X.

Xalisco, Toltec station, 245.

Xan, Quiché messenger, 224.

Xbalanque, Quiché hero, 222–3.

Xelhua, builder of Cholula, 236.

Xibalba, kingdom of Votanites, tradition of fall, 220–26; date of, 227; fall of, a theme for poetry, 515; hatred of, 221.

Xicalancas, 234; origin of, 234.

Xicalanco, Mexican city, 234.

Xmucane, 222–3.

Xochicalco, pyramid of, 370–3.

Xochimilcos, Nahua tribe, 256.

Xpiyacoc, 222.

Xquiq, Xibalban princess, 223.

Y.

Yamkally language, traces of Aztec in, 490.

Yaqui, Mexican tribe, 219.

Yazoo Valley mounds, 71.

Yellowstone, mounds of, 31.

Yond Mountain, 73.

Yucatan, origin of population, 229–30; Greek gods in, 467.

Yztachnexucha, 246.

Z.

Zacotlan, Toltec station, 246.

Zamna, Maya culture hero, 229–30.

Zapotecs, Mexican nation, 234; antiquities of, 360–64.

Zárate, on the Aztec, 486.

Zayi, Casa Grande of, 353.

Zipacua, Xibalban warrior, 222.

Ziuhcohuatl, Toltec station, 246.

Zumárraga, destruction of Aztec MS. by, 429.

Zuñi, description of, 288–89; Valley, Pueblos of, 288.

Zutugil, language, 476.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Las Casas: _Historia de Indias_, lib. I, cap. 40, tom. I, MS. Irving: _Columbus_, vol. I, p. 158 (N. Y., 1851 ed.). Navarrete: _Coleccion de los viajes_, tom. I, p. 176. Grynaeus: _Novus Orbis_, p. 66, Basil, 1555, fol. Herrera: _Historia General_, Dec. I, lib. I, cap’s ii et vi, Madrid, 1730.

[2] Rafn: _Antiquitates Americanæ_, p. 45, note. Rafn: _Op. cit._, pp. xxx–xxxiii.

[3] Rafn: _Historia Thorfinni Karlsefnii_ (in Ant. Am.), pp. 149, 181; also, De Costa: _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, pp. xxxii, xxxiii, 21, 41, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 74, 110; Gravier: _Découverte de l’Amérique par les Normands au Xᵉ Siècle_, p. 83. Paris, 1874, 4to.

[4] Prof. Jos. Leidy, in _Hayden’s 6th Ann. Report of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories_ (1872), pp. 652–3, describes the stone implements found in the Bridger basin in southern Wyoming. He remarks, “The question arises, who made the stone implements and when, and why should they occur in such great numbers in the particular localities indicated. My friend, Dr. J. Van A. Carter, residing at Fort Bridger, and well acquainted with the language, history, manners, and customs of the neighboring tribes of Indians, informs me that they know nothing about them. He reports that the Shoshones look upon them as the gift of God to their ancestors. They were no doubt made long ago, some probably at a comparatively late date, that is to say, just prior to communication of the Indians with the whites, but others probably date centuries back.”

[5] It would be foreign to the object of this work to enter upon a discussion of the antiquity of man in Europe. Were we to follow the example of several writers on the antiquities of America, we might present a resumé of the splendid achievements of science in determining the approximate age of man, as an inhabitant of different portions of the old world, but such condensed accounts at best are unsatisfactory and often detrimental to science because of their very slenderness. The evidences of man’s antiquity being far more remote than the generally accepted historic period, antedating its beginning by several thousand years, no doubt exist. The discoveries in the Liége caverns, in the caves of Languedoc and in the cave of Engihoul in Belgium; in the Neanderthal and Engis caves; at Abbeville and Amians; the valley of the Somme; the basin of the Seine; of the Thames; and of the lake dwellers of Switzerland, as well as the shell-heaps of Denmark, point to an antiquity which half a century ago it would have been heresy to have dreamed of. We have but to refer to the admirable work of Sir Charles Lyell: _The Antiquity of Man_ (Phil., 1863), and to the well-known works of Lubbock, Tylor, Vogt, and others. A good treatment of the subject in brief will be found in Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._ (1873), and a pointed and popular reference to it in Bryant’s _History of the U. S._, vol. I. N. Y., 1876.

[6] _Evidences of the Antiquity of Man in the U. S._, by Col. Charles Whittlesey. A memoir of 20 pp. Perhaps the chief importance of the above-cited cave discoveries is derived from the eminence of the antiquarian who cites them, rather than in their real value to science. In the case of the Elyria cave—examined by Dr. E. W. Hubbard, Prof. J. Brainerd, and the author of the memoir—“the grindstone grit,” resting on shale, formed a grotto of considerable size. Four feet of the floor of the cave, consisting of charcoal, ashes and bones of the wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, squirrels, fishes, snakes and birds (“all of which existed in this region when it became known to the whites”), was removed and three human skeletons discovered. The author states that the three had been crushed by a large slab of the overhanging sandstone falling on them, but fails to state how much of the overlying material consisted of this sandstone slab. He remarks: “Judging from the appearance of the bones, and the depth of the accumulations over them, two thousand years may have elapsed since the human skeletons were laid on the floor of this cave.” The Louisville cave discovery is no more satisfactory than the above. It is scarcely necessary to remark that all the evidences are of a comparatively recent interment, and much less than two thousand years would have been sufficient to produce the conditions described. See also discoveries at High Rock Spring, Saratoga, N. Y., cited by Col. Whittlesey, p. 10, and more fully treated by Dr. McGuire in the “_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._,” vol. xii, p. 398, May, 1839, in which the latter claims to find traces of the Red man 5470 years ago. It is not probable that Dr. McGuire’s _traces_ are those of the Indians, nor is it certain that they were left by human beings at all, since the pine tree (found at a considerable depth and worn as he supposes by the feet of Indians) was as liable to have been worn by the feet of animals as of men. See also Dr. Abbott, _The Stone Age in New Jersey_, Smithsonian Report, 1874, p. 246 _et seq._ See this work, pp. 127–8.

[7] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, Washington, 1848, 4to, 1st vol. of Smithsonian Contributions; _Dr. J. A. Lapham: Antiquities of Wisconsin_, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 1855. More recently—_The Upper Mississippi_, by _George Gale_, Chicago, 1868; _The Mississippi Valley_, by _Dr. J. W. Foster_, Chicago, 1869, 8vo, and his _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, Chicago, 1873, 8vo. We might add a list of names scarcely less eminent, of authors who have written upon special fields and examined particular works. A reliable bibliography of literature on the Mound-builders is a desideratum which we trust some enterprising Americanist may soon supply.

[8] Described by Dr. Wm. Blanding in a letter to Dr. Morton, of Philadelphia. Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 148, and _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 105. Foster: p. 151.

[9] Squier: _Antiquities of Western New York_, vol. ii, Smithsonian Contributions, 1851. See an interesting account of the _Antiquities of Orleans County, New York_, by F. H. Cushing, in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 375.

[10] _Antiquity of Man in U. S._, p. 12; also, _Ancient Earth Forts of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio_, by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, Cleveland, O., 1871, pp. 40 and plates.

[11] _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 145.

[12] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 364 _et seq._, from which we draw the above. _The Proceedings of the American Ass. for the Adv. of Science_ for 1875.

[13] See Mr. Gillman’s in _Sixth Annual Report of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology_, p. 12 _et seq._, Cambridge, 1873, and _Am. Jour. of Arts and Sciences_, 3d ser., vol. vii, pp. 1–9, Jan., 1874.

[14] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 151. “There is a large mound, three hundred feet high and three hundred yards in diameter at the base, at the southern end of the prairie, about twenty-five miles from Olympia; and scattered over the prairie for a distance of fifteen miles are many smaller mounds, not more than four feet high and twenty or thirty in diameter. * * * A few days ago one of the engineers of the Northern Pacific Railroad opened one of them and found the remains of pottery; and a more thorough examination of others revealed other curious relics, evidently the work of human hands; in fact, in every mound that has yet been opened there is some relic of a long-forgotten race discovered.” In quoting the above, Dr. Foster remarks that the great mound was no doubt a natural eminence artificially rounded off.

[15] _Narrative of the U. S. Exploring Expedition during the Years 1838–42._ Phila., 1844. Tom. IV, p. 334. “We soon reached the Butte prairies (on Columbia River) which were extensive, and covered with _tumuli_ or small mounds, at regular distances asunder. As far as I could learn there is no tradition among the natives relative to them. They are conical mounds thirty feet in diameter, about six to seven feet high above the level, and many thousands in number. Being anxious to ascertain if they contained any relics, I subsequently visited these prairies, and opened three of the mounds, _but found nothing_ in them but a pavement of round stones.”

[16] _Baldwin_ (_Ancient America_, pp. 31–2) remarks: “Lewis and Clark reported seeing them on the Missouri River a thousand miles above its junction with the Mississippi River; but this report has not been satisfactorily verified.”

[17] See Mr. A. Barrandt in _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, for an account of discoveries on Clark’s Creek in Dakota; on the Bighorn River; on the Yellowstone; on the Morean and the banks of the Great Cheyenne. See Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 153–4. The proof is conclusive that the head-waters of the Missouri was one of their ancient seats. The same gentleman (Mr. Barrandt) describes a remarkable mound in Lincoln County, Dakota, situated eighty-five miles north-west of Sioux City, on the west fork of the Little Sioux of Dakota or Turkey Creek. The mound is known as the “Hay Stack.” Its dimensions are 327 feet in length at the base on the north-west side, and 290 on the south-east side, and 120 feet wide. It slopes at an angle of about 50°, is from thirty-four to forty feet in height, the north-east end being the higher. To the summit, which is from twenty-eight to thirty-three feet wide, there is a well-beaten path. The remarkable feature of the mound is the fact that part of the north-east side is walled up with soft sandstone and limestone, brought a distance of at least three miles from an ancient quarry. The remainder of the surface is pronounced to be of calcined clay. The mound contained a large interior circular chamber, in which the bones of animals, thirty-six pieces of pottery, and a mass of charcoal and ashes were found.—_Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413 _et seq._

[18] Since this is a contested point, both as to the presence of the works of the Mound-builders in the North-west and as to their great antiquity, I subjoin a portion of a report on these mounds made by Gen. H. W. Thomas, U. S. A., to Dr. Thomas of the Surveying Expedition, in the _Sixth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey_ under Dr. Hayden in 1872, pp. 656–7:

“‘Lewis and Clarke reported seeing Indian mounds 1000 miles above the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri, but this report is not verified.’ So says Mr. John D. Baldwin, A. M., in his work entitled ‘Ancient America.’

“I now and here propose to contribute my mite toward the verification of the statement of Lewis and Clarke.

“The few men whom duty or wild inclination have from time to time brought into this, for the most part, uninhabited region of treeless prairie, have all known of the existence of thousands of artificial mounds. What was in them they knew not, and but two or three, to my knowledge, have ever been opened. On August 16, 1872, I opened one on the high table-lands that spread out on both sides of a little stream called the James. The point is about 47° north latitude, and 98° 38´ longitude west from Greenwich. It is within three miles of the line of the North Pacific Railroad. The mound is circular in form, 30⁸⁄₁₀ feet in its shorter, and 35³⁄₁₀ feet in its longer diameter, and five feet high. I opened four trenches, three feet wide, from the outer edge, meeting in the centre, forming a cross when finished. I then excavated the entire mound from the centre outward, until there was nothing more to find. For results I had several two-bushel bags full of bones, eight skulls, many pieces of skulls too small to be of value (there must have been at least twenty-five bodies buried there), a rough-hewn stone ten inches high and five and a half inches in diameter, in shape resembling closely a conical shell, a cutting half an inch deep around the centre. (This was evidently tied with thongs to a stout handle, and used in pulverizing their maize.) A portion of a shell necklace, two flints, two heads of beaver, and some bones of animals unknown, and a large quantity of bivalves, much like the clam (_Mya oblongata_) of our Atlantic coast, but thicker, and the interior surface much more pearly.

“The mounds and their contents are apparently of great antiquity. They are, in every case, on the very highest point in their immediate neighborhood, and perfectly drained. The climate is excessively dry; so dry that the James River is entirely dry at a point about 500 feet above the contemplated railroad-bridge across the river. Notwithstanding this, many of the bones crumbled into white dust on being brought to the air, like those found in Herculaneum and Pompeii, and it was absolutely impossible to get out a single one in anything like perfection. Around and over these bodies stones and sticks were placed, doubtless to preserve the remains from the coyote and the fox. The wood could be rubbed into fine yellow-brown dust between the thumb and forefinger. Any trace of excavation around the mound for dirt to heap it with had been entirely obliterated. The upright position of the skulls also indicated that the bodies were buried in a sitting posture. The leg-bones, however, lay lower and horizontal.

“The number of mounds indicates a denser population than ever has been known here, or than the natural resources of this region can now support by the chase. At the same time the number of dry lakes scattered all over would indicate that at some remote period the country may have been a better one than now, and supported a larger population.”

[19] “_Antiquities of Wisconsin_,” _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. vii, 1855.

[20] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments_, pp. 97–99. Recent and possibly more exact surveys of the Alligator give the figures as somewhat less than the above. Isaac Smucker, a very reliable antiquarian of Licking Co., Ohio, in an address before the Ohio State Archæological Convention, held at Mansfield in September, 1875, corrects the figures in the following statement: “The Alligator mound is upon the summit of a hill or spur, which is nearly 200 feet high, six miles west of Newark, and near the village of Granville. The outlines of the Alligator (or Crocodile) are clearly defined. His entire length is 205 feet. The breadth of the body at the widest part, twenty feet, and the length of the body between the fore-legs and hind-legs is fifty feet. The legs are each about twenty feet long. The head, fore-shoulders and rump have an elevation varying from three to six feet, while the remainder of the body averages a foot or two less.”

[21] _Lapham’s Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 18, 20, 36, 37, 39, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 69.

[22] _W. H. Canfield’s Sketches of Sauk County, Wisconsin_; _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 101. On the copper remains of the Mound-builders, see _Pre-Historic Wisconsin_, by _Prof. James D. Butler, LL.D._, annual address before the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Feb. 18, 1876. Wisconsin Hist. Col., vol. vii. Privately printed.

[23] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, figured and described on p. 416 by Jared Warner of Patch Grove, Wis. (Oct. 1872). A further description of mounds in the same locality, by Moses Strong, M. E., will be found in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1876, p. 424.

[24] _Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 42–5: “The main features of these remains is the enclosure or ridge of _earth_ (not brick, as has been erroneously stated), extending around three sides of an irregular parallelogram; the west branch of Rock River forming the fourth side on the east. The space thus enclosed is seventeen acres and two-thirds. The corners are not rectangular, and the embankment or ridge is not straight. The earth of which the ridge is made was evidently taken from the nearest ground, where there are numerous excavations of very irregular form and depth; precisely such as may be seen along our modern railroad and canal embankments. These excavations are not to be confounded with the hiding-places (caches) of the Indians, being larger and more irregular in outline. Much of the material of the embankment was doubtless taken from the surface without penetrating a sufficient depth to leave a trace at the present time. If we allow for difference of exposure of earth thrown up into a ridge and that lying on the original flat surface, we can perceive no difference between the soil composing the ridge and that found along its sides. Both consist of a light yellowish sandy loam. The ridge forming the enclosure is 631 feet long at the north end, 1419 feet long on the west side, and 700 feet on the south side; making a total length of wall 2750 feet. The ridge or wall is about twenty-two feet wide, and from one foot to five in height.” * * * After describing one of the mounds of this enclosure, he remarks: “The analogy between these elevations and the ‘temple mounds’ of Ohio and the Southern States, will at once strike the reader who has seen the plans and descriptions. They have the same square or regular form, sloping or graded ascent, the terraced or step-like structure, and the same position in the interior of the enclosure. This kind of formation is known to increase in numbers and importance as we proceed to the south and south-west, until they are represented by the great structures of the same general character on the plains of Mexico.”

[25] D. Gunn in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1867.

[26] Dr. Farquharson in _Proceedings of Am. Ass. for the Adv. of Science_, vol. xxiv, p. 305.

[27] Through the courtesy of Dr. R. J. Farquharson I am enabled to append the original report made by Mr. Gass to the Davenport Academy, Jan. 26, 1877. It is as follows:

“We broke the surface on the north-east slope of the mound about ten or twelve feet from the opening on the west side made in 1874. The earth was frozen to a depth of about three and a half feet. Five or six inches below the surface we came upon a layer of shells one or two inches in thickness, which sloped downward toward the south-east, reaching a depth of two feet or rather more below the surface, and extending for a distance of ten or twelve feet. Between the surface and this first layer of shells a number of small fragments of human bones were found scattered through the soil. Under this shell layer was a stratum of earth of from twelve to fifteen inches in thickness, resting on a second layer of shells, from three to four inches in thickness. Both shell layers sloped downward nearly parallel with each other.

“Below the second shell layer the earth was of the nature of a light mould, darker in color than the earth above and thickly interspersed with fragments of human bones. These circumstances arrested my attention and caused me to proceed from this time on with the greatest caution. At a depth of about fifteen inches under the lowest part of the shell layer exposed in this excavation—the shell stratum at this point being five or six inches thick—the inscribed slates were found. The slate is the same as that usually found overlying coal beds in this vicinity, and is such as is frequently seen cropping out from the hill-sides or in isolated slabs in the beds of streams. Both plates lay close together on the hard undisturbed clay bottom of the mound.

“The engraved side of the smaller tablet was upward, and also that side of the larger one presenting the heavenly bodies, hieroglyphics, etc. The larger plate being partially divided by natural cleavage, its upper layer was unfortunately broken in two by a slight stroke of the spade. The two plates were closely encircled by a single row of weathered limestones. These stones are irregular in shape, but almost of the same size, their dimensions being about three by three by seven or eight inches, and the diameter of the circle about two feet.

“In the immediate vicinity were found a number of fragments of human bones, one being a portion of a skull saturated with carbonate of copper. A small piece of copper was found; also many fragments of slate and a piece of bone artificially wrought.”

Also see _Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences_ for _Account of the Discovery of Inscribed Tablets_, by Rev. J. Gass, with _A Description_ by Dr. R. J. Farquharson. Davenport, Iowa, July, 1877. Cuts and views.

[28] _Pre-Historic Paces of the U. S._, p. 107. See especially _12th Annual Report Peabody Museum_.

[29] In a paper, _A Deposit of Agricultural Flint Implements Found in Southern Illinois_, _Smithsonian Report_, 1868, Dr. Chas. Rau treats the subject of Aboriginal Agriculture at considerable length. In the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 413 _et seq._, Dr. A. Patton describes the exploration of several remarkable mounds in Lawrence Co., Illinois. In the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 351, Taylor McWhorter describes a number of mounds in Mercer Co., Illinois. He estimates the number in the county at one thousand, mostly on the Mississippi River bank. _The Antiquities of Whiteside County, Ill._, by W. H. Pratt, of Davenport, Iowa, printed in the same Report, p. 354 _et seq._, is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the mounds. The first mound examined yielded eight skulls, two of which were preserved. The third mound opened yielded the skeletons of four adults and several articles of interest, such as pieces of mica, a lump of galena and a dove-colored arrow-head. From the fifth mound opened, a remarkably well-preserved skeleton was recovered. Dr. Farquharson, of the Davenport Academy of Sciences, has contributed one of the most valuable tables of mound-cranial measurements ever published.

[30] The best and most exhaustive treatment of the above is by _Mr. Robert Clarke: The Pre-Historic Remains which were Found on the Site of Cincinnati, Ohio, with a Vindication of the Cincinnati Tablet_. Cincinnati, 1876. 8vo, 34 pp. It is to be regretted that this valuable discussion of the genuineness of one of the most important Mound-builder relics is only “privately circulated.” Mr. Clarke has fully accomplished the design for which he wrote.

[31] _Dr. Daniel Drake’s Picture of Cincinnati_, Cincinnati, 1815. _Squier and Davis in Ancient Monuments_. _Gen. Harrison: Ohio Hist. and Phil. Society Trans._, vol. i, and others.

[32] _Dr. Daniel Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, 3d ed., 1876, vol. i, pp. 274–5. The following description is given in _Squier and Davis’s Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_: “The material is fine-grained, compact sandstone of a light-brown color. It measures five inches in length, three in breadth at the ends, and two and six-tenths at the middle, and is about half an inch in thickness. The sculptured face varies very slightly from a perfect plane. The figures are cut in low relief (the lines being not more than one-twentieth of an inch in depth), and occupy a rectangular space four inches and two-tenths long by two and one-tenth wide. The sides of the stone, it will be observed, are slightly concave. Right lines are drawn across the face near the ends, at right angles, and exterior to these are notches, twenty-five at one end and twenty-four at the other. The back of the stone has three deep longitudinal grooves, and several depressions, evidently caused by rubbing—probably produced by sharpening the instrument used in the sculpture.” [Mr. Gest, however, does not regard these as tool marks, but thinks they are of peculiar significance.] “Without discussing the singular resemblance which the relic bears to the Egyptian _Cartouch_, it will be sufficient to direct attention to the reduplication of the figures, those upon one side corresponding with those upon the other, and the two central ones being also alike. It will be observed that there are but three scrolls or figures—four of one and two of each of the others. Probably no serious discussion of the question whether or not these figures are hieroglyphical is needed. They more resemble the stalk and flowers of a plant than anything else in nature. What significance, if any, may attach to the peculiar markings or graduations at the end, it is not undertaken to say. The sum of the products of the longer and shorter lines (24 × 7 + 25 × 8) is 368, three more than the number of days in the year; from which circumstance the suggestion has been advanced that the tablet had an astronomical origin, and constituted some sort of a calendar.” We may here add that Col. Chas. Whittlesey published at Cleveland, Ohio, in _Historical and Archæological Tract No. 9_ (Feb. 1872) of the Western Reserve Historical Society, a statement that the “Cincinnati Tablet” was a fraud. But we are informed that he is since convinced of its genuineness.

[33] Judge M. F. Force: _Mound-Builders_. Cincinnati, 1872. Rev. S. D. Peet in the _American Antiquarian_ for April, 1878, refers to the visit of the Ohio Archæological and the National Anthropological Conventions to Fort Ancient in September, 1877, and states that during the visit the significance of the walls of the lower enclosure was discovered. “They bear a resemblance,” he remarks, “to the form of two massive serpents, which are apparently contending with one another. Their heads are the mounds, which are separated from the bodies by the opening which resembles a ring around the neck. They bend in and out and rise and fall, and appear like two massive green serpents rolling along the summit of this high hill. Their appearance under the overhanging forest trees is very impressive”—p. 50. See also Mr. Peet’s memoir on a Double-walled Earthwork in Ashtabula County, Ohio, in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1876, pp. 443–4.

[34] Dr. Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 145, cites a letter from Prof. E. B. Andrews, of the Ohio Geological Survey, describing an earthwork discovered by him in Vinton County with the ditch _outside_ the parapet. In his _Report of Explorations of Mounds in Southern Ohio_, published in _Tenth Ann. Report of the Peabody Museum of Am. Arch. and Eth._, p. 53 (Camb., 1877), the Professor remarks: “On a spur of a ridge about two miles east of Lancaster is an earth wall, evidently for defence. The ditch is on the outside of the wall, where it should be according to modern ideas of defence. In this particular the earthwork differs from all the circles and so-called ‘forts,’ either circular or square, which I have seen, these having the ditch on the inside.”

[35] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 128: “No one, I think, can view the complicated system of works here displayed and stretching away for miles without arriving at the conclusion that they are the result of an infinite amount of toil expended under the direction of a governing mind, and having in view a definite aim. At this day, with our iron instruments, with our labor-saving machines, and the aid of horse-power, to accomplish such a task would require the labor of many thousand men continued for many months. These are the work of a people who had fixed habitations, and who, deriving their support in part at least from the soil, could devote their surplus labor to the rearing of such structures. A migratory people dependent upon the uncertainties of the chase for a living, would not have the time, nor would there be the motive, to engage in such a stupendous undertaking.”

[36] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 129.

[37] _North American Review_, July, 1876.

[38] Robert Clarke’s _Pre-Historic Remains at Cincinnati_, p. 18: “I believe I am correct in saying that there is no clay in Ohio which could be applied in this way and resist for any length of time the washing rains and sudden winter changes of temperature of our climate,” _et seq._

[39] See A. B. Tomlinson’s _Grave Greek Mound_ (1838). _Schoolcraft in American Ethnological Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. Especially Squier and Davis.

[40] Dr. Patton has described some interesting mounds near Vincennes, Indiana. A giant mound, which towers above many others of considerable proportions, is called the Sugar-loaf Mound, and stands on a promontory which overlooks the rich valley of the Wabash. The height of the Sugar-loaf is seventy feet, with a circumference at the base of one thousand feet. Dr. Patton in June, 1873, sank a shaft in this mound to the depth of forty-six feet. The composition of the mound was of siliceous sand, nowhere found in the region except in other mounds. At ten feet below the summit bones were found, but much decayed. Immediately below them was a layer of charcoal and ashes. Thirty feet deeper the same conditions were repeated, and the bones again were so brittle as to render it impossible to save them. A bed of calcined clay was next entered which could not be penetrated with the instruments at command. One mile south of the Sugar-loaf is a pyramidal mound forty-three feet high, with a circumference of 714 feet at the base and a platform on top fifteen feet wide and fifty feet in length. Others of as great proportions are described. _Smithsonian Report_, 1873, pp. 411 _et seq._ See also _Antiquities of La Porte County, Indiana_, by R. S. Robertson in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, pp. 377 _et seq._ A very low type of cranium was exhumed from one of the mounds in this county. Also see _Mounds at Merom and Hutsonville on the Wabash_, by F. W. Putnam—_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xv, 1872. Fifty-nine mounds were examined, and three stone graves discovered.

[41] For an excellent treatment of this part of the subject, see _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 130–144 inclusive.

[42] In _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley._

[43] _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee._ _Smithsonian Contribution No. 259._ Oct. 1876, p. 100.

[44] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 39, and other places.

[45] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 138.

[46] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 348–360. Cambridge, 1878. See also _Antiquities of Jackson County, Tenn._, by Rev. Joshua Hale, in _Smithsonian Reports_ for 1874, p. 384. Very interesting and valuable explorations have been conducted in Tennessee by Mr. E. O. Dunning for the Peabody Museum of Am. Arch. and Eth. See _Reports_, 3d, p. 7; 4th, p. 7; 5th, p. 11.

[47] _Mr. Jas. R. Page’s Results of Investigations of Indian Mounds_, in _Transactions of St. Louis Acad. of Science_, vol. iii, p. 226, and copied in _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, vol. ii, No. 4, pp. 371 _et seq._

[48] In _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, p. 378. Also see _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 318.

[49] See _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 317.

[50] _Fontaine’s How the World was Peopled_, p. 278, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 111 _et seq._

[51] _How the World was Peopled_, p. 278.

[52] _Squier and Davis’s Ancient Monuments_, pp. 117 _et seq._ _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 112.

[53] _E. Cornelius_ in _Silliman’s Journal_, vol. i, p. 223, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 122.

[54] _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 123. A further description of works on Etowah River in Bartow Co., Ga., by _Mr. Stephenson_ in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, p. 421. A full and elaborate treatment is also that by Charles C. Jones, Jr., entitled _Monumental Remains of Georgia_. Savannah, 1861. 12mo, p. 118.

[55] _Smithsonian Report_, 1872.

