iii. 660), and the same author arranges all that has been said to

connect the Mexican tongue with those of New Mexico and neighboring regions (iii. 664). Buschmann, who has given particular attention to tracing the Aztec connections at the north, finds nothing to warrant anything more than casual admixtures with other stocks (_Die Lautveränderung Aztekischer Wörter_, Berlin, 1855, and _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprachen_, Berlin, 1859). See Short (p. 487) for a summary.

[820] Bancroft (v. 305) cites the diverse views; so does Short to some extent (pp. 246, 258, etc.). Cf. Brinton’s _Address_ on “Where was Aztlan?” p. 6; Short, 486, 490; Nadaillac, 284; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 327.

Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, etc., 89; _Amer. Hero. Myths_, 92) holds that Aztlan is a name wholly of mythical purport, which it would be vain to seek on the terrestrial globe. This cradle region of the Nahuas sometimes appears as the Seven Caves (Chicomoztoc), and Duran places them “in Teoculuacan, otherwise called Aztlan, a country toward the north and connected with Florida.” The Seven Caves were explained by Sahagún as a valley, by Clavigero as a city, by Schoolcraft and others as simply seven boats in which the first comers came from Asia; Brasseur makes them and Aztlan the same; others find them to be the seven cities of Cibola,—so enumerates Brinton (_Myths_, 227), who thinks that the seven divisions of the Nahuas sprung from the belief in the Seven Caves, and had in reality no existence.

Gallatin has followed out the series of migrations in the _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, i. 162. Dawson, _Fossil Men_ (ch. 3), gives his comprehensive views of the main directions of these early migrations. Brasseur follows the Nahuas (_Popul Vuh_, introd., sect. ix.). Winchell (_Pre-Adamites_) thinks the general tendency was from north to south. Morgan finds the origin of the Mexican tribes in New Mexico and in the San Juan Valley (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, xii. 553. Cf. his article in the _North Am. Rev._, Oct., 1869). Humboldt (_Views of Nature_, 207) touches the Aztec wanderings.

There are two well-known Aztec migration maps, first published in F. G. Carreri’s _Giro del Mondo_; in English as “Voyage round the world,” in Churchill’s _Voyages_, vol. iv., concerning which see Bancroft, ii. 543; iii. 68, 69; Short, 262, 431, 433; Prescott, iii. 364, 382. Orozco y Berra (_Hist. Antiq. de Mexico_, iii. 61) says that these maps follow one another, and are not different records of the same progress. Humboldt (_Vues_, etc., ii. 176) gives an interpretation of them in accordance with Sigüenza’s views, which is the one usually followed, and Bancroft (v. 324) epitomizes it. Ramirez says that the copies reproduced in Humboldt, Clavigero, and Kingsborough are not so correct as the engraving given in Garcia y Cubas’s _Atlas geogrâfico, estadistico e histórico de la Republica Mejicana_ (April, 1858). Bancroft (ii. 544) gives it as reproduced by Ramirez. It is also in the Mexican edition of Prescott, and in Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes_. Cf. Delafield’s _Inquiry_ (N. Y., 1839) and Léon de Rosny’s _Les doc. écrits de l’antiq. Amér._ (Paris, 1882). The original is preserved in the Museo Nacional of Mexico. A palm-tree on the map, near Aztlan, has pointed some of the arguments in favor of a southern position for that place, but Ramirez says it is but a part of a hieroglyphic name, and has no reference to the climate of Aztlan (Short, p. 266). F. Von Hellwald printed a paper on “American migrations,” with notes by Professor Henry, in the _Smithsonian Report_, 1866, pp. 328-345. Short defines as “altogether the most enlightened treatment of the subject” the paper of John H. Becker, “Migrations des Nahuas,” in the _Compte rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (Luxembourg, 1877), i. 325. This paper finds an identification of the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés, the Huehue-Tlapallan of the Toltecs, the Amaquemecan of the Chichimecs, and the Oztotlan (Aztlan) of the Aztecs in The valleys of the Rio Grande del Norte and Rio Colorado, as was Morgan’s view. Short (p. 249) summarizes his paper. Bancroft (v. 289) shows the diversity of views respecting Amaquemecan.

[821] _Native Races_, v. 167, recapitulates the proofs against the northern theory. J. R. Bartlett, _Personal Narrative_, ii. 283, finds no evidence for it. The successive sites of their sojourns as they passed on their journeys are given as Tlapallan, Tlacutzin, Tlapallanco, Jalisco, Atenco, Iztachnexuca, Tollatzinco, Tollan or Tula,—the last, says Bancroft, apparently in Chiapas. If there was not such confusion respecting the old geography, these names might decide the question.

[822] Writers usually place the beginnings of credible history at about this period. Brasseur and the class of writers who are easily lifted on their imagination talk about traces of a settled government being discernible at periods which they place a thousand years before Christ.

[823] References in Bancroft, v. 247, with Brasseur for the main dependence, in his use of the _Codex Chimalpòpoca_ and the _Memorial de Colhuacan_.

[824] Charnay (Eng. trans., ch. 8 and 9) calls it a rival city of Tula or Tollan, rebuilt by the Chichimecs on the ruins of a Toltec city.

[825] If one wants the details of all this, he can read it in Veytia, Brasseur (_Nat. Civilisées_ and _Palenqué_, ch. viii.), and Bancroft, the latter giving references (v. 285).

[826] It is frequently stated that there was a segregated migration to Central America. Bancroft (v. 168, 285), who collates the authorities, finds nothing of the kind implied. He thinks the mass remained in Anáhuac. The old view as expressed by Prescott (i. 14) was that “much the greater number probably spread over the region of Central America and the neighboring isles, and the traveller now speculates on the majestic ruins of Mitla and Palenqué as possibly the work of this extraordinary people.” Kirk, as Prescott’s editor, refers to the labors of Orozco y Berra (_Geografía de las Lenguas de México_, 122), followed by Tylor, (_Anahuac_, 189) as establishing the more recent view that this southern architecture, “though of a far higher grade, was long anterior to the Toltec dominion.”

[827] _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Trans._, i.

[828] Bancroft (v. 287) says: “It is probable that the name Toltec, a title of distinction rather than a national name, was never applied at all to the common people.”

[829] Brinton’s main statement is in his _Were the Toltecs an historic nationality? Read before the American Philosophical Society, Sept. 2, 1887_ (Phila., 1887); published also in their _Proceedings_, 1887, p. 229. Cf. also Brinton’s _Amer. Hero. Myths_ (Phil., 1882), p. 86, where he throws discredit on the existence of the alleged Toltec king Quetzalcoatl (whom Sahagún keeps distinct from the mythical demi-god); and earlier, in his _Myths of the New World_ (p. 29), he had suggested that the name Toltec might have “a merely mythical signification.” Charnay, who makes the Toltecs a Nahuan tribe, had defended their historical status in a paper on “La Civilisation Tolteque,” in the _Revue d’Ethnographie_ (iv., 1885); and again, two years later, in the same periodical, he reviewed adversely Brinton’s arguments. (Cf. _Saturday Review_, lxiii. 843.) Otto Stoll, in his _Guatemala, Reisen und Schilderungen_ (Leipzig, 1886), is another who rejects the old theory.

[830] _Archæol. Tour_, 253.

[831] _Archæol. Tour_, 7. Sahagún identifies the Toltecs with the “giants,” and if these were the degraded descendants of the followers of Votan, Sahagún thus earlier established the same identity.

[832] _Archæol. Tour_, 191. The fact that the names which we associate with the Toltecs are Nahua, only means that Nahua writers have transmitted them, as Bandelier thinks. Cf. also Bandelier’s citation in the _Peabody Mus. Reports_, vol. ii. 388, where he speaks of our information regarding the Toltecs as “limited and obscure.” He thinks it beyond question that they were Nahuas; and the fact that their division of time corresponds with the system found in Yucatan, Guatemala, etc., with other evidences of myths and legends, leads him to believe that the aborigines of more southern regions were, if not descendants, at least of the same stock with the Toltecs, and that we are justified in studying them to learn what the Toltecs were. He finds that Veytia, in his account of the Toltecs, beside depending on Sahagún and Torquemada, finds a chief source in Ixtlilxochitl, and locates Huehue-Tlapallan in the north; and Veytia’s statements reappear in Clavigero.

The best narratives of the Toltec history are those in Veytia, _Historia Antigua de Méjico_ (Mexico, 1806); Brasseur’s _Hist. Nations Civilisées_ (vol. i.), and his introduction to his _Popul Vuh_; and Bancroft (v. ch. 3 and 4): but we must look to Ixtlilxochitl, Torquemada, Sahagún, and the others, if we wish to study the sources. In such a study we shall encounter vexatious problems enough. It is practically impossible to arrange chronologically what Ixtlilxochitl says that he got from the picture-writings which he interpreted. Bancroft (v. 209) does the best he can to give it a forced perspicuity. Wilson (_Prehisoric Man_, i. 245) not inaptly says: “The history of the Toltecs and their ruined edifices stands on the border line of romance and fable, like that of the ruined builders of Carnac and Avebury.”

[833] Short (page 255) points out that Bancroft unadvisedly looks upon these Chichimecs as of Nahua stock, according to the common belief. Short thinks that Pimentel (_Lenguas indigenas de México_, published in 1862) has conclusively shown that the Chichimecs did not originally speak the Nahua tongue, but subsequently adopted it. Short (page 256) thinks, after collating the evidence, that it is impossible to determine whence or how they came to Anáhuac.

[834] Bancroft, v. 292, gives the different views. Cf. Kirk in Prescott, i. 16.

[835] These events are usually one thing or another, according to the original source which you accept, as Bancroft shows (v. 303). The story of the text is as good as any, and is in the main borne out by the other narratives.

[836] Bancroft, v. 308. Cf., on the arrival of the Mexicans in the valley, Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 398) and his references.

[837] Prescott, i., introduction ch. 6, tells the story of their golden age.

[838] Cf. the map in Lucien Biart’s _Les Aztèques_ (Paris, 1885). Prescott says the maps in Clavigero, Lopez, and Robertson defy “equally topography and history.” Cf. note on plans of the city and valley in Vol. II. pp. 364, 369, 374, to which may be added, as showing diversified views, those in Stevens’s _Herrera_ (London, 1740), vol. ii.; Bordone’s _Libro_ (1528); Icazbalceta’s _Coll. de docs._, i. 390; and the Eng. translation of Cortes’ despatches, 333.

[839] This is placed A.D. 1325. Cf. references in Bancroft (v. 346).

[840] On the conquest of the Tecpanecas by the Mexicans, see the references in Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 412).

[841] For details of the period of the Chichimec ascendency, see Bancroft (v. ch. 5-7), Brasseur (_Nat. Civil._ ii.), and the authorities plentifully cited in Bancroft.

[842] On the nature of the Mexican confederacy see Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 416). He enumerates the authorities upon the point that no one of the allied tribes exercised any powers over the others beyond the exclusive military direction of the Mexicans proper (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 559). Orozco y Berra (_Geografía_, etc.) claims that there was a tendency to assimilate the conquered people to the Mexican conditions. Bandelier claims that “no attempt, either direct or implied, was made to assimilate or incorporate them.” He urges that nowhere on the march to Mexico did Cortés fall in with Mexican rulers of subjected tribes. It does not seem to be clear in all cases whether it was before or after the confederation was formed, or whether it was by the Mexicans or Tezcucans that Tecpaneca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuac, Chalco, Acolhuacan, and Quauhnahuac, were conquered. Cf. Bandelier in _Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 691. As to the tributaries, see _Ibid._ 695.

[843] Cf. Brasseur’s _Nations Civ._ ii. 457, on Tezcuco in its palmy days.

[844] Sometimes written Mochtheuzema, Moktezema. The Aztec Montezuma must not, as is contended, be confounded with the hero-god of the New Mexicans. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 77, 171; Brinton’s _Myths_, 190; Schoolcraft’s _Ind. Tribes_, iv. 73; Tylor’s _Prim. Culture_, ii. 384; Short, 333.

[845] This has induced some historians to call these wars “holy wars.” Bandelier discredits wholly the common view, that wars were undertaken to secure victims for the sacrificial stone (_Archæol. Tour_, 24). But in another place (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 128) he says: “War was required for the purpose of obtaining human victims, their religion demanding human sacrifices at least eighteen times every year.”

[846] As to these carvings, which have not yet wholly disappeared, see _Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 677, 678. There is a series of alleged portraits of the Mexican kings in Carbajal-Espinosa’s _Hist. de Mexico_ (Mexico, 1862). See pictures of Montezuma II. in Vol. II. 361, 363, and that in Ranking, p. 313.

[847] Bancroft (v. 466) enumerates the great variety of such proofs of disaster, and gives references (p. 469). Cf. Prescott, i. p. 309.

[848] Tezozomoc (cap. 106) gives the description of the first bringing of the news to Montezuma of the arrival of the Spaniards on the coast.

[849] Brinton’s _Amer. Hero Myths_, 139, etc. See, on the prevalence of the idea of the return at some time of the hero-god, Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 160. “We must remember,” he says, “that a fiction built on an idea is infinitely more tenacious of life than a story founded on fact.” Brinton (_Myths_, 188) gathers from Gomara, Cogolludo, Villagutierre, and others, instances to show how prevalent in America was the presentiment of the arrival and domination of a white race,—a belief still prevailing among their descendants of the middle regions of America who watch for the coming of Montezuma (_Ibid._ p. 190). Brinton does not seem to recognize the view held by many that the Montezuma of the Aztecs was quite a different being from the demi-god of the Pueblas of New Mexico.

[850] It is not easy to reconcile the conflicting statements of the native historians respecting the course of events during the Aztec supremacy, such is the mutual jealousy of the Mexican and Tezcucan writers. Brasseur has satisfied himself of the authenticity of a certain sequence and character of events (_Nations Civilisées_), and Bancroft simply follows him (v. 401). Veytia is occupied more with the Tezcucans than with the Aztecs. The condensed sketch here given follows the main lines of the collated records. We find good pictures of the later history of Mexico and Tlascala, before the Spaniards came, in Prescott (i. book 2d, ch. vi., and book 3d, ch. ii.). Bancroft (v. ch. 10) with his narrative and references helps us out with the somewhat monotonous details of all the districts of Mexico which were outside the dominance of the Mexican valley, as of Cholula, Tlascala, Michoacan, and Oajaca, with the Miztecs and Zapotecs, inhabiting this last province.

[851] Bancroft (v. 543-553).

[852] It is so held by Stephens, Waldeck, Mayer, Prichard, Ternaux-Compans, not to name others.

[853] Vol. v. 617.

[854] The Maya calendar and astronomical system, as the basis of the Maya chronology, is explained in the version which Perez gave into Spanish of a Maya manuscript (translated into English by Stephens in his _Yucatan_), and which Valentini has used in his “Katunes of Maya History,” in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 1879. On the difficulties of the subject see Brasseur’s _Nations Civilisées_ (ii. ch. 1). Cf. also his _Landa_, section xxxix., and page 366, from the “Cronologia antigua de Yucatan.” Cf. further, Cyrus Thomas’s _MS. Troano_, ch. 2, and Powell’s _Third Report Bur. of Ethn._, pp. xxx and 3; Ancona’s _Yucatan_, ch. xi.; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. ch. 24, with references; Short, ch. 9; Brinton’s _Maya Chronicles_, introduction, p. 50.

[855] Bancroft (v. 624) epitomizes the Perez manuscript given by Stephens, the sole source of this Totul Xiu legendary.

[856] Brasseur’s _Nations Civilisées_ (i., ii.), with the Perez manuscript, and Landa’s _Relacion_, are the sufficient source of the Yucatan history. Bancroft’s last chapter of his fifth volume summarizes it.

[857] See Vol. II. p. 402.

[858] See Vol. II. p. 397.

[859] _Central America_, ii. 452.

[860] See Vol. II. p. 414.

[861] See Vol. II. p. 343.

[862] See Vol. II. p. 412.

[863] See Vol. II. p. 417. Cf. Prescott’s _Mexico_, i. 50; Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, ii. ch. 14) epitomizes the information on the laws and courts of the Nahua; Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 446), referring to Zurita’s Report, which he characterizes as marked for perspicacity, deep knowledge, and honest judgment, speaks of it as embodying the experience of nearly twenty years,—eleven of which were passed in Mexico,—and in which the author gave answers to inquiries put by the king. “If we could obtain,” says Bandelier, “all the answers given to these questions from all parts of Spanish America, and all as elaborate and truthful as those of Zurita, Palacio, and Ondegardo, our knowledge of the aboriginal history and ethnology of Spanish America would be much advanced.” Zurita’s Report in a French translation is in Ternaux-Compans’ _Collection_; the original is in Pacheco’s _Docs. inéditos_, but in a mutilated text.

[864] See Vol. II. p. 346.

[865] It is much we owe to the twelve Franciscan friars who on May 13, 1524, landed in Mexico to convert and defend the natives. It is from their writings that we must draw a large part of our knowledge respecting the Indian character, condition, and history. These Christian apostles were Martin de Valencia, Francisco de Soto, Martin de Coruña, Juan Xuares, Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo, Toribio de Benavente, Garcia de Cisneros, Luis de Fuensalida, Juan de Ribas, Francisco Ximenez, Andrés de Cordoba, Juan de Palos.

From the _Historia_ of Las Casas, particularly from that part of it called _Apologética historia_, we can also derive some help. (Cf. Vol. II. p. 340.)

[866] Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 147; Leclerc, p. 168.

[867] Herrera is furthermore the source of much that we read in later works concerning the native religion and habits of life. See Vol. II. p. 67.

[868] Cf. Vol. II. p. 418.

[869] _Anales del Museo Nacional_, iii. 4, 120; Brinton’s _Am. Hero Myths_, 78. Bandelier, in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, November, 1879, used a portion of the MS. as printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 115) under the title of _Historia de los Yndios Mexicanos, por Juan de Tovar; Cura et impensis Dni Thomæ Phillipps, Bart._ (privately printed at Middle Hill, 1860. See _Squier Catalogue_, no. 1417). The document is translated by Henry Phillipps, Jr., in the _Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc._ (Philad.), xxi. 616.

[870] Vol. II. p. 419. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 59. He used a MS. copy in the Force collection.

[871] This is true of Acosta and Davila Padilla. The bibliography of Acosta has been given elsewhere (Vol. II. p. 420). His books v., vi., and vii. cover the ancient history of the country. He used the MSS. of Duran (Brasseur, _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 2), and his correspondence with Tobar, preserved in the Lenox library, has been edited by Icazbalceta in his _Don Fray Zumárraga_ (Mexico, 1881). Of the _Provincia de Santiago_ and the _Varia historia_ of Davila Padilla, the bibliography has been told in another place. (Cf. Vol. II. pp. 399-400[; Sabin, v. 18780-1; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 53; _Del Monte Library_, no. 126.) Ternaux was not wrong in ascribing great value to the books.]

[872] Peter of Ghent. Cf. Vol. II. p. 417.

[873] _Chronica Compendiosissima ab exordio mundi per Amandum Zierixcensem, adjectæ sunt epistolæ ex nova maris Oceani Hispania ad nos transmissæ_ (Antwerp, 1534). The subjoined letters here mentioned are, beside that referred to, two others written in Mexico (1531), by Martin of Valencia and Bishop Zumárraga (Sabin, i. no. 994; Quaritch, 362, no. 28583, £7 10). Icazbalceta (_Bib. Mex. del Siglo xvi._, i. p. 33) gives a long account of Gante. There is a French version of the letter in Ternaux’s _Collection_.

[874] See Vol. II. p. 397. Cf. Prescott, ii. 95. The first part of the _Historia_ is on the religious rites of the natives; the second on their conversion to Christianity; the third on their chronology, etc.

[875] Cf. Icazbalceta’s _Bibl. Mexicana_, p. 220, with references; Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, no. 2600, etc.

[876] Pilling, no. 2817, etc.

[877] Properly, Bernardino Ribeira; named from his birthplace, Sahagún, in Spain. Chavero’s _Sahagún_ (Mexico, 1877).

[878] A few data can be added to the account of Sahagún given in Vol. II. p. 415. J. F. Ramirez completes the bibliography of Sahagún in the _Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia de Madrid_, vi. 85 (1885). Icazbalceta, having told the story of Sahagún’s life in his edition of Mendieta’s _Hist. Eclesiastica Indiana_ (México, 1870), has given an extended critical and bibliographical account in his _Bibliografía Mexicana_ (México, 1886), vol. i. 247-308. Other bibliographical detail can be gleaned from Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, p. 677, etc.; Icazbalceta’s _Apuntes_; Beristain’s _Biblioteca_; the _Bibliotheca Mexicana_ of Ramirez. The list in Adolfo Llanos’s _Sahagún y su historia de México_ (_Museo Nac. de Méx. Anales_, iii., pt. 3, p. 71) is based chiefly on Alfredo Chavero’s _Sahagún_ (México, 1877). Brasseur de Bourbourg, in his _Palenqué_ (ch. 5), has explained the importance of what Brevoort calls Sahagún’s “great encyclopædia of the Mexican Empire.” Rosny (_Les documents écrits de l’Antiquité Américaine_, p. 69) speaks of seeing a copy of the _Historia_ in Madrid, accompanied by remarkable Aztec pictures. Bancroft, referring to the defective texts of Sahagún in Kingsborough and Bustamante, says: “Fortunately what is missing in one I have always found in the other.” He further speaks of the work of Sahagún as “the most complete and comprehensive, so far as aboriginal history is concerned, furnishing an immense mass of material, drawn from native sources, very badly arranged and written.” Eleven books of Sahagún are given to the social institutions of the natives, and but one to the conquest. Jourdanet’s edition is mentioned elsewhere (Vol. II.).

[879] See Vol. II. p. 421.

[880] Those who used him most, like Clavigero and Brasseur de Bourbourg, complain of this. Torquemada, says Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 119), “notwithstanding his unquestionable credulity, is extremely important on all questions of Mexican antiquities.”

[881] _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 105.

[882] Cf. Vol. II. 417; Prescott, i. 13, 163, 193, 196; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 147; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 325. It must be confessed that with no more authority than the old Mexican paintings, interpreted through the understanding of old men and their traditions, Ixtlilxochitl has not the firmest ground to walk on. Aubin thinks that Ixtlilxochitl’s confusion and contradictions arise from his want of patience in studying his documents; and some part of it may doubtless have arisen from his habit, as Brasseur says (_Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne_, May, 1855, p. 329), of altering his authorities to magnify the glories of his genealogic line. Max Müller (_Chips from a German Workshop_, i. 322) says of his works: “Though we must not expect to find in them what we are accustomed to call history, they are nevertheless of great historical interest, as supplying the vague outlines of a distant past, filled with migrations, wars, dynasties and revolutions, such as were cherished in the memory of the Greeks in the time of Solon.” In addition to his _Historia Chichimeca_ and his _Relaciones_, (both of which are given by Kingsborough, while Ternaux has translated portions,)—the MS. of the _Relaciones_ being in the Mexican archives,—Ixtlilxochitl left a large mass of his manuscript studies of the antiquities, often repetitionary in substance. Some are found in the compilation made in Mexico by Figueroa in 1792, by order of the Spanish government (Prescott, i. 193). Some were in the Ramirez collection. Quaritch (_MS. Collections_, Jan., 1888, no. 136) held one from that collection, dated about 1680, at £16, called _Sumaria Relacion_, which concerned the ancient Chichimecs. Those which are best known are a _Historia de la Nueva España_, or _Historia del Reyno de Tezcuco_, and a _Historia de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe_, if this last is by him.

[883] _Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne_, May, 1855, p. 326.

[884] In his _Quatre Lettres_, p. 24, he calls it the sacred book of the Toltecs. “C’est le Livre divin lui-même, c’est le Teoamoxtli.”

[885] Brasseur’s _Lettres à M. le due de Valmy, Lettre seconde_.

[886] _Catálogo_, pp. 17, 18.

[887] Brasseur, _Bibl. Mex. Guat._, p. 47; _Pinart-Brasseur Catal._, no. 237.

[888] It has been announced that Bandelier is engaged in a new translation of _The Annals of Quauhtitlan_ for Brinton’s _Aboriginal Literature series_. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 57, 63, and in vol. v., where he endeavors to patch together Brasseur’s fragments of it. Short, p. 241.

[889] Humboldt says that Sigüenza inherited Ixtlilxochitl’s collection; and that it was preserved in the College of San Pedro till 1759.

[890] _Giro del mondo_, 1699, vol. vi. Cf. Kingsborough, vol. iv. Robertson attacked Carreri’s character for honesty, and claimed it was a received opinion that he had never been out of Italy. Clavigero defended Carreri. Humboldt thinks Carreri’s local coloring shows he must have been in Mexico.

[891] Cf. the bibliog., in Vol. II., p. 425, of his _Storia Antica del Messico_.

[892] We owe to him descriptions at this time of the collections of Mendoza, of that in the Vatican, and of that at Vienna. Robertson made an enumeration of such manuscripts; but his knowledge was defective, and he did not know even of those at Oxford.

[893] Robertson was inclined to disparage Clavigero’s work, asserting that he could find little in him beyond what he took from Acosta and Herrera “except the improbable narratives and fanciful conjectures of Torquemada and Boturini.” Clavigero criticised Robertson, and the English historian in his later editions replied. Prescott points out (i. 70) that Clavigero only knew Sahagún through the medium of Torquemada and later writers. Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 149; _Mexico_, i. 700) thinks that Clavigero “owes his reputation much more to his systematic arrangement and clear narration of traditions that had before been greatly confused, and to the omission of the most perplexing and contradictory points, than to deep research or new discoveries.”

[894] See Vol. II. p. 418. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. des Nations Civilisées_, p. xxxii. Clavigero had described it.

[895] He had collected nearly 500 Mexican paintings in all. Aubin (_Notices_, etc., p. 21) says that Boturini nearly exhausted the field in his searches, and with the collection of Sigüenza he secured all those cited by Ixtlilxochitl and the most of those concealed by the Indians,—of which mention is made by Torquemada, Sahagún, Valadés, Zurita, and others; and that the researches of Bustamante, Cubas, Gondra, and others, up to 1851, had not been able to add much of importance to what Boturini possessed.

[896] This portion of his collection has not been traced. The fact is indeed denied.

[897] _Idea de una nueva historia general de la America septentrional_ (Madrid, 1746); Carter-Brown, iii. 817; Brasseur’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 26; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 159; Pinart, _Catalogue_, no. 134; Prescott, i. 160.

[898] Brasseur, _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 152.

[899] Prescott, i. 24. Harrisse, _Bib. Am. Vet._, calls Veytia’s the best history of the ancient period yet (1866) written.

[900] A second ed. (Mexico, 1832) was augmented with notes and a life of the author, by Carlos Maria de Bustamante; Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 909; Brasseur’s _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, p. 68.

[901] Prescott, i. 133. Gama and others collected another class of hieroglyphics, of less importance, but still interesting as illustrating legal and administrative processes used in later times, in the relations of the Spaniards with the natives; and still others embracing Christian prayers, catechisms, etc., employed by the missionaries in the religious instruction (Aubin, _Notice_, etc., 21). Humboldt (vol. xiii., pl. p. 141) gives “a lawsuit in hieroglyphics.”

There was published (100 copies) at Madrid, in 1878, _Pintura del Gobernador, Alcaldes y Regidores de México, Codice en geroglíficos Méxicanos y en lengua Castellana y Azteca, Existente en la Biblioteca del Excmo Señor Duque de Osuna_,—a legal record of the later Spanish courts affecting the natives.

[902] Humboldt describes these collections which he knew at the beginning of the century, speaking of José Antonio Pichardo’s as the finest.

[903] _Notice sur une collection d’antiquités Mexicaines, being an extract from a Mémoire sur la peinture didactique et l’Écriture figurative des Anciens Mexicains_ (Paris, 1851; again, 1859-1861). Cf. papers in _Revue Américaine et Orientale_, 1st ser., iii., iv., and v. Aubin says that Humboldt found that part of the Boturini collection which had been given over to the Mexican archivists diminished by seven eighths. He also shows how Ternaux-Compans (_Crauatés Horribles_, p. 275-289), Rafael Isidro Gondra (in Veytia, _Hist. Ant. de Mex._, 1836, i. 49), and Bustamante have related the long contentions over the disposition of these relics, and how the Academy of History at Madrid had even secured the suppression of a similar academy among the antiquaries in Mexico, which had been formed to develop the study of their antiquities. It was as a sort of peace-offering that the Spanish king now caused Veytia to be empowered to proceed with the work which Boturini had begun. This allayed the irritation for a while, but on Veytia’s death (1769) it broke out again, when Gama was given possession of the collection, which he further increased. It was at Gama’s death sold at auction, when Humboldt bought the specimens which are now in Berlin, and Waldeck secured others which he took to Europe. It was from Waldeck that Aubin acquired the Boturini part of his collection. The rest of the collection remained in Mexico, and in the main makes a part at present of the Museo Nacional. But Aubin is a doubtful witness.

Aubin says that he now proposed to refashion the Boturini collection by copies where he could not procure the originals; to add others, embracing whatever he could still find in the hands of the native population, and what had been collected by Veytia, Gama, and Pichardo. In 1851, when he wrote, Aubin had given twenty years to this task, and with what results the list of his MSS., which he appends to the account we have quoted, will show.

These include in the native tongue:—

_a._ History of Mexico from A.D. 1064 to 1521, in fragments, from Tezozomoc and from Alonso Franco, annotated by Domingo Chimalpain (a copy).

_b._ Annals of Mexico, written apparently in 1528 by one who had taken part in the defence of Mexico (an original).

