoted as more convenient and accessible to the general reader than the Spanish originals to 

 which Irving refers. 



2 The origin of many of the most common European and Asiatic names on the maps of 

 the world is unknown. 