[56] _Smithsonian Report_, 1874, pp. 390 _et seq._

[57] These measurements were carefully made by Dr. S. H. Headlee, of St. James, Missouri, and communicated to the editors of the _Cincinnati Quar. Jour. of Science_, published in January number, 1875, pp. 94–5.

[58] A sensational description of this mound which appeared in the _St. Louis Times_ is used by Mr. S. M. Hosea as the basis of an article on Sacrificial Mounds in the above number of the _Cincinnati Quarterly Jour. of Science_, p. 62. The account contains some wonderful statements, which are evidently made by some unscientific person, and hence are utterly worthless. Although, judging from internal evidence, we have little faith in the reliableness of the correspondent, we give a paragraph for what it is worth: “The approach or causeway which leads across the trench from the north is ten feet in width. Ascending from this causeway to the summit of the mound are the remains of a rude flight of stairs, constructed originally of roughly-hewn stones. Most of these steps are now displaced, and quite a number have rolled down into the trench below, but there is unmistakable evidence that they were at one time arranged in regular order of ascent, and could doubtless be again replaced in position by an intelligent architect.” “By a series of investigations, I found that about a foot beneath the surface there was a regular solid platform of stone covering the entire top of the mound. This platform, though constructed by rude and unmechanical hands, is placed in position with a precision and firmness that might well defy the ravages of the elements in all coming ages. About twelve feet from the northern edge of the mound, and directly on a line with the approach and stairway, I noticed a very perceptible elevation of the earth, covering an area of about twenty by fifteen feet; and driving a pick into the elevated ground, the point struck upon solid rock a few inches below the surface. * * * Pushing our work, we soon unearthed a piece of workmanship that an antiquarian would have worked a week to bring to light. The newly-discovered curiosity consisted of a flat rock twelve feet long, ten feet wide, and eleven inches thick. The centre of the stone was hollowed to a depth of six inches, with a margin of about one foot around the edge.” “At the south end of the stone, a round hole five inches deep and four in diameter was drilled. Amongst the dirt taken out of this place hewn in the stone, was a large fossil tooth and a piece of small broken stone column, and several bits of pottery ware.” This description is very suggestive of the Mexican Temple or Teocalli, but unfortunately for the facts, Dr. Headlee, who made the measurements given in the text a short time subsequently, failed to find any certain evidences that either a stairway or temple had existed on the mound.

[59] _Report on the Geology of Arkansas_, vol. ii, p. 414—cited by Foster.

[60] See on chambered mounds similar to English barrows, Curtiss in _Peabody Museum Reports_, vol. ii, p. 717; Broadhead in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1879, pp. 350 _et seq._ (with cuts).

[61] “Within the State, from Pulaski County to Arkansas, in all the little valleys which wind in and out among the flint-crowned hills of the Ozarks, are seen what may be termed garden mounds. These are elevated about two or three feet above the natural surface of the land, and are from fifteen to fifty feet in diameter, varying thus in size according to the amount of richer soil which could be scraped together. Their presence may always be detected in fields of growing grain by its more luxuriant growth and deeper green.”—_A. J. Conant_ in the _Transactions_ cited above, p. 354. The same writer has treated the subject more fully in a recent work published at St. Louis, entitled, “_The Commonwealth of Missouri_.”

[62] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 115, and _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 120.

[63] _Baldwin’s Ancient America_, p. 72.

[64] Prof. Forshey, in _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 121, 122, remarks: “There is a class of mounds west of the Mississippi Delta and extending from the Gulf to the Arkansas and above, and westward to the Colorado in Texas, that are to me, after thirty years’ familiarity with them, entirely inexplicable. In my Geological Reconnoissance of Louisiana in 1841–2, I made a pretty thorough report upon them. I afterwards gave a verbal description of their extent and character before the _New Orleans Academy of Sciences_. These mounds lack every evidence of artificial construction based on implements or other human vestigia. They are nearly all round, none angular, and have an elevation hemispheroidal of one foot to five feet, and a diameter from thirty feet to one hundred and forty feet. They are numbered by millions. In many places, in pine forests and upon the prairies, they are to be seen nearly tangent to each other as far as the eye can reach, thousands being visible from an elevation of a few feet. On the gulf-marsh margin, from the Vermillion to the Colorado, they appear barely visible, often flowing into one another, and only elevated a few inches above the common land. A few miles interior they rise to two and even four feet in height. The largest I ever saw were perhaps one hundred and forty feet in diameter and five feet high. These were in Western Louisiana. Some of them had abrupt sides, though they are nearly all of gentle slopes. There is ample testimony that the pine trees of the present forests antedate these mounds. The material for their construction is like that of the vicinity everywhere, and often there is a depression in close proximity to the elevation.” We can make no conjecture concerning the use of those mounds described by Prof. Forshey, except to suggest that they in all probability served as foundations for dwellings in a low country, which at that time may have been moister and more marshy than at present. If such was the case, the whole region must have presented the appearance of a continuous community instead of the proper proportion of country and village. This crowded state of affairs could have been produced by the pressure from enemies in the north, and the lack of agricultural lands evidently was sufficient alone to cause a migration to the south.

[65] A number of the cuts in this chapter illustrative of the Arts of the Mound-builders, are copies of those used by Dr. Charles Rau in his _Catalogue of the Archæological Collection of the National Museum_, Washington, Smithsonian Contribution No. 287 (1876), granted me through the courtesy of Professor Henry. A few also are from the memoir by Prof. Jos. Jones on the _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_. Smithsonian Contribution No. 259 (1876). For an able classification of these Mound Relics (a work which I could not undertake in a volume not devoted exclusively to the Mound-builders), I refer the reader to Rau’s Memoir above cited, as being altogether the most satisfactory attempt of the kind of which I have any knowledge. For a classification of works in Ohio, see _Antiquities of Ohio_: Report of the Committee of the State Archæological Society to the Centennial Commission of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio, 1877, 8vo). The incompleteness of the work is to be regretted. Ohio, out of its vast fund of material, certainly ought to furnish a more satisfactory contribution to the subject of archæology. The work comprises seven chapters, of which the last is the least satisfactory of all, for while bearing the title “Location of Ancient Earthworks in Ohio,” it enumerates only one hundred and sixteen out of the ten thousand mound-works in the State. Still the memoir is not without value. Its chapters on Stone Relics, Copper Relics, and Insignia and Ornaments are comparatively thorough.

[66] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143. Prof. E. B. Andrews has shown that the supposed uniformity of stratification in altar mounds is a fallacy. In many instances the earth has been dumped together indiscriminately.

[67] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143, the following general description is given: “The altars or basins found in these mounds are almost invariably of burned clay, although a few of stone have been discovered. They are symmetrical, but not of uniform size or shape. Some are round, others elliptical, and others square or parallelograms. Some are small, measuring barely two feet across, while others are fifty feet long by twelve or fifteen feet wide. The usual dimensions are from five to eight feet. All appear to have been modelled of fine clay brought to the spot from a distance, and they rest on the original surface of the earth. In a few instances a layer or small elevation of sand had been laid down, upon which the altar was formed. The height of the altars, nevertheless, seldom exceeds a foot or twenty inches above the adjacent level. The clay of which they are composed is usually burned hard, sometimes to the depth of ten, fifteen, and even twenty inches. This is hardly to be explained by any degree or continuance of heat, though it is manifest that in some cases the heat was intense. On the other hand, a number of these altars have been noticed which are very slightly burned; and such, it is a remarkable fact, are destitute of remains.”

[68] Charles Rau in _Smithsonian Report_, 1872, p. 357. _Baldwin’s Ancient America_, p. 41.

[69] _Squier and Davis_: _Op. Cit._, pp. 169–70. _Foster_: _Op. Cit._, pp. 188–196. Schoolcraft in vol. i, _Trans. Am. Ethnol. Soc._ M. C. Read in _American Antiquarian_, vol. i, p. 139, Jan. 1879. Dr. Clemens in Morton’s _Crania Americana_, p. 221. Mr. E. O. Dunning in _Foster_, p. 194.

[70] _Description of an Ancient Sepulchral Mound near Newark, Ohio_, by O. C. Marsh, F. G. S., in _American Journal of Science and Arts_ for July, 1866. Second Series, vol. xlii.

[71] See _Dr. Charles T. Jackson’s Geological Report to the United States Government_, 1849. _Foster and Whitney’s Report on the Geology of the Lake Superior Region_, Part I. Published by authority of Congress in 1850, and substantially reproduced in _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, chap. vii, in 1873. The most elaborate treatment is by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, _Ancient Mining on the Shores of Lake Superior_. Published in the _Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge_ in 1863, vol. xiii. _Swineford’s History and Review of the Mineral Resources of Lake Superior_, Marquette, 1876. Containing _Ancient Copper Mines of Lake Superior by Jacob Houghton_.

[72] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 268. For a further account, see Mr. Henry Gillman in an article printed in _Appleton’s Journal_, August 9, 1873, and entitled _Ancient Works at Isle Royal_; also to a paper printed in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, and in the _Proceedings of the Amer. Ass. for the Advancement of Science_, 1875 meeting, p. 330. Also A. C. Davis in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 369.

[73] _Ancient Mining on the Shore of Lake Superior_, p. 2.

[74] “L’on trouve souvent au fond de l’eau, des pieces de cuivre tout formé, de la pesanteur de dix et vingt livres; i’en ay veu plusieurs fois entre les mains des Sauvages, et comme ils sont superstitieux, ils les gardent comme autant de divinités, ou comme des presents que les dieux qui sont au fond de l’eau leur ont faits pour estre la cause de leur bonheur; c’est pour cela, qu’ils conservent ces morceaux de cuivre envelopés parmi leurs meubles les plus pretieux, il y en a qui les gardent depuis plus de cinquante ans; d’autres les ont dans leurs familles de temps immemorial, et les cherissent comme des dieux domestiques.”—_Relations des Jésuites, en l’Année 1667_, p. 8. Quebec reprint, 1858. Tome iii.

[75] “En y entrant par son embouchure, que se décharge au Sault, le premier endroit que se présente où se retrouve du cuivre en abondance, est une Isle que est éloignée de quarante on cinquante lieuës, scituée vers le côté du Nord, vis a vis d’un endroit qu’on appelle Missipicoüatong. Les sauvages racontent que c’est une Isle flottante, que est quelquefois loing, quelquefois proche, selon les vents qui la poussent, et la promenent de côté et d’autre. Ils ajoûtent qu’il y a bien longtemps que quatre sauvages y furent par rencontre, s’etans égarez dans la brume, dont cette Isle est presque toujours environnée. C’étoit du temps qu’ils n’avoient point encore eu de commerce avec les François, et n’avoient aucun usage ny des chaudieres ny des haches. Ceux-cy donc voulans se preparer à manger, firent à leur ordinaire: prenant des pierres qu’ils trouvoient au bord de l’eau, les faisaient rougir dans le feu et les jettaient dans un plat d’ecorce plein d’eau pour la faire boüillir et faire cuire par cette industrie leur viande. Comme ils choisissoient ces pierres, ils trouvoient, que c’étoient presque tous morceaux de cuivre; ils se servirent donc des unes et des autres, et aprés avoir pris leur repas, ils songerent à s’embarquer au plustost, craignant les Loups Cerviers et les Lievres, qui sont en cét endroit grands comme des Chiens, et qui venoient manger leurs provisions et même leur Canot. Avant que de partir, ils se chargerent de quantité de ces pierres grosses et menuës, et même de quelques plaques de cuivre; mais ils ne furent pas bien éloignez du rivage, qu’une puissante voix se fit entendre à leurs oreilles, disant tout en colere: Qui sont ces voleurs qui m’emportent les berceaux et les divertissemens de mes enfans? Les plaques de cuivre sont les berceaux, parce que parmy les sauvages ils ne sont faits que d’un ou deux aix joints ensemble, sur lesquels ils couchent leurs enfans; et ces petits morçeaux de cuivre qu’ils enlevoient, sont les jouets et les divertissemens des enfans sauvages, qui joüent ensemble avec des petites pierres.” The voice which the savages heard was believed to be that of a spirit called Missibizi, a certain water-god. “Quoy qu’il en soit, cette voix étonnante jetta tellement la frayeur dans l’esprit de nos Voyageurs, qu’un des quatre mourut avant que d’arriver à terre; peu de temps aprés un second fut enlevé, puis le troisièma; de sorte qu’il n’en resta qu’un, lequel s’étant rendu en son Pays, raconta tout ce qui s’étoit passé, pues mourut fort peu apriés.” The Father adds that the savages never afterward could be induced to approach the island for fear of being seized by the Genii presiding over its treasures.—_Relations des Jesuités l’année 1670_, p. 84, tome iii. Quebec reprint, 1858.

[76] _Ancient Mining_, p. 22 _et seq._

[77] _Congrès International des Américanistes._ Luxembourg. 1877, tom. i, pp. 51–2.

[78] _Essai Politique_ (Paris, 1825–27), vol. iii, p. 114. Dr. Charles Rau has courteously furnished me the following references on ancient mining in Mexico: _Clavigaro’s History of Mexico_, Phil., 1817, vol. i., p. 20. _Prescott’s Mexico_, vol. i, p. 138; _Despatches of Hernando Cortés_ addressed to the Emperor Charles V (trans. by Folsom, New York, 1842), p. 412. _Memoirs of Bernal Diaz_ (trans. of Lockhart, London, 1844), vol. i, p. 36. Dr. Rau remarks: “We are forcibly led to the conclusion that the Mexicans obtained copper by the mining process.”—_Letter to the Author_, Aug. 24, 1878.

[79] Colonel Whittlesey in the _Report of the State Archæological Society_ to the Centennial Commission of Ohio, Chap. IV, pl. 10, has figured several symmetrical tubes of stone from Ohio Mounds. The most perfect of these he thinks may have served “as telescopic helps for distant views.” The most general use to which most of them were applied, it is believed, was the making of signals, or possibly rude music. One of the tubes taken from the Tippet Mound near Newark, Ohio, and figured in the report, has its upper end flattened like a whistle or flute, and has a hole penetrating it just below the mouthpiece, which indicates that it may have been a musical instrument. The Huron slates were most frequently employed in the manufacture of tubes, as they were in the production of the class of objects known as ceremonial relics.

[80] Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, p. 42, and Dupaix, quoted on pp. 122–3.

[81] Dr. Rau has shown that division of labor and its advantages was recognized among the aborigines; that certain individuals who were qualified to manufacture particular implements devoted themselves exclusively to that work. He bases his conjecture “on the occurrence of manufactured articles of a homogeneous character in mounds or in deposits below the surface of the soil. There is little doubt, for instance, that there were persons who devoted their time chiefly to the manufacture of stone arrow-heads and of other articles produced by chipping, among which may be mentioned those remarkable large digging tools described by me several years ago, and the oval or leaf-shaped implements made of the peculiar hornstone of ‘Flint Ridge’ in Ohio.” See Stock-in-trade of an Aboriginal Lapidary, by Charles Rau, _Smithsonian Report_ for 1877.

[82] Dr. S. S. Schoville, in the _Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science_, April, 1875, p. 164, describes the discovery of numerous mica plates in a mound on the east bank of the Little Miami River, about twenty-five miles east of Cincinnati. He states, that at the base of the mound, on a level with the surrounding country, the remains of several skeletons were found, placed with their heads together and lying in a horizontal position. “Lying upon or immediately over the cranial debris, were found plates of mica, some a foot in diameter. These plates were disposed in such a way as to cover an area somewhat larger than that occupied by the crania beneath. However, it could not definitely be determined whether the design had been to make a continuous or common roof over the faces as a group, or whether each face had a covering of its own.” The writer ventures the rather fanciful conjecture that the mica in this and many other cases served the purpose of exhibiting temporarily the features of the dead in the manner that glass is now used on caskets.

[83] See a most interesting and extensive memoir on _Aboriginal Trade in_ _North America_, by Charles Rau, first published in vol. iv of the _Archiv für Anthropologie_ (Braunschweig, 1872), and translated in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 249–394.

[84] Mr. A. J. Conant in the _Commonwealth of Missouri_, pp. 77–8 (St. Louis, 1877), refers to ancient canals fifty feet wide and twelve feet deep observed by Dr. G. C. Swallow. He quotes a pretty full account from Geo. W. Carleton, Esq. Mr. Conant considers some of the southern bayous of artificial origin.

[85] For further material on the Mound-builders, see the documents cited throughout the chapter. No less important is Dr. Foster’s admirable work so often quoted, and which we must add has been of great service in the preparation of this chapter. A very good paper on the Mound-builders is that by Robert S. Robertson of Fort Wayne, Indiana, in the _Congrès International des Américanistes Compte-Rendu de la Sec. Ses. Luxembourg_, 1877, tom. i, pp. 39–50, though we do not fully agree with the author’s views as to the colonization of the Mississippi valley from the south. The classification of Mound-works by Rev. Stephen D. Peet in the same document, p. 103, is very satisfactory, and corresponds to that adopted in this chapter. The learned article by Judge Force of Cincinnati in the same document, vol. i, pp. 121–156, is full of interest. For recent mound explorations, see Appendix.

[86] _Pre-Historic Times_, p. 425. Also cited by Foster. In this connection I refer the reader to the argument of Mr. John H. Becker of Berlin, in the _Congrès International des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. i, pp. 345–6: “These northern nations * * * have not quite forgotten the former existence and the exodus of these Nahua Mound-builders in and from the western prairie country. Cusick’s remarkable history of the Iroquois (Schoolcraft, vol. v) states again and again that ‘their hunters were opposed by big snakes,’ that the ‘great horned snake appeared on Lake Ontario,’ that the ‘lake serpent traversed the country, and they were compelled to build fortifications in order to save themselves from the devouring monsters,’ that ‘a snake with a human head prevented the intercourse of their several villages, as it had settled near the principal path of communication,’ also ‘that it retreats,’ etc., etc. Now, in order to understand the force of these passages, it is necessary to remind the reader that the Nahua race were perhaps even more properly and generally designated as the ‘Culhua’ the ‘Snake’ race, and one branch, remotely connected with them in blood and language, though wofully degenerated, the Snakes or Shoshones of Oregon, etc., carry the name to this very day. * * * ‘An expedition was sent towards the Mississippi River; they crossed it, reached an extensive meadow; they discovered a _curious animal_, a _winged fish_; it flew about the tree, it moved like a _humming bird_’ * * * the _humming bird_ was the totem of the last tribe of Nahuas, arriving in Anahuac from Aztlan. The Cherokee tradition, told by Timberlake, is equally significant: ‘The prince of rattlesnakes lives in the glens of the mountains. His palace is guarded by obedient subjects. * * * And in the myth of the Algonquins, the god-hero Michabo is in conflict with the shining prince of serpents who lives in the lake; he destroys the reptile with a dart; clothes himself with the skin of his foe, and _drives the rest of the serpents to the south_.’”

[87] _J. D. Baldwin’s Ancient America_, p. 47.

[88] Foster, pp. 172–3, remarks: “Squier and Davis hastily stated that none of these works occupied the alluvial bottoms (an error which Mr. Squier subsequently corrected), and from this statement the most erroneous conclusions as to their antiquity have been drawn. There is nothing to indicate but that those works were constructed after the surface had assumed its present configuration, and that the climate had become essentially as it is now. That they should not occur as abundantly on the bottoms as on the river terraces is not to be wondered at, when we consider the great fluctuations of the Mississippi and its tributaries. The extreme range between low and high water of the Upper Mississippi at its mouth is thirty-five feet; that of the Missouri at its mouth about the same; and that of the Ohio at Louisville, forty-two feet. Hence, during the flood time a greater portion of the bottom lands are subject to overflow, and it would be natural for the Mound-builders to shun such situations. Where the immediate valleys lie above high water, we find their works. Of this the ‘American Bottom’ is a notable instance.”

[89] See Dr. Lapham’s communication in Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 373–5, in which he shows the possibility of finding the average increase of wood each year by measuring annual rings of growth.

[90] Sir Charles Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 41, says: “When I visited Marietta in 1842, Dr. Hildreth took me to one of the mounds, and showed me where he had seen a tree growing on it, the trunk of which when cut down displayed eight hundred rings of annual growth.”

[91] See Prof. Asa Gray in Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 392; also Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, p. 41, where the opinion of President Harrison is quoted as follows: “We may be sure that no trees were allowed to grow so long as the earthworks were in use; and when they were forsaken, the ground, like all newly-cleared land in Ohio, would for a time be monopolized by one or two species of tree, such as the yellow locust and the black or white walnut. When the individuals which were the first to get possession of the ground had died out one after the other, they would, in many cases, instead of being replaced by other species, be succeeded, by virtue of the law which makes a rotation of crops profitable in agriculture, by other kinds, till at last, after a great number of centuries (several hundred years perhaps), that remarkable diversity of species characteristic of North America, and far exceeding what is seen in European forests, would be established.”

[92] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 118, 119, 122, and M. Stronck, _Repères chronologiques de l’histoire des Mound-builders_ in _Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, tom. i, pp. 316–18, catalogues the record of the age of trees found on mounds.

[93] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 370.

[94] _American Naturalist_, Jan. 1868.

[95] _Second Visit to the United States_, vol. i, p. 252.

[96] Dr. Brinton’s _Notes on the Floridian Peninsula_.

[97] From the immense heaps distributed over an area of 150 miles between Pilatka and Salt Creek Dr. Wyman made some collections of interest. The banks were composed mostly of the _Ampullaria Depressa_, the _Paludina Multilineata_ and _Unio Buckleyi_. The bank at King Phillip’s Town, 450 feet long by 120 feet wide, and in some places eight feet thick, yielded fragments of pottery and decayed animal bones. At Black Hammock, on the St. Johns, a mound 900 feet long and from 100 to 150 in width, yielded the following: such marine shells as the strombus-gigos, pyrula carica and P. perversa. These had been shaped into hatchets, gouges and chisels. Scarcely any stone implements were found in any of the mounds examined. A chisel and twenty-five arrow-heads were collected in the vicinity of the above shell-bank. The following animal remains were found: bear, deer, raccoon, opossum, terrapin, turtle, alligator, cat-fish and garpike. But few bones of birds were found. Prof. Wyman can only explain the presence of so many of the now scarce species, the Ampullarius and Paludinas, on the supposition that they were much more plentiful and are now becoming extinct, or that the heaps where so abundantly found were made by slow accumulation, through the lapse of an indefinitely long period.—_American Naturalist_, vol. ii, Nos. 8 and 9, and _Fifth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 22–25. Also _First Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 11, 18.

[98] A small sand-mound near Cedar Keys yielded peculiarly massive skulls; the capacity being 1375 cubic centimetres, or nearly 84 cubic inches. They show no distortion, and the average thickness of eight of them through the parietal bones measured 10.5 millimetres, or 0.42 of an inch. The heaviest weighed 995 grams, and notwithstanding the loss of its organic matter, is heavier than any of the three hundred skulls in the collection (Peabody Museum).—_Fourth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 13. Also see Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 170.

[99] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 159.

[100] Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 272.

[101] C. C. Jones, Jr., _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_.

[102] Further consult, _Second Indiana Report_, p. iii; _Smithsonian Report_ for 1870; Humphreys and Abbot’s _Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 89, and Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, Chap. IV.

[103] Martius: _Von dem Rechtszustande unter den Ureinwohner Brasiliens_, p. 80, and reprinted in his _Beiträge zur Ethnographie_, etc., Leipzig, 1867, quarto. “Der dermalige Zustand dieser Naturwesen beurkundet, dass die amerikanische Natur schon seit Jahrtausenden den Einfluss einer verändernden und umgestaltenden Menschenhand erfahren hat. Auf den Antillen und dem Festlande fanden die ersten Conquistadores den stummen Hund als Hausthier und auf der Jagd dienend, ebenso das Meerschweinchen in St. Domingo in einem heimischen Zustande.... Das Llama war in Peru schon seit undenklicher Zeit als Lastthier benützt worden, und kam nicht mehr im Zustand der Freiheit vor; ja sogar das Guanaco und die Vicunna scheinen damals nicht ganz wild, sondern in einer beschränkten Freiheit den Urbewohnern befreundet, gelebt zu haben, da sie, um geschoren zu werden, eingefangen, so dann aber wieder freigelassen würden.... Die Cultur dieser Pflanze (Maize) aus welcher die Peruaner auch Zucker bereiteten, ist uralt; man findet sie, und die Banane, den Baumwollenstrauch, die Quinoa- und die Mandioca-Pflanze ebenso wenig wild in America als unsere Getreidearten in Asien, Europa und Africa. Die einzige Palme, welche von den Indianern angebaut wird, hat durch diese Cultur den grossen, steinharten Saamenkern verloren, der oft in Fasern zerschmolzen, oft gänzlich aufgelöst ist. Ebenso findet man die Banane, deren Einfuhr nach America geschichtlich nicht nachgewiesen werden kann, immer ohne Saamen. Man weiss aber aus anderen Erfahrungen, welch’ lange Zeit nothwendig ist, um den Pflanzen einen solchen Stempel von der umbildenden Macht menschlichen Einflusses aufzudrücken. Gewiss, auch in America sind die dort heimischen Nutz-Pflanzen der Menschheit seit undenklichen Zeiten zinsbar unterworfen.”

[104] Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 37.

[105] Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 352.

[106] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 44.

[107] _Pre-Historic Man_, p. 12.

[108] _American Naturalist_, vol. ii, p. 434, 1868. Also quoted by Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 77.

[109] Daniel Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, p. 12.

[110] Vol. i, p. 200.

[111] Meigs: _Trans. Am. Phil. Soc._, 1828, p. 285.

[112] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 42.

[113] Vol. ii, p. 197.

[114] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 203.

[115] _Extinct Mammalia of North America_, p. 365: “The specimen may have been contemporary with the remains of extinct animals, with which it is said to have been found, though it appears to me equally if not more probable that it may have fallen into the formation from an Indian grave above at a comparatively recent date, and become stained like the true fossils from ferruginous infiltration.”

[116] Foster: _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 61. “A dozen plantation burial places and Indian mounds and camps had been exposed above for centuries; and in recent years since uninhabited by the whites (for a hundred years), the drains had cut through the surface to the depth of twenty and even forty feet of the bluff loam-beds. The probabilities are a hundred to one that this bone was not of the bluff (mastodon) formation but of the recent era.”

[117] Foster in _Transactions of the Chicago Academy of Sciences_, vol. i, part ii.

[118] Fontaine’s _How the World was Peopled_, pp. 67–69. A book with many good points, but obscure as to this particular case.

[119] _On the Geology of Lower Louisiana and the Salt Deposit on the Petit Anse Island_, p. 14, in _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, No. 248.

[120] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 58.

[121] Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 35.

[122] Vol. xxxvi, p. 198.

[123] Vol. xxxvii, p. 191.

[124] J. D. Dana: _Koch’s Evidence on the Contemporaneity of Man and the Mastodon in Missouri_, in the _Am. Jour. of Sci. and Arts_, Art. xxxv, May, 1875, gives the title of two of these pamphlets as follows: 1. _Description of the Missourium or Missouri Leviathan, together with its Supposed Habits; Indian Traditions Concerning the Location from which it was Exhumed; Also, Comparisons of the Whale, Crocodile, and Missourium with the Leviathan, as described in the Forty-first Chapter of the Book of Job_: by Albert Koch, 16 pp. octavo, St. Louis, 1841 (1840 on the cover, indicating that the copy is from a second edition). 2. _Description of the Missourium Theristocaulodon (Koch) or Missouri Leviathan (Leviathan Missouriensis), together with its Supposed Habits and Indian Traditions; Also, Comparisons of the Whale, Crocodile, and Missourium with the Leviathan, as described in the Forty-first Chapter of the Book of Job_: by Albert Koch. Fifth edition enlarged, 28 pp. octavo. Dublin, 1843. (A third edition of twenty-four pages appeared in London in 1841.)