_c._ Several historical narratives on European paper, by Domingo Chimalpain, coming down to A.D. 1591, which have in great part been translated by Aubin, who considers them the most important documents which we possess.

_d._ A history of Colhuacan and Mexico, lacking the first leaf. This is described as being in the handwriting of Ixtlilxochitl, and Aubin gives the dates of its composition as 1563 and 1570. It is what has later been known as the _Codex Chimalpopoca_.

_e._ Zapata’s history of Tlaxcalla.

_f._ A copy by Loaysa of an original, from which Torquemada has copied several chapters.

[904] The chief of the Boturini acquisition he enumerates as follows:—

_a._ Toltec annals on fifty leaves of European paper, cited by Gama in his _Descripcion histórica_. Cf. Brasseur, _Nations Civilisées_, p. lxxvi.

_b._ Chichimec annals, on Indian paper, six leaves, of which ten pages consist of pictures, the original so-called _Codex Chimalpopoca_, of which Gama made a copy, also in the Aubin collection, as well as Ixtlilxochitl’s explanation of it. Aubin says that he has used this account of Ixtlilxochitl to rectify that historian’s blunders.

_c._ Codex on Indian paper, having a picture of the Emperor Xolotl.

_d._ A painting on prepared skin, giving the genealogy of the Chichimecan chiefs, accompanied by the copies made by Pichardo and Boturini. Cf. _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, 2d ser., i. 283.

_e._ A synchronical history of Tepechpan and of Mexico, on Indian paper, accompanied by a copy made by Pichardo and an outline sketch of that in the Museo Nacional.

Without specifying others which Aubin enumerates, he gives as other acquisitions the following in particular:—

_a._ Pichardo’s copy of a Codex Mexicanus, giving the history of the Mexicans from their leaving Aztlan to 1590.

_b._ An original Mexican history from the departure from Aztlan to 1569.

_c._ Fragments which had belonged to Sigüenza.

[905] _Notice sur une Collection, etc._, p. 12.

[906] _Hist. des Nations Civilisées_ (i. pp. xxxi, lxxvi, etc.; cf. Müller’s _Chips_, i. 317, 320, 323). Brasseur in the same place describes his own collection; and it may be further followed in his _Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, and in the _Pinart Catalogue_. Dr. Brinton says that we owe much for the preservation during late years of Maya MSS. to Don Juan Pio Perez, and that the best existing collection of them is that of Canon Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona. José F. Ramirez (see Vol. II. p. 398) is another recent Mexican collector, and his MSS. have been in one place and another in the market of late years. Quaritch’s recent catalogues reveal a number of them, including his own MS. _Catálogo de Colecciones_ (Jan., 1888, no. 171), and some of his unpublished notes on Prescott, not included in those “notas y ecclarecimientos” appended to Navarro’s translation of the _Conquest of Mexico_ (_Catal._, 1885, no. 28,502). The several publications of Léon de Rosny point us to scattered specimens. In his _Doc. écrits de l’Antiquité Amér._ he gives the fac-simile of a colored Aztec map. A MS. in the collection of the Corps Legislatif, in Paris, and that of the Codex Indiæ Meridionalis are figured in his _Essai sur le déchiffrement, etc._ (pl. ix, x). In the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, n. s._, vol. i., etc., we find plates of the Mappe Tlotzin, and a paper of Madier de Montjau, “sur quelques manuscrits figuratifs de l’Ancien Méxique.” Cf. also _Anales del Museo_, viii.

Cf. for further mention of collections the _Revue Orientale et Américaine_; Cyrus Thomas in the _Am. Antiquarian_, May, 1884 (vol. vi.); and the more comprehensive enumeration in the introduction to Domenech’s _Manuscrit pictographique_. Orozco y Berra, in the introduction to his _Geografia de las Lenguas y Carta Etnográfica_ (Mexico, 1864), speaks of the assistance he obtained from the collections of Ramirez and of Icazbalceta.

[907] See Vol. II. p. 418.

[908] See Vol. II. p. 418. Bandelier calls this French version “utterly unreliable.”

[909] This is Beristain’s title. Torquemada, Vetancurt, and Sigüenza cite it as _Memorias históricas_; Brasseur, _Bib. Mexico-Guat._, p. 122.

[910] Cf. “Les Annales Méxicaines,” by Rémi Siméon in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. ii.

[911] It is cited by Chavero as _Codex Zumárraga_.

[912] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, ii. 577.

[913] _Aboriginal Amer. Authors_, p. 29. Cf. Bandelier’s _Bibliography of Yucatan_ in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. p. 82. Cf. the references in Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, and in Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v.

[914] Cf. _Mem. of Berendt_, by Brinton (Worcester, 1884).

[915] Cf. Brinton on the MSS. in the languages of Cent. America, in _Amer. Jour. of Science_, xcvii. 222; and his _Books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historical records of the Mayas of Yucatan_ (Philad., 1882), reprinted from the _Penn Monthly_, March, 1882. Cf. also the _Transactions of the Philad. Numismatic and Antiquarian Soc._

[916] This is in the alphabet adopted by the early missionaries. The volume contains the “Books of Chilan Balam,” written “not later than 1595,” and also the “Chac Xulub Chen,” written by a Maya chief, Nakuk Pech, in 1562, to recount the story of the Spanish conquest of Yucatan.

[917] This was in 1843, when Stephens made his English translation from Pio Perez’s Spanish version, _Antigua Chronologia Yucateca_; and from Stephens’s text, Brasseur gave it a French rendering in his edition of Landa. (Cf. also his _Nat. Civilisées_, ii. p. 2.) Perez, who in Stephens’s opinion (_Yucatan_, ii. 117) was the best Maya scholar in that country, made notes, which Valentini published in his “Katunes of Maya History,” in the _Pro. of the Amer. Antiq. Soc._, Oct., 1879 (Worcester, 1880), but they had earlier been printed in Carrillo’s _Hist. y Geog. de Yucatan_ (Merida, 1881). Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 624) reprints Stephens’s text with notes from Brasseur.

The books of Chilan Balam were used both by Cogolludo and Lizana; and Brasseur printed some of them in the _Mission Scientifique au Méxique_. They are described in Carrillo’s _Disertacion sobre la historia de lengua Maya ó Yucateca_ (Merida, 1870).

[918] Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 30. See Vol. II. p. 429. The Spanish title is _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_.

[919] From the _Proc. of the Amer. Philos. Soc._, xxiv.

[920] Cf. Bandelier in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. p. 88.

[921] The second edition was called _Los tres Siglos de la Dominacion Española en Yucatan_ (Campeche and Merida, 2 vols., 1842, 1845). It was edited unsatisfactorily by Justo Sierra. Cf. Vol. II. p. 429; Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 47.

This, like Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor’s _Historia de la Conquista de la Provincia de el Itza, reduccion, y progressos de la de el Lacandon, y otras naciones de Indios Barbaros, de la mediacion de el Reyno de Gautimala, a las Provincias de Yucatan, en la America Septentrional_ (Madrid, 1701), (which, says Bandelier, is of importance for that part of Yucatan which has remained unexplored), has mostly to do with the Indians under the Spanish rule, but the books are not devoid of usefulness in the study of the early tribes.

Of the modern comments on the Yucatan ancient history, those of Brasseur in his _Nations Civilisées_ are more to be trusted than his introduction to his edition of Landa, which needs to be taken with due recognition of his later vagaries; and Brinton has studied their history at some length in the introduction to his _Maya Chronicles_. The first volume of Eligio Ancona’s _Hist. de Yucatan_ covers the early period. See Vol. II. p. 429. Brinton calls it “disappointingly superficial.” There is much that is popularly retrospective in the various and not always stable contributions of Dr. Le Plongeon and his wife. The last of Mrs. Le Plongeon’s papers is one on “The Mayas, their customs, laws, religion,” in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Aug., 1887. Bancroft’s second volume groups the necessary references to every phase of Maya history. Cf. Charnay, English translation, ch. 15; and Geronimo Castillo’s _Diccionario Histórico, biográfico y monumental de Yucatan_ (Mérida, 1866). Of Crescencio Carrillo and his _Historia Antigua de Yucatan_ (Mérida, 1881), Brinton says: “I know of no other Yucatecan who has equal enthusiasm or so just an estimate of the antiquarian riches of his native land” (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 147). Bastian summarizes the history of Yucatan and Guatemala in the second volume of his _Culturländer des alten Amerika_.

[922] _Yucatan_, ii. 79.

[923] See C. H. Berendt on the hist. docs. of Guatemala in _Smithsonian Report_, 1876. There is a partial bibliography of Guatemala in W. T. Brigham’s _Guatemala the land of the Quetzal_ (N. Y., 1887), and another by Bandelier in the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. p. 101. The references in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nations Civilisées_, and in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v., will be a ready means for collating the early sources.

[924] Scherzer and Brasseur are somewhat at variance here.

[925] “There are some coincidences between the Old Testament and the Quiché MS. which are certainly startling.” Müller’s _Chips_, i. 328.

[926] _Wanderungen durch die mittel-Amerikanischen Freistaaten_ (Braunschweig, 1857—an English translation, London, 1857).

[927] Leclerc, no. 1305.

[928] H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, ii. 115; iii., ch. 2, and v. 170, 547, gives a convenient condensation of the book, and says that Müller misconceives in some parts of his summary, and that Baldwin in his _Ancient America_, p. 191, follows Müller. Helps, _Spanish Conquest_, iv. App., gives a brief synopsis,—the first one done in English.

[929] Max Müller dissents from this. _Chips_, i. 326. Müller reminds us, if we are suspicious of the disjointed manner of what has come down to us as the _Popul Vuh_, that “consecutive history is altogether a modern idea, of which few only of the ancient nations had any conception. If we had the exact words of the _Popul Vuh_, we should probably find no more history there than we find in the Quiché MS. as it now stands.”

[930] Cf. _Aborig. Amer. Authors_, p. 33.

[931] _The names of the gods in the Kiché Myths of Central America_ (Philad., 1881), from the _Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc._ He gives his reasons (p. 4) for the spelling _Kiché_.

[932] Cf. _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., vol. i. 109; and his paper, “On the Sources of the Aboriginal Hist. of Spanish America,” in the _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, xxvii. 328 (Aug., 1878). In the _Peabody Mus. Eleventh Report_, p. 391, he says of it that “it appears to be for the first chapters an evident fabrication, or at least accommodation of Indian mythology to Christian notions,—a pious fraud; but the bulk is an equally evident collection of original traditions of the Indians of Guatemala, and as such the most valuable work for the aboriginal history and ethnology of Central America.”

[933] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, i. 47. _S’il existe des sources de l’histoire primitive du Méxique dans les monuments égyptiens et de l’histoire primitive de l’ancien monde dans les monuments Américains?_ (1864), which is an extract from his _Landa’s Relation_. Cf. Bollaert, in the _Royal Soc. of Lit. Trans._, 1863. Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 45; Pinart, no. 231) also speaks of another Quiché document, of which his MS. copy is entitled _Titulo de los Señores de Totonicapan, escrito en lengua Quiché, el año de 1554, y traducido al Castellano el año de 1834, por el Padre Dionisio José Chonay, indígena_, which tells the story of the Quiché race somewhat differently from the _Popul Vuh_.

[934] See Vol. II. p. 419.

[935] It stands in Brasseur’s _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 13, as _Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan_ (_Solola_), _histoire des deux familles royales du royaume des Cakchiquels d’Iximché ou Guatémala, rédigé en langue Cakchiquèle par le prince Don Francisco Ernantez Arana-Xahila, des rois Ahpozotziles_, where Brasseur speaks of it as analogous to the _Popul Vuh_, but with numerous and remarkable variations. The MS. remained in the keeping of Xahila till 1562, when Francisco Gebuta Queh received it and continued it (_Pinart Catalogue_, no. 35).

[936] See Vol. II. 419; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 564; Bandelier in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 105. Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 391) says that it is now acknowledged that the _Recordacion florida_ of Fuentes y Guzman is “full of exaggerations and misstatements.” Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._, pp. 65, 87), in speaking of Fuentes’ _Noticia histórica de los indios de Guatemala_ (of which manuscript he had a copy), says that he had access to a great number of native documents, but profited little by them, either because he could not read them, or his translators deceived him. Brasseur adds that Fuentes’ account of the Quiché rulers is “un mauvais roman qui n’a pas le sens commun.” This last is a manuscript used by Domingo Juarros in his _Compendio de la historia de la ciudad de Guatemala_ (Guatemala, 1808-1818, in two vols.—become rare), but reprinted in the _Museo Guatemalteco_, 1857. The English translation, by John Baily, a merchant living in Guatemala, was published as a _Statistical and Commercial History of Guatemala_ (Lond., 1823). Cf. Vol. II. p. 419. Francisco Vazquez depended largely on native writers in his _Crónica de la Provincia de Guatemala_ (Guatemala, 1714-16). (See Vol. II. p. 419.)

[937] See note in Bancroft, iii. 451.

[938] Vol. II. 419. Helps (iii. 300), speaking of Remesal, says: “He had access to the archives of Guatemala early in the seventeenth century, and he is one of those excellent writers so dear to the students of history, who is not prone to declamation, or rhetoric, or picturesque writing, but indulges us largely by the introduction everywhere of most important historical documents, copied boldly into the text.”

[939] Vol. II. 419.

[940] Vol. II. 417.

[941] E. G. Squier printed in 1860 (see Vol. II. p. vii.) Diego Garcia de Palacio’s _Carta dirigida al Rey de España, año 1576_, under the English title of _Description of the ancient Provinces of Guazacupan, Izalco, Cuscatlan, and Chiquimula in Guatemala_, which is also included in Pacheco’s _Coleccion_, vol. vi. Bandelier refers to Estevan Aviles’ _Historia de Guatemala desde los tiempos de los Indios_ (Guatemala, 1663). A good reputation belongs to a modern work, Francisco de Paula Garcia Pelaez’s _Memorias para la Historia del antiguo reyno de Guatemala_ (Guatemala, 1851-53, in three vols.).

[942] For details follow the references in Brasseur’s _Nat. Civil._; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_; Stephens’s _Nicaragua_, ii. 305, etc. See the introd. of Brinton’s _Güegüence_ (Philad., 1883), for the Nahuas and Mangues of Nicaragua.

[943] Leclerc, no. 1070. Bancroft summarized the history of these ancient peoples in his vol. ii. ch. 2, and goes into detail in his vol. v.

[944] He condenses the early Mexican history in his _Mexico_, i. ch. 7. There are recent condensed narratives, in which avail has been had of the latest developments, in Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, ch. 4, and Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_.

[945] Mrs. Alice D. Le Plongeon has printed various summarized popular papers, like the “Conquest of the Mayas,” in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, April and June, 1888.

[946] A list of Squier’s published writings was appended to the _Catalogue of Squier’s Library_, prepared by Joseph Sabin (N. Y., 1876), as sold at that time. By this it appears that his earliest study of these subjects was a review of Buxton’s _Migrations of the Ancient Mexicans_, read before the London Ethnolog. Soc., and printed in 1848 in the _Edinb. New Philosoph. Mag._, vol. xlvi. His first considerable contribution was his _Travels in Cent. America, particularly in Nicaragua, with a description of its aboriginal monuments_ (London and N. Y., 1852-53). He supplemented this by some popular papers in _Harper’s Mag._, 1854, 1855. (Cf. _Hist. Mag._, iv. 65; _Putnam’s Mag._, xii. 549.) A year or two later he communicated papers on “Les Indiens Guatusos du Nicaragua,” and “Les indiens Xicaques du Honduras,” to the _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_ (1856, 1858), and “A Visit to the Guajiquero Indians” to _Harper’s Mag._, 1859. In 1860, Squier projected the publication of a _Collection_ of documents, but only a letter (1576) of Palacio was printed (Icazbalceta, _Bibl. Mex._, i. p. 326). He had intended to make the series more correct and with fewer omissions than Ternaux had allowed himself. His material, then the result of ten years’ gathering, had been largely secured through the instrumentality of Buckingham Smith. (See Vol. II. p. vii.)

[947] “Art of war and mode of warfare of the Ancient Mexicans” (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, no. x.).

“Distribution and tenure of lands, and the customs with respect to inheritance among the ancient Mexicans” (_Ibid._ no. xi.).

“Special organizations and mode of government of the ancient Mexicans” (_Ibid._ no. xii.).

These papers reveal much thorough study of the earlier writers on the general condition of the ancient people of Mexico, and the student finds much help in their full references. It was this manifestation of his learning that led to his appointment by the Archæological Institute,—the fruit of his labor in their behalf appearing in his _Report of an Archæological Tour in Mexico, 1881_, which constitutes the second volume (1884) of the _Papers_ of that body. In his third section he enlarges upon the condition of Mexico at the time of the Conquest. His explorations covered the region from Tampico to Mexico city.

[948] _Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, (Philadelphia.)

[949] James H. McCulloh, an officer of the U. S. army, published _Researches on America_ (Balt., 1816), expanded later into _Researches, philosophical and antiquarian, concerning the original History of America_ (Baltimore, 1829). His fifth and sixth parts concern the “Institutions of the Mexican Empire,” and “The nations inhabiting Guatemala” (Field, no. 987).

G. F. Lyon’s _Journal of a residence and tour in the Republic of Mexico_ (Lond., 1826, 1828).

Brantz Mayer’s _Mexico as it was and as it is_, and his more comprehensive _Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican_ (Hartford, 1853), which includes an essay on the ancient civilization. Mayer had good opportunities while attached to the United States legation in Mexico, but of course he wrote earlier than the later developments (Field, no. 1038).

The distinguished English anthropologist, E. B. Tylor’s _Anahuac; or, Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern_ (London, 1861), is a readable rendering of the outlines of the ancient history, and he describes such of the archæological remains as fell in his way.

H. C. R. Becher’s _Trip to Mexico_ (London, 1880) has an appendix on the ancient races.

F. A. Ober’s _Travels in Mexico_ (1884).

[950] The important papers are:—Tome I. Brasseur de Bourbourg. _Esquisses d’histoire, d’archéologie, d’ethnographie et de linguistique._ Gros. _Renseignements sur les monuments anciens situés dans les environs de Mexico._—Tome II. Br. de Bourbourg. _Rapport sur les ruines de Mayapan et d’Uxmal au Yucatan._ Hay. _Renseignements sur Texcoco._ Dolfus, Montserrat et Pavie. _Mémoires et notes géologiques._—Tome III. Doutrelaine. _Rapports sur les ruines de Mitla, sur la pierre de Tlalnepantla, sur un mss. mexicain (avec fac-simile)._ Guillemin Tarayre. _Rapport sur l’exploration minéralogique des régions mexicaines._ Siméon. _Note sur la numération des anciens Mexicains._

[951] He says the work is very rare. A copy given by him is in Harvard College library. _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 26.

[952] His _Palenqué_, at a later day, was published by the French government (_Quatre Lettres, avant-propos_).

[953] Introduction of his _Hist. Nations Civilisées_.

[954] Tome I. xcii. et 440 pp. _Les temps héroïques et l’histoire de l’empire des Toltèques._—Tome II. 616 pp. _L’histoire du Yucatan et du Guatémala, avec celle de l’Anahuac durant le moyen âge aztèque, jusqu’à la fondation de la royauté à Mexico._—Tome III. 692 pp. _L’histoire des Etats du Michoacan et d’Oaxaca et de l’empire de l’Anahuac jusqu’à l’arrivée des Espagnols. Astronomie, religion, sciences et arts des Aztèques, etc._—Tome IV. vi. et 851 pp. _Conquête du Mexique, du Michoacan et du Guatémala, etc. Etablissement des Espagnols et fondation de l’Eglise catholique. Ruine de l’idolâtrie, déclin et abaissement de la race indigène, jusqu’à la fin du xvi^e siècle._

In his introduction (p. lxxiv) Brasseur gives a list of the manuscript and printed books on which he has mainly depended, the chief of which are: Burgoa, Cogolludo, Torquemada, Sahagún, Remesal, Gomara (in Barcia), Lorenzana’s _Cortes_, Bernal Diaz, Vetancurt’s _Teatro Mexicano_ (1698), Valades’ _Rhetorica Christiana_ (1579), Juarros, Pelaez, Leon y Gama, etc.

[955] Kirk’s _Prescott_, i. 10. There are lists of Brasseur’s works in his own _Bibliothèque Mex.-Guatémalienne_, p. 25; in the _Pinart Catalogue_, no. 141, etc.; Field, p. 43; Sabin, ii. 7420. Cf. notices of his labors by Haven in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1870, p. 47; by Brinton in _Lippincott’s Mag._, i. 79. There is a _Sommaire des voyages scientifiques et des travaux de géographie, d’histoire, d’archéologie et de Philologie américaines, publiés par l’abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg_ (St. Cloud, 1862).

[956] _Abor. Amer. Authors_, 57.

[957] Cf. Bandelier, _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 93; Field, no. 176; H. H. Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. 116, 780; v. 126, 153, 236, 241,—who says of Brasseur that “he rejects nothing, and transforms everything into historic fact;” but Bancroft looks to Brasseur for the main drift of his chapter on pre-Toltec history. Cf. Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 41.

[958] Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 176; Baldwin, _Anc. America_.

[959] Reference may be made to H. T. Moke’s _Histoire des peuples Américains_ (Bruxelles, 1847); Michel Chevalier’s “Du Mexique avant et pendant la Conquête,” in the _Revue des deux Mondes_, 1845, and his _Le Méxique ancien et moderne_ (Paris, 1863); and some parts of the Marquis de Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_ (Paris, 1883). A recent popular summary, without references, of the condition and history of ancient Mexico, is Lucien Biart’s _Les Aztèques, histoire, mœurs, coutumes_ (Paris, 1885), of which there is an English translation, _The Aztecs, their history_, etc., translated by J. L. Garnier (Chicago, 1887).

[960] Leclerc, no. 1147; Field, no. 620; Squier, no. 427; Sabin, vii. 28,255; Bandelier in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 116. It has never yet been reprinted. The early date, as well as its rarity, have contributed to give it, perhaps, undue reputation. It is worth from £3 to £4.

[961] Leclerc, no. 1119. See Vol. II. p. 415.

[962] Leclerc, no. 2079; Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 113.

[963] For the _Historia de Mexico_ of Carbajal Espinosa, see Vol. II. p. 428. Cf. Alfred Chavero’s _México á través de los Siglos_.

[964] Discrediting Gomara’s statement that De Ayllon found tribes near Cape Hatteras who had tame deer and made cheese from their milk, Dr. Brinton says: “Throughout the continent there is not a single authentic instance of a pastoral tribe, not one of an animal raised for its milk, nor for the transportation of persons, and very few for their flesh. It was essentially a hunting race.” (_Myths of the New World_, 21.) He adds: “The one mollifying element was agriculture, substituting a sedentary for a wandering life, supplying a fixed dependence for an uncertain contingency.”

[965] See Vol. II. p. 98.

[966] It was two years earlier, in 1517, that Hernandez de Cordova had first noticed the ruins of the Yucatan coast, though Columbus, in 1502, near Yucatan had met a Maya vessel, which with its navigators had astonished him.

[967] “No writer,” says Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 674), “has been more prolific in pictures of pomp, regal wealth and magnificence, than Bernal Diaz. Most of the later writers have placed undue reliance on his statements, assuming that the truthfulness of his own individual feelings was the result of cool observation. Any one who has read attentively his _Mémoirs_ will become convinced that he is in fact one of the most unreliable eye-witnesses, so far as general principles are concerned.... Cortes had personal and political motives to magnify and embellish the picture. If his statements fall far below those of his troopers in thrilling and highly-colored details, there is every reason to believe that they are the more trustworthy.... In the descriptions by Cortes we find, on the whole, nothing but a barbarous display common to other Indian celebrations of a similar character.”

Bandelier’s further comment is (_Ibid._ ii. 397) “A feudal empire at Tezcuco was an invention of the chroniclers, who had a direct interest, or thought to have one, in advancing the claims of the Tezcucan tribe to an original supremacy.”

Bandelier again (_Ibid._ ii. 385) points out the early statements of the conquerors, and of their annalists, which have prompted the inference of a feudal condition of society; but he refers to Ixtlilxochitl as “the chief originator of the feudal view;” and from him Torquemada draws his inspiration. Wilson (_Prehist. Man_, i. 242) holds much the same views.

[968] _Peabody Mus. Tenth Rept._ vol. ii. 114.

[969] Bandelier (“Art of War, etc.,” in _Peabody Mus. Rept._ x. 113) again says of De Pauw’s _Recherches philosophiques sur les Américaines_, that it is “a very injudicious book, which by its extravagance and audacity created a great deal of harm. It permitted Clavigero to attack even Robertson, because the latter had also applied sound criticism to the study of American aboriginal history, and by artfully placing both as upon the same platform, to counteract much of the good effects of Robertson’s work.”

[970] _Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 114.

[971] In regard to the nature of the chief-of-men we find, among much else of the first importance in the study of the Mexican government, an exposition in Sahagún (lib. vi. cap. 20), which seems to establish the elective and non-hereditary character of the office. It was “this office and its attributes,” says Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 670), “which have been the main stays of the notion that a high degree of civilization prevailed in aboriginal Mexico, in so far as its people were ruled after the manner of eastern despotisms.” Bandelier (_Ibid._ ii. 133) says: “It is not impossible that the so-called empire of Mexico may yet prove to have been but a confederacy of the Nahuatlac tribe of the valley, with the Mexicans as military leaders.” His argument on the word translated “king” is not convincing.

[972] _Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 435.

[973] Introd. to _Conquest of Mexico_. See Vol. II. p. 426. In the Appendix to his third volume, Prescott, relying mainly on the works of Dupaix and Waldeck, arrived at conclusions as respects the origin of the Mexican civilization, and its analogies with the Old World, which accord with those of Stephens, whose work had not appeared at the time when Prescott wrote.

[974] _Houses and House Life_, p. 222.

[975] Bancroft (ii. 92) says: “What is known of the Aztecs has furnished material for nine tenths of all that has been written on the American civilized nations in general.”

[976] _Anahuac, or Mexico and the Mexicans, Ancient and Modern_ (London, 1861). Tylor enlarges upon what he considers the evidences of immense populations; and respecting some of their arts he adds, from inspection of specimens of their handicraft, that “the Spanish conquerors were not romancing in the wonderful stories they told of the skill of the native goldsmiths.” On the other hand, Morgan (_Houses and House Life_, 223) thinks the figures of population grossly exaggerated.

[977] Vol. II. p. 427.

[978] When we consider that Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, in spite of rapine, siege and fire, still retain numerous traces of their earliest times, and that not a vestige of the Aztec capital remains to us except its site, we must assume, in Wilson’s opinion (_Prehistoric Man_, i. 331), that its edifices and causeways must have been for the most part more slight and fragile than the descriptions of the conquerors implied. Morgan instances as a proof of the flimsy character of their masonry, that Cortes in seventeen days levelled three fourths of the city of Mexico. But, adds Wilson, “so far as an indigenous American civilization is concerned, no doubt can be entertained, and there is little room for questioning, that among races who had carried civilization so far, there existed the capacity for its further development, independently of all borrowed aid” (p. 336). The Baron Nordenskjöld informs me that there is in the library at Upsala a MS. map of Mexico by Santa Cruz (d. 1572) which contains numerous ethnographical details, not to be found in printed maps of that day.

[979] _Native Races_, ii. 159.

[980] _Ibid._ ii. 133.

[981] Bancroft has recently epitomized his views afresh in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, Jan., 1888.

[982] Bancroft wrote in San Francisco, it will be remembered.

[983] It was for Bandelier, in his “Social organization and mode of government of the ancient Mexicans” (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 557), to demonstrate the proposition that tribal society based, according to Morgan, upon kin, and not political society, which rests upon territory and property, must be looked for among the ancient Mexicans.

[984] Morgan’s _Houses_, etc., 225. Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, vol. ii. 114) speaks of the views advanced by Morgan in his “Montezuma’s Dinner,” as “a bold stroke for the establishment of American ethnology on a new basis.” It must be remembered that Bandelier was Morgan’s pupil.

[985] _Ibid._ 222.

[986] Morgan says of his predecessors, “they learned nothing and knew nothing” of Indian society.

[987] _Ibid._ 223.

[988] In this he of course assumes that the ruins in Spanish America are of communal edifices.

[989] Bandelier’s papers are in the second volume of the _Reports of the Peabody Museum_ at Cambridge. He contends in his “Art of Warfare among the Ancient Mexicans,” that he has shown the non-existence of a military despotism, and proved their government to be “a military democracy, originally based upon communism in living.” A similar understanding pervades his other essay “On the social organization and mode of government of the ancient Mexicans.” Morgan and Bandelier profess great admiration for each other,—Morgan citing his friend as “our most eminent scholar in Spanish American history” (_Houses_, etc., 84), and Bandelier expresses his deep feeling of gratitude, etc. (_Archæolog. Tour_, 32). This affectionate relation has very likely done something in unifying their intellectual sympathies. The _Ancient Society, or researches in the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization_ (N. Y. 1877), of Morgan is reflected very palpably in these papers of Bandelier. The accounts of the war of the conquest, as detailed in Bancroft’s _Mexico_ (vol. i.), and the views of their war customs (_Native Races_, ii. ch. 13), contrasted with Bandelier’s ideas,—who finds in Parkman’s books “the natural parallelism between the forays of the Iroquois and the so-called conquests of the Mexican confederacy” (_Archæol. Tour_, 32), and who reduces the battle of Otumba to an affair like that of Custer and the Sioux (_Art of Warfare_),—give us in the military aspects of the ancient life the opposed views of the two schools of interpreters.

