vii. A similar feature is in the map described by Peschel in the

_Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde in Leipzig_ (1871). It is also to be seen in the Homem map of about 1540 (given in Vol. II. p. 446), and in the map which Major assigns to Baptista Agnese, and which was published in Paris in 1875 as a _Portulan de Charles Quint._ (Cf. Vol. II. p. 445.)

[770] There is a fac-simile of Ziegler’s map in Vol. II. 434; also in Goldsmid’s ed. of Hakluyt (Edinb., 1885), and in Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, i. 52.

[771] The map (1551) of Gemma Frisius in Apian is much the same.

[772] In the Basle ed. of the _Historia de Gentium_. Cf. Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, vol. i., who says that the map originally appeared in Magnus’s _Auslegung und Verklarung der Neuen Mappen von den Alten Goettenreich_ (Venice, 1539); and is different from the map which appeared in the intermediate edition of 1555 at Rome, a part of which is also annexed.

[773] The same is done in the Ptolemy of 1548 (Venice). There is a fac-simile in Nordenskjöld’s _Studien_, p. 35.

[774] See Vol. IV. p. 84.

[775] We find it in the Nancy globe of about 1540 (see Vol. IV. p. 81); in the Mercator gores of 1541 (Vol. II. p. 177); and in the Ruscelli map of 1544 (Vol. II. p. 432), where Greenland (Grotlandia) is simply a neck connecting Europe with America; and in Gastaldi “Carta Marina,” in the Italian Ptolemy of 1548, where it is a protuberance on a similar neck (see Vol. II. 435; IV. 43; and Nordenskjöld’s _Studien_, 43). The Rotz map of 1542 seems to be based on the same material used by Mercator in his gores, but he adds a new confusion in calling Greenland the “Cost of Labrador.” Cf. Winsor’s _Kohl Maps_, no. 104. The “Grutlandia” of the Vopellio map of 1556 is also continuous with Labrador (see Vol. II. 436; IV. 90).

[776] See Vol. IV. pp. 42, 82.

[777] In the edition of 1562, which repeated the map, the cartographer Moletta (Moletius) testified that its geography had been confirmed “by letters and marine charts sent to us from divers parts.”

[778] Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1561.

[779] Lok’s map of 1582 calls it “Groetland,” the landfall of “Jac. Scolvus,” the Pole. Cf. Vol. III. 40.

[780] For Mercator’s map, see Vol. II. 452; IV. 94, 373. Ortelius’ separate map of Scandia is much the same. It is the same with the map of Phillipus Gallæus, dated 1574, but published at Antwerp in 1585 in the _Theatri orbis terrarum Enchiridion_. Gilbert’s map in 1576 omits the “Grocland” (Vol. III. 203). Both features, however, are preserved in the Judæis of 1593 (Vol. IV. 97), in the Wytfliet of 1597 (Vol. II. 459), in Wolfe’s Linschoten in 1598 (Vol. III. 101), and in Quadus in 1600 (Vol. IV. 101). In the Zaltière map of 1566 (Vol. II. 451; IV. 93), in the Porcacchi map of 1572 (Vol. II. 96, 453; IV. 96), and in that of Johannes Martines of 1578, the features are too indefinite for recognition. Lelewel (i. pl. 7) gives a Spanish mappemonde of 1573.

[781] In fac-simile in Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, i. 247.

[782] Vol. III p. 98.

[783] A paper by H. Rink in the _Geografisk Tidskrift_ (viii. 139) entitled “Ostgrönländerne i deres Forhold till Vestgrönländerne og de övrige Eskimostammer,” is accompanied by drafts of the map of G. Tholacius, 1606, and of Th. Thorlacius, 1668-69,—the latter placing East Bygd on the east coast near the south end. K. J. V. Steenstrup, on Osterbygden in _Geog. Tidskrift_, viii. 123, gives facsimiles of maps of Jovis Carolus in 1634; of Hendrick Doncker in 1669. Sketches of maps by Johannes Meyer in 1652, and by Hendrick Doncker in 1666, are also given in the _Geografisk Tidskrift_, viii. (1885), pl. 5.

[784] _Voyages des Pais Septentrionaux,_—a very popular book.

[785] _Chips from a German Workshop_, i. 327.

[786] _Archæological Tour_, p. 202.

[787] The earliest fixed date for the founding of Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) is 1325. Brasseur tells us that Carlos de Sigüenza y Gongora made the first chronological table of ancient Mexican dates, which was used by Boturini, and was improved by Leon y Gama,—the same which Bustamante has inserted in his edition of Gomara. Gallatin (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, i.) gave a composite table of events by dates before the Conquest, which is followed in Brantz Mayer’s _Mexico as it was_, i. 97. Ed. Madier de Montjau, in his _Chronologie hiéroglyphico-phonétique des Rois Astéques de 1352 à 1522_, takes issue with Ramirez on some points.