[125] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 1830, Art. xxxvi, p. 198, and copied by Mr. J. D. Dana, in his article before cited, May, 1875.

[126] Dr. Koch’s _Pamphlet_ of 1843, pp. 13, 14, 27, copied by J. D. Dana.

[127] _Transactions of St. Louis Academy of Sciences_, vol. i, 1857.

[128] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 62.

[129] _Smithsonian Report_, 1872, p. 396, in a note to his article on _North American Stone Implements_.

[130] J. D. Dana in _American Journal of Science and Arts_, May, 1875, p. 340.

[131] Article cited, p. 344.

[132] Though the above argument by so eminent a specialist must satisfy any one that Dr. Koch’s claim, as it now stands, is valueless to science; still, it is due to the memory of the latter, to admit that he was the most indefatigable and successful collector in his department in this country. Though unscientific himself, his service to science must ever be recognized. The great Mastodon in the British Museum is a monument to his persevering research. Perhaps the disposition to acknowledge his services, has unduly biased the judgment of many in favor of his groundless claim.

[133] _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 67.

[134] “But it is one of those isolated cases which require further investigation before full credence can be attached to it.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 71.

[135] _Antiquity of Man in the United States, Transactions of American Association for Advancement of Science_. Chicago, 1869.

[136] _Second Visit to the United States._

[137] Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 336, and Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, p. 43.

[138] _Tableau of New Orleans_, 1852, cited by Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 73.

[139] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 43.

[140] _Surface Geology_, p. 92, _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. ix.

[141] _Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi_, pp. 150 _et seq._, and 435.

[142] _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 76.

[143] _Philadelphia Acad. of Natural Sciences. Proceedings_, Part I, 1872. Also Foster, pp. 69–71.

[144] This letter bears date December 24, 1876, written from Waynesville, Ohio, and signed by Robert F. Furnas, M. D.

[145] Prof. Orton in _Geology of Highland County_ in “_Progress of the Ohio_ _Geological Survey in 1870_,” published 1871, and in vol. i. of _State Geological Report_, p. 442.

[146] Prof. Winchell remarks: “The very general interest that is being excited in this country in the problems that invest the history of the drift is my only excuse for calling your attention to the prevalence of vegetable remains in the Drift of the North-west, and to the wide divergence of high authorities on the relative position of those remains in respect to the boulder clay.”—See _Proceedings_, p. 56, _Am. Ass. for Adv. Sci._, 1875, _24th Meeting_.

[147] _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_, p. 226, Cambridge, 1878. Dr. Abbott concludes his interesting report by citing a letter from Mr. Thomas Belt, dated Grant, Colorado, June 29, 1878, in which the writer reports the discovery of “a small human skull in undisturbed loess, in a railway cutting about two miles from Denver, near the watershed between the South Platte and Clear Creek. All the plains are covered with a drift deposit of granitic and quartzose pebbles, overlaid by a sandy and calcareous loam closely resembling the diluvial clay and the loess of Europe.” The skull was found at a point three and a half feet from the surface.—_Ibid._, p. 257.

[148] _Tenth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, Cambridge_, 1877, vol. ii, pp. 30–43; _American Naturalist_, June, 1876, p. 329.

[149] _Tenth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 47.

[150] Grote, _The Peopling of America_, _American Naturalist_, April, 1877.

[151] _Primitive Industry_, by C. C. Abbott, M.D., 1881, p. 551. A truly scientific work.

[152] _Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, under Dr. Hayden in 1872_, p. 657.

[153] General Thomas gives the following account of this form of skull discovered by him, p. 657: “It is unlike that of any human being to-day alive on this continent; the frontal bone being low, receding, growing narrow and pinched from the brows up; the top of the head depressed in the centre. The cavity of the cranium is full seven inches long, and a scant four and a half inches wide. The orbital ridges or eyebrows are excessively developed, like those of the great Gibbon monkey. In fact the whole skull resembles that of the great Gibbon monkey. The malar or cheek bones run down very low and deep toward the lower jaw, are set very far to the front, and are not wide at top, but widen very much toward the bottom. The nose, and here is the anomaly, is much more aquiline than that of the Indian. The superior maxillary is one-third deeper and much more prominent than the Indian’s. The inferior maxillary is of uncommon prominence, depth, and power, far exceeding that of the Indian. The mouth is narrow and long, more dog-shaped than the Indian’s. The _foramen magnum_ or aperture at base of skull, where the spinal cord enters the head, is peculiarly small. The _condyloid processes_ are full, oblong, flat on the working surfaces, and at such an angle as to set the head upward and back more than any race we know to-day on this continent. Set one of these skulls, without the lower jaw, on the table, and a line drawn from the upper jaw perpendicularly upward would be a good inch and a half in front of the forehead. Set on the lower jaw and it would be two inches.” Mr. R. D. Guttgisal, formerly an engineer on the Mexican Central Railroad, in connection with some friends, opened a mound at Chihuahua, on the line of that railroad. The skulls resembled those I have described (so he informs me) in every particular. He especially remembers the somewhat bird-shaped head, and the excessively small _foramen magnum_. The bodies were not interred horizontally there, but leaning backward as if in a rocking-chair. Professor H. H. Smith, University of Pennsylvania, has one of the skulls.

[154] Professor James Orton, _The Andes and the Amazons_, third ed., p. 109, New York, 1876.

[155] Sir John Lubbock, alluding to the changes that have transpired in the condition of man from his first appearance in America, says: “But even if we attribute to these changes all the importance which ever has been claimed for them, they will not require an antiquity of more than three thousand years. I do not, of course, deny that the period may have been very much greater, but in my opinion, at least, it _need_ not be greater.”—_Pre-Historic Times_, p. 234, London, 1865.

Dr. Foster, after giving many of the reputed proofs of man’s antiquity here, sums up the argument in the following language: “The evidence, it must be confessed, rests, in most cases, upon the testimony of a single observer, and besides, there has not been a recurrence of ‘finds’ in the same deposit (except in the gravel beds of Colorado and Wyoming, which require further investigation to command an unqualified belief), as in the valley of the Somme and in the European caves, which is so conclusive as to the existence of man as contemporary with the great Pachyderms.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 71.

[156] _De Civitate Dei_, lib. xvi, cap. 9. Above I have availed myself of the admirable translation by Rev. Marcus Dods, vol. ii, p. 118. Edinburgh, 1871. On the subject of Antipodes we may refer the reader to the view of _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, an Egyptian of the middle of the 6th century. See Draper’s _Conflict between Religion and Science_, p. 65, and the opinion of the Venerable Bede, cited by the same author. See further Bancroft’s _Native Races of the Pacific States_, vol. v, pp. 1–8, and Ogilby’s _America_, pp. 6–7.

[157] R. H. Major’s _Prince Henry of Portugal_, chap. xxi. London, 1868, 8vo. Draper’s _Conflict_, pp. 163–5.

[158] The narrowness of the attainments of the “educated” in Spain in the 17th century is portrayed by Buckle: “Books, unless they were books of devotion, were deemed utterly useless; no one consulted them, no one collected them; and until the 18th century, Madrid did not possess a single public library. * * * De Torres, who was himself a Spaniard, and was educated at Salamanca early in the 18th century, declares that he had studied in the university for five years before he had heard that such things as the mathematical sciences existed. So late as the year 1771, the same university publicly refused to allow the discoveries of Newton to be taught; and assigned as a reason, that the system of Newton was not so consonant with revealed religion as the system of Aristotle.”—_History of Civilization in England_, vol. ii, pp. 72–3. New York, 1861. Of course these remarks apply to Spain’s period of misfortune and decline, but it must also be remembered that the spirit of intolerance which alone brought about that condition was at its height about the time of the discovery of America.

[159] Mr. Bancroft has illustrated the spirit of this latter class by quoting a passage from Garcia’s _Origen de Los Indios_, Madrid, 1729, p. 248. It is certainly one of the most venomous and narrow-minded utterances on record. See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 4.

[160] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España con Noticias de los Ritos y Costumbres de los Indios y Explicacion del Calendario Mexicano, por F. Diego Duran_, Escrita en el año de 1585; MS. in three vols. folio of upwards of 1000 pp. each. On p. 507, tom. iii, we find notice of December, 1579, as the date at which that stage of the work was reached. Copy in the library of Congress at Washington. From Beristain’s _Biblioteca Hispano-Americana, Septentrional_, tom. i, p. 442, Mexico, 1816, we quote the following: “Duran (F. Diego) á quien el Illmõ. Eguara, p. 324, de su Biblioteca dá equivocadamente el nombre de Pedro, y á quien el Jesuita Clavigero llama Fernando con igual equivocacion. Fué natural de Tezcuco, antigua corte de los Emperadores Megicanos: y Profeso el Orden de Santo Domingo, en el Convento Imperial de Megico, á 8 de Margo de 1556. Era varon Docto en Theología, y de vasta erudicion en la historia antigua de los Indios; pero molestado de enfermedades en sus años ultimos, no pudo dar á luz publica los bellos libros, que tenia compuestos, los mas amenos y gustosos, que hasta entonces se habian escrito sobre las cosas de Indias, como se explica el Illmõ. Dáila Padilla, y repetieron despues los criticos franceses Querif y Echard. El referido Arzo-Bispo añade, que el P. Juan de Torar, Jesuita Megicano, en cuyo poder paraban los manuscritos de su paisano Duran, se los dió al P. José de Acosta á quien servieron mucho para su Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias, en lo qual convienen Pinelo y D. Nicolás Antonio. Los dichos MSS. eran:” _Historia de los Indios de la N. E. Antigüallas de los Indios de la N. E._

[161] “Cuanto á lo primero tendremos por principal fundamento el ser esta Nacion y Gente Indiana advenediza de estrañas y remotas regeiones, y que en su venida á poseer esta Tierra hizo un largo y prolijo camino, en el cual gastó muchos meses y años para llegar á ella, como de su relacion y pinturas se colige, y como de algunos viejos ancianos de muchos dias he procurado saber para sacar esta opinion en limpio; y dado caso que algunos cuenten algunas falsas fabulas conviene á saber, que nacieron de unas fuentes y manantiales de agua; otros, que nacieron de unas cuebas; otros, que su generacion es de los Dioses; lo cual clara y abiertamente se ve ser fabula, y que ellos mismos ignoran su origen y principio, dado caso que siempre confiessan havre venido de tierras; y asi lo he hallado pintado en sus antiguas pinturas, donde señalan grandes trabajos de hambre, sed, y desnudez, con otras innumerables afliciones que en él pasáron hasta llegar a esta tierra y poblada; con lo cual confirmo mi opinion y sospecha de que estos Naturales sean de aquellas diez Tribus de Isrrael que Salmanasar, Rey de los Asirios cautivó y transmigró de Asiria en tiempo de Ozeas, Rey de Isrrael, y en tiempo de Ozequias, Rey de Jerusalem, como se prodra ver en el cuarto Libro de los Reyes, capitulo diez y siete, donde dice que fue transladado Isrrael de su tierra á los Asirios hasta el dia de hoy, etc.; de las cuales dice Esdras en el Libro cuarto, capitulo trece, que se pasaron á vivir á una tierra remota y apartada que nunca habia sido habitada; á la cual habia largo y prolijo camino de año y medio, donde agora se hallan estas Gentes de todas las Islas y Tierra firma del mar oceano hacia la parte de occidente.”—_Historia Antigua de la Nueva España_, tom. i., pp. 1–2, MS.

[162] London, small quarto, 1650; we have both this and the edition of 1660 before us.

[163] Harmon L’Estrange, Kt., _Americans No Jewes; or Improbabilities that the Americans are of that Race_, p. 4. 1652; quarto, London.

[164] Id., p. 13.

[165] “De suerte que aviendose conservado este nombre Piru, que es lo mismo que Ophir, en aquellas tierras, y hallandose que los moradores dellas parecen a los Hebreos en muchas cosas, bien se signe que a quellos Indios, y los demas proceden de Ophir nieto de Heber de quien los Hebreos, y su lengua tomaron el nombre. Tambien se halla el nombre de Iectan padre de Ophir en la provincia que oy se llama Yucatan, en la Nueva España, que no es pequeño fundemento para provar que ya que no pusiesse aquel nombre Iectan, por no haver ido a aquella tierra, pudo ser que lo diesse su hijo Ophir.”—_Origen de los Indios_, p. 323. Ed., _Valencia_, 1607.

[166] _Origen de los Indios_, (_Valencia_, 1607), p. 485.

[167] _Hist. de la Nouvelle France_, lib. i, cap. iii, p. 25. Paris, 1611.

[168] _Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos_, Madrid, 1728–30, fol. decada 1, lib. i, cap. vi.

[169] _Historia de la Conquista Itza_, p. 27, Madrid, 1701, fol.

[170] Aunque la verdad es que ellos, por hablar mas propriamente y los otros de quien descendieron, por Generacion Natural, son de los Hijos de Noé * * * y segun lo que tenemos dicho, en otra parte, acerca de el color de estas gentes, no tendria por cosa descaminada, creer que son descendientes de los Hijos, u Nietos de Cham, tercero Hijo de Noé.—_Monarquia Ind._, tom. i, p. 30.

[171] Pineda in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 1852, p. 343; see tradition of Votan, this work, chap. v.

[172] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv, p. 17; cited by Bancroft.

[173] _Historia del origen de pentes que poblaron la America Septentrional que llaman la Nueva España con noticia de los primeros que establecieron la Monarquia, que en ella florecio de la Nacion Tolteca, y noticias que alcanzaron de la creacion del Mundo_ (date at end of first vol. 1755, and end of third 1780), _por M. Fer. de Echevarria y Veitia_, pp. 24–30, chap, i, tom. i, MS. Three vols. folio, in Library of Congress at Washington. About one-fourth of the work is published in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, tom. viii.

[174] _Historia_, cap. xii, tom. i, p. 92, MS.; of Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, tom. viii, p. 189.

[175] _Noticias Americanas_, pp. 391–5, 405–7. Cited by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 10.

[176] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 11.

[177] _Deserts_, vol. i, p. 26. But what else could be expected of the editor of that curiosity of Americo-Germanic literature executed by some German school-boy and unearthed in the Arsenal Library at Paris, entitled _Manuscript Pictographique Américain précédé d’une notice sur l’Ideographie des Peaux-Rouges_, par l’Abbé Em. Domenech, Paris, 1860. Published under the auspices of the Minister of State and of the Emperor Napoleon III. See also _Le Livre des Sauvages au Point de Vue de la Civilization Française_, Brussels, 1861. The internal evidences of this remarkable MS. being the work of a German boy are plain to any one having the slightest knowledge of the German language. How the Abbé and the Emperor could have been so blinded to its real character we cannot imagine; however, it would be unfair to leave the impression that, because of the theory of Ophir’s colonization and because of this literary blunder, the Abbé’s work entitled _Seven Years’ Residence in the Great Deserts of North America_ is without value. On the contrary, it contains much useful information. The following passage occurs on p. 66 of the above work: “The most careful study concerning the origin of the red-skins, made on the spot, has confirmed us in the belief that there is nothing in science to contradict the Bible, which represents Adam as the sole stock whence sprung the three great races which form the principal types of the human family.”

[178] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv, p. 15. We quote the following from the translation by Cullan, London, 1807: “We do not doubt that the population of America has been very ancient, and more so than it may seem to have been to European authors: 1. Because the Americans wanted those arts and inventions, such, for example, as those of wax and oil for light, which on the one hand being very ancient in Europe and Asia, are on the other most useful, not to say necessary, and when once discovered are never forgotten. 2. Because the polished nations of the new world, and particularly those of Mexico, preserve in their traditions and in their paintings the memory of the creation of the world and of the building of the Tower of Babel, the confusion of languages and the dispersion of the people, though blended with some fables, and had no knowledge of the events which happened afterwards in Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, although many of them were so great and remarkable that they could not easily have gone from their memories. 3. Because neither was there among the Americans any knowledge of the people of the old continent, nor among the latter any account of the passage of the former to the new world.” He then cites Votan. See further on early views, Gottfried Wagner’s _De Originibus Amer. Disertatio Lipsiæ_, 1669; Hugo Grotius’s _Dissertatio de Origine Gentium Americanorum Amstelodami_, 1642; Jean De Laet’s _Notæ ad Diss. H. Grotii de Originine Gent. Americ._, 1643; Jean De Laet’s _Responsio ad H. Grotii Diss. de Origine Gent. Americ._, 1644; Poisson’s _Animadrersiones in Originem Peruvianorum et Mexicanorum_, Parisiis, 1644; Georgius Hornius’s _De Originibus Americanis Hagæ_, 1652; Rocha’s _Tratado Unico y Singulare del Origin de los Indios Occidentales, del Peru, Mexico, Santa Fe, y Chile_; Lima, 1681; Engel’s _Essai sur Cette Question: Comment l’Amérique est-elle été Peuplée d’Hommes et d’Ammaux_, Amsterdam, 1767; Corn. De Pauw’s _Recherche sur l’Amérique et les Americans_, Berlin, 1774; Vater’s _Untersuchungen über America’s Bevölkerung aus dem alten Continent_, Leipzig, 1810.

[179] D. B. Warden’s _Recherches sur les Antiquités de l’Amérique du Nord_, in _Antiquités Mexicaines_, tom. ii, div. ii. Paris, 1834, quarto.

[180] _Native Races_, vol. v, chap. i. The literary apparatus contained in the notes accompanying the chapter is remarkably full and valuable.

[181] “I know of no man better qualified than was Brasseur de Bourbourg, to penetrate the obscurity of American primitive history. His familiarity with the Nahua and Central American languages, his indefatigable industry and general erudition, rendered him eminently fit for the task, and every word written by such a man on such a subject is entitled to respectful consideration. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that the Abbé was often rapt away from the truth by the excess of enthusiasm, and the reader of his wild and fanciful speculations cannot but regret that he has not the opportunity or the ability to criticise by comparison the French savant’s interpretation of the original documents.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, p. 127.

[182] The work in which he repudiates his first interpretation of the Codex Chimalpopoca, and in which he advocates the allegorical meaning together with the theory of Atlantis, is entitled _Quatre Lettres sur le Mexique_, Paris, 1868.

[183] This work, p. 135.

[184] Among these we may cite Adair’s _History of the American Indians_; Jones’ _History of Ancient America_; Giordan’s _Tehuantepec_; Rossi’s _Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Orégon_, pp. 276–7; Ethan Smith’s _Views of the Hebrews_; Thorowgood’s _Jewes in America_; Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol. i, and Simon’s _Ten Tribes_.

[185] _Mexican Antiquities_, London, 1831–48, 9 vols. imperial folio.

[186] The tablets remained in their place of concealment until discovered by Joseph Smith, September 22, 1827. Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, p. 97 _et seq._ (from which we draw the above), has translated a full account of this wonderful claim from Bertrand’s _Memoirs_, pp. 32 _et seq._

[187] Pineda’s _De Rebus Solomonis_, but especially Horn’s _De Origine Gentium Americanarum_.

[188] Some of these features will receive attention in a following chapter.

[189] Hudson’s _Geographiæ Veteris Scriptores Græci Minores_, 1698–1712, 8vo, and Rev. Thos. Falconer’s _Voyage of Hanno_, translated, etc., Oxford, 1797, 8vo.

[190] _Native Races_, p. 66.

[191] Chap. V.; see Tradition and Literature.

[192] By George Jones, R. S. I.; M. F. S. V., etc.; dedicated by permission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to Frederick William the Fourth, King of Prussia. London, 1843.

[193] Mr. Jones states in his preface that to furnish a list of the works from which he drew his material would be pedantic, and adds: “Yet being professedly an original work, the volume of the brain has been more largely extracted from than any writer whose works are already before that public—to whose final judgment (upon its merits or demerits) the present author submits the first history of ancient America with all humility; but he will yield to none in the conscientious belief in the truth of the startling propositions and the consequent conclusions.” With such convictions there is no opportunity for unbiased investigation.

[194] _Traditions of Decoodah and Antiquarian Researches_, p. 16. New York, 1858, 8vo.

[195] _Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains Comparées aux Mœurs des Premiers Temps._ Paris, 1724.

[196] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, p. 122; the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg’s discovery of the Greek Gods in America (_Landa, Relacion_, pp. lxx–lxxx) will be considered further on.

[197] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, pp. 55 _et seq._; M’Culloch’s _Researches_, pp. 171–2; Mayer’s _Mexico as it Was_, p. 186; Humboldt’s _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 120–4, and Stephen’s _Central America_, vol. ii, p. 441; Jones’ _Hist. Anc. Am._, pp. 122 _et seq._

[198] Delafield’s _Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of America_, Cincinnati, 1839, quarto.

[199] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 54. In a note an excellent collection of authorities is quoted.

[200] Colonel Kennon in Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 65 _et seq._ Also C. W. Brooks on Japanese Race in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 51.

[201] In _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, vol. xxviii, 1761.

[202] English by Chas. G. Leland: _Fusang, or the Chinese Discovery of America_, 1875. New York.

[203] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 34, note, says: “A Chinese _li_ is about one-third of a mile”—English, we suppose, but upon what authority we are unable to say. Klaproth adopted 850 _li_ to a degree, while D’Eichthal fixes it at 400 to a degree in the sixth century, though at present it is 250 _li_ to a degree. Deguignes’ _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptiones et Belles Lettres_, vol. xxviii, 1761, and Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 128 and 140.

[204] Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 25 _et seq._ This translation was revised by Professor Neumann himself, and is more literal than that by Klaproth.

[205] Klaproth’s _Recherches_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, 1831, tom. li, pp. 57 _et seq._ Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, tom. xi, pp. 65–6.

[206] Sr. Jose Perez in _Revue Orientale et Américaine_, No. 4, pp. 189–195.

[207] Dr. E. Bretschneider in the fifth number of the _Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal_, vol. iii, published at Foochow, October 1870. The article entitled _Fusang, or Who Discovered America_, is copied in full in Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 165 _et seq._ See also Dr. Neumann’s _Ost-Asien und West Amerika_; in _Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Erdkunde_ for April, 1864. See _D’Eichthal_ in _Revue Archéologique_, 1862, vol. ii, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 33 _et seq._

[208] The strongest proof upon which the Chinese theory rests is that of physical resemblance, which on the extreme north-western coast of America is very marked. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 37.

[209] John Ranking’s _Historical Researches on the Conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc., by the Mongols_, London, 1827.

[210] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 44–50, contains a good review, but Ranking himself must be examined to be appreciated.

[211] _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 40 _et seq._, gives a brief review. The subject will be fully treated in its proper place.

[212] In the Landnama-book, No. 107, is found a narrative of ARE MARSON, in Hvitramanna Land. Prof. Rafn (_Antiquitates Americanæ_, pp. 210 _et seq._), translates it as follows: “Ulvus Strabo, filius Högnii Albi, totum occupavit Reykjanesum inter Thorskafjördum et Hafrafellum; uxorem habuit Bjargam, filiam Eyvindi Œstmanni, sororem Helgii Marci. Eorum filius Atlius Rufus, qui uxorem habuit Thorbjargam, sororem Steinolvi Humilis; horum filius erat Mar de Reykholis, qui uxorem habuit Thorkatlam, filiam Hergilsis Hnapprassi (natibus globosis). Eorum filius fuit Arius, qui tempestate delatus est ad Hvitramannalandiam (Terram alborum hominum), quam nonnulli Irlandiam Magnum appellant, qui in oceano occidentali jacet prope Vinlandiam Bonam, sex dierum navigatione versus occidentem ab Irlanda.” On Hvitramannaland, see _Antiquitates Americanæ_, pp. 162, 163, 183, 210, 212, 214, 447, 448, and De Costa’s _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, pp. lii, 86, 63, 70, 87, 88.

[213] _Monastikon Britannicum_, pp. 131–2, 187–8. Cited by De Costa, _Pre-Col. Dis. of Am._, p. xviii.

[214] On this subject see Brasseur de Bourbourg in the 16th vol. of the sixth series of _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, pp. 263, 281–9; also 3d vol. of same work, sixth series, 1855, pp. 156–7, and in _New York Tribune_ for November 21, 1855.

[215] _Découverte de l’Amérique par les Normands an Xᵉ siècle, par Gabriel Gravier_, Paris, 1864, 4to.

[216] _America Not Discovered by Columbus_, by R. B. Anderson, Chicago, 1874, 16mo.

[217] Gravier, _Découverte de l’Amérique_, p. 235, quotes Dr. Schuck as authority, _Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord_, 1840–43, pp. 26–7; also 1844, p. 181.

[218] Hakluyt’s _Principal Navigations, Voyages, etc._, vol. iii, pp. 1 _et seq._; see a good discussion of the Welsh claim in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 116 _et seq._

[219] “I think, therefore (as mentioned before), we do not at all derogate from God’s greatness, nor in any ways dishonor the sacred evidence given us by His servants, when we think that there were as many Adams and Eves (every one knows these names to have an allegorical sense), as we find different species of the human genus * * * * God has created an original pair here as well as elsewhere.”—_Roman’s Concise Nat. Hist. of E. and W. Florida_, p. 55, New York, 1775. “We will candidly confess that we could never understand why philosophers have been so pre-disposed to advocate the theory which peoples America from the Eastern hemisphere. We think the supposition that the Red man is a primitive type of a family of the human race, originally planted in the Western Continent, presents the most natural solution of the problem; and that the researches of physiologists, antiquaries, philologists and philosophers in general, tend irresistibly to this conclusion.”—_Norman’s Rambles in Yucatan_, p. 251, New York, 1843, 8vo. “My own belief is that, whatever was the origin of the different tribes or families, the whole race of American Indians are native and indigenous to the soil. There is no proof that they are either the lost tribes of Israel or emigrants from any part of the old world. They are a separate and as distinct a race as either the Ethiopian, Caucasian, or Mongolian. In the absence of all proof to the contrary, it seems to me to be both rational and consistent to assume that the Creator placed the Red race on the American Continent as early as He created the beasts and reptiles that inhabit it.”—_Swan’s North-west Coast_, p. 206, New York, 1857. “Dieu a créé plusieurs couples d’êtres humains différant les uns des autres intérieurement et extérieurement; chacun de des couples a été placé dans le climat approprié à son organisation.”—_Lord Kames in Warden’s Recherches_, p. 203.

[220] The reader who has not given special attention to this phase of the subject, will be surprised to learn how generally received has been the autochthonic theory among writers in this field. Mr. Bancroft has given several quotations to illustrate this fact. See Morelet’s _Voyage_, vol. i, p. 177, Paris, 1857; Evens’ _Our Sister Republic_, p. 332; Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 232. We prepared extracts for insertion at this point, but the limit of our space will not permit a full consideration of the question.

Mr. Bancroft says of the theory, “If we may judge by the recent results of scientific investigation, [it] may eventually prove to be scientifically correct. To express belief, however, in a theory incapable of proof, appears to me idle. Indeed such belief is not belief, it is merely acquiescing in or accepting a hypothesis or tradition until the contrary is proved.”—_Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 130–1.

[221] _Crania Americana_, p. 260. Philadelphia, 1839. Folio.