[990] Being vol. iv. of the _Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnol._ in Powell’s _Survey of the Rocky Mt. Region_. Some of Morgan’s cognate studies relating to the aboriginal system of consanguinity and laws of descent are in the _Smithsonian Contributions_, xvii., the _Smithsonian Misc. Coll._ ii., _Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci. Trans._ vii., and _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc._, 1857.

[991] Morgan in this, his last work, condenses in his first chapter those which were numbered 1 to 4 in his _Ancient Society_, and in succeeding sections he discusses the laws of hospitality, communism, usages of land and food, and the houses of the northern tribes, of those of New Mexico, San Juan River, the moundbuilders, the Aztecs, and those in Yucatan and Central America. Among these he finds three distinct ethnical stages, as shown in the northern Indian, higher in the sedentary tribes of New Mexico, and highest among those of Mexico and Central America. S. F. Haven commemorated Morgan’s death in the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1880.

[992] Cf. Bandelier on “the tenure of lands” in _Peabody Mus. Repts._ (1878), no. xi., and Bancroft in _Nat. Races_, ii. ch. 6, p. 223.

[993] Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 391) points out that when Martin Ursúa captured Tayasál on Lake Petin, the last pueblo inhabited by Maya Indians, he found “all the inhabitants living brutally together, an entire relationship together in one single house,” and Bandelier refers further to Morgan’s _Ancient Society_, Part 2, p. 181.

[994] Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 673) accepts the views of Morgan, calling it “a rude clannish feast,” given by the official household of the tribe as a part of its daily duties and obligations.

[995] On the character of the Tecpan (council house, or official house) of the Mexicans, which the early writers translate “palace,” with its sense of magnificence, see Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._ ii. 406, 671, etc.), with his references. Morgan holds that Stephens is largely responsible for the prevalence of erroneous notions regarding the Mayas, by reason of using the words “palaces” and “great cities” for defining what were really the pueblos of these southern Indians. Bancroft (ii. 84), referring to the ruins, says: They have “the highest value as confirming the truth of the reports made by Spanish writers, very many, or perhaps most, of whose statements respecting the wonderful phenomena of the New World, without this incontrovertible material proof, would find few believers among the skeptical students of the present day.” Bancroft had little prescience respecting what the communal theorists were going to say of these ruins.

[996] Cf. Bancroft’s _Cent. America_, i. 317. Sir J. William Dawson, in his _Fossil Men_ (p. 83), contends that Morgan has proved his point, and he calls the ruins of Spanish America “communistic barracks” (p. 50). Higginson, in the first chapter of his _Larger History_, which is a very excellent, condensed popular statement of the new views which Morgan inaugurated, says of him very truly, that he lacked moderation, and that there is “something almost exasperating in the positiveness with which he sometimes assumes as proved that which is only probable.”

[997] Bancroft in his foot-notes (vol. ii.) embodies the best bibliography of this ancient civilization. Cf. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 14; C. Hermann Berendt’s “Centres of ancient civilization and their geographical distribution,” an _Address before the Amer. Geog. Soc._ (N. Y. 1876); Draper’s _Intellectual Development of Europe_; Brasseur’s _Ms. Troano_; Humboldt’s _Cosmos_ (English transl. ii. 674); Michel Chevalier in the _Revue de deux Mondes_, Mar.-July, 1845, embraced later in his _Du Méxique avant et pendant la Conquête_ (Paris, 1845); Brantz Mayer’s _Mexico as it was; The Galaxy_, March, 1876; _Scribner’s Mag._ v. 724; _Overland Monthly_, xiv. 468; De Charency’s _Hist. du Civilisation du Méxique_ (_Revue des Questions historiques_), vi. 283; Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde_ (Paris, 1883); Peschel’s _Races of Men_, 441; Nadaillac’s _Les premiers hommes et les temps préhistoriques_, ii. ch. 9, etc.

[998] For the bibliography of his works see Brunet, Sabin, Field, etc. The octavo edition of his _Vues_ has 19 of the 69 plates which constitute the _Atlas_ of the large edition. See the chapter on Peru for further detail.

[999] John Lloyd Stephens, _Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan_, Lond. and N. Y. 1841,—various later eds., that of London, 1854, being “revised from the latest Amer. ed., with additions by Frederick Catherwood.” Stephens started on this expedition in 1839, and he was armed with credentials from President Van Buren. He travelled 3000 miles, and visited eight ruined cities, as shown by his route given on the map in vol. i. Cf. references in Allibone, ii. p. 2240; _Poole’s Index_, p. 212; his _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_ will be mentioned later.

Frederick Catherwood’s _Views of Ancient Monuments in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan_ (Lond. 1844) has a brief text (pp. 24) and 25 lithographed plates. Some of the original drawings used in making these plates were included in the _Squier Catalogue_, p. 229. (Sabin’s _Dict._ iii. no. 11520.) Captain Lindesay Brine, in his paper on the “Ruined Cities of Central America” (_Journal Roy. Geog. Soc._ 1872, p. 354; _Proc._ xvii. 67), testifies to the accuracy of Stephens and Catherwood. These new developments furnished the material for numerous purveyors to the popular mind, some of them of the slightest value, like Asahel Davis, whose _Antiquities of Central America_, with some slight changes of title, and with the parade of new editions, were common enough between 1840 and 1850.

[1000] Viollet le Duc, in his _Histoire de l’habitation humaine depuis les temps préhistoriques_ (Paris, 1875), has given a chapter (no. xxii.) to the “Nahuas and Toltecs.” Views more or less studied, comprehensive, and restricted are given in R. Cary Long’s _Ancient Architecture of America, its historic value and parallelism of development with the architecture of the Old World_ (N. Y. 1849), an address from the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._ 1849, p. 117; R. P. Greg on “the Fret or Key Ornament in Mexico and Peru,” in the _Archæologia_ (London), vol. xlvii. 157; and a popular summary on “the pyramid in America,” by S. D. Peet, in the _American Antiquarian_, July, 1888, comparing the mounds of Cholula, Uxmal, Palenqué, Teotihuacan, Copan, Quemada, Cohokia, St. Louis, etc. John T. Short summarizes the characteristics of the Nahua and Maya styles (_No. Amer. of Antiquity_, 340, 359). There are chapters on their architecture in Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, ii.; but the references in his vol. iv. are most helpful.

[1001] Vols. v. vi. vii. on “Ancient Mexican Civilization,” “Pyramid of Teotihuacan,” “Sacrificial Calendar Stone,” “Central America at time of Conquest,” “Ruins at Palenque and Copan,” “Ruins of Uxmal,” etc.

[1002] Duplicates were placed in the Nat. Museum at Washington by the liberality of Pierre Lorillard.

[1003] The English translation is condensed in parts: _The ancient cities of the New World: being travels and explorations in Mexico and Central America from 1857-1882_. _Translated from the French by J. Gonino and Helen S. Conant._ (London, 1887.) Some of his notable results were the discovery of stucco ornaments in the province of Iturbide, among ruins which he unfortunately named Lorillard City (Eng. tr. ch. 22). The palace at Tula is also figured in Brocklehurst’s _Mexico to-day_, ch. 25. The discovery of what Charnay calls glass and porcelain is looked upon as doubtful by most archæologists, who believe the specimens to be rather traces of Spanish contact.

[1004] Bancroft, iv. 453, and references.

[1005] Bandelier (p. 235) is confident that it was built by an earlier people than the Nahuas.

[1006] Cf. Bandelier, p. 247. Short, p. 236.

[1007] Bancroft (v. 200) gives references on these points, and particular note may be taken of Veytia, i. 18, 155, 199; and Brasseur, _Hist. Nations Civ._ iv. 182. Cf. also Nadaillac, p. 351. Bandelier (_Archæolog. Tour_, 248, 249) favors the gradual growth theory, and collates early sources (p. 250). Bancroft (iv. 474) holds that we may feel very sure its erection dates back of the tenth, and perhaps of the seventh, century.

[1008] Bandelier’s idea (p. 254) is that as the Indians never repair a ruin, they abandoned this remaining mound after its disaster, and transplanted the worship of Quetzalcoatl to the new mound, since destroyed, while the old shrine was in time given to the new cult of the Rain-god.

[1009] As Bancroft thinks; but Bandelier says that it was not of this mound, but of the temple which stood where the modern convent stands, that this count was made. _Arch. Tour_, 242.

[1010] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, ii. 33.

[1011] _Vues_, i. 96 pl. iii., or pl. vii., viii. in folio ed.; _Essai polit._, 239. The later observers are: Dupaix (_Antiq. Mex._, and in Kingsborough, v. 218; with iv. pl. viii.). Bancroft remarks on the totally different aspects of Castañeda’s two drawings. Nebel, in his _Viaje pintoresco y Arqueolójico sobre la república Mejicana_, 1829-34 (Paris, 1839, folio), gave a description and a large colored drawing. Of the other visitors whose accounts add something to our knowledge, Bancroft (iv. 471) notes the following: J. R. Poinsett, _Notes on Mexico_ (London, 1825). W. H. Bullock, _Six Months in Mexico_ (Lond., 1825). H. G. Ward, _Mexico in 1827_ (Lond., 1828). Mark Beaufoy, _Mex. Illustrations_ (Lond., 1828), with cuts. Charles Jos. Latrobe, _Rambles in Mexico_ (Lond., 1836). Brantz Mayer, _Mexico as it was_ (N. Y., 1854); _Mexico, Aztec, etc._ (Hartford, 1853); and in Schoolcraft, _Ind. Tribes_, vi. 582. Waddy Thompson, _Recoll. of Mexico_ (N. Y., 1847). E. B. Tylor, _Anahuac_ (Lond., 1861), p. 274. A. S. Evans, _Our Sister Republic_ (Hartford, 1870). Summaries later than Bancroft’s will be found in Short, p. 369, and Nadaillac, p. 350. Bancroft adds (iv. 471-2) a long list of second-hand describers.

[1012] It is illustrated with a map of the district of Cholula (p. 158), a detailed plan of the pyramid or mound (Humboldt is responsible for the former term) as it stands amid roads and fields (p. 230), and a fac-simile of an old map of the pueblo of Cholula (1581).

Bandelier speaks of the conservative tendencies of the native population of this region, giving a report that old native idols are still preserved and worshipped in caves, to which he could not induce the Indians to conduct him (p. 156); and that when he went to see the _Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco_, or some native pictures of the 16th century, representing the Conquest, and of the highest importance for its history, he was jealously allowed but one glance at them, and could not get another (_Archæol. Tour_, p. 123). He adds: “The difficulty attending the consultation of any documents in the hands of Indians is universal, and results from their superstitious regard for writings on paper. The bulk of the people watch with the utmost jealousy over their old papers.... They have a fear lest the power vested in an original may be transferred to a copy” (pp. 155-6).

[1013] Pinart, no. 590.

[1014] He repeats Alzate’s plate of the restoration of the ruins.

[1015] Bancroft refers (iv. 483) to various compiled accounts, to which may be added his own and Short’s (p. 371). Cf. F. Boncourt in the _Revue d’Ethnographie_ (1887).

[1016] Prescott, Kirk ed., i. 12. See the map of the plateau of Anahuac in Ruge, _Gesch. des Zeitalters der Entdeck._, i. 363.

[1017] Cf. Gros in the _Archives de la Com. Scient. du Méxique_, vol. i.; H. de Saussure on the _Découverte des ruines d’une ancienne ville Méxicaine située sur le plateau de l’Anahuac_ (Paris, 1858,—_Bull. Soc Géog. de Paris_).

[1018] The same is true of the earliest Spanish buildings. Icazbalceta (_México en 1554_, p. 74) says that the soil is constantly accumulating, and the whole city gradually sinks.

[1019] Bancroft (iv. 505, 516, with references) says that such objects, when brought to light by excavations, have not always been removed from their hiding-places; and he argues that beneath the city there may yet be “thousands of interesting monuments.” Cf. B. Mayer’s _Mexico as it was_, vol. ii.

Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, Part ii. p. 49) gives us valuable “Archæological Notes about the City of Mexico,” in which he says that Alfredo Chavero owns a very large oil painting, said to have been executed in 1523, giving a view of the aboriginal city and the principal events of the Conquest. It shows that the ancient city was about one quarter the size of the modern town.

We find descriptions of the city before the conquerors transformed it, in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nations Civ._ iii. 187; iv. line 13; and in Bancroft (ii. ch. 18) there is a collation of authorities on Nahua buildings, with specific references on the city of Mexico (ii. p. 567). Bandelier describes with citations its military aspects at the time of the Conquest (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, x. 151).

The movable relics found in Mexico are the following:—

1. The calendar stone. See annexed cut.

2. Teoyamique. See cut in the appendix of this volume.

3. Sacrificial stone. See annexed cut.

4. Indio triste. See annexed cut.

5. Head of a serpent, discovered in 1881. Cf. Bandelier’s _Archæol. Tour_, p. 69.

6. Human head. Cf. Bancroft, iv. 518. All of the above, except the calendar stone, are in the Museo Nacional.

7. Gladiatorial stone, discovered in 1792, but left buried. Cf. B. Mayer’s _Mexico_, 123; Bancroft, iv. 516; Kingsborough, vii. 94; Sahagún, lib. ii.

8. A few other less important objects. Cf. Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 52.

Antonio de Leon y Gama, who unfortunately had no knowledge of the writings of Sahagún, has discussed most of these relics in his _Descripcion histórico y Cronológico de las dos Piedras &_. (2d ed. Bustamante, 1832.)

[1020] Bancroft, iv. 520, with authorities, p. 523. Cf. _American Antiquarian_, May, 1888.

[1021] Bancroft’s numerous references make a foot-note (iv. 530). He adds a plan from Almaraz, and says that the description of Linares (_Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 30, i. 103) is mainly drawn from Almaraz. It is believed, but not absolutely proven, that the mounds were natural ones, artificially shaped (Bandelier, 44). The extent of the ruins is very great, and it is a current belief that the city in its prime must have been very large. The whole region is exceptionally rich in fragmentary and small relics, like pottery, obsidian implements, and terra-cotta heads. Cf. for these last, _Lond. Geog. Soc. Journal_, vii. 10; Thompson’s _Mexico_, 140; Nebel, _Viaje_; Mayer’s _Mexico as it was_, 227 (as cited in Bancroft, iv. 542); and later publications like T. U. Brocklehurst’s _Mexico to-day_ (Lond., 1883), and Zelia Nuttall’s “Terra Cotta Heads from Teotihuacan,” in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_ (June and Sept. 1886), ii. 157, 318.

Bancroft judges that the ruins date back to the sixth century, and says that these mounds served for models of the Aztec teocallis. On the commission already referred to was Antonio García y Cubas, who conducted some personal explorations, and in describing these in a separate publication, _Ensayo de un Estudio Comparativo entre las Pirámides Egípcias y Mexicanas_ (Mexico, 1871), he points out certain analogies of the American and Egyptian structures, which will be found in epitome in Bancroft (iv. 543). In discussing the monoliths of the ruins, Amos W. Butler (_Amer. Antiquarian_, May, 1885), in a paper on “The Sacrificial Stone of San Juan Teotihuacan,” advanced some views that are controverted by W. H. Holmes in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_ (i. 361), from whose foot-notes a good bibliography of the subject can be derived. Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 42) thinks that because no specific mention is made of them in Mexican tradition, it is safe to infer that these monuments antedate the Mexicans, and were in ruins at the time of the Conquest.

[1022] The early writers make little mention of the place except as one of the halting-places of the Aztec migration. Torquemada has something to say (quoted in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Bol._, 2º, iii. 278, with the earliest of the modern accounts by Manuel Gutierrez, in 1805). Capt. G. F. Lyon (_Journal of a residence and tour in Mexico_, London, 1828) visited the ruins in 1828. Pedro Rivera in 1830 described them in Márcos de Esparza’s _Informe presentado al Gobierno_ (Zacatecas, 1830,—also in _Museo Méxicano_, i. 185, 1843). The plan in Nebel’s Viaje (copied in Bancroft, iv. 582) was made for Governor García, by Berghes, a German engineer, in 1831, who at the time was accompanied by J. Burkart (_Aufenthalt und Reisen in Mexico_, Stuttgart, 1836), who gives a plan of fewer details. Bancroft (iv. 579) thinks Nebel’s views of the ruins the only ones ever published, and he enumerates various second-hand writers (iv. 579).

Cf. Fegeux, “Les ruines de la Quemada,” in the _Revue d’Ethnologie_, i. 119. The noticeable features of these ruins are their massiveness and height of walls, their absence of decoration and carved idols, and the lack of pottery and the smaller relics. Their history, notwithstanding much search, is a blank.

[1023] Cf. Bandelier, p. 320.

[1024] Bandelier, p. 276.

[1025] Ramirez, ed. 1867.

[1026] His brief account is copied by Mendieta and Torquemada, and is cited in Bandelier, p. 324.

[1027] _Geog. Descripcion_, ii. cited in Bandelier, 324. Cf. _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, vii. 170.

[1028] Bandelier says (p. 279) that he saw them in the library of the Institute of Oaxaca, and that, though admirable, they have a certain tendency to over-restoration,—the besetting sin of all explorers who make drawings.

[1029] Cf. Field, no. 1612.

[1030] _Ruines_, etc., 261, and Viollet le Duc, p. 74; _Anciens Villes_, ch. 24.

[1031] There is a _Rapport sur les ruines_, by Doutrelaine, in the _Archives de la Commission Scientifique du Méxique_ (vol. iii.); Nadaillac (p. 364) and Short (p. 361) have epitomized results, and Louis H. Aymé gives some _Notes on Mitla_ in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1882, p. 82; Bancroft (iv. 391) enumerates various second-hand descriptions.

[1032] I do not understand Bandelier’s statement (p. 277) that it is taken from Bancroft’s plan, which it only resembles in a general way.

[1033] Bancroft classifies their architectural peculiarities (iv. pp. 267-279).

[1034] See Vol. II. ch. 3. Bancroft (ii. p. 784) collates the early accounts of the habitations of the people, and (iv. 254, 260, 261) the descriptions of the ruins and statelier edifices, as seen by these explorers.

[1035] _For. Q. Rev._, xviii. 251.

[1036] Cf. _Poole’s Index_, p. 1439.

[1037] Bancroft, iv. 145; Field, no. 1138; Leclerc, no. 1217; Pilling, p. 2767; _Dem. Review_, xi. 529. Cf. _Poole’s Index_, P. 1439.

[1038] _Registro Yucateco_, ii. 437; _Diccionario Universal_ (México, 1853), x. 290.

[1039] Bandelier, _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 92, calls the paper “not very valuable.”

[1040] This gentleman, since the death of his father, of the same name, succeeded, after an interval, the elder antiquary in the president’s chair of the American Antiquarian Society.

[1041] Cf. Short, p. 396. Le Plongeon retorts (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 282) by telling his critic that he had never been in Yucatan. Considering the effect of contact in many of those who have written of the ruins, it may be a question if the implication is valuable as a piece of criticism. Mr. Salisbury and Dr. Le Plongeon reported from time to time in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._ the results of the latter’s investigations, and the researches to which they gave rise. Those in April, 1876, and April, 1877, of these _Proceedings_, were privately printed by Mr. Salisbury, as _The Mayas_, etc. In April, 1878, Mr. Salisbury reported upon the “Terra-cotta figures from Isla Mujeres.” In Oct., 1878, there were communications from Dr. Le Plongeon, and from Alice D. Le Plongeon, his wife. In April, 1879, Dr. Le Plongeon communicated a letter on the affinities of Central America and the East. Since this the Le Plongeons have found other channels of communication. Dr. Le Plongeon expanded his somewhat extravagant notions of Oriental affinities in his _Sacred mysteries among the Mayas and the Quiches, 11,500 years ago; their relation to the sacred mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Chaldea, and India. Freemasonry in times anterior to the temple of Solomon_ (New York, 1886).

His preface is largely made up with a rehearsal of his rebuffs and in complaints of the want of public appreciation of his labors. He is, however, as confident as ever, and deciphers the bas-reliefs and mural inscriptions of Chichen-Itza by “the ancient hieratic Maya alphabet” which he claims to have discovered, and shows this alphabet in parallel columns with that of Egypt as displayed by Champollion and Bunsen. Mrs. Le Plongeon published her _Vestiges of the Mayas_ in New York, in 1881, and gathered some of her periodical writings in her _Here and There in Yucatan_ (N. Y., 1886). Cf. her letter on the ancient records of Yucatan in _The Nation_, xxix. 224.

[1042] Baldwin (p. 125), in a condensed way, and likewise Short (ch. 8) and Bancroft (iv. ch. 5), more at length, have mainly depended on Stephens. Cf. references in Bancroft, iv. 147, and Bandelier’s list in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 82, 95. E. H. Thompson has contributed papers in _Ibid._ Oct., 1886, p. 248, and April, 1887, p. 379, and on the ruins of Kich-Moo and Chun-Kal-Cin in April, 1888, p. 162. Brasseur, beside his _Hist. Nat. Civ._, ii. 20, has something in his introduction to his _Relation de Landa_. The description of the ruins at Zayi, which Stephens gives, shows that some of the rooms were filled solid with masonry, and he leaves it as an unaccountable fact; but Morgan (_Houses and House Life_, p. 267) thinks it shows that the builders constructed a core of masonry, over which they reared the walls and ceilings, which last, after hardening, were able to support themselves, when the cores were removed; and that in the ruins at Zayi we see the cores unremoved.

[1043] Cf. the _pros_ and _cons_ in Waldeck and Charnay. Waldeck first named the ornaments as “Elephants’ trunks” (_Voy. Pitt._ p. 74). There are cuts in Stephens, reproduced in Bancroft. There is also a cut in Norman. Cf. E. H. Thompson in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1887, p. 382.

[1044] Stephens, _Yucatan_, ii. 265, gives an ancient Indian map (1557), and extracts from the archives of Mani, which lead him to infer that at that time it was an inhabited Indian town.

[1045] Bancroft (iv. 151) gives various references to second-hand descriptions, noted before 1875, to which may be added those in Short, p. 347; Nadaillac, 334; Amer. Antiquarian, vii. 257, and again, July, 1888.

Probably the most accurate of the plans of the ruins is that of Stephens (_Yucatan_, i. 165), which is followed by Bancroft (iv. 153). Brasseur’s report has a plan, and others, all differing, are given by Waldeck (pl. viii.), Norman (p. 155), and Charnay (_Ruines_, p. 62). Views and cuts of details are found in Waldeck, Stephens, Charnay,—whence later summarizers like Bancroft, Baldwin, and Short have drawn their copies; while special cuts are copied in Armin (_Das Heutige Mexico_); Larenaudière (_Mexique et Guatemala_, Paris, 1847); Le Plongeon (_Sacred Mysteries_); Ruge (_Zeitalter der Entdeckungen_, p. 357); Morgan (_Houses_, etc., ch. xi.), and in various others. One can best trace the varieties and contrasts of the different accounts of the various edifices in Bancroft’s collations of their statements. His constant citation, even to scorn them, of the impertinencies of George Jones’s _Hist. of Anc. America_ (London, 1842),—the later notorious Count Johannes,—was hardly worth while.

[1046] Landa described the ruins. _Relation_, p. 340.

[1047] All other accounts are based on these. Bancroft, who gives the best summary (iv. 221), enumerates many of the second-hand writers, to whom Short (p. 396) must be added. Stephens gives a plan (ii. 290) which Bancroft (iv. 222) follows; and it apparently is worthy of reasonable confidence, which cannot be said of Norman’s. The ruins present some features not found in others, and the most interesting of such may be considered the wall paintings, one representing a boat with occupants, which Stephens found on the walls of the building called by him the Gymnasium, because of stone rings projecting from the walls (see annexed cut), which were supposed by him to have been used in ball games. Norman calls the same building the Temple; Charnay, the Cirque; but the native designation is Iglesia.

[1048] _Yucatan_, i. 94. Cf. Bancroft, _Native Races_, ii. 117; v. 164, 342.

[1049] Bancroft collates the views of different writers (iv. 285). He himself holds that these buildings are more ancient than those of Anáhuac; consequently he rejects the arguments of Stephens, that it was by the Toltecs, after they migrated south from Anáhuac, that these constructions were raised (_Native Races_, v. 165, and for references, p. 169). Charnay (_Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._, Nov., 1881) believes they were erected between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries.

It is well known now that the concentric rings are a useless guide in tropical regions to determine the age of trees, though in the past, the immense size of trees as well as the deposition of soil have been used to determine the supposed ages of ruins. Waldeck counted a ring a year in getting two thousand years for the time since the abandonment of Palenqué; but Charnay (Eng. tr. _Ancient Cities_, p. 260) says that these rings are often formed monthly. Cf. Nadaillac, p. 323.

[1050] So called because near a modern village of that name, founded by the Spaniards about 1564. Bancroft (iv. 296) says the ruins are ordinarily called by the natives Casas de Piedra. Ordoñez calls them Nachan, but without giving any authority, and some adopt the Aztec equivalent Calhuacan, city of the serpents. Because Xibalba is held by some to be the name of the great city of this region in the shadowy days of Votan, that name has also been applied to the ruins. Otolum, or the ruined place, is a common designation thereabouts, but Palenqué is the appellation in use by most travellers and writers.

[1051] The fact is, that widely distinct estimates have been held, some dating them back into the remotest antiquity, and others making them later than the Conquest. Bancroft (iv. 362) collates these statements. Cf. Dr. Earl Flint in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv. 289. Morelet identifies them with the Toltec remains, supposing them to be the work of that people after their emigration, and to be of about the same age as Mitla. Charnay (_Anc. Cities of the New World_, p. 260) claims that Cortes knew the place as the religious metropolis of the Acaltecs. On the question of Cortes’ knowledge see _Science_, Feb. 27, 1885, p. 171; and _Ibid._ (by Brinton) March 27, 1885, p. 248.

[1052] The original is in the Roy. Acad. of Hist. at Madrid (Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 125), and is called _Descripcion del terreno publacion antigua_.

[1053] Field, no. 231; Sabin, xvii. p. 292. The report of Rio was brief, and as we would judge now, superficial. Dupaix treats him disparagingly. The appended essay by Cabrera, an Italian, is said to have been largely filched from Ramon’s paper, which had been confidentially placed in his hands (Short, 207). A Spanish text of Cabrera is in the Museo Nacional. Cf. Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._), p. 30; Pinart, no. 186. It is a question if the plates, which constituted the most interesting part of the English book, be Rio’s after all; for though they profess to be engraved after his drawings, they are suspiciously like those made by Castañeda, twenty years after Rio’s visit (Bancroft, iv. 290). David B. Warden translated Rio’s report in the _Recueil de voyages et de Mémoires, par la Soc. de in Géog. de Paris_. (vol. ii.), and gave some of the plates. (Cf. Warden’s _Recherches sur les antiquités de l’Amérique Septentrionale_, Paris, 1827, in _Mém. de la Soc. de Géog._) There is a German version, _Beschreibung einer alten Stadt_ (Berlin, 1832), by J. H. von Minutoli, which is provided with an introductory essay.

[1054] Sabin, x. 209, 213. Cf. _Annales de Philos. Chrétienne_, xi.

[1055] _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, ix. (1828) 198. Dupaix, i. 2d div. 76.

[1056] “Palenque et autres lieux circonvoisins,” in Dupaix, i. 2d div. 67 (in English in _Literary Gazette_, London, 1831, no. 769, and in _Lond. Geog. Soc. Journal_, iii. 60). Cf. _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, 1832. He is overenthusiastic, as Bandelier thinks (_Amer. Ant. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. p. 111).

[1057] The report by Angrand, which induced this purchase, is in the work as published.

[1058] He had described them in his _Hist. Nat. Civ._, i. ch. 3.

[1059] The book usually sells for about 150 francs.

[1060] Given, also enlarged, in the folio known as Catherwood’s _Views_.

[1061] The German version was made from this (Jena, 1872).

[1062] Particularly ch. 13, 14. Charnay is the last of the explorers of Palenqué. All the other accounts of the ruins found here and there are based on the descriptions of those who have been named, or at least nothing is added of material value by other actual visitors like Norman (_Rambles in Yucatan_, p. 284). Bancroft (iv. 294) enumerates a number of such second-hand describers. The most important work since Bancroft’s summary is Manuel Larrainzar’s _Estudios sobre la historia de America, sus ruinas y antigüedades, y sobre el orígen de sus habitantes_ (Mexico, 1875-78), in five vols., all of whose plates are illustrations from the ruins of Palenqué, which are described and compared with other ancient remains throughout the world. Cf. Brühl, _Culturvölker d. alt. Amerikas_. Plans of the ruins will be found in Waldeck (pl. vii., followed mainly by Bancroft, iv. 298, 307), Stephens (ii. 310), Dupaix (pl. xi.), Kingsborough (iv. pl. 13), and Charnay (ch. 13 and 14). The views of the ruins given by these authorities mainly make up the stock of cuts in all the popular narratives.

The most interesting of the carvings is what is known as the Tablet of the Cross, which was taken from one of the minor buildings, and is now in the National Museum at Washington. It has often been engraved, but such representations never satisfied the student till they could be tested by the best of Charnay’s photographs. (Engravings in Brasseur and Waldeck, pl. 21, 22; Rosny’s _Essai sur le déchiffrement_, etc.; Minutoli’s _Beschreibung einer alten Stadt in Guatimala_ (Berlin, 1832); Stephens’s _Cent. Amer._, ii.; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 333; Charnay, _Les anciens Villes_, and Eng. transl. p. 255; Nadaillac, 325; _Powell’ s Rept._, i. 221; cf. p. 234; _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 200.) The most important discussion of the tablet is Charles Rau’s _Palenqué Tablet in the U. S. National Museum_ (Washington, 1879), being the _Smithsonian Contri. to Knowledge_, no. 331, or vol. xxii. It contains an account of the explorations that have been made at Palenqué, and a chapter on the “Aboriginal writing in Mexico, Central America, and Yucatan, with some account of the attempted translations of Maya hieroglyphics.” Rau’s conclusion is that it is a Phallic symbol. Cf. a summary in _Amer. Antiquarian_, vi., Jan., 1884, and in _Amer. Art Review_, 1880, p. 217. Rau’s paper was translated into Spanish and French: _Tablero del Palenque en el Museo nacional de los Estados-Unidos_ [traducido por Joaquin Davis y Miguel Perez], in the _Anales del Museo nacional_. Tomo 2, pp. 131-203. (México, 1880.) _La Stèle de Palenqué du Musée national des Etats-Unis, à Washington. Traduit de l’Anglais avec autorisation de l’auteur._ In the _Annales du Musée Guimet_, vol. x. (Paris, 1887.) Rau’s views were criticised by Morgan.