[788] Bancroft (v. 199) gives references to those writers who have discussed this question of giants. Bandelier’s references are more in detail (_Arch. Tour_, p. 201). Short (p. 233) borrows largely the list in Bancroft. The enumeration includes nearly all the old writers. Acosta finds confirmation in bones of incredible largeness, often found in his day, and then supposed to be human. Modern zoölogists say they were those of the Mastodon. Howarth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 297.

[789] See _Native Races_, ii. 117; v. 24, 27.

[790] Sometimes it is said they came from the Antilles, or beyond, easterly, and that an off-shoot of the same people appeared to the early French, explorers as the Natchez Indians. We have, of course, offered to us a choice of theories in the belief that the Maya civilization came from the westward by the island route from Asia. This misty history is nothing without alternatives, and there are a plenty of writers who dogmatize about them.

[791] _Constituciones diocesanas del obispado de Chiappas_ (Rome, 1702).

[792] _Nat. Races_, v. 160.

[793] _Hist. Nations Civilisées_, i. 37, 150, etc. _Popul Vuh_, introd., sec. v. Bancroft relates the Votan myth, with references, in _Nat. Races_, iii. 450. Brasseur identifies the Votanites with the Colhuas, as the builders of Palenqué, the founders of Xibalba, and thinks a branch of them wandered south to Peru. There are some stories of even pre-Votan days, under Igh and Imox. Cf. H. De Charency’s “Myth d’Imos,” in the _Annales de philosophie Chrétienne_, 1872-73, and references in Bancroft, v. 164, 231.

[794] _Native Races_, ii. 121, etc.

[795] Bancroft (v. 236) points to Bradford, Squier, Tylor, Viollet-le-Duc, Bartlett, and Müller, with Brasseur in a qualified way, as in the main agreeing in this early disjointing of the Nashua stock, by which the Maya was formed through separation from the older race.

[796] Enforced, for instance, by one of the best of the later Mexican writers, Orozco y Berra, in his _Geografía de las lenguas y Carta Ethnografica de México_ (Mexico, 1865).

[797] Tylor, _Anahuac_, 189, and his _Early Hist. Mankind_, 184. Orozco y Berra, _Geog._, 124. Bancroft, v. 169, note. The word Maya was first heard by Columbus in his fourth voyage, 1503-4. We sometimes find it written Mayab. It is usual to class the people of Yucatan, and even the Quiché-Cakchiquels of Guatemala and those of Nicaragua, under the comprehensive term of Maya, as distinct from the Nahua people farther north.

[798] _Nat. Races_, v. 186.

[799] Brinton, with his view of myths, speaks of the attempt of the Abbé Brasseur to make Xibalba an ancient kingdom, with Palenqué as its capital, as utterly unsupported and wildly hypothetical (_Myths_, 251).

[800] Perhaps by Gucumatz (who is identified by some with Quetzalcoatl), leading the Tzequiles, who are said to have appeared from somewhere during one of Votan’s absences, and to have grown into power among the Chanes, or Votan’s people, till they made Tulan, where they lived, too powerful for the Votanites. Bancroft (v. 187) holds this view against Brasseur.

[801] Perhaps Ococingo, or Copan, as Bancroft conjectures (v. 187).

[802] As Sahagún calls it, meaning, as Bancroft suggests, Tabasco.

[803] Short (p. 248) points out that the linguistic researches of Orozco y Berra (_Geografía de las Lenguas de México_, 1-76) seem to confirm this.

[804] See p. 158.

[805] Kirk says (Prescott’s _Mexico_): “Confusion arises from the name of Chichimec, originally that of a single tribe, and subsequently of its many offshoots, being also used to designate successive hordes of whatever race.” Some have seen in the Waiknas of the Mosquito Coast, and in the Caribs generally, descendants of these Chichimecs who have kept to their old social level. The Caribs, on other authority, came originally from the stock of the Tupis and Guaranis, who occupied the region south of the Amazon, and in Columbus’s time they were scattered in Darien and Honduras, along the northern regions of South America, and in some of the Antilles (Von Martius, _Beiträge sur Ethnographie and Sprachenkunde Amerika’s zumal Brasilìens_, Leipzig, 1867). Bancroft (ii. 126) gives the etymology of Chichimec and of other tribal designations. Cf. Buschmann’s _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_ (Berlin, 1853). Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 200; _Peabody Mus. Repts._,