[222] Dr. Morton gives the following comparative table showing the internal capacity and dimensions of the crania of different races:

+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+ | | | _Mean | | | | | _Number | Internal | _Largest|_Smallest| | RACES. | of Skulls._| Capacity | in the | in the | | | |in cubic in._| Series._| Series._| +-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+ |Caucasian | 52 | 87 | 109 | 75 | |Mongolian | 10 | 83 | 93 | 69 | |Malay | 18 | 81 | 89 | 64 | |American | 147 | 82 | 100 | 60 | |Ethiopian | 29 | 78 | 94 | 65 | +-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+

[223] After presenting several arguments together with accompanying proofs, Agassiz says: “This coincidence between the circumscription of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological provinces characterized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind, which the study of the geographical distribution of all the organized beings now existing upon earth has disclosed to us. It is a fact which cannot fail to throw light at some future time upon the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows that man’s physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply to man. Now there are only two alternatives before us at present: 1st. Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different races with their peculiarities, in their present distribution, are to be ascribed to subsequent changes—an assumption for which there is no evidence whatever, and leads at once to the admission that the diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution determined by a general plan established in the beginning of the creation; or 2d, we must acknowledge that the diversity among animals is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what are called human races down to their specializations as nations are distinct primordial forms of the type of man.” * * * He concludes in these words: “The laws which regulate the diversity of animals and their distribution upon earth apply equally to man _within the same limits and in the same degree_; and all our liberty and moral responsibility, however spontaneous, are yet instinctively directed by the All-wise and Omnipotent to fulfill the great harmonies established in Nature.”—_Types of Mankind_, pp. lxxv and lxxvi.

[224] Agassiz in Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 78.

[225] _Ibid._

[226] _Manual of the Anatomy of the Vertebrated Animals_, p. 420. N. Y., 1872.

[227] Note to Retzius’ article in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.

[228] As an illustration of complex classification, we have the following: “From an old and well-filled European graveyard may be selected specimens of _klimocephalic_ (slope or saddle skull), _conocephalic_ (cone-skull), _brachycephalic_ (short-skull), _dolichocephalic_ (long-skull), _platycephalic_ (flat-skull), _leptocephalic_ (slim-skull), and other forms of crania equally worthy of penta or hexa-syllabic Greek epithets.”—_Owen (R.)_, _Anatomy of Vertebrates_, vol. ii, p. 570. London, 1866, 8vo. Foster, in _Pre-Historic Rates of the United States_, in addition to the long and short skulls, adopts also the _orthocephalic_ (erect-head), with the longitudinal diameter 100; he assumes the transverse diameter for dolichocephalæ to be less than 73; for orthocephalæ, to range between 74 and 79, and for brachycephalæ, 80 and upwards.

[229] _Pre-Historic Man_, chap. xx. 3d ed. London, 1876. 2 vols. 8vo.

[230] Dr. Wilson’s _American Cranial Type_ in _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, pp. 250 _et seq._ Dr. Wilson clearly shows that in one set there is the characteristic Mongol auxiliary of prominent cheek bones, while in the other the bones of the face are small and delicate. In twenty-six measurements he finds proof that the Peruvians were distinct from the Mexicans. Thirty-one dolichocephalic crania as compared with twenty-two brachycephalic crania convince him of the error of Morton and establish a diversity among the tribes of the North-east. He thinks analogies are traceable between the Esquimaux and the type of elongated skull; at all events he is satisfied that the form of the skull is as little constant among the tribes of the new world as among those of the old.

[231] This author (Dr. Morton), who has given us such numerous and valuable facts, as well as the linguists who have studied these American languages with indefatigable zeal, have arrived at the conclusion that both race and language in the new world are unique. I am obliged to avow that the facts advanced by Morton himself, and that the study of numerous skulls with which he has enriched the museum of Stockholm, have conducted me to a wholly different result. I can only explain the fact by surmising that this remarkable man has allowed the views of the naturalist to be warped by his linguistic researches. For, if the form of the skull has anything to do with the question of races, we cannot fail to see that it is scarcely possible to find anywhere a more distinct distribution into dolichocephalæ and brachycephalæ than in America. It would be only necessary, in order to show this, to direct attention to certain of the delineations in his own work, where the skull of the Peruvian infant (Pl. 2), the Lenni-Lenape (Pl. 32), the Pawnee (Pl. 38), the Blackfoot (Pl. 40), etc., as clearly present the dolichocephalic form as on the other hand his Natchez (Pl. 30 and 31) and the greater part of his representations of the skulls of Chile, Peru, Mexico, Oregon, etc., are distinct types of the brachycephalic. Conclusive, however, as the plates are, I should scarcely have ventured to advance these remarks, if the rich series of our own collection, and the numerous and excellent figures of Blumenbach, Sandifort, Van der Hoeven, etc., did not declare in favor of my opinion. (_Retzius_ in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.)

Latham, in _Natural History of the Varieties of Man_, p. 452, says: “As to the conformation of the skull, a point where (with great deference) I differ with the author of the excellent _Crania Americana_, the Americans are said to be _brakhy_-kephalic, the Eskimo _dolikho_-kephalic.” He quotes Morton’s tables to contradict his (Morton’s) conclusions.

[232] “Tried by Dr. Morton’s own definitions and illustrations, the Scioto Mound skull differs from the typical cranium in some of its most characteristic features. Instead of the low, receding, unarched forehead, it has a finely-arched frontal bone with corresponding breadth of forehead. The wedge-shaped vertex is replaced by a well-rounded arch curving equally throughout; and with the exception of the flattened occiput, due to artificial though probably undesigned compression in infancy, the cranium is a uniformly proportioned example of an extreme brachycephalic skull.”—_Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 127.

[233] Chapter II, p. 127.

[234] Henry Gillman, _The Ancient Men of the Great Lakes_, in _Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science_, 24th meeting, at Detroit, 1875, p. 317; also _American Journal of Arts and Science_, 1874, vol. cvii, p. 1 _et seq._, and _Sixth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 12–20.

[235] Opportunity did not permit to obtain the exact (absolute) capacity.

[236] Artificially perforated.

[237] Very retreating frontal.

[238] Very protuberant occipital.

[239] Artificially perforated.

[240] With epactal bone 1.5 in length. It may be interesting to mention that I find occasionally in our mounds a tendency to the formation of the epactal bone by a sudden approach of the sutures immediately below the apex of the occipital—a sort of transitional state.

[241] _Recent Explorations of Mounds near Davenport, Iowa_, in _Proceedings of American Association for the Advancement of Science_, 24th meeting, 1875, pp. 297 _et seq._

[242] Dr. Farquharson considers that some of his measurements in inches are scarcely accurate enough, and gives the following table in the decimals of a metre:

MEASUREMENTS OF MOUND SKULLS; ALSO OF SIOUX SKULLS IN DECIMALS OF A METRE.

FORAMINAL DISTANCE TAKEN WITH WYMAN’S INSTRUMENT.

A. _Horizontal Circumference._ B. _Long Diameter._ C. _Transverse Diameter._ D. _Vertical Diameter._ E. _Capacity in Cubic Centimetres._ F. _Foraminal Distance._ G. _Foraminal Ratio._ H. _Ratio of Diameter._

+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+ |_No._| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | _Mounds._ | +-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+ | 1 |.546|.200|.120|.140|1190| | |.600|Albany, Ill. | | 2 |.483|.162|.128|.140|1190|.062|.382|.790|Albany, Ill. | | 3 |.495|.174|.130|.135|1020|.077|.442|.752|Albany, Ill. | | 7 |.508|.170|.140|.125| | | |.823|Albany, Ill. | | 8 |.495|.175|.135|.140|1249|.065|.370|.771|Davenport, Mound No. 9.| | 9 |.508|.171|.140|.140|1334|.062|.362|.818|Rock River, Ill. | | 10 |.508|.167|.148|.140|1135|.070|.419|.886|Rock River, Ill. | | 11 |.533|.180|.150|.145|1362| | |.833|Rock River, Ill. | | 12 |.457|.167|.128|.140|1021| | |.766|Rock River, Ill. | | 13 |.522|.185|.130|.150|1362|.089|.427|.702|Rock River, Ill. | | 14 |.483|.171|.138|.140|1192|.079|.460|.807|Henry County, Ill. | | 15 |.508|.185|.138|.145|1306|.081|.443|.745|Henry County, Ill. | | 16 |.457|.170|.130|.140|1135|.078|.448|.764|Henry County, Ill. | | 17 |.533|.185|.135|.146|1249|.072|.389|.703|Henry County, Ill. | | 18 |.508|.180| |.140| | | | |Rock River, Ill. | | 19 |.533|.196|.140|.140| | | |.704|Rock River, Ill. | | 20 | |.200|.128| | | | |.640|Rock River, Ill. | | 21 | |.180|.137| | | | |.761|Henry County, Ill. | | 23 | |.178|.140|.140| |.073|.410|.730|Albany, Ill. | | 24 | |.184|.139|.150| |.088|.478|.755|Rock River, Ill. | | 26 | |.200| | | | | | |Shell Bed, Rock Island.| | 27 |.482|.170|.125|.140| 936|.076|.388|.735|Albany, Ill. | | 28 | |.177|.135|.140| | | |.762|Albany, Ill. | | 29 |.507|.177|.130|.145|1137|.088|.440|.734|Albany, Ill. | | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+ | |.503|.179|.134|.140|1188|.075|.432|.755|Mean. | | +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+ | | 18 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 22 |No. of skulls measured.| +-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

[243] Dr. Jones found skeletons six feet, and in one instance seven feet in length. (_Antiquities of Tennessee_, pp. 44 and 53.)

[244] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 72; also note other similarities on p. 119.

[245] _Ancient Men of the Great Lakes._ _Proceedings of the American Association for Advancement of Science_, meeting of 1875, pp. 322–3.

[246] _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xx, pp. 145, 158, 165.

[247] The Aztecs are represented in our museum by three skulls found in an ancient cemetery near Mexico, which was uncovered in digging intrenchments to protect the Mexican capital against the armies of the United States. They are remarkable for the shortness of their axis, large flattened occiput, obliquely truncated behind, the height of the semicircular line of the temples, the shortness and trapezoid form of the parietal plane. They present an elevation or ridge along the sagittal suture; the base of the skull is very short, the face slightly prognathic, as among the Mongol Kalmucs. (Retzius in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 268.)

[248] _Crania Americana_, p. 98.

[249] See Dr. Morton in _Nott & Gliddon_.

[250] _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xx.

[251] See especially _Eleventh Annual Report Peabody Museum_, pp. 294–304.

[252] _Geography_, book i, chap. ii, § 35, and book xi, chap, xi, § 7.

[253] _Natural History_, book vii, chap. iv.

[254] _De Situ Orbis_, lib. i, chap. xix, l. 78 (ed. 1782).

[255] _Description of a Deformed Fragmentary Skull found in an Ancient Quarry-cave at Jerusalem_, by Dr. J. A. Meigs, _Transactions of Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences_, 1859.

[256] We can no longer doubt, then, that this practice of giving an artificial form to the skull has subsisted from a remote epoch among the Oriental nations. As Thierry, moreover, pronounces it to be a Mongol usage, I have submitted the question in the memoir before spoken of, whether this fact does not speak in favor of an ancient communication between the old and the new world? Such a communication seems, indeed, to be now placed beyond doubt by the proofs which have been accumulated from time to time, through the efforts of numerous and zealous inquirers. It would seem likely that the usage in question has been introduced by the Mongols into America, where it has become diffused even among tribes not of the Mongol stock. (Retzius in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 270; also the same author in _Arch. des Sciences Naturelles_, Geneva, 1860; _Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science_, 1867, and _Edinburgh Phil. Journal_, new series, vol. vii.)

[257] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 286.

[258] _Essai sur les Deformations Artificielles du Crâne_, p. 74.

[259] _Crania Britannica_, chap. iv, p. 38.

[260] Retzius, _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, pp. 269–70.

[261] Prof. Wilson, _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 221, and Retzius in the Reviews referred to in note 1, p. 180.

[262] J. B. Davis in _Crania Britannica_, decade iii.

[263] _Races of Man_ (Bohn), p. 45; Dr. Nott in _Types of Mankind_, p. 436; Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol ii, p. 221.

[264] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 291.

[265] Du Pratz’s _History of Louisiana_, vol. ii, p. 162.

[266] Adair’s _History of American Indians_, p. 284.

[267] On skull flattening, see Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xxi. Prof. Jones’ _Antiquities of Tennessee, Smithsonian Contributions_, 1876, pp. 118 _et seq._ Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 181. Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 40 and other places. Townsend’s _Tour to the Columbia River_, pp. 178 _et seq._ Bancroft’s _Native Races_ as follows: I, 151, 158, 180, 210, 226–8, 256–7; Among the Mexicans, I, 651; II, 281; Central Americans, I, 717, 754; II, 681–2, 731–2, 802; IV, 304, and the accompanying literary apparatus.

[268] “This is certainly not a common disease now, and although rare, the instances of cure by bony anchylosis (the only way in which a true cure can take place), are even yet more rare. Nelaton, in his _Pathologie Chirurgicale_, has only been able to note twenty-five recorded cases of such an event. Now, as the space of one year is the shortest possible time allowed by authorities for such a cure to take place, and as during all this time the parts must be kept absolutely at rest, and the person so afflicted being entirely helpless, the inference is a strong one that these people were not in a savage state. They must necessarily have been in such a state, in the progress of advancement in civilization, as to be possessed of an accumulation of food, the requisite leisure of persons nursing the sick, and of dwellings sufficiently comfortable to protect them from inclemency of the weather in this latitude; without those elements of civilization those persons would inevitably have perished.”—_Dr. Farquharson in Proceedings of Am. Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxiv, p. 314.

[269] Prof. Jones, _Antiquities of Tennessee_, gives a good summary of the discussion from the first writers to the present time, p. 65 _et seq._

[270] “This flattening of the leg-bone was of a degree unheard of—I might almost say undreamt of—in any other part of this country or of the world. In many of the more extreme cases of those flattened tibiæ with sabre-like curvature which I had exhumed at the Rouge, the transverse diameter was only 0.48 of the antero-posterior, less than half, while in that most marked and isolated case recorded by Broca, from the cave at Cro-Magnon, France, it was 0.60. In the chimpanzee and gorilla the compression is 0.67. Shortly afterward, even this extreme degree of compression was cast in the shade by my bringing to light from a mound on the Detroit River, rich in relics, among a number of the flattened tibiæ, two specimens of this bone in which the latitudinal indices were respectively 0.42 and 0.40.”—_Henry Gillman_ in _Proceedings American Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxiv, pp. 316–17. _The Sixth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Dr. Jeffries Wyman._ _The American Journal of Arts and Sciences_, 3d series, vol. vii, January 1874. _Gillman_ in _Smithsonian Report for 1873_, and _Dr. Farquharson_ in _Proceedings of A. A. A. S._, vol. xxiv, p. 313. 1875.

[271] Gillman in _American Naturalist_ for August, 1875, and _Proceedings of A. A. A. Science_, 1875, p. 327.

[272] Prof. Wilson has pathetically described the disinterment of a Peruvian family, consisting of the father, mother and child, and has especially dwelt upon the color and qualities of the hair as distinguishing them from the Red Indians. (_Pre-Historic Man_, pp. 440 _et seq._)

[273] _Commentarios Reales_, book v, chap. xxix; book iii, chap. xx.

[274] Haywood’s _Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee_, p. 191.

[275] Haywood, _op. cit._, pp. 163–6, 169, 100, 148–9, 338–9. On the mummies of Lexington, Kentucky, see Atwater’s _Archæologia Americana_, p. 318. Mammoth Cave, p. 359, _et passim_.

[276] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 5.

[277] Squier and Davis’ _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley_, pp. 243 _et seq._ Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, pp. 365 _et seq._ Charles Rau, _Smithsonian Contributions No. 287_, 1876, pp. 84, 55. Prof. Joseph Jones’ _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_, _passim_, _Smithsonian Contributions_, No. 259.

[278] Bryant’s _History of United States_, vol. i, chap. ii.

[279] Prichard, _Researches into the Physical Hist. of Mankind_, 4th ed., 1841, vol. i, p. 269, after reviewing the question of the unity of the American race, remarks: “It will be easy to prove that the American races, instead of displaying a uniformity of color in all climates, show nearly as great a variety in this respect as the nations of the old continent; that there are among them white races with a florid complexion inhabiting temperate regions, and tribes black or of very dark hue in low and inter-tropical countries; that their stature, figure and countenances are almost equally diversified. Of these facts I shall collect sufficient evidence when I proceed to the ethnography of the American nations.” He fulfils this promise ably enough in vol. v, pp. 289, 374, 542, and other places. We respectfully refer the reader to the facts there accumulated.

[280] Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 189.

[281] See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 262, note, where reference is made to Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 32, 45, 97, 103.

[282] _The American Migration_, by Frederick von Hellwald. _Smithsonian Report_ for 1866, pp. 329, 330.

[283] Jean Lamarck, _Philosophic Zoologique_, etc., Paris, 1809, 2 vols., and _Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres_, 1815.

[284] See Hæckel, _History of Creation_, vol. ii, pp. 255–6, and Professor Huxley’s reference to the genus _Equus_ (embracing the horse, ass and zebra from specimens collected by Prof. Marsh). New York Lectures, September, 1876.

[285] Dr. McCosh in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 88; Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 192 (New York ed.).

[286] _Smithsonian Report_, 1866.

[287] _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 188. Also, “The Simiadæ then branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 204. Again, “We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the old world.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. ii, p. 372.

[288] _History of Creation_, (N. Y. ed.), 1876, vol. ii, p. 318.

[289] “Nowhere can lines of demarcation be so clearly drawn, so imperceptibly do the families of mankind blend at their circumferences. The various classifications which have been attempted are so many proofs of unity of origin; and their confliction shows the fallacy of the theory of diversity. * * * * We cannot admit that mankind can have diversity of origin while so united by one great plan. If a species or variety of the _genus homo_ sprang up in Europe and another in America by agency of conditions existing in those localities, it would be beyond probability that they should both be formed on the same plan.”—_H. Tuttle’s Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man Scientifically Considered_, pp. 34–5. Boston, 1866, 12mo.

[290] Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 224, and Nilsson’s _The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, Lubbock’s trans., 1868, p. 104.

[291] See _Early History of Fire_, by Prof. N. Joly of the Faculty of Toulouse in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 17; also Darwin, as above cited.

[292] Waitz’s _Anthropology_, Eng. trans., pp. 226–28.

[293] Pallas was the first to show the fallacy of the theory in _Act. Académie St. Petersburg_, 1780, Part II, p. 69; followed by Rudolphi in his _Beyträge zur Anthropologia_, 1812, and especially by Godron, _De l’Espèce_, 1859, vol. ii, p. 246 _et seq._; see Darwin’s _Descent_, vol. i, p. 232.

[294] Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races_; Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval Man_, p. 99.

[295] _Primeval Man_, p. 100.

[296] “We ourselves, when visiting the famous cavern of Abou Simbel, were far from finding all that the writings of certain anthropologists and partisans of Egyptian art, such as Gliddon, Nott, etc., had promised us. Doubtless one can perfectly distinguish certain types, that is indisputable; but to desire to find _a people_ in each portrait—Scythians, Arabs, Philistines, Lydians, Kurds, Hindoos, Jews, Chinese, Tyrians, Pelasgians, Ionians, etc.—is it not to give too great an influence to the Egyptian artists, who were copyists without skill, and but clumsy inventors?”—_Pouchet’s Plurality of the Human Race_, Eng. trans., p. 50. London, 1864.

[297] Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval Man_, p. 101.

[298] Darwin’s _Variation of Animals under Domestication_, vol. ii, pp. 227–335, and many places.

[299] Harlan’s _Medical Researches_, p. 532, and _Quatrefanges_ (_Unité de l’Espèce Humaine_, 1861, p. 128), cited by Darwin, _Descent_, vol. i, p. 237.

[300] _Descent_, vol. i, p. 233, Bradford (A. W.) discusses the origin of color and other racial peculiarities, and attributes to the tendency of a species to vary, and cites the production of Albinoes, Xanthous, and Sedigidi or six-fingered individuals. “It must be admitted,” he says, “that this theory is sufficiently supported by an irrefragable mass of testimony to establish the _original unity_ of the human race, and to indicate that varieties of mankind are descended from the same primitive stock.”—_American Antiquities_, pp. 238–9.

[301] See instances in Darwin’s _Descent_, vol. i, p. 234; Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 68, and especially Pouchet’s _Plurality of the Human Race_ (trans.), p. 60.

[302] “I doubt not that there will be found continuous and uninterrupted causes which shall explain all the diversities of the different branches of the human family without the necessity of resorting to independent creations.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 355.

[303] See an excellent treatment of this subject by the Duke of Argyll, _Primeval Man_, pp. 94 _et seq._

[304] “When speaking in a former work of the distinct races of mankind, I remarked that if all the leading varieties of the human family sprang originally from a single pair (a doctrine to which then, as now, I could see no valid objection), a much greater lapse of time was required for the slow and gradual formation of such races as the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro, than was embraced in any of the popular systems of chronology.”—_Sir Charles Lyell’s Antiquity of Man_, p. 385. Dr. J. P. Thompson says: “For such works [alluding to Babel] and especially for founding such an empire as was ancient Egypt, there was need of centuries for the growth of a population in numbers and resources, equal to the gigantic structures that crown the banks of the Nile. The less than two centuries between Archbishop Usher’s date of the cessation of the flood, and Piazzi Smith’s calculation of the date of the great pyramid, was far too short an interval for results upon a scale so magnificent. * * * Either then we must place the flood much farther back upon the chronological scale, or must admit not only that it was not universal in territorial extent, which is altogether probable, but that it was not universal in the destruction of mankind, which would seem to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the sacred record.”—_Man in Genesis and Geology_, p. 100. New York, 1870. 12mo.

[305] See Humboldt’s _Essai Polit._, vol. i, p. 79, Paris, 1811. He considers not only the Red Indians, but the Toltecs and Aztecs, to be of Asiatic Origin. See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Nat. Civil. Ant._, tom. i, p. 27. McCullough’s _Researches_, _Phil. and Ant._, pp. 175 _et seq._ Crowe, _The Gospel in Central America_, p. 61. Bradford, _American Antiquities_, in chapter xii, gives his reasons for declaring the Americans to have been a “primitive and cultivated branch of the human family.” Mayer (Brantz) in _Mexico as it Was_, p. 260, expresses his agreement with the opinion entertained by Bradford. Carver, in _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, repeats the opinion of Charlevoix, that the Americans are of old world origin. Tylor, _Anahuac_, London, 1861, p. 104, says: “On the whole, the most probable view of the origin of the Mexican tribes seems to be the one ordinarily held, that they really came from the old world, bringing with them several legends, evidently the same as the histories recorded in the book of Genesis.”

[306] “La teoria de la diversidad especifica de razas es tan intenible, que sin mas decir podemos, dejar esta cuestion, la cual ultimamente, en especial en Norte-América, ha escitado alguna controversia. Quédanos, pues, un origen primordial para toda la raza humana y entonces la cuestion es, saber de qué tronco ó familia del antiguo continente se pobló el nuevo, ó bien vice-versa, que tambien es possible, aunque improbable, que del que llamamos nuevo se haya poblado el viego continente.”—_Ezequiel Uricoechea_ in _Soc. Mex. Bol._ 2d. ep. iv, 1854, p. 128. “For my own part I have long been convinced of the consanguinity between the brachycephalæ of America and those of Asia and the Pacific islands, and that this characteristic type may be traced uninterruptedly through the long chain of tribes inhabiting the west coast of the American Continent from Behring Straits to Cape Horn.”—_Retzius, Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 267.

[307] “The era of their existence as a distinct and isolated race must probably be dated as far back as that time which separated into nations the inhabitants of the old world, and gave to each branch of the human family its primitive language and individuality.”—_J. C. Prichard’s Natural History of Man_, p. 356. London, 1845.

[308] _Hist. Ant. del Messico_ (Eng. trans., 1807), vol. i.

[309] “Quoique Votan soit le veritable fondateur de la civilisation et de l’empire des Quichés, le Codex Chimalpopoca, attribue néanmoins la fondation de l’empire à son Igh ou Ik, appelé par les Mexicains _Ehecatl_ ou _Cipactonac_, parceque ce prince vint le premir amener une colonie sur le continent américain. Cipactonac est composé de _Cipactli_, et de _Tonacayo_. Le premier vient de _ce_ un, _Ipan_, sur ou au-dessus, et _tlactli_, qui est le corps humain, c’est-à-dire, _Un homme supérieur aux autres hommes_, ou encore de _notre race_, toutes choses qui conviennent parfaitement au père de la race des chànes. Tonacayo, veut dire _notre chair_ ou le _corps humain_, le mot tout entier Cipactonac ayant la signification suivante: ‘Celui qui est sorti du premier de notre race.’ _Ehecatl_ est en mexicain l’air, ou le souffle, Igh ou Ik, en langua maya et tzendale. Dans les calendriers d’Oxaca, Soconusco, Chiappas et d’Yucatan, il suit immediatement le nom de Nin, Imos ou Imox, comme celui d’Ehecatl suit dans le mexicain celui de Cipactli.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas_, note, p. 71. He then proceeds to sustain his conclusions by citing analogies between the name and its significance among the Egyptians.

[310] _Chimalpopoca_, MS., Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh._, p. lxxxviii; see also _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo, Reyno de Guatemala_, por Franc. de Paula Garcia Pelaez (Guatemala, 1851). Pelaez states that Votan founded the ancient Culhuacan, now known as Palenque, in the year 3000 of the world and in the tenth century B. C.

[311] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxx, on the authority of Ordoñez.

[312] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 159.

[313] _Ordoñez_, Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxvii.

[314] _Constituciones Diocesanes del Obispado de Chiappas._ Rome, 1702.

[315] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 160: “It is not altogether improbable that a genuine Maya document similar to the Manuscript _Troano_ or _Dresden Codex_, preserved from early times, may have found a native interpreter at the time of the Conquest, and have escaped in its disguise of Spanish letters the destruction which overtook its companions.”

[316] “The memoir in his possession consists of five or six folios of common quarto paper, written in ordinary characters in the Tzendal language, an evident proof of its having been copied from the original in hieroglyphics, shortly after the Conquest. At the top of the first leaf, the two continents are painted in different colors, in two small squares, placed parallel to each other in the angles; the one representing Europe, Asia and Africa is marked with two large S’S upon the upper arms of two bars drawn from the opposite angles of each square, forming the point of union in the centre; that which indicates America has two S’S placed horizontally on the bars, but I am not certain whether upon the upper or lower bars, but I believe upon the latter. When speaking of the places he had visited on the old continent, he marks them on the margin of each chapter with an upright S and those of America with a horizontal S. Between these squares stands the title of his history: ‘Proof that I am Culebra (a Snake),’ which title he proves in the body of the work by saying that he is Culebra because he is Chivim.”—_Cabrera, Teatro Critico Amer._, pp. 33–4.

[317] Title of Ordoñez in brief: _Historia de la Creation del Cielo y de la Tierra Conforme al Sistema de la Gentilidad Americana_.

[318] See his _Teatro Critico Americano_, p. 32 _et seq._, in Rio’s _Description of the Ruins of an American City_. London, 1822, quarto.

[319] “Mais il y défigura complètement l’ouvrage d’Ordoñez qu’il no connaissait pas assez et auquel il ajouta des opinions extrêmement hasardées. D. Ramon se plaignit amèrement de ce plagiat et des fausses idées que Cabrera donnait de son travail, obtint contre lui un jugement, où le plagiaire fut condamné par le tribunal de l’audience royale de Guatémalà, le 30 Juin, 1794. Mais Cabrera, tout en pillant les idées du savant antiquaire, n’en rendait pas moins justice à son talent et à son merite.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg on Ordoñez MS. Cartas_, p. 8.