There are papers by Charency on the interpretation of the hieroglyphs in _Le Muséon_ (Paris, 1882, 1883).

The significance of the cross among the Nahuas and Mayas has been the subject of much controversy, some connecting it with a possible early association with Christians in ante-Columbian days (Bancroft, iii. 468). On this later point see Bamps, _Les traditions relatives à l’homme blanc et au signe de la cruz en Amérique à l’Epoque précolumbienne_, in the _Compte rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (Copenhagen, 1883), p. 125; and “Supposed vestiges of early Christian teaching in America,” in the _Catholic Historical Researches_ (vol. i., Oct., 1885). The symbolism is variously conceived. Bandelier (_Archæol. Jour._) holds it to be the emblem of fire, indeed an ornamented fire-drill, which later got mixed up with the Spanish crucifix. Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, 95) sees in it the four cardinal points, the rain-bringers, the symbol of life and health, and cites (p. 96) various of the early writers in proof. Brinton (_Am. Hero Myths_, 155) claims to have been the first to connect the Palenqué cross with the four cardinal points. The bird and serpent—the last shown better in Charnay’s photograph than in Stephens’s cut—is (_Myths_, 119) simply a rebus of the air-god, the ruler of the winds. Brinton says that Waldeck, in a paper on the tablet in the _Revue Américaine_ (ii. 69), came to a similar conclusion. Squier (_Nicaragua_, ii. 337) speaks of the common error of mistaking the tree of life of the Mexicans for the Christian symbol. Cf. Powell’s _Second Rept., Bur. of Ethnol._, p. 208; the _Fourth Rept._, p. 252, where discredit is thrown upon Gabriel de Mortillet’s _Le Signe de la cross avant le Christianisme_ (Paris, 1866); Joly’s _Man before Metals_, 339; and Charnay’s _Les Anciens Villes_ (or Eng. transl. p. 85). Cf. for various applications the references in Bancroft’s index (v. p. 671).

[1063] Both were alike, and one was broken in two. There are engravings in Waldeck, pl. 25; Stephens, ii. 344, 349; Squier’s _Nicaragua_, 1856, ii. 337; Bancroft, iv. 337.

[1064] These have been the subject of an elaborate folio, thought, however, to be of questionable value, _Die Steinbildwerke von Copân und Quiriguâ, aufgenommen von Heinrich Meye; historisch erläutert und beschrieben von Dr. Julius Schmidt_ (Berlin, 1883), of which there is an English translation, _The stone sculptures of Copán and Quiriguá_; translated from the German by A.D. Savage (New York, 1883). It gives twenty plates, Catherwood’s plates, and the cuts in Stephens, with reproductions in accessible books (Bancroft, iv. ch. 3; Powell’s _First Rept. Bur. Ethn._ 224; Ruge’s _Gesch. des Zeitalters; Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 204-6), will serve, however, all purposes.

[1065] Squier says: “There are various reasons for believing that both Copan and Quirigua antedate Olosingo and Palenqué, precisely as the latter antedate the ruins of Quiché, Chichen-Itza, and Uxmal, and that all of them were the work of the same people, or of nations of the same race, dating from a high antiquity, and in blood and language precisely the same that was found in occupation of the country by the Spaniards.”

[1066] Named apparently from a neighboring village.

[1067] Ref. in Bancroft, iv. 79.

[1068] This account can be found in Pacheco’s _Col. Doc. inéd._ vi. 37, in Spanish; in Ternaux’s _Coll._ (1840), imperfect, and in the _Nouv. Annales des Voyages_, 1843, v. xcvii. p. 18, in French; in Squier’s _Cent. America_, 242, and in his ed. of Palacio (N. Y. 1860), in English; and in Alexander von Frantzius’s _San Salvador und Honduras im Jahre_ 1576, with notes by the translator and by C. H. Berendt.

[1069] Stephens, _Cent. Am._, i. 131, 144; Warden, 71; _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, xxxv. 329; Bancroft, iv. 82; _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, 1836, v. 267; Short, 56, 82,—not to name others.

[1070] His account is in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Bull. Soc. de Géog._ 1835; Dupaix, a summary, i. div. 2, p. 73; Bradford’s _Amer. Antiq._, in part. Galindo’s drawings are unknown. Stephens calls his account “unsatisfactory and imperfect.”

[1071] _Central America_, i. ch. 5-7; _Views of Anc. Mts._ It is Stephens’s account which has furnished the basis of those given by Bancroft (iv. ch. 3); Baldwin, p. 111; Short, 356; Nadaillac, 328, and all others. Bancroft in his bibliog. note (iv. pp. 79-81), which has been collated with my own notes, mentions others of less importance, particularly the report of Center and Hardcastle to the Amer. Ethnol. Soc. in 1860 and 1862, and the photographs made by Ellerley, which Brasseur (_Hist. Nat. Civ._ i. 96; ii. 493; _Palenqué_, 8, 17) found to confirm the drawings and descriptions of Catherwood and Stephens.

Stephens (_Cent. Am._, i. 133) made a plan of the ruins reproduced in _Annales des Voyages_ (1841, p. 57), which is the basis of that given by Bancroft (iv. 85). Dr. Julius Schmidt, who was a member of the Squier expedition in 1852-53, furnished the historical and descriptive text to a work which in the English translation by A.D. Savage is known as _Stone Sculptures of Copán and Quiriguá, drawn by Heinrich Meye_ (N. Y., 1883). What Stephens calls the Copan idols and altars are considered by Morgan (_Houses and House Life_, 257), following the analogy of the customs of the northern Indians, to be the grave-posts and graves of Copan chiefs. Bancroft (iv. ch. 3) covers the other ruins of Honduras and San Salvador; and Squier has a paper on those of Tenampua in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1853.

[1072] Stephens’s _Central America_, ii. ch. 7; and _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, vol. lxxxviii. 376, derived from Catherwood.

[1073] Other travellers who have visited them are John Baily, _Central America_ (Lond. 1850); A. P. Maudsley, _Explorations in Guatemala_ (Lond. 1883), with map and plans of ruins, in the _Proc. Roy. Geog. Soc._ p. 185; W. T. Brigham’s _Guatemala_ (N. Y., 1886). Bancroft (iv. 109) epitomizes the existing knowledge; but the remains seem to be less known than any other of the considerable ruins. There are a few later papers: G. Williams on the Antiquities of Guatemala, in the _Smithsonian Report_, 1876; Simeon Habel’s “Sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalhuapa in Guatemala” in the _Smithson. Contrib._ xxii. (Washington, 1878), or “Sculptures de Santa (Lucia) Cosumalwhuapa dans le Guatémala, avec une rélation de voyages dans l’Amérique Centrale et sur les cótes occidentales de l’Amérique du Sud, par S. Habel. Traduit de l’anglais, par J. Pointet,” with eight plates, in the _Annales du Musée Guimet_, vol. x. pp. 119-259 (Paris, 1887); Philipp Wilhelm Adolf Bastian’s “Stein Sculpturen aus Guatemala,” in the _Jahrbuch der k. Museen zu Berlin_, 1882, or “Notice sur les pierres sculptées du Guatémala récemment acquises par le Musée royal d’ethnographie de Berlin. Traduit avec autorisation de l’auteur par J. Pointet,” in the _Annales du Musée Guimet_, vol. x. pp. 261-305 (Paris, 1887); and C. E. Vreeland and J. F. Bransford, on the _Antiquities at Pantaleon, Guatemala_ (Washington, 1885), from the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1884.

[1074] _Nicaragua; its people, scenery, monuments, and the proposed interoceanic canal_ (N. Y., 1856; revised 1860), a portion (pp. 303-362) referring to the modern Indian occupants. Squier was helped by his official station as U. S. chargé d’affaires; and the archæological objects brought away by him are now in the National Museum at Washington. He published separate papers in the _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._ ii.; _Smithsonian Ann. Rept._ v. (1850); _Harper’s Monthly_, x. and xi. Cf. list in Pilling, nos. 3717, etc.

[1075] His explorations were in 1865-66. He carried off what he could to the British Museum.

[1076] Like Bedford Pim and Berthold Seemann’s _Dottings on the Roadside in Panama, Nicaragua, and Mosquito_ (Lond., 1869).

[1077] J. F. Bransford’s “Archæological Researches in Nicaragua,” in the _Smithsonian Contrib._ (Washington, 1881). Karl Bovallius’s _Nicaraguan Antiquities_, with plates (Stockholm, 1886), published by the Swedish Society of Anthropology and Geography, figures various statues and other relics found by the author in Nicaragua, and he says that his drawings are in some instances more exact than those given by Squier before the days of photography. In his introduction he describes the different Indian stocks of Nicaragua, and disagrees with Squier. He gives a useful map of Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

[1078] It is only of late years that they have been kept apart, for the elder writers like Kingsborough, Stephens, and Brantz Mayer, confounded them.

[1079] The Father Alonzo Ponce, who travelled through Yucatan in 1586, is the only writer, according to Brinton (_Books of Chilan Balam_, p. 5), who tells us distinctly that the early missionaries made use of aboriginal characters in giving religious instruction to the natives (_Relacion Breve y Verdadera_).

[1080] Leon y Gama tells us that color as well as form seems to have been representative.

[1081] See references on the accepted difficulties in _Native Races_, ii. 551. Mrs. Nuttall claims to have observed certain complemental signs in the Mexican graphic system, “which renders a misinterpretation of the Nahuatl picture-writings impossible” (_Am. Asso. Adv. Science, Proc._, xxxv. Aug., 1886); _Peabody Mus. Papers_, i. App.

[1082] _Prehist. Man_, ii. 57, 64, for his views

[1083] Bancroft, _Native Races_, ii. ch. 17 (pp. 542, 552) gives a good description of the Aztec system, with numerous references; but on this system, and on the hieroglyphic element in general, see Gomara; Bernal Diaz; Motolinia in Icazbalceta’s _Collection_, i. 186, 209; Ternaux’s _Collection_, x. 250; Kingsborough, vi. 87; viii. 190; ix. 201, 235, 287, 325; Acosta, lib. vi. cap. 7; Sahagún, i. p. iv.; Torquemada, i. 29, 30, 36, 149, 253; ii. 263, 544; Las Casas’s _Hist. Apologética_; Purchas’s _Pilgrimes_, iii. 1069; iv. 1135; Clavigero, ii. 187; Robertson’s _America_; Boturini’s _Idea_, pp. 5, 77, 87, 96, 112, 116; Humboldt’s _Vues_, i. 177, 192; Veytia, i. 6, 250; Gallatin in _Am. Ethn. Soc. Trans._ i. 126, 165; Prescott’s _Mexico_, i. ch. 4; Brasseur’s _Nat. Civ._, i. pp. xv, xvii; Domenech’s _Manuscrit pictographique_, introd.; Mendoza, in the _Boletin Soc. Mex._ Geog., 2^{de} ed. i. 896; Madier de Montjau’s _Chronologie hiéroglyphico-phonetic des rois Aztèques, de 1322 à 1522_, with an introduction “sur l’Ecriture Méxicaine;” Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_, 279, and his _Origin of Civilization_, ch. 2; E. B. Tylor’s _Researches into the Early Hist. of Mankind_, 89; Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, ch. 8; Müller’s _Chips_, i. 317; The Abbé Jules Pipart in _Compte-rendu, Congrès des Amér._ 1877, ii. 346; Isaac Taylor’s _Alphabets_; Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, 322; Nadaillac, 376, not to cite others. Bandelier has discussed the Mexican paintings in his paper “On the sources for aboriginal history of Spanish America” in _Am. Asso. Adv. Science, Proc._, xxvii. (1878). See also _Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 631; and Orozco y Berra’s “Códice Mendozino” in the _Anales del Museo Nacional_, vol. i. Mrs. Nuttall’s views are in the _Peabody Mus., Twentieth Report_, p. 567. Quaritch (_Catal._ 1885, nos. 29040, etc.) advertised some original Mexican pictures; a native MS. pictorial record of a part of the Tezcuco domain (supposed A.D. 1530), and perhaps one of the “pinturas” mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl; a colored Mexican calendar on a single leaf of the same supposed date and origin; with other MSS. of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. (Cf. also his _Catal._, Jan., Feb., 1888.)

The most important studies upon the Aztec system have been those of Aubin. Cf. his _Mémoire sur la peinture didactique et l’écriture figurative des Anciens Méxicains_, in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, iii. 225 (_Revue Orient. et Amér._), in which he contended for the rebus-like character of the writings. He made further contributions to vols. iv. and v. (1859-1861). Cf. his “Examen des anciennes peintures figuratives de l’ancien Méxique,” in the new series of _Archives_, etc., vol. i.; and the introd. to Brasseur’s _Nations Civilisées_, p. xliv.

[1084] Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, ii. ch. 24) translates these from Landa, Peter Martyr, Cogulludo, Villagutierre, Mendieta, Acosta, Benzoni, and Herrera, and thinks all the modern writers (whom he names, p. 770) have drawn from these earlier ones, except, perhaps, Medel in _Nouv. Annales des Voyages_, xcvii. 49. Cf. Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 61. It will be seen later that Holden discredits the belief in any phonetic value of the Maya system. But compare on the phonetic value of the Mexican and Maya systems, Brinton in _Amer. Antiquarian_ (Nov. 1886); Lazarus Geiger’s _Contrib. to the Hist. of the Development of the Human Race_ (Eng. tr. by David Asher). London, 1880, p. 75; and Zelia Nuttall in _Am. Ass. Adv. Sci. Proc._, Aug. 1886.

[1085] Dr. Bernoulli, who died at San Francisco, in California, in 1878, and whose labors are commemorated in a notice in the _Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft_ (vi. 710) at Basle, found at Tikal, in Guatemala, some fragments of sculptured panels of wood, bearing hieroglyphics as well as designs, which he succeeded in purchasing, and they were finally deposited in 1879 in the Ethnological Museum in Basle, where Rosny saw them, and describes them, with excellent photographic representations, in his _Doc. Ecrits de l’Antiq. Amér._ (p. 97). These tablets are the latest additions to be made to the store already possessed from Palenqué, as given by Stephens in his _Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan_; those of the Temple of the Cross at Palenqué, after Waldeck’s drawings in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (ii., 1864); that from Kabah in Yucatan, given by Rosny in his _Archives Paléographiques_ (i. p. 178; Atlas, pl. xx.), and one from Chichen-Itza, figured by Le Plongeon in _L’Illustration_, Feb. 10, 1882; not to name other engravings. Rosny holds that Rau’s _Palenqué Tablet_ (Washington, 1879) gives the first really serviceably accurate reproduction of that inscription. Cf. on Maya inscriptions, Bancroft, ii. 775; iv. 91, 97, 234; Morelet’s _Travels_; and Le Plongeon in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 246. This last writer has been thought to let his enthusiasm—not to say dogmatism—turn his head, under which imputation he is not content, naturally (_Ibid._ p. 282).

[1086] “Landa’s alphabet a Spanish fabrication,” appeared in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1880. In this, Philipp J. J. Valentini interprets all that the old writers say of the ancient writings to mean that they were pictorial and not phonetic; and that Landa’s purpose was to devise a vehicle which seemed familiar to the natives, through which he could communicate religious instruction. His views have been controverted by Léon de Rosny (_Doc. Ecrits de la Antiq. Amér._ p. 91); and Brinton (_Maya Chronicles_, 61), calls them an entire misconception of Landa’s purpose.

[1087] _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. 251.

[1088] _Troano_ MS., p. viii.

[1089] _Relation_, Brasseur’s ed., section xli.

[1090] This is given in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, ii. pl. iv.; in Brasseur’s ed. of Landa; in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. 779; in Short, 425; Rosny (_Essai sur le déchiff._ etc., pl. xiii.) gives a “Tableau des caractères phonétique Mayas d’après Diégo de Landa et Brasseur de Bourbourg.”

[1091] _Manuscrit Troano Etudes sur le système graphique et la langue des Mayas_ (Paris, 1869-70)—the first volume containing a fac-simile of the Codex in seventy plates, with Brasseur’s explications and partial interpretation. In the second volume there is a translation of Gabriél de Saint Bonaventure’s _Grammaire Maya_, a “Chrestomathie” of Maya extracts, and a Maya lexicon of more than 10,000 words. Brasseur published at the same time (1869) in the _Mémoires de la Soc. d’Ethnographie a Lettre à M. Léon de Rosny sur la découverte de documents relatifs à la haute antiquité américaine, et sur le déchiffrement et l’interprétation de l’écriture phonétique et figurative de la langue Maya_ (Paris, 1869). He explained his application of Landa’s alphabet in the introduction to the _MS. Troano_, i. p. 36. Brasseur later confessed he had begun at the wrong end of the MS. (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._, introd.). The pebble-shape form of the characters induced Brasseur to call them _calculiform_; and Julien Duchateau adopted the term in his paper “Sur l’écriture calculiforme des Mayas” in the _Annuaire de la Soc. Amér._ (Paris, 1874), iii. p. 31.

[1092] _L’écriture hiératique_, and _Archives de la Soc. Am. de France_, n. s., ii. 35.

[1093] _Ancient Phonetic Alphabets of Yucatan_ (N. Y., 1870), p. 7.

[1094] It is the development of a paper given at the Nancy session of the Congrès des Américanistes (1875). Landa’s alphabet with the variations make 262 of the 700 signs which Rosny catalogues. He printed his “Nouvelles Recherches pour l’interpretation des caractères de l’Amérique Centrale” in the _Archives_, etc., iii. 118. There is a paper on Rosny’s studies by De la Rada in the Compte-rendu of the Copenhagen session (p. 355) of the Congrès des Américanistes. Rosny’s _Documents écrits de l’antiquité Américaine_ (Paris, 1882), from the _Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie_ (1881), covers his researches in Spain and Portugal for material illustrative of the pre-Columbian history of America. Cf. also his “Les sources de l’histoire anté columbienne du nouveau monde,” in the _Mémoires de la Soc. d’Ethnographie_ (1877). For the titles in full of Rosny’s linguistic studies, see Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, p. 663.

[1095] _Anthropol. Review_, May, 1864; _Memoirs of the Anthropol. Soc._, i.

[1096] _Memoirs_, etc., ii. 298.

[1097] _Memoirs_, etc., 1870, iii. 288; _Trans. Anthrop. Inst. Gt. Britain_.

[1098] Introd. to Cyrus Thomas’s _MS. Troano_.

[1099] _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, _n. s._, i. 250.

[1100] _Actes de la Soc. philologique_, March, 1870. Cf. _Revue de Philologie_, i. 380; _Recherches sur le Codex Troano_ (Paris, 1876); _Actes_, etc., March, 1878; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, App.

[1101] Cf. _Sabin’s Amer. Bibliopolist_, ii. 143.

[1102] _Contributions to N. A. Ethnology, Powell’s Survey_, vol. v. Cf. also his _Phonetic elements in the graphic system of the Mayas and Mexicans_ in the _Amer. Antiquarian_ (Nov., 1886), and separately (Chicago, 1886), and his _Ikonomic method of phonetic writing_ (Phila., 1886). Thomas in _The Amer. Antiquarian_ (March, 1886) points out the course of his own studies in this direction.

[1103] Cf. Short, p. 425. Dr. Harrison Allen in 1875, in the _Amer. Philosophical Society’s Transactions_, made an analysis of Landa’s alphabet and the published codices. Rau, in his _Palenqué Tablet of the U. S. Nat. Museum_ (ch. 5), examines what had been done up to 1879. In the same year Dr. Carl Schultz-Sellack wrote on “Die Amerikanischen Götter der vier Weltgegenden und ihre Tempel in Palenqué,” touching also the question of interpretation (_Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, vol. xi.); and in 1880 Dr. Förstemann examined the matter in his introduction to his reproduction of the Dresden Codex.

[1104] _Studies in Central American picture-writing_ (Washington, 1881), extracted from the _First Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_. His method is epitomized in _The Century_, Dec., 1881. He finds Stephens’s drawings the most trustworthy of all, Waldeck’s being beautiful, but they embody “singular liberties.” His examination was confined to the 1500 separate hieroglyphs in Stephens’s _Central America_. Some of Holden’s conclusions are worth noting: “The Maya manuscripts do not possess to me the same interest as the stones, and I think it may be certainly said that all of them are younger than the Palenqué tablets, far younger than the inscriptions at Copan.” “I distrust the methods of Brasseur and others who start from the misleading and unlucky alphabet handed down by Landa,” by forming variants, which are made “to satisfy the necessities of the interpreter in carrying out some preconceived idea.” He finds a rigid adherence to the standard form of a character prevailing throughout the same inscription. At Palenqué the inscriptions read as an English inscription would read, beginning at the left and proceeding line by line downward. “The system employed at Palenqué and Copan was the same in its general character, and almost identical even in details.” He deciphers three proper names: “all of them have been pure picture-writing, except in so far as their rebus character may make them in a sense phonetic.” Referring to Valentini’s _Landa Alphabet a Spanish Fabrication_, he agrees in that critic’s conclusions. “While my own,” he adds, “were reached by a study of the stones and in the course of a general examination, Dr. Valentini has addressed himself successfully to the solution of a special problem.” Holden thinks his own solution of the three proper names points of departure for subsequent decipherers. The Maya method was “pure picture-writing. At Copan this is found in its earliest state; at Palenqué it was already highly conventionalized.”

[1105] See references in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. 576.

[1106] Cogulludo’s _Hist. de Yucatan_, 3d ed., i. 604.

[1107] Prescott, i. 104, and references.

[1108] Dec. iv., lib. 8.

[1109] Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Troano MS._, i. 9. Cf. on the Aztec books Kirk’s Prescott, i. 103; Brinton’s _Myths_, 10; his _Aborig. Amer. Authors_, 17; and on the Mexican Paper, Valentini in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 2d s., i. 58.

[1110] Cf. Icazbalceta’s _Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga, primer Obispo y Arzobispo de México (1529-48)_. _Estudio biográfico y bibligráfico. Con un apéndice de documentos inéditos ó raros_ (Mexico, 1881). A part of this work was also printed separately (fifty copies) under the title of _De la destruction de antigüedades méxicanas atribuida á los misioneros en general, y particularmente al Illmo. Sr. D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga, primer Obispo y Arzobispo de México_ (Mexico, 1881). In this he exhausts pretty much all that has been said on the subject by the bishop himself, by Pedro de Gante, Motolinía, Sahagún, Duran, Acosta, Davila Padilla, Herrera, Torquemada, Ixtlilxochitl, Robertson, Clavigero, Humboldt, Bustamante, Ternaux, Prescott, Alaman, etc. Brasseur (_Nat. Civil._, ii. 4) says of Landa that we must not forget that he was oftener the agent of the council for the Indies than of the Church. Helps (iii. 374) is inclined to be charitable towards a man in a skeptical age, so intensely believing as Zumárraga was. Sahagún relates that earlier than Zumárraga, the fourth ruler of his race, Itzcohuatl, had caused a large destruction of native writings, in order to remove souvenirs of the national humiliation.

[1111] Humboldt was one of the earliest to describe some of these manuscripts in connection with his _Atlas_, pl. xiii.

[1112] Cf. _Catal. of the Phillipps Coll._, no. 404. An original colored copy of the _Antiquities of Mexico_, given by Kingsborough to Phillipps, was offered of late years by Quaritch at £70-£100; it was published at £175. The usual colored copies sell now for about £40-£60; the uncolored for about £30-£35. It is usually stated that two copies were printed on vellum (British Museum, Bodleian), and ten on large paper, which were given to crowned heads, except one, which was given to Obadiah Rich. Squier, in the _London Athenæum_, Dec. 13, 1856 (Allibone, p. 1033), drew attention to the omission of the last signature of the _Hist. Chichimeca_ in vol. ix.

[1113] Rich, _Bibl. Amer. Nova_, ii. 233; _Gentleman’s Mag._, May, 1837, which varies in some particulars. Cf. for other details Sabin’s _Dictionary_, ix. 485; De Rosny in the _Rev. Orient et Amér._, xii. 387. R. A. Wilson (_New Conquest of Mexico_, p. 68) gives the violent skeptical view of the material.

[1114] Sabin, ix., no. 37,800.

[1115] Léon de Rosny (_Doc. écrits de l’Antiq. Amér._, p. 71) speaks of those in the Museo Archæológico at Madrid.

[1116] _Hist. Nueva España._

[1117] _Pilgrimes_, vol. iii. (1625). It is also included in Thevenot’s _Coll. de Voyages_ (1696), vol. ii., in a translation. Clavigero (i. 23) calls this copy faulty. See also Kircher’s _Œdipus Ægypticus_; Humboldt’s plates, xiii., lviii., lix., with his text, in which he quotes Du Palin’s _Study of Hieroglyphics_, vol. i. See the account in Bancroft, ii. 241.

[1118] Prescott, i. 106. He thinks that a copy mentioned in Spineto’s _Lectures on the Elements of Hieroglyphics_, and then in the Escurial, may perhaps be the original. Humboldt calls it a copy.

[1119] Humboldt placed some tribute-rolls in the Berlin library, and gave an account of them. See his pl. xxxvi.

[1120] Cf. references in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, ii. 529. The “Explicacion” of the MS. is given in Kingsborough’s volume v., and an “interpretation” in vol. vi.

[1121] Kingsborough’s “explicacion” and “explanation” are given in his vols. v. and vi. Rosny has given an “explication avec notes par Brasseur de Bourbourg” in his _Archives paléographiques_ (Paris, 1870-71), p. 190, with an atlas of plates. Cf. references in Bancroft, ii. 530; and in another place (iii. 191) this same writer cautions the reader against the translation in Kingsborough, and says that it has every error that can vitiate a translation. Humboldt thinks his own plates, lv. and lvi., of the codex carefully made.

[1122] Prescott says (i. 108) of this that it bears evident marks of recent origin, when “the hieroglyphics were read with the eye of faith rather than of reason.” Cf. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, ii. 527.

[1123] Portions of it are also reproduced in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_; in Rosny’s _Essai sur le déchiffrement de l’Ecriture Hiératique_; and in Powell’s _Third Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_, p. 56. Cf. also Humboldt’s _Atlas_, pl. xiii.; and H. M. Williams’s translation of his _Aues_, i. 145.

[1124] It is known to have been given in 1665 by the Marquis de Caspi by Count Valerio Zani. There is a copy in the museum of Cardinal Borgia at Veletri.

[1125] Known to have been given in 1677 by the Duke of Saxe-Eisenach to the Emperor Leopold. Some parts are reproduced in Robertson’s _America_, Lond., 1777, ii. 482.

[1126] Humboldt, _Vues des Cordillères_, p. 89; pl. 15, 27, 37; Prescott, i. 106. There is a single leaf of it reproduced in Powell’s _Third Rept. Bur. of Eth._, p. 33.

[1127] Cf. his _Denkwürdigkeiten der Dresdener Bibliothek_ (1744), p. 4.

[1128] Stephens (_Central America_, ii. 342, 453; _Yucatan_, ii. 292, 453) was in the same way at a loss respecting the conditions of the knowledge of such things in his time. Cf. also Orozco y Berra, _Geografia de las Lenguas de México_, p. 101.

[1129] _Die Mayahandschrift der königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden; herausgegeben von E. Förstemann_ (Leipzig, 1880). Only thirty copies were offered for sale at two hundred marks. There is a copy in Harvard College library. Parts of the manuscript are found figured in different publications: Humboldt’s _Vues des Cordillères_, ii. 268, and pl. 16 and 45; Wuttke’s _Gesch. der Schrift. Atlas_, pl. 22, 23 (Leipzig, 1872); _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. i. and ii.; Silvestre’s _Paléographie Universelle_; Rosny’s _Les Ecritures figuratives et hiéroglyphiques des peuples anciens et modernes_ (Paris, 1860, pl. v.), and in his _Essai sur le déchiffrement_, etc.; Ruge, _Zeitalter der Entdeckungen_, p. 559. Cf. also Le Noir in _Antiquités Méxicaines_, ii. introd.; Förstemann’s separate monographs, _Der Maya apparat in Dresden (Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, 1885, p. 182), and _Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift der königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden_ (Dresden, 1886); Schellhas’ _Die Maya-Handschrift zu Dresden_ (Berlin, 1886); C. Thomas on the numerical signs in _Arch. de la Soc. Am. de France_, n. s., iii. 207.

[1130] Cf. Powell’s _Third Rept. Eth. Bureau_, p. 32

[1131] Brinton’s _Maya Chronicles_, 66; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Troano_ (1868).

[1132] It constitutes vol. ii. and iii. of the series.

_Mission scientifique au Méxique et dans l’Amérique Centrale. Ouvrages publiés par ordre de l’Empereur et par les soins du Ministre de l’Instruction publique_ (Paris, 1868-70), under the distinctive title: _Linguistique, Manuscrit Troano. Etudes sur le système graphique et la langue des Mayas, par Brasseur de Bourbourg_ (1869-70).