[320] The explanation given by Cabrera is as follows: “Let us suppose then, with Calmet and other authors whom he quotes, that some of the Hivites who were descendants from Heth, son of Canaan, were settled on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and known from the most remote parts under the name of Hivim or Givim, from which region they were expelled, some years before the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt, by the Caphtorims or Philistines, who, according to some writers, were colonists from Cappadocia, others considering them to be from Cyprus, and more probably, according to a third opinion, from Crete, now Candia; that to strengthen their native country Egypt, and to protect themselves from all assault, they built five large cities, viz.: Accaron, Azotus, Ascalon, and Gaza [fifth wanting in account], from whence they made frequent sallies upon the Canaanite towns and all their surrounding neighbors (except the Egyptians, whom they always respected), and carried on many wars in the posterior ages against the Hebrews. The Scriptures (Deuteronomy, chap. ii, verse 23, and Joshua, chap. xiii, verse 4) inform us of the expulsion of the Hivites (Givim) by the Caphtorims, from which it appears that the latter drove out the former, who inhabited the countries from Azzah to Gaza. Many others were settled in the vicinity of the mountains of Eval and Azzah, among whom were reckoned the Sichemites and the Gabaonites; the latter by stratagem made alliance with Joshua, or submitted to him. Lastly, others had their dwellings about the skirts of Mount Hermon, beyond Jordan to the eastward of Canaan (Joshua, chap. ii, verse 3). Of these last were Cadmus and his wife Hermione or Hermonia, both memorable in sacred as well as profane history, as their exploits occasioned their being exalted to the rank of deities, while in regard to their metamorphosis into snakes (Culebras) mentioned by Ovid, _Metam._, lib. 3, their being Hivites may have given rise to this fabulous transmutation, the name in the Phœnician language implying a snake, which the ancient Hebrew writers suppose to have been given from this people being accustomed to live in caves under ground like snakes.”—_Cabrera, Teatro Critico_, pp. 47–8. On p. 95 he reaches the conclusion that the Votanites were Carthaginians.

[321] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 163.

[322] _Cartas_, p. 12.

[323] The description of its contents drawn by Brasseur de Bourbourg from the part in his possession is briefly as follows: The second volume of Ordoñez comprised the history of the ancestors of Votan, a descendant of Shem by the Hivo-Phœnician line; of their emigration from the Eastern Continent to the Occident; of their voyage with their first legislator by the Usumasinta River and its affluents to the Plain Palenque; the foundation of the great monarchy of the Quichés as well as that of Nachan, which was the capital; of the founding of the three royal cities of Mayapan, Tulha, and Chiquimula. The Abbé finds allusion to this work in Torquemada, Juarros, Cogolludo, Lizana, and particularly in Sahugun, book iii of his _Hist. Gen._, where it is claimed to treat of the original inhabitants of Palenque. He then states that the work was written in Guatemala at the close of the eighteenth century, and was sent to Spain or taken thither by its author for publication. In 1803 it was found in the hands of Sr. Gil Lemos of Madrid, where it had been left for publication. Its contents becoming known to the Council of the Indias, it was suppressed like many others on the early history of America. Ordoñez, who for ten years afterwards was canon of the Cathedral at Ciudad Real, died without seeing his work published. See Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Cartas_, p. 12 _et seq._

[324] These are as follows: Chontal, Quiché, Zutugil, Kachiquel, Mam, Pokoman, Pokonchi, Caichi Coxoh, Ixil, Tzendal, Tozotzil, Chol, Huaxteco, and Totonaco; besides those of the islands of Cuba and Hayti, Borquia and Jamaica.—_Geografia de los Linguas_, p. 98. Mexico, 1864, 4to.

[325] _Ibid._, p. 128.

[326] “Il y a plus d’un trait de ressemblance entre le personnage mysterieux qui parut à Carthage et le Votan des Tzendales. Les chemins souterraines où celui-ci fut admis, lesquels traversent le terre pour arriver à la racine du ciel, indiquent une suite d’épreuves qui rappellent les initiations Égyptiennes et dont on trouve des traces jusqu’à l’époque même de la conquête dans les épreuves de la chevalerie Mexicaine.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh_, p. cviii.

[327] _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. ii, p. 124. Mexico, 1865, 8vo.

[328] MS. Quiché de Chichicastenango in Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, vol. i, pp. 105–6. See also Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 21.

[329] The _Popol Vuh_ was first published by Dr. Scherzer in Vienna, in 1857, under the title of _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de esta Provincia de Guatemala, traducidas de la Lengua Quiché al Castellano para mas Comodidad de los Ministros del S. Evangelio_, por el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez, cura doctrinero por el real patronato del Pueblo de S. Thomas, Chuila,—Exactamente segun el texto español del manuscrito original que se halla en la biblioteca de la Universidad de Guatemala, publicado por la primera vez, y aumentado con una introduccion y anotaciones por el Dr. C. Scherzer. Father Ximenez, a Dominican and curate of Chichicastenango of Guatemala, wrote about 1720, and subsequently. His work, because of its condemnation of the oppression of the Indians, was suppressed, but was finally discovered in June, 1854, in the library of the University of San Carlos, in Guatemala, by Dr. Scherzer. Father Ximinez describes the work as a literal copy of an original Quiché book, made in Roman letters by Quiché copyists, after the introduction of Christianity into Guatemala. The copy is stated ambiguously to have been made to replace the original _Popol Vuh_—national book—which was lost. How a book which had been lost could be copied literally, the Father fails to tell us. Internal evidence, however, sustains the claim that it was written by native Quichés. In 1860, Brasseur de Bourbourg undertook a new translation of the _Popol Vuh_, from the Ximinez document (containing the Quiché and Spanish). This he did among the Quichés and with the aid of the natives, and as a result it is believed that a much more literal translation than that made by Ximenez was obtained. In our examination of Quiché history we have compared both translations and shall draw from them directly, but shall also take advantage of the excellent condensations and renderings which Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft has made. See _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 42, note, for the leading facts as we have stated them.

[330] We must refer the reader either to the originals or to that treasure-house of American traditional lore, Mr. Bancroft’s third volume, which is a repository of poetic renderings as well. Nor have we endeavored in every instance to avoid the use of that author’s incomparable terminology, so expressive of the spirit of the original.

[331] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. 7; Ximinez, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 5–6; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 44.

[332] Mr. Bancroft’s rendering, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 45.

[333] Mr. Bancroft’s graceful and truly poetic rendering, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 47, 48.

[334] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 54. Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages 1858_, tome iv, p. 268, and _Hist. de Tlaxcallan_ in the same, tome xcix, 1843, p. 179, where reference is made to these bundles.

[335] _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxv, note, et _Ibid._, p. ccliv. The Abbé places that Tulan among the ruins of the valley of Palenque near the modern town of Comitan in the state of Chiapas. He adds: “Siége principal des princes de la race Nahuatl, cette ville aurait été fondée à une époque contemporaine de la capitale des Xibalbides, plusieurs siècles avant l’ère chrétienne, et au rapport de toutes les traditions, elle aurait rivalisé constamment avec sa métropole dont elle cherchait à se rendre indépendante.”

[336] _Popol Vuh_, notes, pp. xci–ii. We have used Mr. Bancroft’s rendering of the passage.

[337] _Geografia de las Linguas Mexicanas_, pp. 96–8 and pp. 127–29. A linguistic argument.

[338] Brasseur de Bourbourg is the authority cited by Mr. Bancroft, vol. v, p. 188.

[339] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 188.

[340] _Popol Vuh_, p. 195. Bancroft, vol. v, 172–80.

[341] _Popol Vuh_, p. cclvi. Bancroft, vol. v, p. 545. The Abbé has largely drawn upon his imagination in this instance as in some others, and the opinion is only interesting because of its authorship.

[342] Las Casas, _Hist. Apologética_, MS., tom. iii, cap. cxxiv et cxxv.

[343] Torquemada, tom. ii, pp. 53–4. Ximinez renders the word Xibalby “Inferno.”

[344] It will be remembered that Votan deposited his treasure in the “house of gloom” or “darkness.”

[345] Mr. Bancroft’s rendering of the paragraph. Vol. v, p. 179.

[346] See Bancroft, vol. v, p. 184.

[347] _Ibid._, vol. v, p. 187.

[348] _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala._ Guatemala, 1857.

[349] _Nations Civilisées_, tom. i, p. 126. Also see the following from the _Popol Vuh_, p. clx: “Quant aux évènements dont Tulan fût le théâtre à cette époque, on ne saurait se dissimuler, en comparant l’ensemble des détails qu’on trouve dans ce chaos, qu’il ne se fût opéré alors un vaste mouvement parmi les populations de l’empire de Xibalba, mouvement causé sans doute par les efforts d’une caste souveraine pour garder le pouvoir et par l’invasion de races nouvelles, sorties des mêmes contrées, septentrionales, d’où étaient venus les Nahuas, ou des regions plus sauvages du nord-ouest; barbares ou civilisées, il y eut naturellement de leurs essaims qui s’amalgamèrent aux nations soumises à l’empire, tandis que d’autres, continuant leur route vers l’Amérique méridionale, y portèrent, sinon les institutions entières des Quinamés et des Nahuas, au moins les symboles qui les avaient le plus frappés au passage ou qui convenaient davantage à leur génie.”

[350] “De la creation, pues, tenien esta opinion. Decian que antes de ella ni habia cielo ni tierra ni sol, ni luna ni estrellas. Ponian que hubo un marido y una muger divinos que lamaron Aehel Atcamma. Estos habian tenido padre y madre los cuales engendaron trece hijos, y que él mayor con algunos con él se ensoberbecieron y guiso hacer criaturas contra la voluntad del padre y madre; pero no pudieron por que lo que hicieron fueron unos vasos viles de servicio como jarros y ollas y semejantes. Los hijos menores que se llamaban Huncheven hunahan, pidieron licencia à su padre y madre para hacer creaturas, y concedieransela, diciendoles que saldrian con ellos por que se habian humillado. Y asi lo primero hicieron los Cielos y Planetas, luego Ayre, Agua y Tierra. Despues dicen que de la tierra formaron al hombre y á la muger. Los otros que fueron soberbios presumiendo hacer criaturas contra la voluntad de los padres fueron en el infierno lanzados.”—_Las Casas, Historia Apologética, MS._, cap. 235, p. 324; see also _Torquemada, Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 53–4; _Help’s Spanish_ _Conquest_, vol. ii, p. 140; _Garcia, Origen de los Indios_, p. 519, Valencia ed., 1607, and _Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civil._, tom. ii, pp. 74–5.

[351] _Historia Apologética, MS._, cap. 235, p. 327.

[352] Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 28, and Herrera, Dec. iv, lib. x, cap. ii.

[353] “Y antiguamente dezian al oriente cen-ial, pequena-baxada, y al puniente nohen-ial, la grande-baxada.”—_Lizana’s Devocionario_, p. 354 in _Landa’s Relacion_.

[354] Cogolludo’s _Historia de Yucatan_, lib. iv. cap. iii, p. 178.

[355] _Geografia de las Linguas_, p. 128.

[356] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 618.

[357] Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 463; Lizana in Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 356; Cogolludo’s _Hist. de Yuc._, p. 197; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 76, tom. ii, pp. 10–13.

[358] Landa, pp. 35–9, and 300–1.

[359] See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 18; Torquemada’s _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 52; Herrera’s _Hist. Gen. Dec._, iv, lib. x, cap. ii; Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. 35–9, 300 _et seq._; _Echevarria y Veitia, MS._, cap. 19, p. 116 _et seq._, and Las Casas’ _Hist. Apologética, MS._, cap. cxxiii.

[360] See for those annals the Perez document in Stephen’s _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 465–9; Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, pp. 120–9, and Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 762–5, and vol. v, p. 624 _et seq._

[361] Las Casas, _Hist. Apologética, MS._, cap. cxxiii, p. 10, Cogolludo’s _Hist. Yuc._, p. 190; Torquemada’s _Monarq. Ind._, tom. iii, p. 133.

[362] Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones_, in Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. ix, p. 322.

[363] _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. ii.

[364] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 199.

[365] Ixtlilxochitl fixes the date of the destruction in the year 229 A. D., Veytia in 107. See further on the Quinames, Echevarria y Veitia, _Historia del Origen de Gentes_, MS., tom. i, p. 33, and Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. viii, cap. iii, p. 179. Mendieta’s _Hist. Eccl._, p. 96, Mexico, 1870. Pineda in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, tom. iii, p. 346. Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxviii, and _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 66. Oviedo’s _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, p. 539. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, p. 125. Boturini, _Idea de Una Nueva Historia_, pp. 130–5. Humboldt, _Vues des Cordilleres_, p. 205, and Orozco y Berra, _Geografia de las Lenguas_, pp. 119–24.

[366] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, lib. iii, cap. vii. Bancroft, vol. v., p. 206. Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 120, 125, 133. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 154.

[367] Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, p. 127. Pimentel, _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. i, p. 223. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 204.

[368] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 278. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 151–61.

[369] _Historia Chichimeca_, cap. i, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p. 205.

[370] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 196, and vol. ii, p. 112. Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 32. Mendieta’s _Hist. Eccl._, p. 146.

[371] “Celebraron assimismo los Indios su dicho origen en antiguos cantares, y tuvieron tan viva la memoria de la torre de Babel, que la quisieron imitar en America con varios monstruosos edificias.” He then cites the Pyramid of Cholula as having been built in commemoration of the Tower of Babel. See Boturini, _Idea de Una Nueva Historia_, p. 113.

[372] Boturini’s _Idea_, p. 111 _et seq._ Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 129–31, et tom. ii, p. 6. Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, especially vol. vi, p. 401, and _Spiegazione delle Tavole del Codice Mexicano_, tav. vii, in _Mex. Ant._, vol. v, pp. 164–5, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 67; vol. v, p. 200 _et seq._

[373] A portion of the work has been printed at Mexico.

[374] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España_, MS., tom. i, cap. i, pp. 6–7.

[375] Alcedo (_Diccionario Geografico Historico_, tom. iii, p. 374) says that the Olmecs subsequently migrated southward and settled Guatemala. While this statement may be true in part, still it is not probable that any general migration took place, and Guatemala was certainly populated long before the Olmec power existed.

[376] Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones_, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 321–2.

[377] Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. viii, p. 25.

[378] See Prescott’s _Conq. Mexico_, vol. i, p. 171, on the Censorial Council; also Ixtlilxochitl, Clavigero and Veytia as cited by him.

[379] Echevarria y Veitia, _Hist. Gentes_, MS., tom. i, p. 29, and Kingsborough, vol. viii, p. 176. Panes, _Fragmentos de Historia_, MS., p. 3 (copy in Congressional Library, Washington), as well as several other authorities.

[380] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 193–5.

[381] _Codex Chimalpopoca_ in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 53, 71.

[382] _Codex Chimal._ in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 117, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 194.

[383] Sahagun, _Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España_, p. xviii, tom. i, Mexico, 1829.

[384] _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, lib. x, p. 139 _et seq._ A translation and summary of facts is also given by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 189 _et seq._

[385] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 211, in a note has summarized the dates of departure from Hue hue Tlapalan, as given by different authors, with the following result: Date of departure according to Veytia (tom. i, p. 208), 596 A. D.; Clavigero (tom. iv, p. 46), 544 A. D.; but in the 1st tom., p. 126, he gives 596, agreeing with Veytia; Müller (_Reisen_, tom. iii, p. 94 _et seq._, 439 A. D.; Brasseur de Bourbourg (_Popol Vuh_, p. clv), last of the fourth century; Cabrera (_Teatro_, pp. 90–1), 181 B. C. The commonly accepted date is that of Clavigero—544 A. D. But after comparing these authors and considering the grounds upon which they base their calculations, we are convinced that it is useless to attempt to arrive at the true date, just as it is impossible to determine any date with certainty in all the ancient American chronology. We will not go so far as Mr. Bancroft, who says that “the departure from Hue hue Tlapalan seems to have taken place in the fifth or sixth century.” The claims for the fourth century, we think, are just as good as for the others, if not better.

[386] On the migration see Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relacions_, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 321–4; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 100, 136, and _Popol Vuh_, p. clv, clix–xi: Veytia’s _Hist. Ant. Mej. Tom._ _1st passim_; Clavigero’s _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, p. 426; tom. iv, pp. 46, 51; Müller’s _Reisen in den Vereinigten-Staaten, Canada and Mexico_, Bd. iii, ss. 91–7, Leipzig, 1864; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 192–223.

[387] See _Geografia de las Lenguas de Mexico_, the _Carta ethnografica_ affixed, and the text, pp. 1–76.

[388] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chichimeca_, cap. ii. Kingsborough, _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p. 206. On page 450 see also another and different account.

[389] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 214.

[390] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 214–15; Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxiv, cxii, cxxvi–viii, clix; Ixtlilxocbitl in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p 446; Alvarado in _Ternaux-Compans Voy._, série i, tom. x, p. 147.

[391] Baldwin’s _Ancient Am._, p. 202.

[392] See E. Q. Squier, _Nicaragua, its People, Scenery_, etc. _Archæology and_ _Ethnology of Nicaragua_, part i, vol. iii, _Trans. of Am. Ethnol. Soc._, and _Notes on Cent. Am._, chap. xvi.

[393] Buschmann (Johann Carl Ed.), especially his _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprachen im Nördlichen Mexico und Höhern Amerikanischen Norden_. Berlin, 1859. Quarto.

[394] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 688 _et seq._; vol. v, p. 215, and numerous places.

[395] “All around the lakes of Mexico there are traces of ancient potteries, and I noticed that the bits of broken red earthenware scattered about them are identical in composition and color with those I have picked up in the valley of the Mississippi, and supposed to be relics of the ancient Mound-builders.”—_Evens (A. S.), Our Sister Republic_, p. 330. Hartford, 1870. Octavo.

[396] Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relaciones_, Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. ix, p. 322.

[397] _Monarq. Ind._, lib. i, cap. 19.

[398] _Relaciones_, in many places, and in _Hist. Chichimecs_, cap. 13.

[399] _Relacion_, MS. written 1582 in Sr. Icazbalceta’s collection.

[400] _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. i, p. 154.

[401] _Fragmentos de Historia de Nueba España_, MS., p. 45, Library at Washington.

[402] Duran’s _Historia Antigua_, tom. i, cap. i, p. 9, MS.

[403] Duran’s _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. 27; also cited in the Spanish by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 306. Aztlan, translated “whiteness” above, may be rendered “colorless” with equal propriety. Hue hue Tlapalan, on the contrary, is translated ancient red-land, or land of color, just the opposite of Aztlan, a fact which may serve to prove that they were two quite different localities.

[404] Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 156–9 (north of Colorado River); Humboldt, _Vues_, ii, p. 179, and _Essai Pol._, tom. i, p. 53 (north of 42° north latitude); Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 81–2, and 136–7; Prichard’s _Nat. Hist of Man_, vol. ii, pp. 514–16 (Arazonia); Pimentel, _Lenguas Indig. Mex._, tom. i, p. 158. Most writers indefinitely assign the name to a region in the North, without attempting to designate the locality.

[405] Acosta, _Hist. de las Ind._, p. 454; Schoolcraft’s _Archives of Ab. Knowledge_, vol. i, p. 68; M. Aubin places it in Lower California; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 292; Pickering’s _Races in U. S. Ex. Ex._, vol. ix, p. 41.

[406] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 144 (Xalisco); Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._ (Sonora); Möllhausen, _Reisen in d. Felsengebirge N. Am._, tom. ii, p. 143 _et seq._

[407] Chief among these we may cite: Squier’s _Notes on Central Amer._, p. 349; Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, p. 45, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 221, 305–6, 322–5; Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 530–4, the latter, though inclined to assign Aztlan to a southern locality, still recognizes the fact that the Nahua family was originally a northern people.

[408] _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. i, p. 9.

[409] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 292.

[410] Chief among whom are Gallatin, Gama and Veytia, who suppose that the adjustment of the calendar took place in 1090 A.D., and that the year Ce Tochtli corresponds with that date.

[411] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 324, and seems to be the opinion of Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, pp. 292–5.

[412] Garcia Cubas’ _Republic of Mexico in 1876_ (Eng. trans.), p. 58.

[413] Veytia, tom. ii, pp. 91–8, and as summarized by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 323.

[414] Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 5–8, and Bancroft, vol. v, p. 323.

[415] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 156–63.

[416] See Acosta, _Hist. Nat. Ind._, pp. 454–62. Herrera, _Histor. Gen._, dec. iii, lib. ii, cap. x–xi. Duran, MS., _Hist. Antig._, cap. i, ii, iii of tom. i.

[417] “Pero porque la noticia que tengo de su origen y principio no es mas, ni ellos saben dar mas relacion sino desde aqullas siete cuebas donde habitaron tan largo tiempo, las cuales desampararon para venir a vuscar esta Tierra unos primero que otros, otros despues, otros muy despues hasta dejarlas desiertas. Estas cuebas son en Teo-culhuican, que por otro nombre le llaman Aztlan, tierra de que todos tenemos noticia caer hacia la parte del Norte y Tierra-firma con la Florida; por tanto desde este lugar de estas cuebas dare verdadera relacion de estas Naciones y de sus sucessos. * * * Salieron pues siete Tribus de Gentes de aquellas cuebas donde habitaban para venir á vuscar esta Tierra, á las cuales llamaban Chicomostoc, de donde vienen a fingir que sus Padres nacieron de unas cuebas, no teniendo noticia de lo de atras de la salida.”—_Duran_, _Hist. Antig._, MS., tom. i, cap. i, p. 9.

[418] The _Fragmentos de Historia de Nueba España_, MS. (Congressional Library) of Diego Panes alludes to this event. “Como los Tarascos se adelantaron luego que pasaron el estrecho de mar, en los troncos de Arboles, y balsas, y otros instrumentos del pasaje y se metieron á vida y avitar en las siete cuebas espelnucas, y Tabernas de la Tierra, hasta que hicieron abitaciones, y moradas y como desde alli fueron cresciendo, y tomnado, el tiento de la Tierra y disposiciones de ella para poblarla.”

[419] We quote Bancroft’s rendering from the _Vues_, tom. ii, p. 176 _et seq._: “From Colhuacan, the Mexican Ararat, fifteen chiefs or tribes reach Aztlan, ‘land of flamingoes,’ north of 42°, which they leave in 1038, passing through Tocolco, ‘humiliation,’ Oztotlan, ‘place of grottoes,’ Mizquiahuala, Teotzapotlan, ‘place of divine fruit,’ Iluicatepec, Papantla, ‘large-leaved grass,’ Tzompanco, ‘place of human bones,’ Apazco, ‘clay vessel,’ Atlicalaguian, ‘crevice in which rivulet escapes,’ Quauhtitlan, ‘eagle grove,’ Atzcapotzalco, ‘ant hill,’ Chalco, ‘place of precious stones,’ Pantitlan, ‘spinning-place,’ Tolpetlac, ‘rush mat,’ Quauhtepec, ‘eagle mountain,’ Tetepanco, ‘wall of many small stories,’ Chicomoztoc, ‘seven caves,’ Huitzquilocan, ‘place of thistles,’ Xaltepozauhcan, ‘place where the sand issues,’ Cozcaquauhco, ‘a vulture,’ Techcatitlan, ‘place of obsidian mirrors,’ Azcaxochitl, ‘ant flower,’ Tepetlapan, ‘place of tepetate,’ Apan, ‘place of water,’ Teozomaco, ‘place of divine apes,’ Chapultepec, ‘grasshopper hill.’”—_Native Races_, vol. v, p. 324, note.

[420] The following account is from Franc. Gemelli Carreri’s _Voyage Round the World_, Churchill’s _Voyages_, London, 1732, 6 vol. fol. (book iv, cap. iii), p. 485: “The ancient histories of Mexico make mention of a flood, in which all men and beasts perished, and only one man and woman were saved in a boat, which in their language they call _Acalle_. The man, according to the character by which his name is expressed, was called Cox-cox, and the woman Chichequetzal. This couple coming to the foot of the mountain, which, according to the picture, was named Culhuacan, went ashore, and there they had many children, all born dumb. When they multiplied to a great number, one day a pigeon came, and from the top of a tree gave them their speech, but not one of them understood the others’ language, and therefore they divided and dispersed, every one going to take possession of some country. Among these they reckoned fifteen heads of families who happened to speak the same language, joined together and went about to find some land to inhabit. When they had wandered one hundred and four years they came to the place they call Antlan, and continuing their journey thence, came first to the place called _Capultepec_, then to Culhuacan, and lastly to the place where Mexico now stands.”

[421] See communication in Garcia y Cubas’ _Atlas Geografico, Estadistico e Histórico de la República Mejicana_, April 1858, entrega 29, and Bancroft, iii, p. 68, note.

[422] We should be guilty of a fault if we were to convey the idea that no deluge legend other than this was current among the Aztecs. The Codex Chimalpopoca records a flood in which mankind were drowned and turned into fishes. In Mr. Bancroft’s graceful rendering we learn that “the waters and sky drew near each other; in a single day all was lost, the day Four Flower consumed all that there was of our flesh. And this was the year Ce-Calli; on the first day, Nahui-Atl, all was lost. The very mountains were swallowed up in the flood, and the waters remained, lying tranquil during fifty and two spring-times. But before the flood began, Titlacahuan had warned the man Nata and his wife Nena, saying: Make now no more pulque, but hollow out to yourselves a great cypress, into which you shall enter when, in the month Tozoztli, the waters shall near the sky. Then they entered into it, and when Titlacahuan had shut them in, he said to the man: Thou shalt eat but a single ear of maize, and thy wife but one also. And when they had finished eating, each an ear of maize, they prepared to set forth, for the waters remained tranquil and their log moved no longer; and opening it they began to see the fishes. Then they lit a fire by rubbing pieces of wood together and they roasted fish.” The account states that the deities then descended and transformed the fishes into dogs. (Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 425–7. Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 69, 70.) We cannot with gravity give the Tezpi legend preserved in Michoacan. If the reader will refer to the Mosaic account of the flood, he will only need to substitute the name of Tezpi for Noah, a vulture for the raven, and a humming-bird for the dove, and the Tezpi legend substantially will be before him. Of course the detail of the Mosaic account is wanting; nevertheless it is certain that the Tezpi legend is the product of the fancy of some over-zealous priest, who thought he could see a stricter analogy between the Nahua deluge tradition and the Scriptural account than really exists.

[423] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 325.

[424] See note 1, page 261, this chapter.

[425] Bancroft, vol. v, p. 325.

[426] E. G. Squier in _Notes on Cent. Am._, p. 349, makes the following remark: “It is a significant fact, that in the map of their migrations, presented by Gemelli, the place of the origin of the Aztecs is designated by the sign of water (Atl standing for Atzlan), a pyramidal temple with grades, and near these a _palm-tree_. This circumstance did not escape the attention of the observant Humboldt, who says, ‘I am astonished at finding a palm-tree near this teocalli. This tree certainly does not indicate a northern origin.’” We might add that we are equally surprised that so generally able a writer as Mr. Squier should resort to so absolutely weak an argument. Sr. Ramirez has clearly explained that all the figures and their adjuncts are but hieroglyphic parts of proper names. The palm-tree no doubt plays its part. M. Waldeck (_Voyage Pitt._, p. 45) makes the same remark as Mr. Squier—that it indicates a southern origin. Gondra (Prescott’s _Historia Conq. Mex._, cited by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 306, note) replies that this may be a thoughtless insertion of the painter. The possibility that an unskillful artist should unintentionally represent a tree of which he had no knowledge is so great, that any argument dependent upon it hangs upon a slender thread. Over against Mr. Squier’s claim we desire to place the simple inquiry, Does the Elephant Mound of Wisconsin indicate that its constructors were natives of Asia, where the elephant is common, or that they lived in the epoch of the American Mastodon? It is well-known that the latter phase of the question could not be true, since the condition of the mound contradicts such great antiquity.

[427] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 245 _et seq._, states that a band of people came from the north by way of Panuco, dressed in long black robes; that they thence went to Tulla, where they were well received, but that region being already thickly populated, they went to Cholula. They were great artists, were skilled in working metals; with them was Quetzalcoatl, with a fair and ruddy complexion and a long beard. ‘He was their leader.’

[428] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecl._, pp. 82, 86, 92, 397–8; also cited by Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 250–2, and Clavigero, _Hist. Ant. Del. Messico_, pp. 11–13.

[429] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i, lib. iii, p. 245, and Torquemada, tom. ii, p. 47 _et seq._, do not agree fully as to the details.

[430] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 47 _et seq._, and Sahagun, tom. i, chap. iii, p. 245 _et seq._

[431] _Ibid._

[432] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecl._, p. 82 _et seq._

[433] Goatzacoalco, described as a province near the sea, one hundred and fifty leagues from Cholula (Torquemada, tom ii, pp. 48–52). The same author traces him to Yucatan and identifies him with Cukulcan. See preceding chapter.

[434] On a raft, according to Sahagun.

[435] See Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, p. 599.

[436] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 50. In presenting these legends we have employed nearly the same language which we used in treating the same subject in an article entitled “Culture-Heroes of the Ancient Americans,” published in _Appleton’s Journal_ for March 1877.

[437] See Bancroft, vol. v. p. 256, and the authorities cited.

[438] The sources of the Quetzalcoatl legends have been cited in connection with our version of the fables applying to the name. On the relation of Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, the Toltec king, to the subject, see Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii, lib. viii, p. 266, but especially see Bancroft, vol. v, p. 256 _et seq._, for a fuller account. The same author has treated the subject with an unprecedented fullness in his third volume, chap. vii. The able examination of Quetzalcoatl’s character by Müller, in his _Geschichte d. Am. Urreligionen_ (pp. 577 _et seq._), has been of great value to us in the preparation of this sketch.

[439] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 404 _et seq._

[440] _Personal Narrative of Explorations and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua._ New York, 1854, vol. ii, pp. 348 _et seq._

[441] _Ensayo sobre Chihuahua_, p. 74.

[442] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 621 _et seq._

[443] Published in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iv, tom. i, pp. 282 _et seq._, translated in Schoolcraft’s _Hist. and Condition of Indian Tribes_, vol. iii, pp. 300 _et seq._, and Bartlett’s _Pers. Narrative_, vol. ii, pp. 281–2. Quoted in _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 622–23.

[444] Bernal in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 804.

[445] Sedelmair, _Relacion_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 847, copied by Orosco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 108–10. Also cited by Bancroft.

[446] _Pers. Narrative_, vol. ii, pp. 278–80.

[447] Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 81–3.

[448] Johnston’s _Journal_ in _Ibid._, pp. 567–600.

[449] _Pers. Nar._, pp. 271–284.

[450] Browne’s _Apache Country_, pp. 114–24.

[451] Coronado, on his trip from Culiacan to the “seven cities of Cibola” in 1540, saw a roofless building called Chichilticale, or “red house.” Castañeda says it was built of red earth and had formerly been occupied by people from Cíbola. This is of interest, especially since it is quite certain that the seven cities visited were identical with the Pueblo towns around old Zuñi on the Zuñi River in New Mexico (see Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 673–4, and Morgan in _North American Review_, April, 1869. The best treatment of Coronado’s march is by Simpson in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, pp. 309 _et seq._ See further _Castañeda_, in Ternaux-campans, _Voy._, série i, tom. ix, pp. 40–1, 161–2. Gallatin in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, and Whipple in _Pac. R. R. Report_, vol. iii.

[452] _Relacion_ in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 847. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 634.

[453] Velarde in _ibid._, série iv, tom. i, p. 363, and _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 634.

[454] Bartlett’s _Pers. Nar._, vol. ii, pp. 242–8. Johnston in Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 596–600. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 636.

[455] Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 14, 15.

[456] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 636.

[457] Whipple in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 91–4.

[458] Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 63–9, 80, 133–4. _Ibid._, pp. 581–96. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 638–9, has copied three plans.

[459] _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 640.

[460] Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_.

[461] First published in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, Nos. 3, 4 and 5, for January, February and March, 1875.

[462] _Cañons of the Colorado_, in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, p. 528. Powell’s _Explorations of the Colorado River of the West_. Washington. 1875. 4to.

[463] “It was ever a source of wonder to us why these ancient people sought such inaccessible places for their homes. They were doubtless an agricultural race, but there were no lands here of any considerable extent which they could have cultivated. To the west of Oraiby, and of the towns of the Province of Tusayan, in northern Arizona, the inhabitants have actually built little terraces along the face of the cliff, where a spring gushes out, and there made their site for gardens. It is possible that the ancient inhabitants of this place made their lands in the same way. But why should they seek such spots? Surely the country was not so crowded with population as to demand the utilization of a region like this. The only solution which suggests itself is this: We know that for a century or two after the settlement of Mexico, many expeditions were sent into the country now comprising Arizona and New Mexico for the purpose of bringing the town-building people under the dominion of the Spanish government. Many of their villages were destroyed, and the inhabitants fled to regions at that time unknown, and there are traditions among the people who now inhabit the pueblos which remain, that the cañons were these unknown lands. It may be that these buildings were erected at that time. Sure it is that they had a much more modern appearance than the ruins scattered over Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.”—_Major Powell in Scribner_, vol. ix, p. 525. _Id._, _Explorations of the Colorado River of the West_, pp. 87, 88.

[464] _Cañons of the Colorado_, in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, p. 402; Powell’s _Exploration of the Colorado River of the West_, pp. 68–9. Major Powell on the 125th page of his report on the Colorado, gives a brief description of remains in a side cañon, a few miles from the great river.

[465] Sitgreaves’ _Report, Zuñi and Colorado Rivers_, pp. 8–9; Whipple, _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 46–50; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 642–3.

[466] Whipple, _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 76–7.

[467] Sitgreaves, _Zuñi Ex._, p. 6; Whipple, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 39, 71; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 645, 673.

[468] See authorities cited on page 281, note 1, of this chapter.

[469] See Whipple, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, p. 67, with beautiful full-page view. Simpson’s _Jour. of Mil. Recon._, pp. 90–3; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 645, 667, 673.

[470] Whipple in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 68, 70, 66, 40–8, views of old Zuñi, and sacred spring; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die Felsengebirge N. Am._, tom. ii, pp. 196, 402; _Id._, _Tagebuch_, pp. 283–4, 278, with cut; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 645–7, with cut.

[471] Möllhausen’s _Journey_, vol. ii, p. 82; Whipple _et al._, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, p. 39; Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 95–7; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 647–8.

[472] Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 89–109, 60–1, 65–74, 100, with cuts, views and plans; Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 22, 52, 63–4; see also Möllhausen’s _Tagebuch_ and _Journey_; Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 645–50.

[473] In Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 131–3, and copied in a note by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 657.

[474] See on Chaco ruins, Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 34–43, 131–3. Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol. i, pp. 199–200, 379–81, 385. Baldwin’s _Anc. Am._, pp. 86–9, cut; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 652–62, which we have found of valuable assistance; especially see _Ruins of the Chaco Cañon, examined in 1877_, by W. H. Jackson, in _Tenth Annual Report of U. S. Geol. Survey_. Washington, 1879. Best account.

[475] Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 74–5, plates 53–4, copied by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 652; also see Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol i, p. 201, and _Annual Scienc. Discov._, 1850, p. 362.

[476] W. H. Jackson in _Bulletin of U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories_, 2d series, No. 1, Washington, 1875, and in the _Annual Report_ of the same, Washington, 1876, pp. 369 _et seq._ A condensed though excellent account is furnished by Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 718 _et seq._ Also a condensed account by Prof. Edwin A. Barber in _Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877. _Seconde Session_, tom. i, pp. 22–38. Also _Ibid._, _The Ancient Pueblos, or Ruins of the Valley of the Rio San Juan_. Parts I, II.

[477] _Bulletin No. 1_, vol. ii, pp. 11, 12.

[478] Published in _Bulletin of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, vol. ii, No. 1. Washington, 1876. Mr. Bancroft’s account in the _Native Races_, necessarily terminates with the close of Mr. Jackson’s labors in 1874.

[479] See _A Notice of the Ancient Ruins of South-western Colorado, examined during the summer of 1875, by W. H. Holmes_, in _Bulletin of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, vol. ii, No. 1. Washington, 1876.

[480] Ives’ _Colorado River of the West_, pp. 119–26, with plates. The same extract condensed into nearly the same form as above is given by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 667–80.

[481] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 662 _et seq._, and the authors cited therein.

[482] _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 663, and Simpson’s _Journal Mil. Recon._, p. 114.

[483] I have carefully examined Father Escalante’s _Diario_ in the MS. copy deposited in the Congressional Library at Washington, but find nothing to contradict the opinion of recent explorers. The reader will also see Dominguez and Escalante’s _Diario y Derrotero Sante Fé à Monterey_, 1776, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._ Serie ii, tom. i.

[484] _Ninth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 12. Cambridge, 1876.

[485] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, Cambridge, 1878, pp. 198–200, 267–80.

[486] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413 _et seq._; and this work,

## chapter I.

[487] The facts claimed in the following account are drawn from Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii., pp. 171–74 and 175–7. Ward, in _Ind. Aff. Report_, 1864, pp. 192–3. Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 190. Ten Broeck in Schoolcraft’s _History and Condition of the Indian Tribes_, vol. iv, p. 73, and Tyler’s _Primitive Culture_, vol. ii, p. 384.

[488] Davidson, in _Ind. Aff. Report_, 1865, pp. 131–3, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 75–77.

[489] This feature of the legend is beautifully developed by Mr. Bancroft.

[490] In this account of Montezuma I have used, with few variations, the same language employed by me in treating the subject in an article entitled, “Culture-Heroes of the Ancient Americans,” published in _Appleton’s Journal_ for March, 1877, pp. 275–6.

[491] Hindoo Mounds, see Squier’s observations on Dr. Westerman in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, April, 1851; and Atwater, in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. i, pp. 196–267.

[492] Chief among whom are Dupaix, in Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_; Waldeck (exploration performed in 1832–3), Pub. 1866 fol.; Stevens and Catherwood in 1840; M. Morelet in 1846, and Charney in 1858; for best bibliographical treatment, see Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 289–294, note.

[493] Stephens, vol. ii, p. 310: Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. 2, and Brasseur in _Ibid._, p. 17; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 300.

[494] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 300–1.

[495] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. vii. See also Stephens, vol. ii, p. 310; Dupaix, pl. xi.; Kingsborough, vol. iv, pl. xiii; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 307.

[496] _Ibid._, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 312.

[497] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 303.

[498] Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 339–43, and Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 323–27.

[499] On the tower, see Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. iii, pl. xviii, xix. Morelet’s _Voyage_, tom. i, p. 266. Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 315, and Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 86–7.

[500] Stephens’ _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_. New York (1st ed. 1843, and others subsequently).

[501] Waldeck, _Voyage Pittoresque et Archéologique dans la Province d’Yucatan_, Paris, 1838, large fol., 22 illustrations. Norman, _Rambles in Yucatan_, New York, 1843, 8vo, illustrated. Baron von Friederichstal, _Les Monuments de l’Yucatan_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, 1841, tom. xcii, pp. 297, 314. Charnay, _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, Paris, 1863, large folio. Of many general notices made up from these sources we consider Bancroft’s as the most critical and satisfactory. His note on the bibliography of the subject is also of interest.

[502] We have followed the measurements of Stephens; seeming to us most accurate. (See _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 165 _et seq._) Norman, Charnay and Waldeck all differ in their measurements. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 154–5 has given a good condensation of the description.

[503] _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 175. Reproduced in Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 156, and Baldwin, _Anc. America_, p. 132.

[504] _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 174. Reproduced by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 160, and Baldwin, _Anc. America_, p. 132.

[505] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 301. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 176–7. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, p. 136.

[506] Waldeck reports that a turtle was sculptured upon each of the blocks of the pavement. See _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xii, where four are figured. Stephens, however, found no traces of them. See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 175.

[507] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 313. Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 95–6, pl. ix, x, xi. Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, pp. 425 _et seq._ Charnay’s _Ruines Americ._, pp. 70 _et seq._ Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 192 _et seq._

[508] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 397, view of Kabah edifice. See a sectional view in Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 207.

[509] D’abord j’ai été frappé de la ressemblance qu’offrent ces étranges figures des édifices mayas avec la tête de l’éléphant. Cet appendice, placé entre deux yeux et depassant la bouche de presque toute la longueur, m’a semblé ne pouvoir être autre chose que l’image de la trompe d’un proboscidian, car le museau charnu et saillant du tapir n’est pas de cette longueur.—_Waldeck, Voy. Pitt._, p. 74, pl. xiv, xv. Also _Humboldt, Vues_, ed. 1810, p. 92.

[510] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 311–17; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 230–36, with plans and cuts from Stephens’ and Baldwin’s _Anc. Amer._, p. 140.

[511] _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 130–9; Baldwin, _Anc. Amer._, p. 129.

[512] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 387 _et seq._; Bancroft, vol iv, pp. 254–9.

[513] The original accounts furnished by actual explorers of Copan are as follows: 1st, by the Licenciado Diego García de Palacio, who prepared an account of his duties and their performance, for the king, Felipe II of Spain, dated March 8, 1576, and preserved in the Muñoz collection of MSS. The account has been published several times, at least once in the United States, in Palacio, _Carta Dirijida al Rey_, Albany, 1860, and translated into English by E. G. Squier; 2d, an account by Fuentes y Guzman, in a MS. dated 1689. However, so much as related to Copan was published in 1808 in Juarros, _Compendio de la Hist. de la Ciudad de Guatemala_, trans. in English in 1823; 3d, by Col. Juan Galindo, an officer in Central American service (explorations made in 1835), published communication in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, pp. 545–50, and in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, pp. 73, 76; 4th, Stephens and Catherwood in 1839, published in _Incidents and Travels in Central America_, vol. i, pp, 95–160. New York, 1841.

The ruins have been visited by two or three persons since described by Stephens, but the public has not enjoyed the benefit of their researches, as we believe nothing has since been published on Copan. Brasseur de Bourbourg, who visited the ruins in 1863 and 1866, testifies to the perfect accuracy of the descriptions and plates in Stephens’ and Catherwood’s work. A considerable number of notices of Copan have been made up by different writers from these sources. The latest and best of such notices is that by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 77–105, from whose bibliographical note we have drawn somewhat for the above facts.

[514] Juarros, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 56–7; Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. i, p. 144, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 82–3.

[515] Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. ii, pp. 171, 182–8, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 124–8.

[516] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 15, and cited by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 131.

[517] The only comprehensive and satisfactory treatment of the entire field in detail is that by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, chaps. vii, viii, ix, x.

[518] Dupaix, _Third Expedition_, pp. 6–7, pl. iii–v, fig. 6–9; Kingsborough, _Mex. Ant._, vol. vi, p. 469, and Mayer’s _Observations on Mexican History and Archæology_, pp. 25–6, and cuts (Smithsonian contribution, No. 86), 1856; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 368–71, with cuts.

[519] _Reisen_, tom. ii, p. 282, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 375.

[520] Dupaix, _Seconde Expédition_, published in Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 255–68, vol. vi, pp. 447–56, vol. iv, pl. xxvii–xli, fig. 81–95, and in _Antiq. Mex.; Seconde Expédition_, pp. 30–44, pl. xxix–xlvi, figs. 78–93.; Charnay, _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, pp. 261–9, photographs ii–xviii, and Viollet-le-Duc in _Ibid._, pp. 74–104; Humboldt obtained his information and plates from the survey and drawings of Don Luis Martin and Col. de la Laguna, who visited the ruins in 1802; see _Vues_, tom. ii, pp. 278–85, pl. xvii–xviii, and in his other works on the same subject. The remaining original works are Mühlenpfordt in the _Ilustracion Mejicana_, tom. ii, pp. 493–8; Tempsky’s _Mitla_, pp. 250–3, with plates; Garcia, in _Soc. Mex. Georg. Boletin_, tom. ii, pp. 271–2; Sawkins in Mayer’s _Observations_; Fossey in his _Mexique_, pp. 365–70, and Müller, _Reisen_, tom. ii, pp. 279–81. We might append a large number of notices made second-hand from the above, but as they contain nothing original we omit them, and refer the reader who is desirous of examining them, to Bancroft’s note in _Native Races_, vol. iv. p. 391. Our examination of the subject has been confined to the accounts of Dupaix, Humboldt, and Charnay, together with Mr. Bancroft’s critical review of the field. From the latter we draw some of our bibliographical material.

[521] Charnay, _Mexique_, Phot. iv; also _Cités et Ruines Amér._, Phot. v, vi. Other views in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 396–405.

[522] Fossey, _Mexique_, p. 367, finds twenty-two different styles of grecques in this front, while Mühlenpfordt gives cuts of sixteen different styles in _Ilustracion Mej._, tom. ii, p. 501.

[523] See full discussion by Viollet le Duc in Charnay’s _Ruines Amér._, pp. 78–9.

[524] Charnay, phot. x. Mr. Bancroft was not ignorant of this error. Tempsky’s plate served as the guide for Baldwin’s cut.

[525] Dupaix, _Seconde Exped._, pp. 40–1, pl. xliv–v, fig. 93–4. Kingsborough, vol. v, p. 265; vol. vi, p. 455; vol. iv, pl. xl–i, fig. 95, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 413.

[526] See especially a communication from Mr. Hugo Finck, for twenty-eight years a resident of the region, published in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1870, an extract from which is published in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 431–3.

[527] Sr. Gondra received considerable information concerning these ruins from some unnamed person, which he published in _Mosaico Mexicano_, tom. ii, pp. 368–72.

[528] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 442. This author has given quite a full description of the fortification, and two plates.

[529] Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, pp. 8–9, pl. ix–xi, fig. 9–12; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 215–16; vol. vi, pp. 425–6, pl. v–vi, fig. 11–15; an account in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 368–72 and cut.

[530] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco y Arqueolójico sobre la República Mejicana_, 1829–34, Paris, 1839, fol.; Mayer’s _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 199–200; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 247–8, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 47, 55–8, with two illustrations. We have cited Nebel from the latter.

[531] The original describers of Papantla are Diego Ruiz, in _Gaceta de Mexico_, July 12, 1785, tom. i, pp. 349–51, copied in _Diccionario Univ. Geog._, tom x, pp. 120–1; also Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_. Humboldt states that Dupaix and Castañeda visited the locality, but they published no description, his own description may have been from information received from them; _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 102–3; _Ibid._, _Essai Pol._, p. 274; _Ibid._, in _Ant. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, p. 12. Of the many descriptions drawn from these sources, those of Mayer, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 196–7; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 248–9, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 452–4, with cut from Nebel, are probably the best.

[532] Of a large number of notices of Cholula, the most important of the original class are those of Humboldt, _Essai Pol._, pp. 239–40; _Ibid._, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 96–124, fol. 2d, pl. vii–viii; Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, p. 2, pl. xvi, fig. 17, and Kingsborough, vol. v, p. 218, vol. iv, pl. viii, fig. 20; Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. ii, pl. 33–4; Mayer, _Mexico As it Was_, p. 26, and _Mex. Aztec_, etc., vol. ii, p. 328, cuts. For most recent reference, though not very scientific, see Evens’ _Our Sister Republic_, pp. 428–32 (1869), and Haven’s _Mexico, Our Next Door Neighbor_, pp. 109–202, 1875. Mr. Bancroft has given a short, though satisfactory notice, especially valuable for its citation of authorities. In a note (11) vol. iv, p. 471–2, a full list of the authors who have written on Cholula will be found, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 469–77.

[533] _Reisen_, pp. 131–2.

[534] Heller, _Reisen_, pp. 131–2, cited by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 473.

[535] Exploration performed in 1777, and account published in _Gaceta de Literatura_, November, 1791, also tom. ii, p. 127 of the same.

[536] Copied the proceedings to a considerable extent in _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 129–37, pl. ix, and in _Essai Pol._, pp. 189–90.

[537] Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, pp. 14–18, pl. xxxi–ii, figs. 33–6; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 222–4, vol. iv, pl. xv–vi.

[538] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_, pl. ix–x, xix–xx.

[539] The Government exploration report in _Revista Mexicana_, tom. i, pp. 539–50, and in _Deccionario Univ. Geog._, tom. x, pp. 938–42; Mayer’s _Mexico As It Was_, pp. 185–7; _Ibid._, _Mex. Aztec_, etc., vol. ii, pp. 283–5, with cuts; Tylor’s _Anáhuac_, pp. 183–95. To these original accounts many compiled notices might be added. Mr. Bancroft’s critical review of the sources, supplemented with full bibliographical notes, is valuable and should receive the attention of the reader. See _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 483–98, with several cuts after Nebel. We have found this writer’s summary of facts of great service in making up the following description.

[540] The vandalic destruction of this Acropolis of Mexican architecture is due to the vulgar cupidity of a neighboring sugar manufacturer, who despoiled it in order to build the furnaces of his refinery.

[541] See Tylor, _Anahuac_, p. 149, and on the subject in hand.

[542] See Prescott, book iv, caps. i, ii, vol. ii, Kirk’s ed. of 1875, pp. 100–51.

[543] See chapter vi, p. 248, this work.

[544] Almaraz, _Apuntes sobre las Pirámides de San Juan Teotihuacan_. _Mexico_, 1864.

[545] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 529–44, and a good bibliographical note on p. 530.

[546] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 533. On page 548, the same author in a note translates the following interesting passage from Sr. Garcia y Cubas: “The pyramids of Teotihuacan, as they exist to day, are not in their primitive state. There is now a mass of loose stones whose interstices covered with vegetable earth have caused to spring up the multitude of plants and flowers with which the faces of the pyramids are now covered. This mass of stones differs from the plan of construction followed in the body of the monuments and besides the falling of these stones, which has taken place chiefly on the eastern face of the Moon, has laid bare an inclined plane perfectly smooth, which seems to be the true face of the pyramid. This isolated observation would not give so much force to my argument if it were not accompanied by the same circumstances in all the monuments.” This inner smooth surface has an inclination of 47°, differing from the angle of the outer faces. Sr. Garcia y Cubas, conjectures that the Toltecs, the descendants of the civilized architects of these monuments, fearing that they would be despoiled by the savages who followed them, covered up their sacred places with the outer coatings described. See Appendix.

[547] Quemada was at first mentioned by early writers as one of the stations in the Aztec migration. Captain Lyon published in his _Journal_, vol. i. pp. 225–44, the result of explorations performed by him at Los Edificios in 1826. Another report was made by Sr. Esparza from data furnished him by Pedro Rivera in 1830, which appeared in Esparza’s _Informe presentado al Gobierno_, pp. 56–8, and _Museo Mex._, tom. i, pp. 185 _et seq._ Herr Berghes made a pretty good survey of the ruins in 1831: his observations were published by Nebel. Herr Burkart, a companion of Berghes, published a description in his _Aufenthalt und Reisen in Mexico_, tom. ii, pp. 97–105. Nebel published his observations in his _Viaje_. Several authors have made up notices from these sources without adding any original information. A list of these, as well as those given above, may be found in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 578–9.

[548] Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. ii, pp. 438 _et seq._

[549] Viollet-le-Duc in Charnay’s _Cités et Ruines, Introduct._, pp. 28 _et seq._

[550] Garcia y Cubas, _Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo entre las Pirámides Egípcias y Mexicanas_; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 543–4, and vol. v, pp. 55–6. See Appendix.

[551] Delafield, _Inquiry into the Origin of American Antiquities_, pp. 57–61. 1839. 4to.

[552] _Mexique_, pp. 274–5. Leipzig, 1843.

[553] _Historical Researches_, p. 355.

[554] See further, Clavigero, _Storia del Messico_, tom. iv, pp. 19–20; Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 122; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 474; Prescott, _Mex._, tom. iii, p. 407; Humboldt, _Essai Pol._, tom. i, p. 265; Tylor’s _Early History_, p. 206.

[555] Humboldt, _Vues_, p. 92 (fol. ed., 1810), considers that this people was originally from Asia and preserved some remembrance of the elephant, or that in their traditions they had accounts of the mammoth of the American continent.

[556] Waldeck, p. v, pl. xii, xiii. Stephens, _Cent. Am._, vol ii, pp. 311, 116–17. Dupaix, pp. 20, 37, 75–6, pl. xiv–xxii. Kingsborough, vol. iv, pl. xxvi. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol iv, pp. 304–6.

[557] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. xiv, xv, shows both groups. Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 313. Dupaix, pl. xxiii–iv.

[558] Waldeck, pl. xiv.

[559] Waldeck, pl. xvii. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 317–18. Stephens, vol. ii, p. 318. Morelet, p. 97.

[560] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. iii, pl. 42. Dupaix, pl. xxxiii, Fig. 37. Kingsborough, pl. xxxv, fig. 37. Stephens, vol. ii, p. 355. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 328–30.

[561] Waldeck, p. vii, pl. xxi–ii. Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 345–7. Charnay, p. 419, pl. xxi. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 332–6. Especially see Rau’s _Palenque Tablet_ (Smithsonian Contrib., No. 331), for the best account of Tablet of the Cross.

[562] Waldeck, pl. 23–24; Stephens, vol. ii, p. 352; Dupaix, p. 24, pl. xxxvii–viii; mention in Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 332–3.

[563] Waldeck, pl. 25; Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 344, 349; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 336–7, with cut.

[564] Waldeck, pl. xxvi–xxxii; Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 351–4; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 338–41.

[565] Plates, Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xv–xvii; Charnay’s photographs have attested the accuracy of Waldeck’s drawings; Waldeck’s views reproduced in Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 182–3.

[566] Stephens’ _Yuc._, vol. i, p. 306; Waldeck’s pl. xvi; also see Charnay’s phot. 39; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 182–4; Viollet-le-Duc’s drawing in Charnay, p. 65.

[567] Cut from Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xiii–xviii and p. 100; reproduced by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 185, of which ours is an electrotype copy. See also Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 302–3; Charnay, _Ruines Amer._, phot. 40, 41, 44; Norman’s _Rambles in Yucatan_, p. 162.

[568] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 303–11; Charnay’s _Ruines Amér._, pp. 140–1, phot. 33, 34; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 220–36.

[569] Mr. Salisbury, with the most liberal courtesy, has furnished the heliotypes and photos from which the accompanying engravings were made. We take this opportunity of expressing publicly our thanks for this rare favor.

[570] _Archæological Communication on Yucatan_, by Dr. Le Plongeon in Salisbury’s _Maya Archæology_, p. 65, and _Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Soc._, October 21, 1878.

[571] _Maya Archæology_, p. 61.

[572] _Ibid._, p. 62.

[573] See Torquemada, _Monarchia Indiana_, lib. iv, cap. 8, and Herrera, _Hist. Gen. Ind._, decade ii, lib. iv, cap. 17, quoted by Salisbury, _Maya Archæology_, pp. 33–35.

[574] See _Terra-cotta Figure from Isla Mugeres_, by Stephen Salisbury, Jr., in _Maya Archæology_ (heliotypes).

[575] Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. i, pp. 103–4, 134–43 with plates; Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 302–322, 338–9; Galindo in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, pp. 548–9; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 89–105, with cuts.