Rosny, who compared Brasseur’s edition with the original, was satisfied with its exactness, except in the numbering of the leaves; and Brasseur (_Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, 1871) confessed that in his interpretation he had read the MS. backwards. The work was reissued in Paris in 1872, without the plates, under the following title: _Dictionnaire, Grammaire et Chrestomathie de la langue maya, précédés d’une étude sur les système graphique des indigènes du Yucatan (Méxique)_ (Paris, 1872).

Brasseur’s _Rapport, addressé à son Excellence M. Duruy_, included in the work, gives briefly the abbé’s exposition of the MS. Professor Cyrus Thomas and Dr. D. G. Brinton, having printed some expositions in the _American Naturalist_ (vol. xv.) united in an essay making vol. v. of the _Contributions to North American Ethnology_ (Powell’s survey) under the title: _A Study of the Manuscript Troano by Cyrus Thomas, with an introduction by D. G. Brinton_ (Washington, 1882), which gives facsimiles of some of the plates. Thomas calls it a kind of religious calendar, giving dates of religious festivals through a long period, intermixed with illustrations of the habits and employments of the people, their houses, dress, utensils. He calls the characters in a measure phonetic, and not syllabic. Cf. Rosny in the _Archives de la Soc. Am. de France_, n. s., ii. 28; his _Essai sur le déchiffrement_, etc. (1876); Powell’s _Third Rept. Bur. of Eth._, xvi.; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, ii. 774; and Brinton’s _Notes on the Codex Troano and Maya Chronology_ (Salem, 1881).

[1133] Cf. _Science_, iii. 458.

[1134] _Codex Cortesianus. Manuscrit hiératique des anciens Indiens de l’Amérique centrale conservé au Musée archéologique de Madrid. Photographié et publié pour la première fois, avec une introduction, et un vocabulaire de l’écriture hiératique yucatéque par Léon de Rosny_ (Paris, 1883). At the end is a list of works by De Rosny on American archæology and paleography.

[1135] _Archives de la Soc. Am. de France_, n. s., ii. 25.

[1136] _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 95.

[1137] Cf. Rosny in _Archives paléographiques_ (Paris, 1869-71), pl. 117, etc.; and his _Essai sur le dé chiffrement_, etc., pl. viii., xvi.

[1138] [Mr. Markham made a special study of this point in the _Journal of the Roy. Geog. Soc_. (1871), xli. p. 281, collating its authorities. Cf. the views of Marcoy in _Travels in South America_, tr. by Rich, London, 1875.—ED.]

[1139] Except those portions which Garcilasso de la Vega has embodied in his _Commentaries_.

[1140] It is, of course, necessary to consider the weight to be attached to the statements of different authors; but the most convenient method of placing the subject before the reader will be to deal in the present chapter with general conclusions, and to discuss the comparative merits of the authorities in the Critical Essay on the sources of information.

[1141] For special study, see Paz Soldan’s _Geografía del Peru_; Menendez’ _Manual de Geografía del Peru_; and Wiener’s _L’Empire des Incas_, ch. i.—ED.

[1142] “Jusqu’à present on n’a pas retrouvé le maïs, d’une manière certaine, a l’état sauvage” (De Candolle’s _Géographie botanique raisonnée_, p. 951).

[1143] De Candolle, p. 983.

[1144] There is a wild variety in Mexico, the size of a nut, and attempts have been made to increase its size under cultivation during many years, without any result. This seems to show that a great length of time must have elapsed before the ancient Peruvians could have brought the cultivation of the potato to such a high state of perfection as they undoubtedly did.

[1145] Some years ago a priest named Cabrera, the cura of a village called Macusani, in the province of Caravaya, succeeded in breeding a cross between the wild vicuña and the tame alpaca. He had a flock of these beautiful animals, which yielded long, silken, white wool; but they required extreme care, and died out when the sustaining hand of Cabrera was no longer available. There is also a cross between a llama and an alpaca, called _guariso_, as large as the llama, but with much more wool. The guanaco and llama have also been known to form a cross; but there is no instance of a cross between the two wild varieties,—the guanaco and vicuña. The extremely artificial life of the alpaca, which renders that curious and valuable animal so absolutely dependent on the ministrations of its human master, and the complete domestication of the llama, certainly indicate the lapse of many centuries before such a change could have been effected.

[1146] [Cf. remarks of Daniel Wilson in his _Prehistoric Man_, i. 243.—ED.]

[1147] The name is of later date. One story is that, when an Inca was encamped there, a messenger reached him with unusual celerity, whose speed was compared with that of the “_huanaco_.” The Inca said, “_Tia_” (sit or rest), “_O! huanaco_.”

[1148] Basadre’s measurement is 32 inches by 21.

[1149] Quoted by Garcilasso de la Vega, Pte. I. lib. III. cap. 1.

[1150] Basadre mentions a carved stone brought from the department of Ancachs, in Peru, which had some resemblances to the stones at Tiahuanacu. A copy of it is in possession of Señor Raimondi.

[1151] [Cf. plans and views in Squier’s _Peru_, ch. 24.—ED.]

[1152] Cap. 94.

[1153] See page 238.

[1154] The name of the place where these remains are situated is Concacha, from the Quichua word “_Cuncachay_,”—the act of holding down a victim for sacrifice; literally, “to take by the neck.”

[1155] The names of this god were _Con-Illa-Tici-Uira-cocha_, and he was the _Pachayachachic_, or Teacher of the World. _Pacha_ is “time,” or “place;” also “the universe.” “_Yachachic_,” a teacher, from “_Yachachini_,” “I teach.” _Con_ is said to signify the creating Deity (_Betanzos, Garcia_). According to Gomara, Con was a creative deity who came from the north, afterwards expelled by Pachacamac, and a modern authority (Lopez, p. 235) suggests that _Con_ represented the “cult of the setting sun,” because _Cunti_ means the west. _Tici_ means a founder or foundation, and _Illa_ is light, from _Illani_, “I shine:” “The Origin of Light” (_Montesinos. Anonymous Jesuit._ Lopez suggests “_Ati_,” an evil omen,—the Moon God); or, according to one authority, “Light Eternal” (_The anonymous Jesuit_). _Vira_ is a corruption of _Pirua_, which is said by some authorities to be the name of the first settler, or the founder of a dynasty; and by others to mean a “depository,” a “place of abode;” hence a “dweller,” or “abider.” _Cocha_ means “ocean,” “abyss,” “profundity,” “space.” _Uira-cocha_, “the Dweller in Space.” So that the whole would signify “God: the Creator of Light:” “the Dweller in Space: the Teacher of the World.”

Some authors gave the meaning of _Uira-cocha_ to be “foam of the sea:” from _Uira_ (_Huira_), “grease,” or “foam,” and _Cocha_, “ocean,” “sea,” “lake.” Garcilasso de la Vega pointed out the error. In compound words of a nominative and genitive, the genitive is invariably placed first in Quichua; so that the meaning would be “a sea of grease,” not “grease of the sea.” Hence he concludes that _Uira-cocha_ is not a compound word, but simply a name, the derivation of which he does not attempt to explain. Blas Valera says that it means “the will and power of God;” not that this is the signification of the word, but that such were the godlike attributes of the being who was known by it. Acosta says that to _Ticsi Uira-cocha_ they assigned the chief power and command over all things. The anonymous Jesuit tells us that _Illa Ticsi_ was the original name, and that _Uira-cocha_ was added later.

Of these names, _Illa Ticci_ appears to have been the most ancient.

[1156] Cieza de Leon and Salcamayhua.

[1157] Montesinos calls the ancient people, who were peaceful and industrious, _Hatu-runa_, or “Great men.” See also Matienza (MS. Brit. Mus.).

[1158] _The anonymous Jesuit_, p. 178. A work referred to by Oliva as having been written by Blas Valera also mentions some of the early kings by name. (See Saldamando, _Jesuitas del Peru_, p. 22.)

[1159] _Cachi_ (“salt”) was the Inca’s instruction in rational life, _Uchu_ (“pepper”) was the delight the people derived from this teaching, and _Sauca_ (“joy”) means the happiness afterward experienced.

[1160] G. de la Vega.

[1161] Molina, p. 7.

[1162] Pirua?

[1163] Cieza de Leon; Herrera.

[1164] Salcamayhua.

[1165] Blas Valera allows a period of 600 years for the existence of the Inca dynasty, which throws its origin back to the days of Alfred the Great. Garcilasso allows 400 years, which would make its rise to be contemporary with Henry II of England. But twelve generations, allowing twenty-five years for each, would only occupy 300 years.

[1166] Erroneously called _Aymaras_ by the Spaniards. The name, which really belongs to a branch of the Quichua tribe, was first misapplied to the Colla language by the Jesuits at Juli, and afterwards to the whole Colla race.

[1167] Don Modesto Basadre tells us that he sent an Indian messenger, named Alejo Vilca, from Puno to Tacna, a distance of 84 leagues, who did it in 62 hours, his only sustenance being a little dried maize and coca,—over four miles an hour for 152 miles.

[1168] Fray Ludovico Geronimo de Oré, a native of Guamanga, in Peru, was the author of _Rituale seu Manuale ac brevem formam administrandi sacramenta juxta ordinem S. Ecclesiæ Romanœ, cum translationibus in linguas provinciarum Peruanorum_, published at Naples in 1607.

[1169] Cf. Note 1, following this chapter.

[1170] _Chucu_ means a head-dress; _Huaman_, a falcon; _Huacra_, a horn.

[1171] [Ramusio’s plan of Cuzco is given in Vol. II. p. 554, with references (p. 556) to other plans and descriptions; to which may be added an archæological examination by Wiener, in the _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, Oct., 1879, and in his _Pérou et Bolivie_, with an enlarged plan of the town, showing the regions of different architecture; accounts in Marcoy’s _Voyage à travers l’Amérique du Sud_ (Paris, 1869; or Eng. transl. i. 174), and in Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, and by Squier in his Peru, and in his _Remarques sur la Géographie du Pérou_, p. 20.—ED.]

[1172] It is related by Betanzos that one day this Inca appeared before his people with a very joyful countenance. When they asked him the cause of his joy, he replied that Uira-cocha Pachayachachic had spoken to him in a dream that night. Then all the people rose up and saluted him as Viracocha Inca, which is as much as to say,—“King and God.” From that time he was so called. Garcilasso gives a different version of the same tradition, in which he confuses Viracocha with his son.

[1173] Cieza de Leon, ii. 138-44.

[1174] Salcamayhua, 91.

[1175] Blas Valera says 42, Balboa 33, years.

[1176] [The ruins of Atahualpa’s palace are figured in Wiener’s _Pérou et Bolivie_, and in Cte. de Gabriac’s _Promenade à travers l’Amérique du Sud_ (Paris, 1868), p. 196.—ED.]

[1177] The meanings of the names of these Incas are significant. Manco and Rocca appear to be proper names without any clear etymology. The rest refer to mental attributes, or else to some personal peculiarity. Sinchi means “strong.” Lloque is “left-handed.” Yupanqui is the second person of the future tense of a verb, and signifies “you will count.” Garcilasso interprets it as one who will count as wise, virtuous, and powerful. Ccapac is rich; that is, rich in all virtues and attributes of a prince. Mayta is an adverb, “where;” and Salcamayhua says that the constant cry and prayer of this Inca was, “Where art thou, O God?” because he was constantly seeking his Creator. Yahuar-huaccac means “weeping blood,” probably in allusion to some malady from which he suffered. Pachacutec has already been explained. Tupac is a word signifying royal splendor, and Huayna means “youth.” Huascar is “a chain,” in allusion to a golden chain said to have been made in his honor, and held by the dancers at the festival of his birth. The meaning of Atahualpa has been much disputed. _Hualpa_ certainly means any large game fowl. _Hualpani_ is to create. _Atau_ is “chance,” or “the fortune of war.” Garcilasso, who is always opposed to derivations, maintains that Atahualpa was a proper name without special meaning, and that Hualpa, as a word for a fowl, is derived from it, because the boys in the streets, when imitating cock-crowing, used the word Atahualpa. But Hualpa formed part of the name of many scions of the Inca family long before the time of Atahualpa.

[1178] All authorities agree that Manco Ccapac was the first Inca, although Montesinos places him far back at the head of the Pirhua dynasty, and all agree respecting the second, Sinchi Rocca. Lloque Yupanqui, with various spellings, has the unanimous vote of all authorities except Acosta, who calls him “Iaguarhuarque.” But Acosta’s list is incomplete. Respecting Mayta Ccapac and Ccapac Yupanqui, all are agreed except Betanzos, who transposes them by an evident slip of memory. Touching Inca Rocca all are agreed, though Montesinos has Sinchi for Inca, and all agree as to Yahuar-huaccac. It is true that Cieza de Leon and Herrera call him Inca Yupanqui, but this is explained by Salcamayhua when he gives the full name,—Yahuar-huaccac Inca Yupanqui. All agree as to Uira-cocha. As to his successor, Betanzos, Cieza de Leon, Fernandez, Herrera, Salcamayhua, and Balboa mention the short reign of the deposed Urco. Cieza de Leon and Betanzos give Yupanqui as the name of Urco’s brother; all other authorities have Pachacutec. The discrepancy is explained by his names having been Yupanqui Pachacutec. This also accounts for Garcilasso de la Vega and Santillan having made Pachacutec and Yupanqui into two Incas, father and son. Betanzos also interpolates a Yamque Yupanqui. All are agreed with regard to Tupac Inca Yupanqui, Huayna Ccapac, Huascar, and Atahualpa. [There is another comparison of the different lists in Wiener, _L’Empire des Incas_, p. 53.—ED.]

[1179] [See an early cut of this sun-worship in Vol. II. p. 551.—ED.]

[1180] At Pachacamac there was a temple to the coast deity, called locally Pachacamac, and another to the sun; but none to the supreme Creator, one of whose epithets was Pachacamac.

[1181] Spanish authors mention a being called _Supay_, which they say was the devil. _Supay_, as an evil spirit, also occurs in the drama of Ollantay. It may have been some local _huaca_, but no devil as such, entered into the religious belief of the Incas.

[1182] Acosta, Polo de Ondegardo, Garcilasso de la Vega.

[1183] The mummies were those of Incas Uira-cocha, Tupac Yupanqui, and Huayna Ccapac; of Mama Runtu (wife of Uira-cocha) and Mama Ocllo (wife of Tupac Yupanqui).

[1184] Mentioned by Calancha (471) and Arriaga as an oracle at the village of Tauca, in Conchucos. Brinton has built up a myth which he credits to the whole Peruvian people, on the strength of a meaning applied to the word _Catequilla_, which is erroneous. It is exactly the same grammatical error that those etymologists fell into who thought that _Uira-cocha_ signified “foam of the sea.” (_Myths of the New World_, 154.)

[1185] A very interesting account of it, with a sketch, is given by Squier, p. 524.

[1186] _Huatana_ means a halter, from _huatani_, to seize; hence the tying up or encircling of the sun.

[1187] Authorities differ respecting the names of the months, and probably some months had more than one name. But the most accurate list, and that which is most in agreement with all the others, is the one adopted by the first Council of Lima, and given by Calancha. It is as follows:—

1. _Yntip Raymi_ (22 June-22 July), Festival of the Winter Solstice, or _Raymi_.

2. Chahuarquiz (22 July-22 Aug.), Season of ploughing.

3. Yapa-quiz (22 Aug.-22 Sept.), Season of sowing.

4. _Ccoya Raymi_ (22 Sept.-22 Oct.), Festival of the Spring Equinox. _Situa._

5. Uma Raymi (22 Oct.-22 Nov.), Season of brewing.

6. Ayamarca (22 Nov.-22 Dec.), Commemoration of the dead.

* * * * *

7. _Ccapac Raymi_ (22 Dec.-22 Jan.), Festival of the Summer Solstice. _Huaraca._

8. Camay (22 Jan.-22 Feb.), Season of exercises.

9. Hatun-poccoy (22 Feb.-22 March), Season of ripening.

* * * * *

10. _Pacha-poccoy_ (22 March-22 April), Festival of Autumn Equinox. _Mosoc Nina._

11. Ayrihua (22 April-22 May), Beginning of harvest.

12. Aymuray (22 May-22 June), Harvesting month. in Google’s copy

[1188] Judges xii. 39; 2 Kings iii. 27.

[1189] The sacrifices were called _runa_, _yuyac_, and _huahua_. The Spaniards thought that _runa_ and _yuyac_ signified men, and _huahua_ children. This was not the case when speaking of sacrificial victims. _Runa_ was applied to a male sacrifice, _huahua_ to the lambs, and _yuyac_ signified an adult or full-grown animal. The sacrificial animals were also called after the names of those who offered them, which was another cause of erroneous assumptions by Spanish writers. There was a law strictly prohibiting human sacrifices among the conquered tribes; and the statement that servants were sacrificed at the obsequies of their masters is disproved by the fact, mentioned by the anonymous Jesuit, that in none of the burial-places opened by the Spaniards in search of treasure were any human bones found, except those of the buried lord himself.

[1190] Prescott (I. p. 98, note) accepted the statement that human sacrifices were offered by the Incas, because six authorities, Sarmiento, Cieza de Leon, Montesinos, Balboa, Ondegardo, and Acosta—outnumbered the single authority on the other side, Garcilasso de la Vega, who, moreover, was believed to be prejudiced owing to his relationship to the Incas. Sarmiento and Cieza de Leon are one and the same, so that the number of authorities for human sacrifices is reduced to five. Cieza de Leon, Montesinos, and Balboa adopted the belief that human sacrifices were offered up, through a misunderstanding of the words _yuyac_ and _huahua_. Acosta had little or no acquaintance with the language, as is proved by the numerous linguistic blunders in his work. Ondegardo wrote at a time when he scarcely knew the language, and had no interpreters; for it was in 1554, when he was judge at Cuzco. At that time all the annalists and old men had fled into the forests, because of the insurrection of Francisco Hernandez Giron.

The authorities who deny the practice are numerous and important. These are Francisco de Chaves, one of the best and most able of the original conquerors; Juan de Oliva; the Licentiate Alvarez; Fray Marcos Jofre; the Licentiate Falcon, in his _Apologia pro Indis_; Melchior Hernandez, in his dictionary, under the words _harpay_ and _huahua_; the anonymous Jesuit in his most valuable narrative; and Garcilasso de la Vega. These eight authorities outweigh the five quoted by Prescott, both as regards number and importance. So that the evidence against human sacrifices is conclusive. The _Quipus_, as the anonymous Jesuit tells us, also prove that there was a law prohibiting human sacrifices.

The assertion that 200 children and 1,000 men were sacrificed at the coronation of Huayua Ccapac was made; but these “_huahuas_” were not children of men, but young lambs, which are called children; and the “_yuyac_” and “_runa_” were not men, but adult llamas. [Mr. Markham has elsewhere collated the authorities on this point (_Royal Commentaries_, i. 139). Cf. Bollaert’s _Antiq. Researches_, p. 124; and Alphonse Castaing on “Les Fêtes, Offrandes et Sacrifices dans l’Antiquité Peruvienne,” in the _Archives de la Société Américaine de France_, n. s. iii. 239.—ED.]

[1191] The sacrificial llamas bore the names of the youths who presented them. Hence the Spanish writers, with little or no knowledge of the language, assumed that the youths themselves were the victims. (See _ante_, p. 237.)

[1192] _Ñusta_, princess; _calli_, valorous; _sapa_, alone, unrivalled.

[1193] Of the first class were the _Tarpuntay_, or sacrificing priests, and the _Nacac_, who cut up the victims and provided the offerings, whether _harpay_ or bloody sacrifices, _haspay_ or bloodless sacrifices of flesh, or _cocuy_, oblations of corn, fruit, or coca. Molina mentions a custom called _Ccapac-cocha_ or _Cacha-huaca_, being the distribution of sacrifices. An enormous tribute came to Cuzco annually for sacrificial purposes, and was thence distributed by the Inca, for the worship of every huaca in the empire. The different sacrifices were sent from Cuzco in all directions for delivery to the priests of the numerous _huacas_. The ministering priests were called _Huacap Uillac_ when they had charge of a special idol, _Huacap Rimachi_ or _Huatuc_ when they received utterances from a deity while in a state of ecstatic frenzy called _utirayay_, and _Ychurichuc_ when they received confessions and ministered in private families. The soothsayers were a very numerous class. The _Hamurpa_ examined the entrails of sacrifices, and divined by the flight of birds. The _Llayca_, _Achacuc_, _Huatuc_, and _Uira-piricuc_ were soothsayers of various grades. The _Socyac_ divined by maize heaps, the _Pacchacuc_ by the feet of a large hairy spider, the _Llaychunca_ by odds and evens. The recluses were not only _Aclla-cuna_, or virgins congregated in temples under the charge of matrons called _Mama-cuna_. There were also hermits who meditated in solitary places, and appear to have been under a rule, with an abbot called _Tucricac_, and younger men serving a novitiate called _Huamac_. These _Huancaquilli_, or hermits, took vows of chastity (_titu_), obedience (_Huñicui_), poverty (_uscacuy_), and penance (_villullery_).

[1194] [The general works on the Inca civilization necessarily touch these points of their religious customs, and Mr. Markham’s volume on the _Rites and Laws of the Incas_ is a prime source of information. Hawk’s translation of Rivero and Von Tschudi (p. 151) gives references; but special mention may be made of Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_; Castaing’s _Les Système religieux dans l’Antiquité peruvienne_, in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., iii. 86, 145; Tylor’s _Primitive Culture_; Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_; and Albert Réville’s _Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by the native religions of Mexico and Peru. Delivered at Oxford and London, in April and May, 1884. Translated by Philip H. Wicksteed_ (London, 1884. Hibbart lectures).—ED.]

[1195] The Quichua language was spoken over a vast area of the Andean region of South America. The dialects only differ slightly, and even the language of the Collas, called by the Spaniards Aymara, is identical as regards the grammatical structure, while a clear majority of the words are the same. The general language of Peru belongs to that American group of languages which has been called agglutinative by William von Humboldt. These languages form new words by a process of junction which is much more developed in them than in any of the forms of speech in the Old World. They also have exclusive and inclusive plurals, and transitional forms of the verb combined with pronominal suffixes which are peculiar to them. In these respects the Quichua is purely an American language, and in spite of the resemblances in the sounds of some words, which have been diligently collected by Lopez (_Les Races Aryennes du Pérou_, par Vicente F. Lopez, Paris, 1871) and Ellis (_Peruvia Scythica_, by Robert Ellis, B. D., London, 1875), no connection, either as regards grammar or vocabulary, has been satisfactorily established between the speech of the Incas and any language of the Old World. Quichua is a noble language, with a most extensive vocabulary, rich in forms of the plural number, which argue a very clear conception of the idea of plurality; rich in verbal conjugations; rich in the power of forming compound nouns; rich in varied expression to denote abstract ideas; rich in words for relationships which are wanting in the Old World idioms; and rich, above all, in synonyms: so that it was an efficient vehicle wherewith to clothe the thoughts and ideas of a people advanced in civilization.

[1196] Garcilasso, _Com. Real._, i. lib. i. cap. 24, and lib. vii. cap. 1.

[1197] Among several kinds of flutes were the _chayña_, made of cane, the _pincullu_, a small wooden flute, and the _pirutu_, of bone. They also had a stringed instrument called _tinya_, for accompanying their songs, a drum, and trumpets of several kinds, one made from a sea-shell.

[1198] Blas Valera wrote upon the subject of Inca drugs, and I have given a list of those usually found in the bags of the itinerant Calahuaya doctors, in a foot-note at page 186 in vol. i. of my translation of the first part of the _Royal Commentaries_ of Garcilasso de la Vega. An interesting account of the Calahuaya doctors is given by Don Modesto Basadre in his _Riquezas Peruanas_, p. 17 (Lima, 1884).

[1199] In the church of Santa Anna.

[1200] [See pictures of Atahualpa in Vol. II. pp. 515, 516. For a colored plate of “Lyoux d’or péruviens,” emblems of royalty, see _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., i. pl. v.—ED.]

[1201] The truth of this use of gold by the Incas does not depend on the glowing descriptions of Garcilasso de la Vega. A golden breastplate and _topu_, a golden leaf with a long stalk, four specimens of golden fruit, and a girdle of gold were found near Cuzco in 1852, and sent to the late General Echenique, then President of Peru. The present writer had an opportunity of inspecting and making careful copies of them. His drawings of the breastplate and _topu_ were lithographed for Bollaert’s _Antiquarian Researches in Peru_, p. 146. The breastplate was 5-3/10 inches in diameter, and had four narrow slits for suspending it round the neck. The golden leaf was 12-7/10 inches long, including the stem; breadth of the base of the leaf, 3-1/10 inches. The models of fruit were 3 inches in diameter, and the girdle 18¼ inches long.

[1202] “The stones are of various sizes in different structures, ranging in length from one to eight feet, and in thickness from six inches to two feet. The larger stones are generally at the bottom, each course diminishing in thickness towards the top of the wall, thus giving a very pleasing effect of graduation. The joints are of a precision unknown in our architecture, and not rivalled in the remains of ancient art in Europe. The statement of the old writers, that the accuracy with which the stones of some structures were fitted together was such that it was impossible to introduce the thinnest knife-blade or finest needle between them, may be taken as strictly true. The world has nothing to show in the way of stone cutting and fitting to surpass the skill and accuracy displayed in the Inca structures of Cuzco.”

[1203] Place of serpents.

[1204] An unmarried prince of the blood royal; a nobleman. Father, in the Colla dialect.

[1205] A married prince of the blood royal.

[1206] A married princess; a lady of noble family.

[1207] An unmarried princess.

[1208] At the conquest there were 594, but a great number had been killed in the previous civil war.

[1209] Chiefs.

[1210] Principal chiefs.

[1211] Balboa, Montesinos, Santillana.

[1212] The male members of a _Chunca_ were divided into ten classes, with reference to age and consequent ability to work:—

1. _Mosoc-aparic_, “Newly begun.” A baby.

2. _Saya-huarma_, “Standing boy.” A child that could stand.

3. _Macta-puric_, “Walking child.” Child aged 2 to 8.

4. _Ttanta raquisic_, “Bread receiver.” Boy of 8.

5. _Puclacc huarma_, “Playing boy.” Boys from 8 to 16.

6. _Cuca pallac_, “Coca picker.” Age from 16 to 20. Light work.

7. _Yma huayna_, “As a youth.” Age 20 to 25.

8. _Puric ——_, “Able-bodied.” Head of a family; paying tribute.

9. _Chaupi-ruccu_, “Elderly.” Light service. Age 50 to 60.

10. _Puñuc ruccu_, “Dotage.” No work. Sixty and upwards.

A _Chunca_ consisted of ten _Purics_, with the other classes in proportion. The _Puric_ was married to one wife, and, while assisted by the young lads and the elderly men, he supported the children and the old people who could not work. The Peruvian laborer had many superstitions, but he was not devoid of higher religious feelings. This is shown by his practice when travelling. On reaching the summit of a pass he never forgot to throw a stone, or sometimes his beloved pellet of coca, on a heap by the roadside, as a thank-offering to God, exclaiming, _Apachicta muchani!_ “I worship or give thanks at this heap.” Festivals lightened his days of toil by their periodical recurrence, and certain family ceremonials were also recognized as occasions for holidays. There was a gathering at the cradling of a child, called _quirau_. When the child attained the age of one year, the _rutuchicu_ took place. Then he received the name he was to retain until he attained the age of puberty. The child was closely shorn, and the name was given by the eldest relation. With a girl the ceremony was called _quicuchica_, and there was a fast of two days imposed before the naming-day, when she assumed the dress called _aucalluasu_.

[1213] The _tupu_ was a measure of land sufficient to support one man and his wife. It was the unit of land measurement, and a _puric_ received _tupus_ according to the number of those dependent on him. In parts of Peru, especially on the road from Tarma to Xauxa, these small square fields, or _tupus_, may still be seen in great numbers, divided by low stone walls.

[1214] The shares for the _Inca_ and _Huaca_ varied according to the requirements of the state. If needful, the _Inca_ share was increased at the expense of the _Huaca_, but never at the expense of the people’s share.

[1215] From _Taripani_, I examine.

[1216] It should probably be _Apunaca_: _Apu_ is a chief, and _naca_ the plural suffix in the Colla dialect.

[1217] _Hatun_, great, and _uilca_, sacred. This official held a position equivalent to a Christian bishop.

[1218] [On the use of guano see Markham’s _Cieza de Leon_, p. 266, note.—ED.]

[1219] [Max Steffen, in his _Die Landwirtschaft bei den Altamerikanischen Kulturvölkern_ (Leipzig, 1883), gives a list of sources.—ED.]

[1220] [The llamas were used in ploughing. Cf. Humboldt’s _Views of Nature_, p. 125.—ED.]

[1221] A bronze instrument found at Sorata had the following composition, according to an analysis by David Forbes:—

Copper 88.05 Copper 94 Tin 11.42 Tin 6 Iron .36 ——— Silver .17 100 —————— 100.00

Humboldt gave the composition of a bronze instrument found at Vilcabamba as follows:—

[1222] _Fifteenth Report of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum of Ethnology_, vol. iii. 2, p. 140 (Cambridge, 1882).

[1223] [Cf. the plates in the _Necropolis of Ancon_, and De la Rada’s _Les Vases Péruviens du Musée Archéologique de Madrid_, in the _Compte Rendu_ (p. 236) of the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes.—ED.]

[1224] It is believed that some of the heads on the vases were intended as likenesses. One especially, in a collection at Cuzco, is intended, according to native tradition, for a portrait of Rumi-ñaui, a character in the drama of Ollantay.

[1225] _Prehistoric Man_, i. p. 110. A great number of specimens of Peruvian pottery are given in the works of Castelnau, Wiener, Squier, and in the atlas of the _Antigüedades Peruanas_. [Cf. also Marcoy’s _Voyage; Mémoires de la Soc. des Antiquaires du Nord_ (two plates); J. E. Price in the _Anthropological Journal_, iii. 100, and many of the books of Peruvian travel.—ED.]

[1226] [The narratives of the Spanish conquest necessarily throw much light, sometimes more than incidentally, upon the earlier history of the region. These sources are characterized in the critical essay appended to chapter viii. of Vol. II., and embrace bibliographical accounts of Herrera, Gomara, Oviedo, Andagoya, Xeres, Fernandez, Oliva, not to name others of less moment.—ED.]

[1227] See Note II. following this essay.

[1228] Vol. II. p. 573.

[1229] Cf. Vol. II. p. 546.

[1230] _Suma y narracion de los Incas, que los Indios llamaron Capaccuna que fueron señores de la ciudad del Cuzco y de todo lo á ella subjeto. Publícala M. Jiménez de la Espada_ (Madrid, 1880).

[1231] We learn from Leon Pinelo that one of the famous band of adventurers who crossed the line drawn by Pizarro on the sands of Gallo was an author (Antonio, ii. 645). But the _Relacion de la tierra que descubrió Don Francisco Pizarro_, by Diego de Truxillo, remained in manuscript and is lost to us. Francisco de Chaves, one of the most respected of the companions of Pizarro, who strove to save the life of Atahualpa, and was an intimate friend of the Inca’s brother, was also an author. Chaves is honorably distinguished for his moderation and humanity. He lost his own life in defending the staircase against the assassins of Pizarro. He left behind a copious narrative, and his intimate relations with the Indians make it likely that it contained much valuable information respecting Inca civilization. It was inherited by the author’s friend and relation, Luis Valera, but it was never printed, and the manuscript is now lost. The works of Palomino, a companion of Belalcazar, who wrote on the kingdom of Quito, are also lost, with the exception of a fragment preserved in the _Breve Informe_ of Las Casas. Other soldiers of the conquest, Tomas Vasquez, Francisco de Villacastin, Garcia de Melo, and Alonso de Mesa, are mentioned as men who had studied and were learned in all matters relating to Inca antiquities; but none of their writings have been preserved.

[1232] But not dedicated to the Conde de Nieva, as Prescott states, for that viceroy died in 1564.

[1233] B, 135.

[1234] Report by Polo de Ondegardo, translated by Clements R. Markham (Hakluyt Society, 1873).

[1235] [See Vol. II. p. 571.—ED.]

[1236] [See Vol. II. p. 567-8, for bibliography.—ED.]

[1237] [See Vol. II. p. 542.—ED.]

[1238] Additional MSS. 5469, British Museum, folio, p. 274. See Vol. II. p. 571.

[1239] See _ante_, p. 6.

[1240] National Library at Madrid, B, 135.

[1241] _The fables and rites of the Incas, by Christoval de Molina_, translated and edited by Clements R. Markham (Hakluyt Society, 1873).

[1242] [See. Vol. II. p. 576.—ED.]

[1243] For the bibliography of Acosta, see Vol. II. p. 420, 421.

[1244] Notices of the life and works of Acosta have been given in biographical dictionaries, and in histories of the Jesuits. An excellent biography will be found in a work entitled _Los Antiquos Jesuitas del Peru_, by Don Enrique Torres Saldamando, which was published at Lima in 1885. See also an introductory notice in Markham’s edition (1880).

[1245] Thus his lists of the Incas, of the names of months and of festivals, are very defective; and his list of names of stars, though copied from Balboa without acknowledgment, is incomplete.

[1246] Acosta was the chief source whence the civilized world of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, beyond the limits of Spain, derived a knowledge of Peruvian civilization. Purchas, in his _Pilgrimage_ (ed. of 1623, lib. v. p. 869; vi. p. 931), quotes largely from the learned Jesuit, and an abstract of his work is given in Harris’s _Voyages_ (lib. i. cap. xiii. pp. 751-799). He is much relied upon as an authority by Robertson, and is quoted 19 times in Prescott’s _Conquest of Peru_, thus taking the fourth place as an authority with regard to that work, since Garcilasso is quoted 89 times, Cieza de Leon 45, Ondegardo 41, Acosta 19.

[1247] Of whose parentage a pleasing story is told. He was a native of Truxillo, of French parents, his father being a metal-founder. When he was a small boy his father said to him, “Study, little Charles, study! and this bell that I am founding shall be rung for you when you are the bishop.” (“Estudiar, Carlete, estudiar! que con esta campana te han de repicar cuando seas obispo.”) Dr. Corni rose to be a prelate of great virtue and erudition, and an eloquent preacher. At last he became Bishop of Truxillo in 1620, and when he heard the chimes which were rung on his approach to the city, he said, “That bell which excels all the others was founded by my father.” (“Aquella campana que sobresale entre las demas le fundio mi padre.”)

[1248] _Papeles Varios de Indias._ MS. Brit. Mus.

[1249] This last work is devoted to the Spanish conquest.

[1250] In the series entitled _Coleccion de libros Españoles raros ó curiosos_, tom xvi. (Madrid, 1882.) [The original manuscript is in the library of the Real Academia de Historia at Madrid. Brasseur de Bourbourg had a copy (_Pinart Catalogue_, No. 638; _Bibl. Mex. Guat._, p. 103), which appeared also in the Del Monte sale (N. Y., June, 1888,—_Catalogue_, iii. no. 554). Cf. the present _History_, II. pp. 570, 577.—ED.]

[1251] _Relacion de las costumbres antiquas de los naturales del Peru. Anónima._ The original is among the manuscript in the National Library at Madrid. It was published as part of a volume entitled _Tres Relaciones de Antigüedades Peruanas_. _Publícalas el Ministerio de Fomento_ (Madrid, 1879).

[1252] _Narrative of the errors, false gods, and other superstitions and diabolical rites in which the Indians of the province of Huarochiri lived in ancient times, collected by Dr. Francisco de Avila, 1608: translated and edited by Clements R. Markham_ (Hakluyt Society, 1872). [There was a copy of the Spanish MS. in the E. G. Squier sale, 1876, no. 726.—ED.]

[1253] _Tratado de las idolatrias de los Indios del Peru._ This work is mentioned by Leon Pinelo as “una obra grande y de mucha erudicion,” but it was never printed.

[1254] _Contra idolatriam_, MS.

[1255] _Extirpacion de la idolatria del Peru, por el Padre Pablo Joseph de Arriaga_ (Lima, 1621, pp. 137).

[1256] [See Vol. II. p. 570. The _Historiæ Pervanæ ordinis Eremitarum S. P. Augustini libri octodecim (1651-52)_ is mainly a translation of Calancha. Cf. Sabin, nos. 8760, 9870.—ED.]

[1257] _Historia de Copacabana y de su milagrosa imagen, escrita por el R. P. Fray Alonso Ramos Gavilan_ (1620). The work of Ramos was reprinted from an incomplete copy at La Paz in 1860, and edited by Fr. Rafael Sans.

[1258] _Origen de los Indios del Nuevo Mundo_ (1607), and in Barcia (1729).

[1259] _Monarquia de los Incas del Peru._ Antonio says of this work, “Tertium quod promiserat adhuc latet nempe.”

[1260] _Historia general del Peru, origen y descendencia de los Incas, pueblos y ciudades, por P. Fr. Martin de Múrua_ (1618). [Cf. Markham’s _Cieza’s Travels_, Second Part, p. 12.—ED.]

[1261] He was a cousin of the poet of the same name, and of the dukes of Feria.

[1262] See Vol. II. pp. 290, 575.

[1263] The _Commentarios Reales_ (Part I.) of Garcilassos de la Vega contain 21 quotations from Blas Valera, 30 from Cieza de Leon (first part), 27 from Acosta, 11 from Gomara, 9 from Zarate, 3 from the _Republica de las Indias Occidentales_ of Fray Geronimo Roman, 2 from Fernandez, 4 from the Inca’s schoolfellow Alcobasa, and 1 from Juan Botero Benes.

[1264] In a learned pamphlet on the word _Uirakocha_,—“_Lexicologia Keshua por Leonardo Villar_” (pp. 16, double columns. Lima, 1887).

[1265] [The common expression of distrust is such as is shown by Hutchinson in his _Two Years in Peru_, who finds little to commend amid a constant glorification of the Incas to the prejudice of the older peoples; and by Marcoy in his _Travels in South America_, who speaks of his “simple and audacious gasconades” (Eng. trans. i. p. 186).—ED.]

[1266] Cf. the bibliography of the book in Vol. II. pp. 569, 570, 575.—ED.

[1267] By Clements R. Markham, in 1872.

[1268] [Cf. bibliog. of Herrera in Vol. II. pp. 67, 68.—ED.]

[1269] _Informaciones acerca del Señorio y Gobierno de los Ingas hechas, por mandado de Don Francisco de Toledo Virey del Peru_ (1570-72). Edited by Don Márcos Jiménez de la Espada, in the _Coleccion de libros Españoles raros ó curiosos_, Tomo xvi. (Madrid, 1882).

[1270] We first hear of Sarmiento in a memorial dated at Cuzco on March 4, 1572, in which he says that he was the author of a history of the Incas, now lost. We further gather that, owing to having found out from the records of the Incas that Tupac Inca Yupanqui discovered two islands in the South Sea, called _Ahuachumpi_ and _Ninachumpi_, Sarmiento sailed on an expedition to discover them at some time previous to 1564. Balboa also mentions the tradition of the discovery of these islands by Tupac Yupanqui. Sarmiento seems to have discovered islands which he believed to be those of the Inca, and in 1567 he volunteered to command the expedition dispatched by Lope de Castro, then governor of Peru, to discover the Terra Australis. But Castro gave the command to his own relation, Mandana. We learn, however, from the memorial of Sarmiento, that he accompanied the expedition, and that the first land was discovered through shaping a course in accordance with his advice. Sarmiento submitted a full report of this first voyage of Mandana, which is now lost, to the Viceroy Toledo. In 1579, Sarmiento was sent to explore the Straits of Magellan. In 1586, on his way to Spain, he was captured by an English ship belonging to Raleigh, and was entertained hospitably by Sir Walter at Durham House until his ransom was collected. From the Spanish captive his host obtained much information respecting Peru and its Incas. He could have no higher authority. One of the journals of the survey of Magellan Straits by Sarmiento was published at Madrid in 1768: _Viage al estrecho de Magellanes: por el Capitan Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, en los años 1579 y 1580_. See Vol. II. p. 616.

[1271] [Cf. Vol. II. p. 571.]

[1272] _Historia del Reino de Quito, en la America Meridional, escrita por el Presbitero Don Juan de Velasco nativo de Mismo Reino, año de 1789._ A Spanish edition, _Quito, Imprenta del Gobierno_, 1844, 3 Tomos, was printed from the manuscript, _Histoire du Royaume de Quito, por Don Juan de Velasco_ (_inédite_,) vol. ix. _Voyages, &c., par H. Ternaux Compans_ (Paris, 1840). This version, however, covers only a part of the work, of which the second volume only relates to the ancient history. [Cf. Vol. II. p. 576.—ED.]

[1273] [Cf. Vol. II. p. 578.—ED.]

[1274] [Cf. Vol. II. p. 577; Sabin’s _Dictionary_, xv. p. 439. The opinions of Prescott can be got at through _Poole’s Index_, p. 993. H. H. Bancroft, _Chronicles_, 25, gives a characteristic estimate of Prescott’s archæological labors. Prescott’s catalogue of his own library, with his annotations, is in the Boston Public Library, no. 6334.27.—ED.]

[1275] Prescott quotes these four authorities 249 times, and all other early writers known to him (Herrera, Zarate, Betanzos, Balboa, Montesinos, Pedro Pizarro, Fernandez, Gomara, Levinus Apollonius, Velasco, and the MS. “Declaracion de la Audiencia”) 82 times.

[1276] Calancha and a MS. letter of Valverde. He also refers several times to the _Antigüedades Peruanas_ of Tschudi and Rivero.

[1277] _Spanish Conquest in America_, vol. iii. book xiii. chap. 3, pp. 468 to 513. [Cf. Vol. II. p. 578.]—ED.

[1278] It was translated into English as _Peruvian Antiquities_, by Dr. Francis L. Hawkes, of New York, in 1853. [The English translation retained the woodcuts, but omitted the atlas. Cf. Field, _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1306; Sabin, xvii. p. 319. There is a French edition, _Antiquités Péruviennes_ (Paris, 1859). Dr. Tschudi later published _Reisen durch Süd Amerika_, in five vols. (Leipzig, 1866-69), which was translated into English as _Travels in Peru_, 1838-1842, and published in New York and London.—ED.]

[1279] _Los Anales del Cuzco, por Dr. Mesa_ (Cuzco, 2 vols.).

[1280] _Historia Antigua del Peru, por Sebastian Lorente_ (Lima, 1860).

[1281] _Historia de la civilizacion Peruana, Revista de Lima_ (Lima, 1880).

[1282] _Recuerdos de la Monarquia Peruana, ó Bosquejo de la historia de los Incas, por Dr. Justo Sahuaraura Inca, Canonigo en la Catedral de Cuzco_ (Paris, 1850).

[1283] _Le Pérou avant la conquête espagnole, d’après les principaux historiens originaux et quelques documents inédits sur les antiquités de ce pays_ (Paris, 1858).

[1284] _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen, von J. G. Müller_ (Basel, 1867).

[1285] _Anthropologie der Naturvölker, von Dr. Theodor Waitz_ (4 vols.) Leipzig, 1864.

[1286] _Myths of the New World, a treatise on the symbolism and mythology of the Red Race of America, by Daniel G. Brinton, M.D._ (New York, 1868). _Aboriginal American authors and their productions, especially those in the native languages, by Daniel G. Brinton, M.D._ (Philadelphia, 1883). [Brinton’s writings, however, in the main illustrate the antiquities north of Panama.]

[1287] _Antiquarian, ethnological and other researches in New Granada, Equador, Peru, and Chile; with observations on the Pre-Incarial, Incarial, and other monuments of Peruvian nations, by William Bollaert, F.R.G.S._ (London, 1860). [Bollaert’s minor and periodical contributions, mainly embodied in his final work, are numerous: _Contributions to an introduction to the Anthropology of the New World_. _Ancient Peruvian graphic Records_ (tr. in _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., i.). _Observations on the history of the Incas_ (in the _Transactions Ethnological Soc._, 1854).—ED.]

[1288] _Vues des Cordillères, ou Monumens des Peuples indigènes de l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1810; in 8vo, 1816), called in the English translation, _Researches concerning the institutions and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of America, with descriptions and views of some of the most striking scenes in the Cordilleras_. _Transl. into English by Helen Maria Williams_ (London, 1814). _Voyage aux Régions équinoxiales du Nouveau Continent fait en 1799-1804, avec deux Atlas_, 3 vols. 4to (Paris, 1814-25; and 8vo, 13 vols., 1816-31), called in the English translation, _Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of America, 1799-1804, by A. von Humboldt_ [_and A. Bonpland_]: _translated and edited by Thomasina Ross_ (Lond., 1852); and in earlier versions by H. M. Williams (London, 1818-1829). [Humboldt’s later summarized expressions are found in his _Ansichten der Natur_ (Stuttgart, 1849; English tr., _Aspects of Nature_, by Mrs. Sabine, London and Philad., 1849; and _Views of Nature_, by E. C. Otté, London, 1850). Current views of Humboldt’s American studies can be tracked through _Poole’s Index_, p. 613.—ED.]

[1289] Antonio Ulloa’s _Mémoires philosophiques, historiques, physiques, concernant le découverte de l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1787). _Voyage historique de l’Amérique Méridionale, fait par ordre du Roy d’Espagne; ouvrage qui contient une histoire des Yncas du Pérou, et des observations astronomiques et physiques, faites pour déterminer la figure et la grandeur de la terre_ (Amsterdam, 1732). Or in the English translation, _Voyage to South America by Don Jorge Juan and Don Antonio de Ulloa_, 2 vols. 8vo (London, 1758, 1772; fifth ed. 1807). [Another of the savans in this scientific expedition was Charles M. La Condamine, and we have his observations in his _Journal du Voyage fait à l’Equateur_ (1751), and in a paper on the Peruvian monuments in the Mémoires of the Berlin Academy (1746). Other early observers deserving brief mention are Pedro de Madriga, whose account is appended to Admiral Jacques d’Heremite’s _Journael van de Nassausche Vloot_ (Amsterdam, 1652), and Amedée François Frezier’s _Voyage to the South Sea_ (London, 1717).—ED.]

[1290] _L’Homme Américain considéré sous ses Rapports Physiologiques et Moraux_ (Paris, 1839). [He gives a large ethnological map of South America. His book is separately printed from _Voyages dans l’Amérique Meridionale_ (9 vols.)—ED.]

[1291] _Expédition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique de Sud, exécutée par ordre du Gouvernement Français pendant les annees 1843 à 1847. Troisième partie, Antiquités des Incas_ (4to, Paris, 1854).

[1292] _Pérou et Bolivie, Récit de voyage suivi d’études archéologiques et ethnographiques et de notes sur l’écriture et les langues des populations Indiennes. Ouvrage contenant plus de 1100 gravures, 27 cartes et 18 plans, par Charles Wiener_ (Paris, 1880). [Wiener earlier published two monographs: _Notice sur le communisme des Incas_ (Paris, 1874); _Essai sur les institutions politiques, religieuses, économiques et sociales de l’Empire des Incas_ (Paris, 1874).—ED.]

[1293] _Uira-cocha, por Leonardo Villar_ (Lima, 1887).

[1294] _Cuzco and Lima_ (London, 1856).

[1295] _Travels in Peru and India while superintending the collection of chinchona plants and seeds in South America, and their introduction into India_ (London, 1862). [Cf. Field’s _Indian Bibliog._ for notes on Mr. Markham’s book. He epitomizes the accounts of Peruvian antiquities in his _Peru_ (London, 1880), of the “Foreign Countries Series.” Cf. Vol. II. p. 578.]—ED.

[1296] _Peru, Incidents of travel and exploration in the land of the Incas_ (N. Y. 1877; London, 1877). [Squier was sent to Peru on a diplomatic mission by the United States government in 1863, and this service rendered, he gave two years to exploring the antiquities of the country. His _Peru_ embodies various separate studies, which he had previously contributed to the _Journal of the American Geographical Society_ (vol. iii. 1870-71); the _American Naturalist_ (vol. iv. 1870); _Harper’s Monthly_ (vols. vii., xxxvi., xxxvii.). He contributed “Quelques remarques sur la géographie et les monuments du Pérou” to the _Bulletin de la Société de géographie de Paris_, Jan., 1868. A list of Squier’s publications is appended to the Sale _Catalogue_ of his Library (N. Y., 1876), which contains a list of his MSS., most of which, it is believed, passed into the collection of H. H. Bancroft. Mr. Squier’s closing years were obscured by infirmity; he died in 1888.—ED.]

[1297] [Among the recent travellers, mention may be made of a few of various interests: Edmund Temple’s _Travels in Peru_ (Lond., 1830); Thomas Sutcliffe’s _Sixteen Years in Chili and Peru_ (Lond., 1841); S. S. Hill’s _Travels in Peru and Mexico_ (Lond., 1860); Thos. J. Hutchinson’s _Two Years in Peru_ (with papers on prehistoric anthropology in the _Anthropological Journal_, iv. 438, and “Some Fallacies about the Incas,” in the _Proc. Lit. and Phil. Soc. of Liverpool_, 1873-74, p. 121); Marcoy’s _Voyage_, first in the _Tour du Monde_, 1863-64, and then separately in French, and again in English; E. Pertuiset’s _Le Trésor des Incas_ (Paris, 1877); and Comte d’Ursel’s _Sud-Amérique_, 2d ed. (Paris, 1879). F. Hassaurek, in his _Four Years among Spanish Americans_ (N. Y., 1867), epitomizes in his ch. xvi. the history of Quito.—ED.]

[1298] _Intellectual Observer_, May, 1863 (London).

[1299] _Riquezas Peruanas_ (Lima, 1884).

[1300] _The temple of the Andes, by Richards Inwards_ (London, 1884). [Mr. Markham has also had occasion to speak of these ruins in annotating his edition of Cieza de Leon, p. 374. There is a privately printed book by L. Angrand, _Antiquités Américaines: lettres sur les antiquités de Tiaguanaco, et l’origine présumable de la plus ancienne civilisation du Haut-Pérou_ (Paris, 1866).—ED.]

[1301] This superb work was issued at Berlin and London with German and English texts. The English title reads, _Peruvian Antiquities: the Necropolis of Ancon in Peru. A contribution to our knowledge of the culture and industries of the empire of the Incas. Being the results of excavations made on the spot._ Translated by A. H. Keane. With the aid of the general administration of the royal museums of Berlin (Berlin, 1880-87); in three folio volumes, with 119 colored and plain plates. The divisions are: 1. The Necropolis and its graves. 2. Garments and textiles. 3. Ornaments, utensils, earthenware; evolution of ornamentation, with treatises by L. Wittmack on the plants found in the graves; R. Virchow on the human remains, and A. Nehring on the animals. [A few of the plates are reproduced in black and white in Ruge’s _Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_. The authors represent that the graveyard of Ancon, an obscure place lying near the coast, north of Lima, was probably the burial-place of a poor people; but its obscurity has saved it to us while important places have been ransacked and destroyed. The reader will be struck with the richness of the woven materials, which are so strikingly figured in the plates. On this point Stübel published in Dresden in 1888, as a part of the _Festschrift_ of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the “Verein für Erdkunde,” a paper _Ueber altperuanische Gewebemuster und ihnen analoge Ornamente der altklassischen Kunst_ (Dresden, 1888). Some of the plates in the larger work impress one with the great variety of ornamenting skill. The collection formed by John H. Blake from an ancient cemetery on the bay of Chacota, now in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Mass., is described in the _Reports_ of that institution, xi. 195, 277. Reference may also be made to B. M. Wright’s _Description of the collection of gold ornaments from the “huacas,” or graves of some aboriginal races of the northwestern provinces of South America, belonging to Lady Brassey_ (London, 1885).—ED.]

[1302] Antonio Raimondi. _El Peru. Tomo I. Parte Preliminar, 4to, pp. 444_ (Lima, 1874). _Tomo II. Historia de la Geografia del Peru, 4to, pp. 475_ (Lima, 1876). _Tomo III. Historia de la Geografia del Peru, 4to, pp. 614_ (Lima, 1880).

[1303] _Voyages, Relations et Mémoires Originaux pour servir à l’Histoire de la Découverte de l’Amérique_, 20 vols. in 10, 8vo (Paris, 1837-41). See Vol. II., introd. p. vi.

[1304] [Among less important or more general later writers on this ancient civilization may be mentioned: Charles Labarthe’s _La Civilisation péruvienne avant l’arrivée des Espagnols (Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., i.), and his paper from the _Annuaire Ethnographique_, on the “Documents inédits sur l’empire des Incas” (Paris, 1861); Rudolf Falb’s _Das Land der Inca in seiner Bedeutung für die Urgeschichte der Sprache und Schrift_ (Leipzig, 1883); Lieut. G. M. Gilliss, in Schoolcraft’s _Ind. Tribes_, v. 657; Dr. Macedo’s comparison of the Inca and Aztec civilizations in the _Proc. of the Numism. and Antiq. Soc._ (Philad. 1883); Vicomte Th. de Bussière’s _Le Pérou_ (Paris, 1863); beside chapters in such comprehensive works as those of Nadaillac, Ruge, Baldwin, Wilson (_Prehistoric Man_), and the papers of Castaing and others in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, and an occasional paper in the _Journals_ of the American and other geographical and ethnological societies. Current English comment is reached through _Poole’s Index_, pp. 627, 992.—ED.]

[1305] [Humboldt (_Views of Nature_, 235) points out that the name Chimborazo is probably a relic of this earlier tongue.—ED.]

[1306] [Wiener, _Pérou et Bolivie_, p. 98, gives a plan of the neighborhood of Truxillo, showing the position “du Gran Chimu,” and an enlarged plan of the ruins.—ED.]

[1307] Squier, 210.

[1308] [There are two or three Peruvian periodicals of some importance for their archæological papers. The _Mercurio Peruano de Historia, Literatura y Noticias publicas que da a luz la Sociedad Academica de Amantes de Lima_ (Lima, 1791-1795), appeared in twelve volumes. It is often defective, and the Spanish government finally interdicted it, as it was considered revolutionary in principle. It was edited at one time by the Père Cisneros. There is a set in Harvard College library.

The _Revista Peruana_ (Lima) has been the channel of some important archæological contributions. Others appeared in the _Museo Erudito, o los Tiempos y las Costumbres_ (Cuzco, 1837, etc.)—ED.]

[1309] Squier.

[1310] I do not now believe that the idolatrous practices and legends, preserved by Arriaga and Avila, had any connection with the _Chimu_ race.

[1311] _Grammatica o Arte de la lengua general de los Indios de los Reynos del Peru, nuevamente compuesta por el Maestro Fray Domingo de S. Thomas de la orden de S. Domingo, Morador en los dichos reynos. Impresso en Valladolid por Francisco Fernandez de Cordova, 1560. Lexicon ó Vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru, llamada Quichua_ (Valladolid, 1560). The grammar and vocabulary are usually bound up together. [The two were priced respectively by Leclerc, in 1878, at 2,500 and 600 francs.—ED.]

The grammar and vocabulary of San Tomas were reprinted at Lima in 1586 by Antonio Ricardo. In the list given by Rivero and Von Tschudi (_Antigüedades Peruanas_, p. 99), the printer Ricardo is entered as the author of this Lima edition of San Tomas.

[1312] _Grammatica y Vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada Quichua por Diego de Torres Rubio S. S._ (Seville, 1603). This original edition is of great rarity. Quaritch, in 1885, asked £20 for a defective copy.—ED.

A second edition was printed at Lima in 1619; and a third in 1700. To this third edition a vocabulary was added of the Chinchaysuyu dialect, by Juan de Figueredo. A fourth edition was published at Lima in 1754, also containing the Chinchaysuyu vocabulary, which is spoken in the north of Peru. [For this 1754 edition see Leclerc, no. 2409. It is worth about $50.—ED.]

[1313] _Vocabulario de la Lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua Quichua ó del Inca._ En la ciudad de los Reyes, 1586. Second edition printed by Francisco del Canto, 1607 (2 vols. 4to). [Leclerc (no. 2401), in 1879, priced this ed. at 2,000 francs; Quaritch, a defective copy, £21.—ED.]

[1314] _Gramatica y Arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua Quichua o Lengua del Inca por Diego Gonzales Holguin de la Compañia de Jesus, natural de Caceres Impresso en la Ciudad de los Reyes del Peru, por Francisco del Canto, 1607._ [Leclerc, 1879, no. 2402, 500 francs.—ED.] A second edition was published at Lima in 1842.

[1315] _Arte y gramatica muy copiosa de la lengua Aymará con muchos y variados modos de hablar_ (Roma, 1603).

[1316] _Arte de la lengua Aymará con una selva de frases en la misma lengua y su declaracion en romance. Impresso en la casa de in Compañia de Jesus de Juli en la provincia de Chucuyto. Por Francisco del Canto, 1612._ pp. 348.

[1317] _Vocabulario de la lengua Aymara, Juli 1612_, Spanish and Aymara, pp. 420, Aymara and Spanish, pp. 378. [Priced by Quaritch in 1885 at £60; by Leclerc in 1879 at 2,000 francs.—ED.]

[1318] _Arte de la lengua general del’ ynga llamada Quechhua_ (Lima, 1691). Leclerc, 1879. 250 francs.

[1319] _Arte de la lengua Yunga de los valles del Obispado de Truxillo, con un confesionario, y todos las ovaciones cristianas y otras casas. Autor el beneficiado Don Fernando de la Carrera Cura y Vicario de San Martin de Reque en el corregimiento de Chiclayo_ (Lima, 1644).

This work is extremely rare. Only three copies are known to exist, one in the library at Madrid, one in the British Museum, which belonged to M. Ternaux Compans, and one in possession of Dr. Villar, in Peru. A copy was made for William von Humboldt from the British Museum copy, which is now in the library at Berlin.

The _Arte de la lengua Yunga_ was reprinted in numbers of the _Revista de Lima_ in 1880, under the editorial supervision of Dr. Gonzalez de la Rosa.

[1320] _Sermones de los misterios de nuestra Santa Fé catolica, en lengua Castellana, y la general del Inca. Impugnanse los errores particulares que los Indios han tenido, por el Doctor Don Fernando de Avendaño, 1648._ Rivero and Von Tschudi give some extracts from these sermons in the _Antigüedades Peruanas_, p. 108.

[1321] _Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum juxta ordinem Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ, per R. P. F. Ludovicum Hieronymum Orerum_ (Neapoli, 1607).

[1322] Carter-Brown, ii. 7.

[1323] _Primera parte de la miscelanea austral de Don Diego D’Avalos y Figueroa ex varias coloquias, interlocutores Delia y Cilena, con la defensa de Danias. Impreso en Lima por Antonio Ricardo, año 1602._

[1324] _Die Kechua Sprache, I._; _Sprachlehre, II._; _Wörterbuch, von J. J. Von Tschudi_ (Wien, 1853).

[1325] _Gramatica y Diccionario de la lengua general de Peru, llamada comunmuente Quichua, por el R. P. Fr. Honorio Mossi, Misionero Apostolico del colejio de propaganda fide de la ciudad de Potosi_ (Sucre, 1859). [An earlier _Gramática y Ensayo_ was published at Sucre in 1857. Leclerc says it has become very rare.—ED.]