[576] Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 371, 381, 385, 387, 414, 415, 421, 427, 428, 435, 436, 455, 457, 462, has figured some of these, but all indicate an order of art inferior to the Maya.

[577] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_; Mayer’s _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 199, 200; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 457–8.

[578] Vetch, in _London Geog. Soc. Jour._, vol. vii, pp. 1–11, plate; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 462.

[579] Dupaix, _Third Expedition_, p. 5, pl. i–ii; _Ibid._, _First Expedition_, pp. 3–4, pl. i–ii, fig. 1, 2; p. 10, pl. xii; pp. 12–13, pl. xvii–xxii, fig. 19, 24; _Second Expedition_, p. 51, pl. lxi, fig. 117; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 285–6; vol. iv, pl. i–ii, fig. 1–3; vol. vi, p. 467; vol. v, pp. 209–10; vol. vi, pp. 421–2; vol. iv, pl. i, fig. 1–4; vol. v, p. 217; vol. iv, p. vi, fig. 16, and Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 467–69.

[580] Dupaix, _First Expedition_, p. 14; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 481.

[581] This work, p. 372.

[582] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 499, has reproduced some of them.

[583] Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 332 _et seq._; tom. ii, pp. 1 _et seq._ and 84–5, pl. viii, (fol. ed. pl. xxiii); _Mayer, Mexico As it Was_, pp. 126–8; Prescott, _Conq. Mex._, vol. i, pp. 126, 145–6; vol. ii, pp. 112, ed. 1875; Bancroft, vol. iv. pp. 505–9, and cut.

[584] Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. ii, pp. 148–61 (fol. ed., pl. xxix); _Ibid._, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, pp. 25–7, suppl. pl. vi; Nebel, _Viaje_, with large plate; Mayer, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. i, pp. 108–11; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 109–14; Bullock’s _Mexico_, pp. 337–42; Leon y Gama, _Dos Piedras_, pt. i, pp. 1–3, 9, 10, 34, and five plates latterly cited by Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 512–15, four plates.

[585] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 517; Mayer, _Mexico As it Was_, pl. 100–1; _Ibid._, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, p. 274.

[586] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. 55.

[587] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. viii, pl. xliv. Tylor’s _Anahuac_, pp. 110, 337, for information concerning the masks. Also Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 557–9.

[588] _Smithsonian Contribution_, No. 287, pp. 82–7 (1876).

[589] _Hist. Kingdom Guatemala_, p. 19. Lond., 1823.

[590] F. Giordan, _Description et colonization de l’Isthme de Tehuantepec_, p. 57. Paris, 1838.

[591] Melgar in _Mex. Geog. Soc. Bolletin_, 2d época, tom. iii, p. 112 _et seq._

[592] Dr. Max Uhlmann, _Handbuch der gesamten Ægyptischen Alterthumskunde_, I _Theil. Geschichte der Egyptologie_, p. 108. Leipzig, 1857.

[593] Botta, _Mon. de Ninive_, vol. ii, pl. 58, and _Edinburgh Review_ for Jan. 1870, p. 231.

[594] John Newton in Appendix to Inman’s _Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism_, p. 116. London, 1874.

[595] _Saturn_, lib. i, cap. 20.

[596] Zoeckler, _Das Kreutz Christi_, p. 9, Güterslo, 1875, and _Edinburgh Review_, Jan. 1870, p. 232.

[597] Mr. Bancroft remarks, “He happens, however, here to have selected two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America. In the preceding volume of this work, page 333, is given a cut of what is called the ‘Tablet of the Cross’ at Palenque. In this we see a cross and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering. In Mr. Stephens’ representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented Latin cross, we have here a _crux commissa_, or _patibulata_; that instead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately above it, and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an offering to it; in Mr. Stephens’ representation from the obelisk of Carnac, however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large bird perched upon an altar; and here again the human figures occupy the same position. The hieroglyphics, though the characters are of course different, are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the same manner. The frontispiece of Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, described on p. 352, represents the tablet, on the back wall of the altar, Casa No. 3 at Palenque. Once more here are two priests clad in all the elaborate insignia of their office, standing one on either side of a table or altar, upon which are erected two batons, crossed in such a manner as to form a _crux decussata_, and supporting a hideous mask. To this emblem they are making an offering.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 60–1, note.

[598] W. H. Holmes in _Bulletin of the Geog. and Geol. Survey of the Territories_, Vol. II, No. I, p. 20, Pl. 11 and 12.

[599] Landa, _Relacion_, p. 44. Villagutierre, _Conq.Itza_, pp. 393–4. Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 768.

[600] _Relacion_, p. 316.

[601] Peter Martyr, Dec. iv, lib. viii. Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 769–70.

[602] Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, pp. 342, 453–5.

[603] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 780. Brasseur’s admission will be found in the _Bibliothéque Mexico-Guatemalienne_, Paris, 1871, p. xxvii. The translation, prefaced with 136 quarto pages devoted to a consideration of the Maya characters, is published under the title, _MS. Troano: Etudes sur le systéme graphique et la langue des Mayas_. Paris, 1869–70. 4to, 2 vols., 70 colored plates.

[604] Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 773, plate, p. 774.

[605] The original of Landa’s explanation is as follows: “De sus letras porne aqui un _a_, _b_, _c_, que no permite su pesadumbre mas porque usan para todas las aspiraciones de las letras de un caracter, y despues, al puntar de las partes otro, y assi viene a hazer _in infinitum_, como se podra ver en el siguiente exemplo: _Lé_, quiere dezir laço y caçar con el; para escrivirle con sus carateres, haviendoles nosotros hecho entender que son dos letras, lo escrivian ellos con tres, puniendo a la aspiracion de la _l_ la vocale _é_ que antes de si trae, y en esto no hierran. aunque usense, si quisieren ellos de su curiosidad, exemplo: _e L e Lé._ Despues al cabo le pegan la parte junta. _Ha_ que quiere dezir agua, porque la _haché_ tiene _a_, _h_, antes de si la ponen ellos al prinicipio con _a_, y al cabo deste manera, _ha_. Tambien lo escriven a partes pero de la una y otra manera, yo no pusiera aqui ni tratara dello sino por dar cuenta enters de las cosas desta gente. _Ma in kati_ quiere dezir no quiero, ellos lo escriven a partes desta manera: _ma i n ka ti._”—_Landa, Relacion_, p. 318, translated by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 778.

[606] _Relacion_, p. 322.

[607] Bollaert, _Examination of Central American Hieroglyphs_, in _Memoirs of Anthropological Soc. of London_, vol. iii, pp. 288–314. London, 1870.

[608] Charencey, _Essai de Déchiffrement d’un fragment d’inscription palenquéenne_, in _Actes de la Société Philologique_, tom. i. March, 1870.

[609] Rosny, _Essai sur le Déchiffrement de L’Écriture Hiératique de L’Amérique Centrale_, Paris, 1876, folio, with large colored plates and fac-similes. In three parts, two of which only have as yet appeared (Oct. 1878). The author informs me (Feb. 1879) that a fourth part will be required to complete the work.

[610] Bollaert in _Memoirs of Anthropol. Soc. of London_, vol. iii, p. 298.

[611] _Ibid._, p. 301.

[612] _Ibid._, p. 307.

[613] See a review of these attempts in Rosny’s _Essai_, pp. 12–13, and remarks on Charencey in Appendix D of Baldwin’s _Ancient America_.

[614] _Examination of Cent. Am. Hier._, p. 306.

[615] _The Ancient Phonetic Alphabet of Yucatan_, p. 6, N. Y., 1870, cited by Rosny, _Essai_, p. 25.

[616] _Essai_, p. 26; Rosny cites Bancroft’s opinion to the same effect, _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 782.

[617] _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 529–33.

[618] _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 537.

[619] Gemelli Carreri, Humboldt, Kingsborough, Ramirez in Garcia y Cubas, and Bancroft; see this work, chapter vi, p. 262.

[620] Vol. ii, pp. 544–5.

[621] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. i, pl. lxi; explanation, vol. v, pp. 96–7; Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 538–40.

[622] Delafield, _Antiq. of Am._, pp. 42–7. M. Ed. Madier de Montjau has recently added much to our understanding of Aztec picture-writing in his Chronologie hieroglyphico-phonétic des rois Aztèques de 1352–1522 retrouvée dans diverses mappes américaines antiques, expliquée et précédée d’une introduction sur l’Écriture mexicaine. A valuable article on the same subject is found in the _Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. ii, pp. 346–362, by M. l’Abbé Jules Pipart, entitled Eléments phonétiques dans les Ecritures figuratives des anciens Mexicains.

[623] An excellent account of the various collections of Aztec picture-writing will be found in the introduction to Domenech’s _Manuscrit Pictographique_, Paris, 1860, 8vo; a book which would be valueless but for that feature. See also account of M. Aubun’s collection in Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. lxxvi–lxxviii. For general description of hieroglyphic principles see Tylor, _Researches_, pp. 89–101, and Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 177–9, 162–202. See also Boturini, _Idea de una Hist._, pp. 5, 77, 87, 96, 112, 116. Prescott, _Conq. Mex._ (Kirk’s ed., 1875), vol. i, pp. 94, 99, 107–9. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. ii, pp. 187–94. Mendoza, in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 2d época, tom. i, pp. 896–904. Gallatin in _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transact._, vol. i, pp. 126, 165–69. Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. vi, p. 87, and Ixtlilxochitl’s _Hist. Chich._ in Kingsborough, vol. ix, p. 201. Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 149. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 521–52.

[624] Landa, _Relation_, pp. 204–316, and the work by Perez, entitled _Cronologia Antigua de Yucatan_, with Brasseur’s translation into French in the above work, pp. 366–429. Also see English translation in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 434–59. See also Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 104–8, and an able discussion in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 755–67.

[625] Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 204. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 756.

[626] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 757.

[627] See Perez’s Appendix to Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 458–59, and in Landa’s _Relacion_, Appendix, pp. 370–382, and Brasseur in the same. Especially Rosny, _Essai sur le Dech. de L’Écrit. Hiérat. de L’Amér. Cent._, pp. 15–24.

[628] Landa, _Relacion_, p. 234. Perez in Landa, pp. 394 _et seq._, and in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 439; also see Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 759 _et seq._

[629] Perez in Landa, _Relacion_, pp. 366–8; also cited by Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 759.

[630] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 318–19. Stephens was unable to assign any use to the pillars referred to. He counted upwards of 380. Dr. Le Plongeon accords with our view.

[631] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 441 _et seq._

[632] See Landa, _Relacion_, pp. 313, 400–412; Stephens, _Yucatan_, Perez, vol. i, pp. 441–447, MS. cited in vol. ii, pp. 465–469; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 762–765; M. Delaporte, _Le Calendrier Yucatèque_, MS. cited by Rosny, _Essai sur le déchiffrement de L’Écriture Hiératique_, p. 25.

[633] Perez in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 447.

[634] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i, lib. ii, pp. 49–76; lib. iv, pp. 282–310, gives a partial though very satisfactory account. Leon y Gama, _Dos Piedras_, is critical and learned, but often incorrect. Humboldt, _Vues_, furnishes an elaborate account, which is very valuable though complicated. Veytia’s explanation is the result of thorough research, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i. Gallatin is extremely clear and reliable in _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. McCulloch’s _Researches in Amer._, pp. 201–25. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 502–22, furnishes us an account, clear and full, as are all of his discussions. Several cuts enhance the value of the chapter. We especially refer the reader to his rich bibliography of the subject, appended in notes. A number of additional authors are before us: Ixtlilxochitl, Müller, Herrera, Clavigero, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Boturini, Prichard, but last and best is the ingenious and masterly _Vortrag über den Mexicanischen Calender stein gehalten von Prof._ _Ph. Valentini, am 30 April, 1878_ (in Republican Hall, New York), _vor dem Deutsch ges. wissenschaftlichen Verein_, 32 pp. 8vo, recently translated and published by Stephen Salisbury, Jr.

[635] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 508.

[636] Mr. Bancroft also follows the opinion that the above date is the correct one.—_Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 515.

[637] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 512.

[638] Prof. Valentini, _Vortrag_, p. 16.

[639] _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 513.

[640] Mr. Bancroft incorrectly states that thirteen days were intercalated at the end of each tlalpilli (13 years). It is plain that if 365 days constitute a year, the lost time would not amount to thirteen days before fifty-two years.

[641] Prof. Valentini quotes the terms given above, and Mr. Bancroft states that the same process of computation was pursued in both divisions.

[642] See _The Nation_ for Aug. 8, 1878, p. 84, and for Sept. 19, 1878. Also Mr. Salisbury’s translation of Valentini’s _Vortrag_, Worcester, 1879.

[643] Prof. Valentini cites _Codex Vaticanus_, pl. 91, _Codex Boturini_, pl. 10, _Codex Tellerianus_, pl. 6 and 8. The Professor in making the comparison, remarks: “Auf beiden senkt sich ein Schaft in ein rundes Loch, von welchem aus sich etwas volutenähnliches hervorwindet. Wir gewahren auf den gemalten Bildern, dass jede der Voluten in 2 Hälften getheilt ist, die eine grau die andere roth gemalt. Dieselbe Abtheilung finden wir auch auf der Sculptur. Was dieses Symbol bedeute, wird uns aus der Beobachtung klar, dass wir es in den gemalten Jahrestafeln immer nur dann wiederkehrend finden, sobald 52 Jahre verflossen sind. Wir sehen es immer gerade an das Symbol dieses 52ten Jahres angehängt, an einer Stelle, in Cod. Tell. IV, Pl. 8. 1. Kingsb. Coll., vol. i, es erscheint auch mit einem erklärenden Texte. Er lautet: ‘_Dieses ist das Zeichen für die Zusammenbindung der 52 Jahre._’”—_Vortrag_, pp. 23, 24.

[644] Prof. Valentini, _Vortrag_, pp. 24, 25, cites _Codex Selden_, pl. 10, _Codex Laud_, pl. 8, and _Codex Veletri_, fol. 34.

[645] Prof. Valentini cites a Codex from the Squier collection, where the symbol occurs accompanied with the word _Molpiynxihuitl_, which translated means “the binding of the years.” He also cites _Codex Boturini_, pl. 10, Kingsborough Collection.—_Vortrag_, pp. 25, 26.

[646] Dr. Le Plongeon in _Yucatan_, by Stephen Salisbury, Jr., p. 88. Worcester, 1877.

[647] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, pp. 254 _et seq._

[648] Humboldt, _Vues_, pp. 148 _et seq._ (Ed. 1810.)

[649] _Vues_, p. 152. On page 150 he furnishes tables of comparison which show unmistakably the analogy between the Mexican Calendar and that of the people of Eastern Asia.

[650] Cabrera, _Teatro_ in _Rio’s Description_, pp. 103–5.

[651] Delafield’s _American Antiquities_, pp. 52–3.

[652] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. vi, pp. 174, 182.

[653] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. vi, p. 163.

[654] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. viii, p. 19.

[655] “It is impossible on reading what Mexican mythology records of the war in heaven, and of the fall of Zoutemoque and the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word Touacatecutli, and of the division of the waters; of the sin of Yztlacohuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal and her disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all her posterity—not to recognize scriptural analogies. But the Mexican tradition of the deluge is that which bears the most unequivocal marks of having been derived from a Hebrew source. This tradition records that a few persons escaped in the Ahuehuete, or ark of fir, when the earth was swallowed up by the deluge, the chief of whom was named Patecatle or Cipaquetona; that he invented the art of making wine; that Xelua, one of his descendants, at least one of those who escaped with him in the ark, was present at the building of a high tower, which the succeeding generation constructed with a view of escaping from the deluge should it again occur; that Tonacatecutli, incensed at their presumption, destroyed the tower with lightning, confounded their language and dispersed them; and that Xelua led a colony to the New World.”—_Mex. Antiq._, tom. vi, p. 401.

[656] Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relaciones_ in _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, and this work, chap. vi.

[657] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 66, 68.

[658] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, p. 27.

[659] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 246.

[660] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 253.

[661] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 361.

[662] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, p. 67.

[663] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 137.

[664] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 382.

[665] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 238; washing of hands after meals, see p. 53, Appendix.

[666] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 414; vol. viii, p. 18.

[667] The following is Kingsborough’s account of the Mexican baptism: “The midwife took the infant in her arms naked, and carried it into the court of the mother’s house, in which court were strewed reeds or rushes, which they call Tule, upon which was placed a small vessel of water, in which the said midwife bathed the said infant; and after she had bathed it, three boys being seated near the said rushes, eating roasted maize mixed with boiled beans, which kind of food they named Yxcue, which provision or paste they set before the said boys, in order that they might eat it. After the said bathing or washing, the said midwife desired the said boys to pronounce the name aloud, bestowing a new name on the infant which had been thus bathed; and the name which they gave it was that which the midwife wished.”—_Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 45.

[668] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 248.

[669] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 69.

[670] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 163 _et seq._

[671] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 167.

[672] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 248.

[673] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 125; _Codex Telleriano-Remensis_, pl. xix; _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vii, pp. 240–1, and Duran, MS., part ii, cap. 20; see further, _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, pp. 135–218.

[674] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, pp. 121–2. He cites several authors to prove this sweeping statement, and is not content with finding it among the Indians, but is provoked by his zeal to discover the practice of the same rite among the Hottentots. See _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 272, 333–5; vol. viii, pp. 143, 391, 20. On page 393, vol vi, he makes this remarkable statement: “From an examination of some of the Mexican paintings, it would appear that circumcision among the Indians was not confined to the human species.” Also vol. viii, p. 155: “The head of the Totonac high-priest, was anointed by the blood of circumcised children.”

[675] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 273; vol. viii, pp. 157, 236, 160.

[676] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 504.

[677] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 361.

[678] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 257.

[679] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 222.

[680] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 142.

[681] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 258.

[682] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 301, 312; vol. viii, pp. 23–58.

[683] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 27.

[684] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 32.

[685] _Ibid._, vol. viii, pp. 26–7.

[686] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 190.

[687] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 207–8.

[688] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 261.

[689] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, pp. 207–8. He thinks the gospel must have been preached at an early day in Yucatan, and in proof cites from the sixth chapter of the Fourth Book of Cogolludo’s History the following: “A certain ecclesiastic wrote to a priest commissioned by Las Casas, that he met a principle-lord, who, on being questioned respecting the ancient religion which they professed, told him that they knew and believed in the God who was in Heaven, and that this God was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and that the Father was named Yzona, who had created man; and that the Son was called Bacab, who was born of a virgin of the name of Chiribirias, and that the mother of Chiribirias was named Yxchel; and that the Holy Ghost was named Echvah. Of Bacab, the Son, they said he was put to death and scourged and crowned with thorns and placed with his arms extended upon a beam of wood, to which they did not suppose that he had been nailed, but that he was tied, where he died and remained dead during three days, and on the third day came to life and ascended into heaven, where he is with his Father; and that immediately afterwards Echvah, who is the Holy Ghost, came and filled the earth with whatsoever it stood in need of.”

[690] Mr. Bancroft in his fifth vol., pp. 84–89, has collated a great number of Lord Kingsborough’s analogies. Our limited space forbids further treatment.

[691] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 41; Humboldt’s _Vues_, tom. i, p. 236.

[692] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 41; Humboldt, _Vues_, p. 256; Tschudi, _Peruvian Antiq._, p. 211.

[693] _Vues_, p. 230 (ed. 1810).

[694] Viollet-le-Duc in Charnay’s _Ruins_, pp. 41–2. Paris, 1863.

[695] _Vues_, p. 148 (ed. 1810).

[696] _Mœurs des Sauvages_, pp. 108–455.

[697] Brasseur in _Introduction_ to Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. lxx–i.

[698] Landa’s _Relacion_, _Introduc._, pp. lxxi _et seq._

[699] Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, pp. lxvi–ix.

[700] We have not thought it necessary to treat the mythology or religious systems of the Mayas and Nahuas in any formal manner, but only incidentally to call attention to some salient features, cropping out in connection with the subject in hand. The religions of the ancient Americans have been so often and so admirably treated, that anything relating to them in this connection would be superfluous. See especially Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii; Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_; Squier’s _Serpent Symbol in America_; Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, and _Ibid._, _Religious Sentiments in the New World_.

[701] _Families of Speech_, pp. 134–6. London, 1873. 12mo.

[702] Spanish, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, pp. 110–15.

[703] English translation in Prescott’s _Mexico_, vol. iii, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 494–97.

[704] _Families of Speech_, pp. 125–26.

[705] The same author refers to the classification of languages adopted by Prof. Steinthal in his _Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues_. Languages are divided into _cultivated_ and _uncultivated_, and each again are subdivided into _isolating_ and _inflectional_. The American languages are classed as uncultivated and inflectional by incorporation.—(_Families of Speech_, p. 127.)

[706] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 559, 670–2. See on the latter page especially a vocabulary of resemblances.

[707] We refer the reader who is interested in the aboriginal languages of the North-west to the _Contributions to North American Ethnology_, published by the Department of the Interior, under the direction of Major J. W. Powell, Washington, 1877. 3 vols. 4to.

[708] Garcia y Cubas, _The Republic of Mexico in 1876_. A political and ethnographical division of the population, etc., translated by Geo. F. Henderson, p. 66. Mexico, 1876. Most of the above names are cited by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 760; by Orozco y Berra, _Geografía_, pp. 18–25 _et passim_, and by Pimentel, _Lenguas Indígenas de Mex._, vol. ii, p. 5 _et seq._

[709] _Leng. Indig. de Mex._, vol. ii, p. 3.

[710] _Geografía de las Lenguas de Mex._, pp. 129.

[711] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 760, and the literary apparatus appended.

[712] Orozco y Berra, _Geografía_, pp. 22, 128.

[713] Communication of Dr. Le Plongeon to the Hon. John W. Foster, minister of the United States at Mexico, dated Island of Cozumel, May 1, 1877, in Salisbury’s _Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, p. 83.

[714] Dr. Le Plongeon, communication to Stephen Salisbury, Jr., Esq., dated Island of Cozumel, June 15, 1877. He remarks: “Notwithstanding a few guttural sounds, the Maya is soft, pliant, rich in diction and expression, even every shade of thought may be expressed.” “Strange to say the language remained unaltered. Even to-day, in many places in Yucatan the descendants of the Spanish conquerors have forgotten the native tongue of their sires, and only speak Maya, the idiom of the vanquished.”—_Communication above cited in Salisbury’s Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, pp. 95 _et seq._

[715] The following is Señor Melgar’s comparative list with the Spanish translated into English.

_Hebrew._ _English._ _Chiapenec._

Ben, Son, Been. Bath, Daughter, Batz. Abbá, Father, Abagh. Chimah, Star in Zodiac? the creator of rain, Chimax. Maloc, King, Molo. Abah, Name applied to Adam, Abagh. Chanan, Afflicted, Chanam. Elab, God, Elab. Tischiri, September, Tsiquin. Chi, More, Chic. Chabic, Rich, Chabin. Enos, Son of Seth, Enot. Votan, To give, Votan. Lambotus, River of Arica, Lambat.

He adds: “Todas estas coincidencias hacer suponer que en épocas muy remotas existeron communicaciones entre el viejo y el nuevo mundo.” He then refers to Plato’s _Atlantis_.—_Melgar in Sociedad Mex. de Geog. Boletin_, iii, _Época_, p. 108.

[716] Brasseur’s letter to M. Rafn in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 6th series, vol. xvi, p. 263. He thinks the Scandinavians may have reached those remote parts at an early day. On pp. 281–9 he gives a list of words chosen from the Quiché, Cakchiquel and Zutohil, showing analogies with languages of Northern Europe, especially with the Scandinavian. Also see the same author in the _Nouv. Ann. des Voy._, 6th series, vol. iii, 1855, pp. 156–7. The Abbé in a letter to the _New York Tribune_, November 21st, 1855, in referring to the early inhabitants of Vera Paz, says: “_They came from the east_—not from the south-east, _but from the north-east_. I speak only of the tribes of Quiché-Cakchiquel and Zutohil. They came from the north-east, certainly passed through the United States, and as they say themselves, _they crossed the sea in darkness, mist, cold and snow_. I suppose they must have come from Denmark and Norway. They came in small numbers, and lost their white blood by their mixture with the Indians whom they found—whether in the United States or in these regions, certainly there must have been a Tula in our northern European countries. But what is more convincing of this migration or passage, I find the same result by a comparison of the languages. I cannot speak of the structure of them, but by what I have observed is that the fundamental forms and words of the languages of these regions (except the Mexican) are intimately connected with the Maya or Tzendal, and that all the words that are neither Mexican nor Maya belong to our languages of Northern Europe, viz.: English, Saxon, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Flemish and German, some even appear to belong to the French or Persian.”

[717] Dr. Farrar, referring to the Basque, says: “What is certain about it is, that its structure is polysynthetic, like the language of America. Like them, and them only, it habitually forms its compounds by the elimination of certain radicals in the simple words; so that, _e. g._, _ilhun_, twilight, is contracted from _hill_, dead, and _egun_, day; and _belhaun_, the knee, from _belhar_, front, and _oin_, leg. It was this fact that made Larramendi give to his treatise on Basque grammar the title of ‘The Impossible Overcome.’ The most daring of all the hypotheses which have been suggested points to the conceivable existence of some great Atlantis; to the possibility of the ‘Basque area being the remains of a vast system, of which Madeira and the Azores are fragments belonging to the Miocene period.’ Be this as it may, the fact is indisputable and is eminently noteworthy that, while the affinities of the Basque roots have never been conclusively elucidated, there has never been any doubt that this isolated language, preserving its identity in a western corner of Europe between two mighty kingdoms, resembles in its grammatical structure the aboriginal languages of the vast opposite continent, and those alone.”—_Families of Speech_, pp. 132–3. Also see Alfred Maury in Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races of the Earth_, p. 48.

[718] See Maury in Nott and Gliddon’s _Indig. Races_, pp. 81–84.

[719] Salisbury’s _Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, p. 96.

[720] See on the Maya, Ruz, _Gram. Yucateca_; Pimentel, _Quadro Leng. Indig._, tom. ii, pp. 5 _et seq._, whose grammar we have followed above. Also vol. ii, pp. 119, 221; vol. i, p. 229, for idioms; Gallatin in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Transact._, vol. i, pp. 252 et seq.; Vater, _Mithridates_. tom. iii, pt. iii, pp. 4–24; Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Grammaire_ in Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. 459 _et seq._, also _Maya and French Vocabulary_; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 759–82, quotes prayer as above. Further see literature cited in Ludewig’s _Literature of American Aboriginal Languages_, ed. of Trübner. London, 1858, pp. 102–3.

[721] Full accounts of the grammatical structure of the languages of this family may be found in Pimentel’s _Quadro_, tom. i, pp. 35–78, 321–60; Orozco y Berra’s _Geografía_, pp. 25 _et seq._; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 748–58.

[722] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chic._ in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Antiq._, vol. ix, p. 217, and cited by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 724.

[723] _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 724–5; Pimentel, _Quadro Leng. Indig. de Mex._, tom. i, pp. 154–8, and our discussion in this work,

## chapter vi. p. 255.

[724] _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 726–7. The same author refers to the _Natural History_ of Dr. Hernandez, written in the Aztec, as proof of its copiousness. “Twelve hundred different species of Mexican plants, two hundred or more species of birds, and a large number of quadrupeds, reptiles, insects and metals, each of which is given its proper name in the Mexican language.” (Quoted by Pimentel, _Quadro._, vol. i, p. 168.)