[1326] _Gramatica Quichua o del idioma del Imperio de los Incas, por José Dionisio Anchorena_ (Lima, 1874).

[1327] _Elementos de Gramatica Quichua ó idioma de los Yncas por el Dr. José Fernandez Nodal._ The book was printed in England in 1874.

[1328] _El Evangelio de Jesu Christo segun San Lucas en Aymara y Español, traducido de la vulgata Latin al Aymará por Don Vicente Pazos-kanki, Doctor de la Universidad del Cuzco e Individuo de la Sociedad Historica de Nueva York_ (Londres, 1829).

[1329] _Apunchis Santa Yoancama Ehuangeliun, Quichua cayri Ynca siminpi quillkcasca. El Santo Evangelio de Nuestro Señor Jesu-Christo segun San Juan, traducido del original a la lengua Quichua o del Ynca; por el Rev. J. H. Gybbon Spilsbury, Buenos Aires, 1880._

[1330] _Les Races Aryennes du Pérou, leur langue, leur religion, leur histoire, par Vicente Fidel Lopez_ (Paris et Montevideo, 1871). [Lopez’s book was subjected to an examination by Lucien Adam, in a paper, “Le Quichua, est il une langue aryenne?” in the Luxembourg _Compte-Rendu du Congrés des Américanistes_, ii. 75. Cf. _Macmillan’s Mag._, xxvii. 424, by A. Lang.—ED.]

[1331] _Peruvia Scythica. The Quichua language of Peru: its derivation from Central Asia, with the American languages in general, and with the Turanian and Iberian languages of the Old World, including the Basque, the Llycian, and the Pre-Aryan language of Etruria; by Robert Ellis, B. D._ (Trübner & Co., London, 1875).

[1332] _Ollanta: ein Altperuanisches Drama aus der Kechuasprache, übersetzt und commentirt von J. J. von Tschudi_ (Wien, 1875).

[1333] _Ollanta, an ancient Inca Drama_, by Clements R. Markham (London, 1871).

[1334] _Ollanta o sea la severidad de un padre y la clemencia de un rey drama traducido del Quichua al Castellano por José S. Barranca_ (Lima, 1868).

[1335] _Ollanta por Constantino Carrasco_ (Lima, 1876).

[1336] _Los vinculos de Ollanta y Cusi Kcoyllor, Drama en Quichua. José Fernandez Nodal._ Dr. Nodal commenced, but never completed, an English translation.

[1337] _Collection Linguistique Americaine. Tome iv. Ollanaï, drama en vers Quechuas du temps des Incas traduit et commenté, par Gavino Pacheco Zegarra_ (Paris, 1878), pp. clxxiv and 265.

[1338] _Ollantay. Estudio sobre el drama Quichua, por Bartolomé Mitre, publicada en la Nueva Revista de Buenos Ayres_ (1881).

[1339] _Poesia Dramatica de los Incas. Ollantay, por Clemente R. Markham traducido del Ingles por Adolfo F. Olivares, y seguido de una carta critica del Dr. Don Vicente Fidel Lopez_ (Buenos Ayres, 1883).

[1340] See Vol. IV. p. 141.

[1341] A most graphic and picturesque account of the ceremonies attending the process of adoption is given in the _Narrative of the Captivity of Col. James Smith_. He was taken prisoner, in May, 1755, by two Delaware Indians, and carried to Fort Duquesne. He describes the methods of the men and the women in an Indian town by which he was adopted as one of the Caughnewagos. He shared the life and rovings of the tribe till 1760, when he got back to his home; accompanied Bouquet as a guide; was colonel of a regiment in our Revolutionary War, and afterwards a member of the Kentucky legislature. Here certainly was a varied career.

[1342] Governor Colden says that when he first went among the Mohawks he was adopted by them. The name given to him was “Cayenderogue,” which was borne by an old sachem, a notable warrior. He writes: “I thought no more of it at that time than as an artifice to draw a belly-full of strong liquor from me for himself and his companions. But when, about ten or twelve years after, my business led me among them,” he was recognized by the name, and it served him in good stead. (_Hist. of Five Nats._, 3d ed., i. p. 11.) The savages always took the liberty of assigning names of their own, either general or individual, to the Europeans with whom they had intercourse. The governor of Canada, for the time being, was called “Onontio”; of New York, “Corlear”; of Virginia, “Assarigoa”; of Pennsylvania, “Onas,” etc. At a council of the Six Nations with the governors of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland, held at Lancaster in June, 1744, it came under notice that the governor of Maryland had as yet no appellation assigned him by the natives. Much formality was used in providing one for him. It was tried by lot as to which of the tribes should have the honor of naming him. The lot fell to the Cayugas, one of whose chiefs, after solemn deliberation, assigned the name “To-carryhogan.” (Colden, ii. p. 89.)

[1343] From Archives of Massachusetts, vol. lxviii. p. 193:—

“For the Indian Sagamores, and people that are in warre against us.

“Inteligence is Come to us that you haue some English (especially weomen and children) in Captivity among you. Wee haue therefore sent this messenger, offering to redeeme them either for payment in goods or wompom; or by exchange of prisoners. Wee desire your answer by this our messinger, what price you demand for euery man woman and child, or if you will exchainge for Indians: if you haue any among you that can write your Answer to this our messuage, we desire it in writting, and to that end haue sent paper, pen and Incke by the messenger. If you lett our messenger haue free accesse to you and freedome of a safe returne: Wee are willing to doe the like by any messenger of yours. Prouided he come vnarmed and Carry a white flagg Vpon a Staffe vissible to be seene: which we calle a flagg of truce: and is used by Civil nations in time of warre when any messingers are sent in a way of treaty: which wee haue done by our messenger.

“Boston 31th of March 1676 past by the Council E. R. S. & was signed

“In testimony whereof I haue set to my hand & Seal.

F. L. Gov.”

(From _N. E. Hist. and Gen. Register_, Jan’y, 1885, pp. 79, 80.)

[1344] _Dinwiddie Papers_, ii. p. 426.

[1345] Quoted in Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. p. 297.

[1346] Margry, v. 135-250.

[1347] By the treaty at Lancaster, the Indians covenanted to cede to the English, for goods of the money value of £400, the lands between the Alleghanies and the Ohio. See our Vol. V. 566.—ED.

[1348] These treaties are fully presented, with all the harangues, by Colden, vol. ii.

[1349] The most capable and intelligent interpreter employed by the English for a long period, and who served at the councils for negotiating the most important treaties of this time, was Conrad Weiser. He came with his family from Germany in 1710, and settled at Schoharie, N. Y. His ability and integrity won him the confidence alike of the Indians and the English. In the _Collections of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania_, vol. i. pp. 1-34, are autobiographical, personal, and narrative papers and journals by this remarkable man, equally characterized by the boldest spirit of adventure and by an ardent piety. He gives in full his journal of his mission from the governments of Pennsylvania and Virginia to negotiate with the Six Nations in 1737. [See Vol. V. 566.—ED.]

[1350] Mahon’s _England_, ch. 35, and Smollett’s _England_, Book iii. ch. 9.

[1351] Governor Dinwiddie, in urging the assembly of Virginia, in 1756, to active war measures, warned them of the alternative of “giving up your Liberty for Slavery, the purest Religion for the grossest Idolatry and Superstition, the legal and mild Government of a Protestant King for the Arbitrary Exactions and heavy Oppressions of a Popish Tyrant.” (_Dinwiddie Papers_, ii. p. 515.)

[1352] In Mr. Parkman’s _Montcalm and Wolfe_, i. p. 65 and on, is a lively account of the busy zeal of Father Piquet in making and putting to service savage converts of the sort described in the text. [See Vol. V. 571.—ED.]

[1353] The excellent James Logan, who came over as secretary to William Penn, and who always claimed to be a consistent member of the Society of Friends, took an exception to a position on one point,—that of maintaining the right, and even obligation, of defensive warfare. A letter of very cogent argument to this effect was addressed by him to the Society of Friends in 1741, remonstrating with them for their opposition in the legislature to means for defending the colony. _Collections of Historl. Soc. of Penns._, i. p. 36. [See Vol V. p. 243.—ED.]

[1354] It was but a repetition of the passions and jealousies of the colonists of Massachusetts, as maddened by the devastation inflicted upon them in King Philip’s war, when they themselves broke up the settlements, then under hopeful promise, of “Praying Indians,” at Natick and other villages, the fruits of the devoted labors of the Apostle Eliot. The occasion of this dispersion and severe watch over the Indian converts was a jealousy that they had been warmed in the bosom of a weak pity merely for a deadly use of their fangs.

[1355] [See Vol. V. 240.—ED.]

[1356] _Spotswood Papers_, published by the Virginia Historical Society. [The events of this period are followed in our Vol. V.—ED.]

[1357] The official papers are given in full by Colden, who adds a very able memorial of his own, in favor of the act, addressed to Governor Burnet, in 1724. It was estimated that the Indian trade of New York increased fivefold in twelve years.

[1358] [See Vol. V. 530, 575.—ED.]

[1359] Appendix V to the _Ohio Valley Historical Series_, edition of _Bouquet’s Expedition_ (Cincinnati, 1868).

[1360] It is estimated that not less than two hundred of these scattered traders, who had confidently ventured into the wilderness on the assurance of the treaty, were massacred, after being plundered of goods of more than a hundred thousand pounds in value.

[1361] [The events of the Pontiac war can be followed in Vol. V.—ED.]

[1362] The bibliography of the subject is nowhere exhaustively done. The _Proof-sheets_ of Pilling as a tentative effort, and his later divisionary sections, devoted to the Eskimo, Siouan, and other stocks, though primarily framed for their linguistic bearing, are the chief help; and these guides can be supplemented by Field’s Indian _Bibliography_, the references for anonymous books in Sabin’s _Dictionary_ (ix. p. 86), and sections in many catalogues of public and private libraries, like the Brinley (iii. 5, 352 etc.), devoted wholly or in part to Americana, and the foot-notes and authorities given in Parkman, H. H. Bancroft, and many others.

[1363] Parkman’s merits as a historian are elsewhere recognized in the present history. See Vols. II., IV., and V. He first gave his summary of Indian character in the introductory chapter of his first historical book, his _Pontiac_. He later completed it in papers in the _North Amer. Rev._, July, 1865, and July, 1866, and finally in the introduction to his _Jesuits_.

[1364] This class of material, including the _Lettres Edifiantes_, has been examined in our Vol. IV. 292, 296, 316, etc. Cf. Shea’s _Charlevoix_, i. 88; _Glorias del segundo siglo de la compañia de Jesus, 1646-1730_ (Madrid, 1734).

Parkman calls Brébœuf the best observer among the Jesuits. On their missions see _Revue Canadienne_, Jan., 1888; _Dublin Review_, xii. (1869) 70; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, iii. 250. Margry (vol. i.) has a “Mémoire” on the Recollects, 1614-1884. Cf. _Revue Canadienne_, by S. Lesage, Feb., 1867, p. 303. On the earlier Canadian missions see N. E. Dionne in _Nouvelles Soirées Canadiennes_, i. 399; _U. S. Catholic Monthly_, vii. 235, 518, 561; and the Abbé Verreau on the beginnings of the Church in Canada, in _Roy. Soc. Canada, Proc._, ii. 63.

[1365] See Vol. IV. 130, 290, 296, 298.

[1366] _Jesuits_, p. liv.

[1367] Shea’s ed. Charlevoix, p. 91. See _post_, Vol. IV. 298.

[1368] Cf. Vol. IV. p. 242.

[1369] _U.S. Statutes at Large_, xvii. 513.

[1370] Parkman in his _La Salle_ lets us into the feelings of that explorer. La Salle’s account of the Indians is translated in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Ap., 1878.

[1371] Cf. _Travels of several learned missionaries of the Society of Jesus, translated from the French_ (London, 1714).

[1372] See Vol. V. 245, 582.

[1373] See Vol. V. p. 169.

[1374] Other missionary records are noticed in Vol. V. Brinton enlarges upon the traces of Indian degradation following upon all missionary efforts among them. _Amer. Hero Myths_, 206, 231.

[1375] The careers of Johnson and Croghan are traced in Vol. V.

[1376] Vol. V. _passim_.

[1377] Such were the _Travels_ of Alexander Henry, the _Sufferings_ of Peter Williamson, and the long list of so-called “Captivities” (see Vol. V. 186, 490). Probably Mr. Samuel G. Drake was for many years the most assiduous promoter of this class of books. This compiler’s sympathetic sentiment clearly affected his rhetoric and sometimes the accuracy of his statements. Cf. titles of his books in Pilling, Sabin, and Field. Cf. Drake’s _Aboriginal Races of North America, revised by H. L. Williams_ (N. Y., 1880).

[1378] _Voyages: an account of his travels and experiences among the North American Indians, from 1652 to 1684. Transcribed from original manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and the British Museum. With historical illustrations and an introduction by G. D. Scull_ (Boston, 1885), a publication of the Prince Society.

[1379] _Voyages_, 2d ed., London, 1724.

[1380] See Vol. IV. p. 299.

[1381] In 1766-68.

[1382] _Reise in das Innere Nord Amerikas_ (Coblenz, 1841); also in an English translation (London).

[1383] _Border Reminiscences_ (N. Y., 1872).

[1384] _Army Sacrifices._

[1385] _Notes of the settlement and Indian wars of the western parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania_, 1763-1783. See Vol. V. p. 581.

[1386] The question has often been discussed as to the origin of the title of “Indian summer,” as applied to a beautiful portion of our autumnal season. Dr. Doddridge gives us an explanation of its original significance, or, at least, of an association with it, which would make a feeling of dread rather than of romance its most striking suggestion. He says that to a backwoodsman the term in its original import would cause a chill of horror. The explanation is as follows: The white settlers on the frontiers found no peace from Indian alarms and onsets save in the winter. From spring to the early part of the autumn, the settlers, cooped up in the forts, or ever at watch in their fields, had no security or comfort. The approach of winter was hailed as a jubilee in cabin and farm, with bustle and hilarity. But after the first set-in of winter aspects came a longer or shorter interval of warm, smoky, hazy weather, which would tempt the Indians—as if a brief return of summer—to renew their incursions on the frontiers. The season, then, was an “Indian summer” only for blood and mischief. So the spell of warm open weather, of melting snows, in the latter part of February—a premature spring—was a period of dread for the frontiersmen. It was called the “pawwawing days,” as the Indians were then holding their incantations and councils for rehearsing for their spring war-parties.

[1387] Cf. further on Hildreth and his books our Vol. VII. p. 536.

[1388] There are notices of other books of this kind in Vols. V. and VII. of the present History. Particularly, may be mentioned Joseph Pritt’s _Mirror of Olden Time_ (Chambersburg, Va., 1848; 2d ed., Abingdon, Va., 1849), in which the most interesting portions are the personal narratives of such captives to the Indians as Col. James Smith, John M’Cullough, and others, the full credibility of which is vouched for by those who knew them as neighbors and associates. This class of narratives by men who for years, willingly or unwillingly, affiliated with their wild captors make very intelligible to us the fact that the whites are much more readily Indianized than are Indians led to conform to the ways of civilization. Cf. Archibald Loudon’s _Selection of some of the most interesting narratives, of outrages, committed by the Indians, in their wars with the white people. Also, an account of their manners, customs, traditions, etc._ (Carlisle, 1808-11; Harrisburg, 1888).

[1389] Vol. VII. p. 448. As types of successive ranges of anthropological studies see Happel’s _Thesaurus Exoticorum_ (Hamburg, 1688); Stuart and Kuyper’s _De Mensch zoo als hij voorkomt_ (Amsterdam, 1802), vol. vi., and the better known _Researches_ of Prichard (vol. v.).

[1390] See Vol. V. 68.

[1391] See Vol. VII. 264.

[1392] The original paintings for the plates are now in the Peabody Museum (_Report_, xvi. 189). M’Kenney also published his _Memoirs, official and personal, with sketches of travel among the northern and southern Indians_ (N. Y., 1846), in two volumes. He had been in 1816 the agent of the United States in dealing with the Indians, and in 1824 had been put at the head of the Indian bureau.

[1393] The English editions are generally called _Illustrations of the Manners_, etc.

[1394] The best bibliographical record of Catlin’s publications is in Pilling’s _Bibliog. Siouan languages_ (1887), p. 15. Cf. Field, p. 63; Sabin, iii. p. 436.

[1395] The volume contains three interesting portraits of Catlin and reimpressions of his drawings as originally published.

[1396] For diversity of opinions respecting it see Allibone’s _Dictionary_. The modern scientific historian and ethnologist think in conjunction in giving it a low rank compared with what such a book should be. The fullest account of the bibliography of this and of Schoolcraft’s other books is in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_. Whatever credit may accrue to Schoolcraft is kept out of sight in the title-page of a condensation of the book, which has some interspersed additions from other sources, all of which are obscurely included, so that the authorship of them is uncertain. The book is called _The Indian Tribes of the United States, edited by F. S. Drake_ (Philad., 1884), in 2 vols. There is another conglomerate and useful book, edited by W. W. Beach, _The Indian Miscellany; papers on the history, antiquities [etc.] of the American aborigines_ (Albany, 1877), which is a collection of magazine, review, and newspaper articles by various writers, usually of good character.

[1397] Particularly in Vol. IV.

[1398] Cf. Vol. VI. 610, 611, 650.

[1399] A part of it is reproduced by J. Watts de Peyster in his _Miscellanies by an Officer_, part ii. (N. Y., 1888).

[1400] Vol. VII. p. 448.

[1401] There is a map of the distribution of Indians in the eastern part of the United States in Cassino’s _Standard Nat. Hist._, vi. 147.

[1402] See _ante_, p. 106.

[1403] Paul Kane’s _Wanderings of an artist among the Indians_ is translated by Ed. Delessert in _Les Indiens de la baie d’Hudson_ (Paris, 1861).

[1404] The truth seems to be that some were last seen in that year. It is uncertain whether they died out, or the final remnant crossed into Labrador.

[1405] See Vol. IV. p. 292.

[1406] Cf. _Account of the customs and manners of the Micmakis and Maricheets savage nations. From an original French manuscript letter, never published. Annexed, pieces relative to the savages, Nova Scotia_ [etc.] (London, 1758); J. G. Shea in _Hist. Mag._, v. 290; _No. Am. Rev._, vol. cxii., Jan., 1871. For missions among them see Vol. IV. p. 268.

[1407] See Vol. IV. p. 299. The Hurons as the leading stock in Canada are, of course, to be studied in the _Jesuit Relations_ and in all the other accounts of the Catholic missions in Canada, as well as in the early historical narratives, alluded to in the text, and in such special books as the Sieur Gendron’s _Pays des Hurons_ (see Vol. IV. 305), and in the accounts of leading missionaries like Jean de Brébœuf. Cf. Félix Martin’s _Hurons et Iroquois_ (Paris, 1877); J. M. Lemoine in _Maple Leaves_, 2d ser. (1873); Cayaron’s _Chaumont_, 1639-1693, and his_ Autobiographie et pièces inédites_ (Poitiers, 1869); B. Sulte on the Iroquois and Algonquins in the _Revue Canadienne_ (x. 606); D. Wilson on the Huron-Iroquois of Canada in _Roy. Soc. Canada, Proc._ (1884, vol. ii.), and references, _post_, Vol. IV. p. 307. W. H. Withrow has a paper on the last of the Hurons in the _Canadian Monthly_ (ii. 409).

[1408] All of these books are further characterized in Vols. IV. and V. Cf. also J. Campbell in the _Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1881, and Wm. Clint in _Ibid._ 1877; and Daniel Wilson in _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc._ (1882), vol. xxxi., and in his _Prehist. Man_, ii. Also Vetromile’s _Abnakis_ (N. Y., 1866).

[1409] Vol. III.

[1410] “Hist. Coll. of the Indians of N. E.” in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, i.

[1411] Noyes’ _New England’s Duty_, Boston, 1698.

[1412] Cf. Neal’s _New England_, i. ch. 6; _Conn. Evang. Mag._, ii., iii., iv.; _Amer. Q. Reg._, iv.; _Sabbath at Home_, Apr.-July, 1868.

[1413] Cf. his letters in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Nov., 1879; _N. E. Hist. Gen. Reg._, July, 1882; Birch’s _Life of Robert Boyle_; and the lives of Eliot. For the Eliot tracts see our Vol. III. p. 355. Marvin’s reprint of Eliot’s _Brief Narration_ (1670) has a list of writers on the subject. Cf. Martin Moore on Eliot and his Converts in the _Amer. Quart. Reg._, Feb., 1843, reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_, p. 405; Ellis’s _Red Man and White Man in No. America_; Jacob’s _Praying Indians_; and Bigelow’s _Natick_.

[1414] Sabin, x. p. 191.

[1415] _Archæologia Amer._, ii.

[1416] Cf. John Gillies’ _Hist. Coll. relating to remarkable periods of the success of the Gospel_ (Glasgow, 1754).

[1417] _Success of the gospel among the Indians of Martha’s Vineyard_ (1694). _Conquests and Triumphs of Grace_ (1696), which is reprinted in part in Mather’s _Magnalia_. _Indian Converts of Martha’s Vineyard_ (1727), and Experience, its author, appended to one of his discourses a “State of the Indians, 1694-1720.”

[1418] _Origin and early progress of Indian missions in New England, with a list of books in the Indian language printed at Cambridge and Boston, 1653-1721_ (Worcester, 1874, or _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1873); a paper on the Indian tongue and its literature in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, i. 465.

[1419] Wheelock has given us _A brief narrative of the Indian Charity School_ (London, 1766; 2d ed., 1767), and a series of tracts portray its later progress. Cf. McClure and Parish’s _Memoir of Wheelock_. Samson Occum and Brant were his pupils. Also see Miss Fletcher’s _Report_, p. 94, and S. C. Bartlett in _The Granite Monthly_ (1888), p. 277.

[1420] See Vol. III. p. 364. There is a bibliography of the Indians in Maine in the _Hist. Mag._, March, 1870, p. 164. Cf. Hanson’s _Gardiner_, etc.; the histories of Norridgewock by Hanson and Allen; Sabine in the _Christian Examiner_, 1857; and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, vols. iii., ix. On the Maine missions, see _post_, Vol. IV. 300; and R. H. Sherwood in the _Catholic World_, xxii. 656.

[1421] See Vol. III. p. 367.

[1422] Cf. _Report on the Mass. Archives_ (1885).

[1423] Vol. III. p. 362.

[1424] Dr. Ellis has a paper on the Indians of eastern Massachusetts in the _Mem. Hist. Boston_, i. 241. For the middle regions there are Epaphras Hoyt’s _Antiquarian Researches_ (Greenfield, 1824), and Temple’s _North Brookfield_, not to name other books. For the Stockbridge tribe and the Housatonics, see Samuel Hopkins’ _Hist. Memoirs relating to the Housatunnuk Indians_ (1753); Jones’ _Stockbridge_; Charles Allen’s _Report on the Stockbridge Indians_ (Boston, 1870; _Ho. Doc. Mass. Leg._, no. 13, of 1870); S. Orcutt’s _Indians of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Valleys_ (Hartford, 1882); _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Dec., 1878; and Miss Fletcher’s _Report_, pp. 38, 90. For the Wampanoags on the borders of Rhode Island, see _Smithsonian Report_, 1883; and William J. Miller’s _Notes concerning the Wampanoag tribe of Indians, with some account of a rock picture on the shore of Mount Hope Bay, in Bristol, R. I._ (Providence, 1880).

[1425] Potter’s _Early Hist. of Narragansett_; _R. I. Hist. Coll._, viii.; Henry Bull’s Memoir in _R. I. Hist. Mag._, April, 1886; Usher Parsons on the Nyantics in _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1863.

[1426] Theo. Dwight’s _Connecticut_, ch. 5-7; Trumbull’s Connecticut, ch. 5, 6; Ellis’ _Life of Capt. Mason_; W. L. Stone’s _Uncas and Miantonomoh_; S. Orcutt’s _Stratford and Bridgeport_ (1886); Luzerne Ray in _New Englander_, July, 1843 (reprinted in Beach’s _Ind. Miscellany_).

On the Pequods, see Wm. Apes’ _Son of the Forest_, and other small books by this member of the tribe, published from 1829 to 1837; Lossing in _Scribner’s Monthly_, ii., Oct., 1871 (included in Beach). Cf. our Vol. III. p. 368.

[1427] Further modern portraitures can be found in Dwight’s _Travels_; Barry’s _Massachusetts_; Felt’s _Eccles. Hist. N. E._ (p. 279); Samuel Eliot on the “Early relations with the Indians” in the volume of the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Lectures_; Zachariah Allen on _The conditions of life, habits, and customs of the native Indians of America, and their treatment by the first settlers. An address before the Rhode Island Historical Society, Dec. 4, 1879_ (Providence, 1880). Cf. on the Indians and the Puritans, _Amer. Chh. Review_, iii. 208, 359.

[1428] Cf. Brodhead’s _New York_; the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._; and Wm. Eliot Griffis’ _Arent van Curler and his policy of peace with the Iroquois_ (1884).

[1429] Cf. Vol. IV. 306. The best source for the story of Jogues is Felix Martin’s _Life of Father Isaac Jogues, missionary priest of the Society of Jesus, slain by the Mohawk Iroquois, in the present state of New York, Oct. 18, 1646. With [his] account of the captivity and death of René Goupil, slain Sept. 29, 1642. Translated from the French by J. G. Shea_ (New York, 1885). It is accompanied by a map of the county by Gen. John S. Clark, indicating the sites of the Indian villages and missions, which is an improvement upon Clark’s earlier map, given _post_, Vol. IV. 293. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, xii. 15; Hale’s _Book of Rites_, introd. W. H. Withrow has a paper on Jogues in the _Proc. Roy. Soc. Canada_, iii. (2) 45.

[1430] Vol. IV. 279, 309.

[1431] Cf. D. Humphrey’s _Hist. Acc. of the Soc. for propagating the Gospel_ (1730); _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, iv.; A. G. Hopkins in the _Oneida Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1885-86, p. 5; W. M. Beauchamp in _Am. Chh. Rev._, xlvi. 87; S. K. Lothrop’s _Kirkland_; and Miss Fletcher’s _Report_ (1888), p. 85.

[1432] Sylvester’s _Northern New York_; Clark’s _Onondaga_; Jones’s _Oneida County_; Simms’ _Schoharie County_; Benton’s _Herkimer County_; C. E. Stickney’s _Minisink Region_; G. H. Harris’ _Aboriginal occupation of the lower Genesee County_ (Rochester, 1884,—taken from W. F. Peck’s _Semi-Centennial Hist. of Rochester_); Ketchum’s _Buffalo_; John Wentworth Sanborn’s _Legends, Customs, and Social Life of the Seneca Indians_ (Gowanda, N. Y., 1878). On the origin of the name Seneca, see O. H. Marshall’s _Hist. Writings_, p. 231.

[1433] See Vol. IV. 299. Shea says the only copies known of the 1727 edition are those noted in the catalogues of H. C. Murphy, Menzies, Brinley, and T. H. Morrell. Stevens noted a copy in 1885, at £42. The _Murphy Catalogue_ gives the various editions. Cf. Sabin and Pilling. There is an account of Colden in the _Hist. Mag._, Jan., 1865. Palfrey (_New England_, iv. 40) warns the student that Colden must be used with caution, and that he needs to be corrected by Charlevoix.

[1434] See Vol. V. 618.

[1435] Cf. Vol. IV. 297. Schoolcraft later included in his _Indian Tribes_ a reprint of David Cusick’s _Ancient Hist. of the Six Nations_ (1825), the work of a Tuscarora chief. Brinton (_Myths_, 108) calls it of little value. Elias Johnson, another Tuscarora, printed a little _Hist. of the Six Nations_ at Lockport in 1881.

[1436] See Vol. V., VI., VII.

[1437] This was the earliest of Morgan’s important writings on the Iroquois, but the full outcome of all his views on the Indian character and life can only be studied by following him through his later _Ancient Society_, his _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity_, and his _Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines_. Cf. Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_ for a conspectus of his works. Morgan’s early studies on the Iroquois sensibly affected his judgment in his later treatment of all other North American tribes.

[1438] Hale has also contributed to the _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1885, xiii. 131, a paper on “Chief George H. M. Johnson, his life and work among the Six Nations;” and to the _Amer. Antiquarian_, 1885, vii. 7, one on “The Iroquois sacrifice of the white dog.”

A few other references on the Iroquois follow: Drake’s _Book of the Indians_, book v.; D. Sherman in _Mag. West. Hist._, i. 467; W. W. Beauchamp in _Amer. Antiquarian_ (Nov., 1886), viii. 358; D. Gray on the last Indian council in the Genesee Country, in _Scribner’s Mag._, xxv. 338; _Penna. Mag._, i. 163, 319; ii. 407. For the Schaghticoke tribe, see _Hist. Mag._, June, 1870; and for those of the Susquehanna Valley, Miner’s _Wyoming_ and Stone’s _Wyoming_. E. M. Ruttenber’s _Indian Tribes of the Hudson River_ (Albany, 1872) is an important book. Miss Fletcher’s _Report_ includes a paper on the N. Y. Indians, by F. B. Hough.

[1439] _N. Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vol. iv.

[1440] There is a sketch of this singular character in Brinton’s _Lenape_, ch. 7.

[1441] Also _Amer. Whig Review_, Feb., 1849; and in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_.