[725] See Prescott’s _Conq. of Mex._, vol. i, p. 174 (ed. of 1875). “Tezcuco,” says Boturini, “where the noblemen sent their sons to acquire the most polished dialect of the Nahuatlac language, and to study poetry, moral philosophy, the heathen theology, astronomy, medicine and history.” (_Idea_, p. 142, cited by Prescott.)

[726] _Geografía de las Lenguas_, p. 9.

[727] Pimentel, _Quadro, Lenguas Indig._, p. 165, also copied by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 731. From Pimentel we draw our extract of Aztec Grammar.

[728] _Quadro, Leng. Indig._, tom. i, p. 183.

[729] It will be observed in some portions of this abstract, I have used almost the same words as are employed by Mr. Bancroft. This is owing to the fact that both he and I have translated certain passages literally from Señor Pimentel, from whose work I have drawn this account throughout. See _Quadro, Lenguas Indig. de Mex._, tom. i, pp. 164–216; Gallatin in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. i, pp. 214–246; Vater, _Mithridates_, vol. iii, pt. iii, pp. 85–106, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 721–37.

[730] _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 726.

[731] _Mithridates_, tom. iii, pt. iii, pp. 75 _et seq._

[732] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 663–70, our authority for the facts stated on p. 486. See his sketch of the theory and the reaction under Buschmann.

[733] _Die Lautveränderung Aztekischer Wörter in der Sonorischen Sprachen._ Berlin, 1855, 4to, and _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprachen_. Berlin, 1850, 4to.

[734] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 669.

[735] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 667–8; William von Humboldt in Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._ pp. 48–50; Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, p. 39.

[736] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, p. 172; Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 321–5; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 714.

[737] _Geografia_, pp. 58, 147–8.

[738] “As regards this Aztec element, I do not mean to say that these languages are related to the Aztec language in the same sense that other languages are spoken of as being related to each other, for this might lead those who are searching for the former habitation or fatherland of the Aztecs, to suppose that it has been found. This element consists simply in a number of words identical or reasonably approximate to the like Aztec words, and in the similarity, perhaps, of a few grammatical rules. How this Aztec word-material crept into the languages of the Shoshones, whether by inter-communication, or Aztec colonization, we do not know. Nor do I wish to be understood as attempting to sustain the popular theory of an Aztec migration from the North; on the contrary, the evidences of language are all on the other side.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 660–1.

[739] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, p. 290; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 673–4.

[740] _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, pp. 349–51, 391, 648–52 _et seq._; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 661–79, comparative table compiled from Buschmann, Turner, Molina, Ortega, and others, on p. 678.

[741] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, p. 629, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 630–1.

[742] “The Chinook language is spoken by all the nations from the mouth of the Columbia to the Falls. It is hard and difficult to pronounce for strangers, being full of gutturals like the Gaelic. The combinations _thl_ or _tl_ are as frequent in the Chinook as in the Mexican.”—Franchère, _Narrative of a Voy. to N. W. Coast of N. Am._, p. 262. Swan, speaking of the Chinook, says: “The peculiar clucking sound is produced by pressing the tongue against the roof of the mouth, and pronouncing the word ending with _tl_ as if it were the letter _k_ at the end of the _tl_; but it is impossible in any form or method of spelling that I know of, to convey the proper guttural clucking sound. Sometimes they will, as if for amusement, end all their words in _tl_; and the effect is ludicrous to hear three or four talking at the same time with this singular sound, like so many sitting-hens.”—_North West Coast_, p. 315.

[743] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, pp. 628–9; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 619.

[744] Gibbs’ _Alphabetical Vocab. of Clallam and Lummi Lang._, p. 6; Gallatin, in _Trans. Am. Eth. Soc._, vol. i, p. 54.

[745] Buschmann, _Die Völker und Sprachen Neu-Mexico’s_, p. 370, calls attention to the great resemblance of

_Aztec._ _Nutka._

tepuztli = copper = chipuz tetl = stone = tenetschök

and adds that _Esquiates_ the name of a society is entirely Mexican. We append the result of his investigations:

“Von ähnlicher Art, gleich den Spanisch gemodelten Gestalten Mexicanischer Wörter, sind viele Nutka-Wörter der Spanischen Sammlung: nur mit dem Unterschiede, dass sie auf keinen vorhandenen mexicanischen Wörtern beruhen (da zufällig diese Buchstaben-combinationem in der Azt. Sprache nicht vorkommen, aber ihren Wesen nach recht gut vorkommen könnten). Solche Wörter sind: _iztocoti_ = Muschel (dazu Eigenname _iztocoti_ No. 923); _majati_ = jagd (caza), _mamati_ = Hof, _muztati_ = Regenbogen: _cucustlati_ = Nasenloch, _natlaycazte_ = Rippen; _otniquit_ = Jungfrau; _mamatle_ = Schiff; _oumatle_ = Leib; _aguequetle_ = Hunger; _capitzitle_ = Dieb; _tahechitle_ = larga: _temextixitle_ = Kuss; _cuachitle_ = reisen; _cuchitle_ = pincher; _meyali_ = Schmerz. Es giebt noch eine höhere Gattung von Nutka-Wörtern (der Span. Reise), welche (besonders durch die Aechtheit ihrer Endung von der vorigen verschieden) ganz und gar wie mexicanische Wörter aussehen, und (so weit sie substantiva sind) mexicanische sein würden, wenn es der Sprache beliebt hätte diese bestimmten Lautgestalten zu bilden: _inapatl_ = Rücken; _tlexatl_ = Matte; _tzahuacatl_ = 9; _chamiehtl_ = Iris; _naguatzitl_ = Zwerg; _naschitl_ = Tag; _jacamitl_ = viereckig; _huatzacchitl_ = Husten; _nectzitl_ = trinken; _pugxitl_ = heben; _cocotl_ = Seeotter; _amanutl_ = espinilla; _apactzutl_ = Bart; _ictlatzutl_ = Mund; _iniyutl_ = Kehle; _jayutl_ = Fluth; _tlatlacastzeme_ = Blätter (wie ein Mex. Plural in _me_); _coyactzac_ = Fuchsbalg. Noch mehr Wörter finden sich, wenn man für die Mex. Sprache unnatürliche und zu harte Consonanten—Verbindungen übersieht. Diese letzte höhere Gattung vorzüglich, doch auch die erstere meint Alexander von Humboldt in der obigen Stelle (S. 363). So gawinnt die Nutka-Sprache durch eine reiche Zahl von Wörtern und durch grosse Züge ihres Lautwesens, einzig von allen anderen fremden, die ich habe aufdecken können, in einem bedeutenden Theile eine täuschende Aehnlichkeit mit der Aztekischen oder Mexicanischen; und so wird die ihr schon früher gewidmete Aufmerksamkeit vollständig gerechtfertigt. Ihrer Mexicanischen Erscheinrung fehlt aber, wie ich von meiner Seite hier ausspreche jede Wirklichkeit.”—_Ibid._, p. 371.

[746] _Compte-Rendu Seconde Ses. Cong. Internat, des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, vol. i, pp. 51–2.

[747] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 727. Acosta, _Hist. Nat. Ind._, p. 600. Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, lib. ix, cap. 9.

[748] “To show how languages spring up and grow, Vancouver, when visiting the coast in 1792, found in various places along the shores of Oregon, Washington and Vancouver’s Island, nations that now and then understood words and sentences of the Nootka and other tongues, some of which had been adopted into their own language. When Lewis and Clarke, in 1806, reached the coast, the jargon [Chinook] seems to have already assumed a fixed shape, as may be seen from the sentences quoted by the explorers.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 632.

[749] I append a partial list from Señor Najera’s _Disertacion sobre la lengua_ _Othomi_, Mexico, 1845, fol., pp. 87–8. I have rendered the Spanish list into English.

+----------+----------+-------------++----------+---------+------------+ |_Chinese._|_Othomi._ | _English._ ||_Chinese._|_Othomi._| _English._ | +----------+----------+-------------++----------+---------+------------+ | Cho. | To. | The, that. || Pa. | Da. | To give. | | Y. | N-y. | A wound. || Tsun. | Nsu. | Honor. | | Ten. | Gu, Mu. | Head. || Hu. | Hmu. | Sir, Lord. | | Siao. | Sui. | Night. || Na. | Na. | That. | | Tien. | Tsi. | Tooth. || Hu. | He. | Cold. | | Ye. | Yo. | Shining. || Ye. | He. | And. | | Ky. | Hy (ji). | Happiness. || Hos. | Hia. | Word. | | Ku. | Du. | Death. || Nugo. | Nga. | I. | | Po. | Yo. | No. || Ni. | Nuy. | Thou. | | Na. | Ta. | Man. || Hao. | Nho. | The good. | | Nin. | Nsu. | Female. || Ta. | Da. | The great. | | Tseu. | Tsi, Ti. | Son. || Li. | Ti. | Gain. | | Tso. | Tsa. | To perfect. || Ho. | To. | Who. | | uan. | Khuani. | True. || Pa. | Pa. | To leave. | | Siao. | Sa. | To mock. || Mu, Mo. | Me. | Mother. | +----------+----------+-------------++----------+---------+------------+

[750] Warden, in _Antiquités Mexicaines_, tom. ii, div. ii, pp. 125 _et seq._ The same author has furnished many linguistic analogies, though without following any scientific classification. Ampère, _Promenade en Amérique_, vol. ii, p. 301, furnishes a list of Chinese and Otomi resemblances.

[751] Orozco y Berra, _Geografía_, p. 17. Pimentel, _Leng. Indig. de Mex._, tom. i, p. 118. Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 737. Vater, _Mithridates_, tom. iii, pt. iii, p. 113. Malte-Brun (V. S.), in _Congrès des Américanistes, Luxembourg, Seconds Ses._, tom. ii, pp. 16–18.

[752] “In 1857, a gentleman named Henley, a good Chinese scholar, who acted as an interpreter of this state for some time, published a list of words in the Chinese and Indian languages to show that they were of the same origin. From this we make an extract supporting our remarks:

_Indian._ _Chinese._ _English._ | _Indian._ _Chinese._ _English._ | Nang-a, Nang, Man. | A-pa, A-pa, Father. Yi-soo, Soa, Hand. | A-ma, A-ma, Mother. Keoka, Keok, Foot. | Ko-le, A-ko, Brother. Aek-a-soo, Soo, Beard. | Ko-chae, To-chae, Thanks. Yuet-a, Yuet, Moon. | Nagam, Yam, Drunk. Yeeta, Yat, Sun. | Koolae, Ku-kay, Her. Utyta, Hoto, Much. | Koo-chue, Chue-koo, Hog. Lee-lum, Ee-lung, Deafness. | Chookoo, Kow-chi, Dog.” Ho-ya-pa, Ho-ah, Good. |

We have no means at hand of testing the following statement from the same author: “The Chinese, who have become so numerous in California since the discovery of gold, bear a striking resemblance to the Indians, and are known to be able to converse with them in their respective languages to an extent that cannot be the result of mere coincidence of expression.”—_Cronaise, The Natural Wealth of California_, p. 31. Probably a mistake.

[753] “Unhesitatingly as I make this assertion—an assertion for which I have numerous tabulated vocabularies as proof—I am by no means prepared to say that one-tenth part of the necessary work has been done for the parts in question; indeed, it is my impression that it is easier to connect America with the Kuirle Isles and Japan, etc., than it is to make Japan and the Kuirle Isles, etc., Asiatic.”—_Latham, Man and His Migrations_, pp. 195–6. Barton, _New Views_, is certain that the languages of America originated in Asia; see pp. lxxxviii–xcii. On p. 28 of Appendix he furnishes a comparative list of Japanese and Indian words.

[754] Vergleichung der Amerikanischen Sprachen mit den Ural-Altaïschen hinsichtlich ihrer Grammatik. (_Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. ii, p. 56 _et seq._) Also see E. L. O. Roehrig “On the Language of the Dakota or Sioux Indians,” _Smithsonian Report_, 1872.

[755] Prof. Valentini’s communication to the author.

[756] Brasseur, in Landa’s _Relacion_, p. xxi, and _Popol Vuh_, chap. iii. Brasseur, in _Quatre Lettres_, p. 24, speaking of the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, says: “Oui, Monsieur, si ce livre est en apparence l’histoire des Toltèques et ensuite des rois des Colhuacan et de Mexico, il présente, en réalité, le récit du cataclysme qui bouleversa le monde, il y a quelques six on sept mille ans, et constitua le continents dans leur état actuel,” pp. 40–41. He expresses his belief that the _Cod. Chim._ has a double meaning, and that many names and symbols possessed by the natives refer to the cataclysm which occurred six or seven thousand years ago. “C’est le récit de ces bouleversements, c’est l’histoire du cataclysme, dont tous les peuples ont gardé la mémoire, que racontent tous mes documents.”

[757] The following are the legends, according to Brasseur de Bourbourg: “According to the tradition of the Sacred Book (_Popol Vuh_), water and fire contributed to the universal ruin, at the time of the last cataclysm which preceded the fourth creation. ‘Then,’ says the author, ‘the waters were agitated by the will of the Heart of Heaven, and a great inundation came upon the heads of these creatures. * * * They were engulfed, and a resinous thickness descended from heaven. * * * The face of the earth was obscured and a heavy darkening rain commenced, rain by day and rain by night. * * * There was heard a great noise above their heads as if produced by fire. Then were men seen running, pushing each other, filled with despair; they wished to climb upon their houses, and the houses tumbling down fell to the ground; they wished to climb upon the trees, and the trees shook them off; they wished to enter into the grottoes, and the grottoes closed themselves before them.’ In the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, the author, speaking of the destruction which took place by fire, says: ‘The third sun is called _Quia-Tonatiuh_, sun of rain, because there fell a rain of fire; all which existed burned, and there fell a rain of gravel.’ They also narrate that whilst the sandstone which we now see scattered about, and the _tetzontli_ (amygdaloide poreuse) boiled with great tumult, there also rose the rocks of vermillion color. Now this was in the year _Ce Tecpactl_, One Flint, it was the day _Nahui-Quiahuitl_, Fourth Rain. Now, in this day, in which men were lost and destroyed in a rain of fire, they were transformed into goslings; the sun itself was on fire, and everything, together with the houses, was consumed.” Brasseur recounts a Haytian legend concerning the origin of the sea and isles: “There was, they say, a powerful man called Iaia, who, having murdered his only son, wished to bury him; but not knowing where to put him, enclosed him in a calabash, which he placed afterwards at the foot of a high mountain, situated a little distance from the place where he lived; on account of his affection for his son he often went to the spot. One day, having opened it (the calabash), there came out whales and other very large fishes, of which Iaia, full of fear, having returned home, told his neighbors what had happened, saying that this calabash was filled with water and innumerable fishes. This news being spread abroad, four twin brothers, desiring to obtain fish, went to the place where the calabash was. Just as they had taken it in their hand to open it, Iaia came, and they seeing him, threw the calabash on the ground, in their fear of him. This (the calabash) having burst, on account of the great weight which was enclosed in it, the waters gushed forth, and the interminable plain, which stretched farther than the eye could reach, was flooded and covered with water. The mountains alone, because of their great height, were not submerged in this great inundation. So they believed that these mountains were the islands and the other divisions of the earth which we see in the world.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, in _Landa’s Relacion_, pp. xxi–iv.

[758] “With regard to the primitive dolichocephalæ of America, I entertain an hypothesis still more bold, perhaps, namely, that they are nearly related to the Guanches in the Canary Islands and to the Atlantic populations of Africa, the Moors, Tauricks, Copts, etc., which Latham comprises under the name of Egyptian-Atlantidæ. * * * We find, then, one and the same form of skull in the Canary Islands, in front of the African coast, and in the Carib-Islands, on the opposite coast which faces Africa. * * * The color of the skin on both sides of the Atlantic is represented in these populations as being of a reddish-brown. * * * These facts involuntarily recall the tradition which Plato tells us in his _Timæus_ was communicated to Solan by an Egyptian priest respecting the ancient Atlantis. * * * This tradition deserves attention in connection with facts which seem to point in the same direction.”—_Retzius, in Smithsonian Report_ for 1859, p. 266.

[759] Salisbury, _Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, pp. 57–61.

[760] Unger, _Die Versunkene Insel Atlantis_, cited by Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 440.

[761] Published in Winterthal, 1854–58, 3 bde. Also by the name author, see _Urwelt der Schweiz_, Zurich, 1865, and _Ergänzungsblätter_, bd. ii (Hildburgh), 1867. See Meyer’s _Konversations-Lexicon_, 3. _Aufl._, bd. viii, p. 693; bd. ii, p. 125, where the above are cited. Dr. Otto Ule, _Die Erde_, bd. i, p. 27, concurs with the above; work published in Leipzig, 1874, 2 vols. large 8vo.

[762] See Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 440, and Oliver, _Lecture at the Royal Institution_, March 7, 1862, cited by Lyell.

[763] Sir C. Wyville Thomson, _The Atlantic_ (voyage of the _Challenger_), vol. i, pp. 190, 208, 213; vol. ii, 23, 232. New York, 1878. Also see _Scientific American_ for July 28th, 1877.

[764] _Depths of the Sea_, by Dr. Carpenter, F.R.S., J. G. Jeffreys, F.R.S., and Dr. Wyville Thomson, F.R.S., London, 1873.

[765] _The Atlantic, Exploring Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger_, vol. ii, pp. 248–9.

[766] _The Atlantic_, vol. ii, p. 23.

[767] _Scientific American_, July 28, 1877.

[768] _The Atlantic_, vol. ii, p. 254.

[769] _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 288.

[770] _Popular Science Review_, July 1878, cited by _Scientific American_ of August 24, 1878, vol. xxxix, p. 114.

[771] Le Conte, _Elements of Geology_, New York, 1878, p. 131.

[772] Le Conte, _Geology_, p. 129.

[773] _Ibid._, pp. 127–32. Dr. Otto Ule, _Die Erde_, bd. i, ss. 496–502.

[774] See Plato’s _Critias and Timæas_. Also Aristotle, _De Mundo_, cap. iii, and _Prince Henry the Navigator_, chap, vii, by Major, Lond., 1868.

[775] See Reclus, _The Ocean_, pp. 70–82. New York, ed. 1878.

[776] Irving’s _Columbus_, vol. i, chap, iii; vol. ii, p. 308. Reclus, _Ocean_, pp. 223, 229.

[777] Irving’s _Columbus_, vol. ii, p. 279. Lafiteau, _Conquestes des Portugais_, lib. ii, cited by Irving.

[778] See Martius, _Beitrage_, etc., p. 180, for the origin-tradition of the Tupis or Brazilians, where it is narrated that two brothers with their families landed at a remote period on Cape Frio. The brothers Tupi and Guarani gave their names to the two great South American families.

[779] Brasseur in Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. lii–lxv; Eckstein, _Les Cares or Cariens de l’Antiquité_, 2d part, vi, dans la _Revue Archéologique, XVᵉ année_; Brugsch, _Die Geogr. der Nachbarlaender Egyptens_, pp. 84–88, cited by Brasseur. “En ces vieux jours du monde, dit encore M. d’Eckstein, où Ibères et Libyens, Lahabim et Phoutim s’enlacaient plus ou moins à travers l’Europe occidentale, et poussaient jusqu’au sein de l’Irlande et de la Grande Bretagne, les monuments de Mizraïm semblent révéler des rapports maritimes de ces Libyens et probablement de ces Ibères avec les Cares et avec les autres races anté-pélasgiques des côtes de la Grèce et de l’Italie, ainsi que des iles de l’Archipel.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa’s Relacion_, pp. lvii–lviii.

[780] _Manual of Geology_, second ed., p. 583.

[781] Le Conte, _Elements of Geology_, pp. 145–149.

[782] Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, Appendix C, pp. 288–293.

[783] _Man and His Migrations_, pp. 129–30.

[784] Kennon in Leland’s _Fusang_, p. 68.

[785] “From the result of the most accurate scientific observation, it is evident that the voyage from China to America can be made without being out of sight of land more than a few hours at a time. To a landsman, unfamiliar with long voyages, the mere idea of being ‘alone on the wide, wide sea’ with nothing but water visible, even for an hour, conveys a strange sense of desolation, of daring and adventure. But in truth it is regarded as a mere trifle, not only by regular seafaring men, but even by the rudest races in all parts of the world; and I have no doubt that from the remotest ages, and on all shores, fishermen in open boats, canoes, or even coracles, guided simply by the stars and currents, have not hesitated to go far out of sight of land. At the present day, natives of the South Pacific islands undertake, without a compass, and successfully, long voyages which astonish even a regular Jack-tar, who is not often astonished at anything.”—_Kennon in Leland’s Fusang_, pp. 71–2.

[786] See Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 51–54, where the paper of the Japanese Consul, Mr. Brooks, read before the Californian Academy of Sciences in March, 1875, is cited, detailing forty-one instances in which Japanese junks were cast upon our coast since 1782. Mr. Brooks states that he has a record of over one hundred similar disasters. Whymper, in his _Alaska_ (N. Y. 1869), p. 250, refers to other Japanese wrecks, and especially to one which, after drifting ten months, reached the Sandwich Islands. The Hawaiians, on seeing the crew, said, “It is plain now, we came from Asia.” See also M. de Roquefeuil, _Journal d’un Voyage autour du Monde, pendant les annes, 1816–1819_; _Smith’s Human Species_, p. 238.

[787] _Physical Geography_, p. 41, cited by Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 367.

[788] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 367.

[789] “There is as much reason to believe that America was peopled from Asia, as that the primitive races of Europe and Africa should derive their origin from an Eastern source.”—_Macfie, Vancouver Island and British Columbia._ London, 1865.

[790] “The weather is, it is true, cold at Behring’s Straits, even in summer, but not one-fourth as cold as at Matsumai, Japan, in winter.”—_Col. Kennon in Leland’s Fusang_, p. 74.

[791] Frederick von Hellwald in _Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 345. “Open skin canoes, capable of containing twenty or more persons with their effects, and hoisting several masts and sails, are now frequently observed among the seacoast Tehuktchis, and the inhabitants of northern Alaska.”—_Whymper, Alaska_, p. 246–7.

[792] He continues his statement that the Gulf Stream of the Pacific is the warming agent, and adds the argument that “the present inhabitants of the countries contiguous to Behring’s Straits on the two sides, in manners, customs, and physical appearance are almost identical.”—_Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 345.

[793] Gallatin, p. 156. Bancroft, in assuming the certainty of a migration by Behring’s Straits, says “it seems absurd to argue the question from any point,” vol. v, p. 54. Venegas, _Noticia de la California_, Madrid, 1757, vol. i, p. 71, and London ed., 1759, p. 61, says the Californians at that date had clear traditions of having come from the north. Fontaine, _How the World was Peopled_, (N. Y. 1872), pp. 147–9, thinks that the march of Genghis with 1,400,000 Tartars caused the flight of his enemies in large numbers across the Aleutian archipelago and Behring’s Straits. Warden, _Recherches_, pp. 118–36, makes an argument for a migration through Behring’s Straits from Tartary and China.

[794] Gallatin, in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. i, p. 158, says: “That America was first peopled by Asiatic tribes is highly probable; but after the lapse of several thousand years, the memory of that ancient migration was lost.” He inquires as to what we knew of Gaul or Britain before the Roman invasion. Mr. W. H. Dall, in his thoughtful Memoir on the _Origin of the Innuit_, says: “I see no reason for disputing the hypothesis that America was peopled from Asia originally, and that there were successive waves of emigration. The northern route was clearly by way of Behring Strait; at least, it was not to the south of that, and especially it was not by way of the Aleutian Islands.”—_In Contributions to North American Ethnology_, vol. i, p. 95. Washington, 1877. 4to.

[795] Aug. R. Grote, _The Peopling of America_, in _American Naturalist_, April 1877.

[796] Croll, _Climate and Time_, New York, 1875, 12mo. Prof. McFarland in _Am. Jour. of Sci. and Arts_, June 1876, p. 456. Newcomb on Croll’s _Theory_ in same journal for April 1876, p. 263.

[797] Whymper, _Alaska_, pp. 246, 247, discusses the volcanic nature of the Aleutian Islands, mentioning the fact that “There are records of very severe shocks of earthquake felt by the Russian traders and nations dwelling on them.”

[798] Sir Charles Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, pp. 273 _et seq._, has shown that Great Britain was separated from the continent by subsidence and glacial action, thus producing the English Channel which, we have already seen, corresponds singularly with Behring’s Straits in width and depth, and formerly, no doubt, both corresponded more nearly in climatic conditions. It is not unreasonable to suppose that both passages were produced by the same agencies.

[799] Presidential Address to the Am. Association for Adv. of Sci., 1872, and published in his _Darwiniana_, pp. 203 _et seq._

[800] John H. Becker, _The Migration of the Nahuas, Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, ses., tom. i. p. 349. Altogether the most enlightened treatment of the subject yet published.

[801] Becker in _Ibid._, pp. 348–9. The same author cites from the _Trans. of Am. Geog. Soc._, 1874, the following interesting statement made by Gen. Milnor: “Nowhere else on the continent can similar great valleys such as the Missouri and Columbia be found, meeting advantageously at a common point on the main dividing backbone which separates the continental waters flowing east and west to the two oceans. The heads of these main valleys are here only from three to four thousand feet above the sea, while the great treeless plains—further south—are elevated more than six thousand feet.”

[802] The expedition which the German government and the Berlin Geographical Society is about to send to the North Pacific under the intelligent direction of my friend Dr. Van der Horck, will no doubt contribute largely to our information concerning the ethnographical relationship of America to Asia.

[803] Second Report on the Implements found in the Glacial Drift of New Jersey, by C. C. Abbott in _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 225–57. Cambridge, 1878.

[804] Mr. Becker remarks: “Why should the Aztec priesthood and nobility, a class bred and educated in the understanding of traditional lore and an elaborate system of picture-writing, be considered as a set of metaphysical lunatics who did not know or did not mean what they said.”—_Migration of the Nahuas_ in _Cong. des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. i, p. 342.

[805] _Vide_ _Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History_, Vol. I, No. 3, October, 1878.

[806] _Vide_ _Archæological Explorations in Tennessee_, by F. W. Putnam. _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology_, Cambridge, Mass., 1878.

[807] Letter to the author, dated Davenport, Iowa, May 24, 1879.

[808] _Bulletin of U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, vol. ii., No. i., p. 6.

[809] _Contributions to North American Ethnology_, vol. iv.—U. S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, J. W. Powell in charge. Washington, 1881: especially chap. ix.

[810] In addition to the work by Mr. Morgan above cited, the student of Mound-builder and Pueblo archæology should not fail to consult vol. vii. of the _Report upon U. S. Geographical Surveys west of the one hundredth meridian, in charge of Lieutenant Wheeler_, Washington, 1879. The volume bears the above date, but did not appear until near the close of 1881. The editing of this valuable work was committed to the discriminating care of Professor F. W. Putnam, who was assisted by an able corps of specialists, among others Dr. C. C. Abbott and Albert S. Gatschet. The Second Part is devoted to papers on the Pueblos. The magnificent fund of materials here presented, accompanied by full-page heliotypes of ruins and implements, vastly enlarges our knowledge of that interesting people. Still another work, of more than ordinary importance to ethnological and archæological students, is Dr. Charles Rau’s _Observations on Cup-shaped and other Lapidarian Sculptures in the Old World and in America_, Contributions to Ethnology, vol. v. Washington, 1881. Last, but not least, is Professor Otis T. Mason’s _Account of recent Progress in Anthropology_, in Smithsonian Report for 1880.

Transcriber’s Notes:

- Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - Blank pages have been removed. - Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. - Wide tables have been split.