[1442] We may also note: D. B. Brunner’s _Indians of Berks county, Pa.; being a summary of all the tangible records of the aborigines of Berks County_ (Reading, Pa., 1881), and W. J. Buck’s “Lappawinzo and Tishcohan chiefs of the Lenni Lenape” in the _Penna. Mag. of Hist._, July, 1883, p. 215. The early writers to elucidate the condition of the Delawares soon after the white contact are Vanderdonck, Campanius, Gabriel Thomas, and later there is something of value in Peter Kalm’s _Travels_. The early authorities on Pennsylvania need also to be consulted, as well as the _Penna. Archives_, and the _Collections_ of the Penna. Hist. Soc., and its _Bulletin_, whose first number has Ettwein’s _Traditions and language of the Indians_. Of considerable historical value is Charles Thomson’s _Enquiry_ (see Vol. V. 575), and the relations of the Quakers to the tribes are surveyed in an _Account of the Conduct of the Society of Friends towards the Indian Tribes_ (Lond., 1844); but other references will be found _post_, Vol. V. 582, including others on the Moravian missions, the literature of which is of much importance in this study. Cf. Chas. Beatty’s _Journal of a two months’ tour_ (London, 1768), the works of Heckewelder and Loskiel, and Schweinitz’s _Zeisberger_. Cf. Miss Fletcher’s _Report_, p. 78.

[1443] Vol. III., under Virginia and Maryland. Cf. _Hist. Mag._, March, 1857.

[1444] For instance, the _Relatio itineris in Marylandiam_.

[1445] See Vol. III.

[1446] The latest summary is in Miss Fletcher’s _Report_, ch. 2 and 3.

[1447] F. Kidder in _Hist. Mag._ (1857), i. 161. Doyle’s _English in America, Virginia, etc._ (London, 1882) gives a brief chapter to the natives. Cf. travels of Bartram and Smyth, and Miss Fletcher’s _Report_, ch. 19.

[1448] Vol. II.

[1449] Vol. V. p. 65.

[1450] Vol. V. p. 69, 344, 393.

[1451] Vol. V. p. 401.

[1452] This also makes part of the Urlsperger tract, _Ausführliche Nachricht von den Saltzburgischen Emigranten_ (Halle, 1835). See Vol. V. p. 395.

[1453] Vol. V. p. 399. Cf. _Mag. Amer. Hist._, v. 346.

[1454] The long contested case of the Cherokees _v._ Georgia brought out much material. Cf. Vol. VII. p. 322, and _Poole’s Index_, p. 225. There is a somewhat curious presentation of the Cherokee mind in the address of Dewi Brown in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xii. 30.

[1455] The histories of the Creek war give some material. See Vol. VII. and Harrison’s _Life of John Howard Payne_, ch. 4. Cf. _Poole’s Index_, p. 314.

[1456] Cf. _Poole’s Index_.

[1457] See Vol. VII.

[1458] Cf. Claiborne’s _Mississippi_, i.; Brinton in _Hist. Mag._, 2d ser., vol. i. p. 16; and E. L. Berthoud’s _Natchez Indians_ (Golden, 1886), a pamphlet.

[1459] Vol. V. p. 68. Cf. also an abridged memoir of the missions in Louisiana by Father Francis Watrin, Jesuit, 1764-65, in _Mag. West. Hist._, Feb., 1885, p. 265; the _Travels into Arkansa territory_, 1819, by Thomas Nuttall (Philad., 1821), for other accounts of the aboriginal inhabitants of the banks of the Mississippi; the _History of Kansas_ (Chicago, 1883), p. 58; and the _Proceedings_ of the Kansas Hist. Society.

[1460] Cf. Vol. IV. p. 298; and C. W. Butterfield in the _Mag. West. Hist._, Feb., 1887; and on the Indian occupation of Ohio, _Ibid._, Nov., 1884. David Jones’ _Two Visits, 1772-73_, concerns the Ohio Indians. Our Vol. V. covers this region during the French wars. J. R. Dodge’s _Red Man of the Ohio Valley, 1650-1795_ (Springfield, O., 1860), is a popular book.

[1461] _Hist. Mag._, x. (Jan., 1866).

[1462] _Mag. West. Hist._, ii. 38.

[1463] _Hist. Writings_, 1887.

[1464] _Fergus Hist. Series, No. 27_ (1884). Cf. Hough’s map of the tribal districts of Indiana in his _Rept. on the Geology and Nat. Hist. of Indiana_ (1882).

[1465] See Vol. IV. 298.

[1466] Cf. _Hist. Mag._, Sept., 1861; and Peter D. Clarke’s _Origin and Traditional Hist. of the Wyandotts_ (Toronto, 1870). Clarke is a native Indian writer.

[1467] Cf. I. A. Lapham on the _Indians of Wisconsin_ (Milwaukee, 1879); and E. Jacker on the missions in _Am. Cath. Quart._, i. 404; also Miss Fletcher’s _Report_, ch. 21.

[1468] Vol. VII.

[1469] Cf. her _Report_ (1888), ch. 10, and her _Indian ceremonies_ (Salem, Mass., 1884), taken from the xvi. _Report of the Peabody Museum of Amer. Archæology and Ethnology_, 1883, pp. 260-333, and containing: The white buffalo festival of the Uncpapas.—The elk mystery or festival. Ogallala Sioux.—The religious ceremony of the four winds or quarters, as observed by the Santee Sioux.—The shadow or ghost lodge: a ceremony of the Ogallala Sioux.—The “Wawan,” or pipe dance of the Omahas.

The _Minnesota Hist. Soc. Collections_ have much on the Dacotahs.

[1470] _Ab-sa-ra-ka, home of the Crows, being the experience of an officer’s wife on the plains, with outlines of the natural features of the land, tables of distances, maps_ [etc.] (Philad., 1868).

[1471] These may be supplemented by Letheman’s account of the Navajos in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1855, p. 280; and books of adventures, like Ruxton’s _Life in the Far West_; Pumpelly’s _Across America and Asia_; H. C. Dorr in _Overland Monthly_, Apr., 1871 (also in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_); James Hobbs’ _Wild life in the far West_ (Hartford, 1875),—not to name others, and a large mass of periodical literature to be reached for the English portion through _Poole’s Index_. Cf. Miss Fletcher’s _Report_ (1888).

[1472] _A Journal, kept at Nootka Sound, by John R. Jewitt, one of the surviving crew of the ship Boston, of Boston, John Salter, commander, who was massacred on 22d of March, 1803. Interspersed with some account of the natives, their manners and customs_ (Boston, 1807). Another account has been published with the title, “A narrative of the adventures and sufferings of J. R. Jewitt,” compiled from Jewitt’s “Oral relations,” by Richard Alsop; and another alteration and abridgment by S. G. Goodrich has been published with the title, “The captive of Nootka.” Cf. Sabin, Pilling, Field, etc. Cf. also _Hist. Mag._, Mar., 1863. The French half-breeds of the Northwest are described by V. Havard in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1879.

[1473] Dall’s _Alaska and its Resources_ (Boston, 1870), with its list of books, is of use in this particular field. Cf. also Miss Fletcher’s _Report_ (1888), ch. 19 and 20.

[1474] His map is reproduced in Petermann’s _Geog. Mittheilungen_, xxv. pl. 13.

[1475] The periodical literature can be reached through _Poole’s Index_; particularly to be mentioned, however, are the _Atlantic Monthly_, Apr., 1875; by J. R. Browne in _Harper’s Mag._, Aug., 1861, repeated in Beach’s _Ind. Miscellany_. For the missionary aspects see such books as Geronimo Boscana’s _Chinigchinich; a historical account of the origin, customs, and traditions of the Indians at the missionary establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California; called the Acagchemem nation. Translated from the original Spanish manuscript, by one who was many years a resident of Alta California_ [Alfred Robinson] (N. Y., 1846), which is included in Robinson’s _Life in California_ (N. Y., 1846); and C. C. Painter’s _Visit to the mission Indians of southern California, and other western tribes_ (Philadelphia, 1886).

[1476] See, for instance: Maj. Powell on tribal society in the _Third Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_. On Totemism, see the _Fourth Rept._, p. 165, and J. G. Frazier in his _Totemism_ (Edinburgh, 1887). Lucien Carr on the social and political condition of women among the Huron-Iroquois tribes, in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, xvi. 207. J. M. Browne on Indian medicine in the _Atlantic_, July, 1866, reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_. J. M. Lemoine on their mortuary rites in _Proc. Roy. Soc. Canada_, ii. 85, and H. C. Yarrow on their mortuary customs in the _First Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, p. 87, and on their mummifications in _Ibid._ p. 130. Andrew MacFarland Davis on Indian games in the _Bulletin, Essex Institute_, vols. xvii., xviii., and separately. On their intellectual and literary capacity, John Reade in the _Proc. Roy. Soc. of Canada_ (ii. sect. 2d, p. 17); Edward Jacker in _Amer. Catholic Quarterly_ (ii. 304; iii. 255); Brinton’s _Lenape and their legends_; W. G. Simms’ _Views and Reviews_.

[1477] _The North Americans of Antiquity_, by John T. Short, p. 130.

[1478] _Ibid._ p. 127.

[1479] _The Antiquity of Man in America_, by Alfred R. Wallace in _Nineteenth Century_ (November, 1887), vol. xxii. p. 673.

[1480] _Palæolithic Man in America_, in _Popular Science Monthly_ (November, 1888), p. 23.

[1481] Sometimes the gravels in which such implements were originally deposited have disappeared through denudation or other natural causes, leaving the implements on the surface. But the outside of such specimens always shows traces of decomposition, indicating their high antiquity. Other examples of implements of like shape, found on the surface in places where there has been no glacial drift, may be palæolithic, but their form is no sufficient proof of this, since they may equally well have been the work of the Indians, who are known to have fashioned similar objects.

[1482] _The Great Ice Age and its relation to the antiquity of Man_, by James Geikie, p. 416.

[1483] _An Inventory of our Glacial Drift_, by T. C. Chamberlin in the _Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxxv. p. 196. A general map of this great moraine and others representing portions of it on a large scale will be found in his “Preliminary Paper on the terminal moraine of the second glacial period,” in the _Third Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey_, by J. W. Powell (Washington, 1883).

[1484] Chamberlin, _Proc. Amer. Assoc._, _ubi sup._, p. 199.

[1485] _The place of Niagara Falls in geological history_, by G. K. Gilbert, of the U. S. Govt. Surv., in the _Proc. Amer. Assoc._, _Ibid._ p. 223; _Geology of Minnesota_ [final report], by N. H. Winchell and Warren Upham, vol. i. p. 337 (St. Paul, 1888).

[1486] _The American Naturalist_, vol. vii. p. 204.

[1487] _Ibid._ vol. x. p. 329.

[1488] _Tenth Annual Report of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology_, vol. ii. p. 30.

[1489] Second report on the palæolithic implements from the glacial drift, in the valley of the Delaware River, near Trenton, New Jersey, _Ibid._ p. 225.

[1490] A complete account of Dr. Abbott’s investigations will be found in his _Primitive Industry_, chap. 32 (Palæolithic Implements); _Tenth ann. rep. of Peabody Museum_, vol. ii. p. 30; _Eleventh Do._, _Ibid._ p. 225; _Proceedings of Boston Society of Natural History_, vol. xxi. p. 124; vol. xxiii. p. 424; _Proc. of Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1491] _Proceedings of Boston Society of Natural History_, vol. xxi. p. 148.

[1492] _Twelfth annual report of Peabody Museum_, vol. ii. p. 489.

[1493] _Proceedings of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, _Ibid._ p. 132.

[1494] _Popular Science Monthly_, January, 1889, p. 411.

[1495] _On the discovery of stone implements in the glacial drift of North America_, in the _Quart. Journ. of Science_ (London, January, 1878), vol. xv. p. 68.

[1496] _The Trenton gravel and its relation to the antiquity of man, in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia_, 1880, p. 296.

[1497] _Primitive Industry_, p. 533 _et seq._

[1498] The bibliography of Professor Wright’s publications upon this subject will be found in _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 427.

[1499] _Science_, vol. i. p. 271.

[1500] _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 435.

[1501] _Proc. Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1502] Early Man in the Delaware Valley, in the _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiv.

[1503] The Age of the Philadelphia Red Gravel, _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiv.

[1504] _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, p. 293. The preface of this volume is dated “New York, April 10, 1873.” In an article in the _North American Review_ for January, 1874 (vol. cxviii. p. 70), on “The Antiquity of the North American Indians,” he traces that race back to palæolithic times.

[1505] _Flint implements from the stratified drift of the vicinity of Richmond, Va._, in the _American Journal of Science_ (3d series), vol. xi. p. 195; quoted in Dana’s _Manual of Geology_, p. 578.

[1506] _Sixth annual report of the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota_, 1877, p. 54.

[1507] Her paper on “Ancient quartz-workers and their quarries in Minnesota,” read before the Minnesota Historical Society, February, 1880, was reprinted in _The American Antiquarian_, vol. iii. p. 18.

[1508] _Vestiges of Glacial Man in Central Minnesota_, in the _Proc. Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxii. p. 385. A more extended account of her researches will be found under the same title in the _American Naturalist_ for June and July, 1884 (vol. xviii. pp. 594 and 697). On p. 705 the writer has given at some length his opinion in regard to the artificial character of these quartz objects.

[1509] _Proc. of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 436.

[1510] In 1877, by Professor S. S. Haldeman on an island in the Susquehanna River, in Lancaster Co., Penn. (_Eleventh Rep. Peabody Mus._, vol. ii. p. 255). In 1878, by A. F. Berlin in the Schuylkill Valley, at Reading, Penn. (_American Antiquarian_, vol. i. p. 10). In 1879, by Dr. W. J. Hoffman in the valley of the Potomac, near Washington (_American Naturalist_, vol. xiii. p. 108). Subsequently by others in the same vicinity, reported by S. V. Proudfit in _The American Anthropologist_, vol. i. p. 337. By David Dodge at Wakefield, Mass., and by Mr. Frazer at Marshfield, Mass. (_Proc. of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxi. pp. 123 and 450). By the writer, in several localities in New England (_Ibid._ p. 382).

[1511] _Sixth annual report of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories_, by F. V. Hayden (1873), p. 652.

[1512] _Ibid._ (1874), p. 247.

[1513] _Ibid._ p. 254.

[1514] _Eleventh Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 257.

[1515] _Geological History of Lake Lahontan, a quaternary lake of northwestern Nevada_, by I. C. Russell, being _Monog._ No. xi. _U. S. Geol. Surv._ under J. W. Powell, p. 247 (Washington, 1885).

[1516] _Ibid._ p. 269.

[1517] _Pop. Science Monthly_, November, 1888, p. 27.

[1518] Article in the _Iconographic Encyclopædia_, on Prehistoric Archæology, by Daniel G. Brinton, vol. ii. p. 63 (Philadelphia, 1886).

[1519] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 297, where it is figured; and repeated in his _Prehistoric Man_, vol. i. p. 45.

[1520] See p. 385 of this volume.

[1521] _Memoirs of Mus. of Comp. Zoölogy at Harv. College_, vol. vi. pp. 258-288 (Cambridge, 1880).

[1522] _The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America_, by H. H. Bancroft, vol. iv. pp. 699-707.

[1523] _Transactions_ of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, vol. i. p. 232, pl. xxii, fig. 3.

[1524] _The aboriginal relics called “sinkers” or “plummets”_ in _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, vol. i. p. 105.

[1525] _The Epoch of the Mammoth and the Apparition of Man upon the Earth_, by James C. Southall, p. 399 (Philadelphia, 1878).

[1526] Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes of the United States_, vol. i. p. 101 (Philadelphia, 1851).

[1527] S. B. J. Skertchly in the _Journal Anthrop. Inst._, vol. xvii. p. 335 (Jan. 10, 1888).

[1528] _The American Naturalist_, vol. xxi. p. 459 (1887).

[1529] _Early Man in America_, in the _North American Review_, Oct., 1883, p. 340.

[1530] _The Auriferous Gravels_, etc., p. 273.

[1531] _Ibid._ p. 242.

[1532] _Sixth annual report of the U. S. Geol. Surv. of the Territories_, p. 29.

[1533] _Ibid._ p. 44.

[1534] _The Auriferous Gravels_, etc., p. 281.

[1535] _The Antiquity of Man in North America_, p. 679.

[1536] _Proc. of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii, p. 269.

[1537] _Reports of Peabody Museum_, vol. iii. pp. 177, 408; iv. p. 35.

[1538] _Early Man in Britain_, by W. Boyd Dawkins, p. 167.

[1539] Dr. H. Ten Kate in _Science_, vol. xii. p. 228 (November 9, 1888).

[1540] _Notes on the Crania of the N. E. Indians_, by Lucien Carr, p. 9 (_Anniversary Memoirs of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._), 1880.

[1541] _The Standard Natural History_, ed. by J. S. Kingsley, vol. vi. p. 143.

[1542] _The Mammoth and the Flood_, by Henry H. Howorth, p. 316 (London, 1887).

[1543] _Fossil Men and their modern Representatives_, by J. W. Dawson, p. 106 _et seq._ (London, 1880).

[1544] _Le Maconnais Préhistorique, ... ouvrage posthume par H. De Ferry ... avec notes et cet. par A. Arcelin_, Mâcon, 1870.

[1545] _The Auriferous Gravels_, etc., p. 287.

[1546] _Primitive Industry; or Illustrations of the Handiwork in Stone, Bone, and Clay of the Native Races of the Northern Atlantic Seaboard of America_, by Charles C. Abbott (Salem and Boston, 1881), p. 3.

[1547] _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 422.

[1548] _Proc. of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1549] _Primitive Industry_, p. 253.

[1550] _Ibid._ p. 262.

[1551] _Primitive Industry_, p. 276 _et seq._

[1552] _Ibid._ p. 515, _note_.

[1553] _Proc. of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1554] Peter Kalm, _Travels into North America, translated by J. R. Forster_ (London, 1770-71), v. ii. p. 17.

[1555] _Primitive Industry_, p. 462.

[1556] _Proc. of Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1557] _Rep. of Peabody Museum_, vol. iv. p. 43.

[1558] Vol. ix. p. 363.

[1559] See Vol. II. pp. 144 and 187.

[1560] _Companions of Columbus_, p. 28.

[1561] _Flint Chips, a Guide to Prehistoric Archæology_, by Edw. T. Stevens, p. 123.

[1562] _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, by C. C. Jones, p. 320.

[1563] _Rep. of Peabody Museum_, vol. iv. p. 45.

[1564] “Early Man in the Delaware Valley,” in the _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiv.

[1565] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 173.

[1566] Waitz, _Introd. to Anthropology_, Eng. trans., p. 255, points out the dangers of over-confidence in this research. Cf. also J. H. McCulloh’s _Researches_ (1829).

The best indications of the sources as respects the origin of the Americans can be found in Haven’s _Archæology of the United States_ (_Smithsonian Contributions_, vii., 1856); Bancroft’s foot-notes to his _Nat. Races_, v. ch. 1; Short, ch. 3, on the diversity of opinions; Poole’s _Index_, p. 637, and _Supplement_, p. 274. Cf. Drake’s _Book of the Indians_, ch. 2.

Without anticipating the characterization and mention of the essential books later to be indicated, some miscellaneous references may be added without much attempt at classifying them.

Among English writers: Hyde Clarke’s _Researches on prehistoric and protohistoric comparative philology, mythology, and archæology in connection with the origin of culture in America_ (London, 1875). Robert Knox’s _Races of Men_ (London, 1862); J. Kennedy in his _Probable origin of the American Indians_ (London, 1854), and in his _Essays, ethnological and linguistic_ (London, 1861); J. C. Beltrami’s _Pilgrimage in Europe and America_ (London, 1828); C. H. Smith in _Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal_, xxxviii. 1.

Some French authorities: Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, ii. 93, and his _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 10, and to the English translation W. H. Dall adds a chapter on this subject; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s introduction to his _Popul Vuh_ (section 4); Dabry de Thiersant’s _De l’origine des indiens du nouveau monde et de leur civilisation_ (Paris, 1883); M. A. Baguet’s “Les races primitives des deux Amériques” in _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. d’Anvers_, viii. 440; Domenech in _Revue Contemporaine_, 1st ser., xxxiii. 283; xxxiv. 5, 284; 2d ser., iv.; Baron de Bretton’s _Origines des peuples de l’Amérique_, in the Nancy _Compte-rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, i. 439.

Among German writers perhaps the most weighty are Theodor Waitz in his _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (1862-66), and Carl Vogt’s _Vorlesungen über den Menschen_, translated as _Lectures on Man_ (1864).

American writers: Drake’s _Book of the Indians_, ch. 1, 2; Doddridge’s _Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of Virginia and Penna._, ch. 3; Geo. Catlin’s _Life amongst the Indians_ (1861), and his _Last Rambles_ (1867), with extracts in _Smithsonian Ann. Rept._, 1885, iii. 749; Isaac McCoy’s _Hist. of Baptist Indian Missions_ (Washington, 1840); Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, ch. 4, 11; B. H. Coate’s _Annual Discourse before the Penna. Hist. Soc._ (Philad., 1834), reviewing the various theories; also in their _Memoirs_, iii. part 2; John Y. Smith in _Wisconsin Hist. Soc. Ann. Rep._, iv. 117; Dennie’s _Portfolio_, xiii. 231, 519; xiv. 7; A. R. Grote in _Amer. Naturalist_, xi. 221 (April, 1877); C. C. Abbott in _Ibid._ x. 65.

Some Canadian writers: J. Campbell in _Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc. Transactions_ (1880-81); Napoléon Legendre’s “Races indigénes de l’Amérique devant l’histoire” in _Proc. Royal Soc. of Canada_, ii. 25.

[1567] The book is a rare one. Field, No. 586. Sabin, vii. p. 157. Quaritch in 1885 had not known of a copy being for sale in twenty years. He then had two (Nos. 28,355-56). There is one in Harvard College Library. Garcia drew somewhat from a manuscript of Juan de Vetanzos, a companion of Pizarro, and he gives the native accounts of their origin. There was a second edition, with Barcia’s Annotations, Madrid, 1729 (Carter-Brown, iii. 432).

[1568] _New English Canaan_ (Amsterdam, 1637—C. F. Adams’ ed., 1883, pp. 125, 129).

[1569] There is an English translation in the _Bibliotheca Curiosa_. [Edited by Edmund Goldsmidt.] (Edinburgh, 1883-85.) No. 12. _On the origin of the native races of America. To which is added, A treatise on foreign languages and unknown islands, by Peter Albinus. Translated from the Latin._ The translation is unfortunate in its blunders. Cf. H. W. Haynes in _The Nation_, Mar. 15, 1888. Grotius was b. 1583; d. 1645.

[1570] Carter-Brown, ii. 522, 523, 543.

[1571] This book is scarcer than the first (Brinley, iii. 5414-15). There is a letter addressed to De Laet, touching Grotius, in Claudius Morisotus’s _Epistolarum Centuriæ duæ_, 1656.

[1572] Brinley, iii. 5407-8. In Samuel Sewall’s _Letter Book_, i. 289, is an amusing reference to the “vanities of Hornius.”

[1573] Jo. Bapt. Poisson, _Animadversiones ad ea quæ Hugo Grotius et Joh. Lahetius de origine gentium Peruvianarum et Mexicanarum scripserunt_ (Paris, 1644); Rob. Comtæus Nortmanus, _De origine gentium Americanarum_ (Amsterdam, 1664), an academic dissertation adopting the Phœnician view; A. Mil, _De origine animalium et migratione populorum_ (Geneva, 1667); Erasmus Franciscus, _Lust- und Staatsgarten_ (Nürnberg, 1668), with a third part on the aboriginal inhabitants (Müller, 1877, no. 1150); Gottfried [Godofredus] Wagner, _De Originibus Americanis_ (Leipzig, 1669); J. D. Victor, _Disputatio historia de America_ (Jena, 1670); E. P. Ljung, _Dissertatio de origine gentium novi orbis prima_ (Stregnäs [Sweden] 1676). An essay of 1695 reprinted in the _Memoirs, Anthrop. Soc. of London_, i. 365; Nic Witsen, _Noord-en-Oost Tartarye_ (2d ed., Amsterdam, 1705), holding to the migration from northeastern Asia.

[1574] Cf. Alex. Catcott’s _Treatise on the Deluge_ (2d ed., enlarged, London, 1768), and A. de Ulloa’s _Noticias Americanas_ (Madrid, 1772, 1792), for speculations.

[1575] Cf. Sabin, xiv. 59,239, etc., for editions. The original three vols. appeared in Berlin in 1768, 1769, and 1770, respectively. The best edition, with De Pauw’s subsequent defence and Pernetty’s attack, was issued at London in three vols. in 1770:—

_Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains, ou Mémoires interessants pour servir à l’histoire de l’espèce humaine_.

_Contents_: Du climat de l’Amérique.—De la complexion altérée de ses habitants.—De la découverte du Nouveau-Monde.—De la variété de l’espèce humaine en Amérique.—De la couleur des Américains.—Des anthropophages.—Des Eskimaux; des Patagons.—Des Blafards et des Négres blancs.—De l’Orang-Outang.—Des hermaphrodites de la Floride.—De la circoncision et de l’infibulation.—Du génie abruti des Américains.—De quelques usages bizarres, communs aux deux continents.—De l’usage des flèches empoisonnées chez les peuples des deux continents.—De la religion des Américains.—Sur le grand Lama.—Sur les vicissitudes de notre globe.—Sur le Paraguai.—Défenses des recherches sur les Américains.—D. Pernetty. Dissertation sur l’Amérique et les Américains contre les recherches philosophiques de M. de Pauw.

There was an edition in French at Berlin in 1770, in 2 vols., and, with Pernetty annexed, in 1774, in 3 vols. The _Defenses_ was printed also at Berlin in 1770. These were all included in De Pauw’s _Œuvres Philosophiques_, published at Paris “_an iii_.” An English translation by J. Thomson was printed at London, 1795. Daniel Webb published some selections in English at Bath, 1789, 1795, and at Rochdale, 1806. Pernetty’s _Examen_ was printed at Berlin in 1769. There is another little tractate of this time attributed to Pernetty, _De l’Amérique et des Américains_ (Berlin, 1771), in whose humor De Pauw fares no better; but Rich has a note on the questionable attributing of it to Pernetty, and its real author was probably C. de Bonneville (cf. Hœfer).

[1576] _Delle Lettere Americane_ (_opere_, xi.-xiv., Milano, 1784-94); better known in J. B. L. Villebrune’s French translation, _Lettres Américaines_ (2 vols.; Paris and Boston, 1787); Sabin, no. 10,912. There is also a German version.

[1577] _The United States elevated to Glory and Honor._ New Haven, 1783. It is included in J. W. Thornton’s _Pulpit of the Amer. Revolution_ (Boston, 1860).

[1578] This Canaanite view, though hardly held with the scope given by Dr. Stiles, had been asserted earlier by Gomara, De Lery, and Lescarbot. Cf. _For. Quart. Rev._, Oct., 1856.

[1579] G. H. Loskiel, _Mission of the United Brethren among the Indians, trans. from the German by La Trobe_ (London, 1794). Johann Gottlieb Fritsch, _Disputatio historico-geographica in qua quæritur utrum veteres Americam noverint nec ne_ (Curæ Regnilianæ, 1796).

[1580] _Observations on some Parts of Nat. Hist._, Lond., 1787.

[1581] Pilling, _Bibliog. Siouan languages_ (1887, p. 4).

[1582] _Hist. North Carolina_, 1811-12.

[1583] Haven, _Archæol. U. States_, 35. Cf. Mitchell’s papers in the _Archæeologia Americana_, i.

[1584] There is a fair sample of the conjectural habit of the time in the paper of Moses Fiske, in the first volume of the Society’s _Transactions_, 300.

[1585] _Mexico_, Kirk’s ed., iii. 375.

[1586] _Archæol._ _U. S._, 48.

[1587] _Hist. of Tennessee_, Nashville, 1823.

[1588] Introd. to Marshall’s _Kentucky_, 1824; _The Anc. Mts. of N. & S. America_, 2d ed., 1838, etc.

[1589] _Amer. Antiq. and Discoveries in the West_, 1833, which Rafinesque thought largely taken from him. Cf. Haven on these writers, pp. 38-41; Sabin, xv. 65, 484.

[1590] Pilling, _Bibliog. Siouan languages_, pp. 47, 48.

[1591] Peschel, _Races of Men_ (London, 1876), p. 32.

[1592] Eng. transl. in _Memoirs, Anthropological Society of London_, i. 372.

[1593] There is a summary of the progressive conflict on the question of the unity and plurality of races in the introduction to Topinard’s _Anthropology_. Cf. Peschel’s _Races of Man_ (Eng. transl., N. Y., 1876), p. 6.

[1594] The idea in general was not wholly new. Capt. Bernard Romans, in his _Concise Nat. Hist. of East and West Florida_ (N. Y., 1776), had expressed the opinion “that God created an original man and woman in this part of the globe of different species from any in the other parts” (p. 38). Clavigero, in 1780, believed that the distinct linguistic traits of the Americans pointed to something like an independent origin. Cf. W. D. Whitney on the “Bearing of Languages on the Unity of Man,” in _North Amer. Review_, cv. 214.

[1595] Cf. Jeffries Wyman in _No. Am. Rev._, li.

[1596] Cardinal Wiseman’s _Lectures_, 5th ed., London, p. 158.

[1597] Described in _Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc._, ii. The collection went to the Acad. of Natural Sciences in Philad., and is examined by Dr. J. Austin Meigs in its _Proc._, 1860. Cf. Meigs’s _Catalogue of human crania in the Acad. Nat. Sci._ (Philad., 1857).

[1598] Morton’s latest results are given in a paper, “The physical type of the American Indian,” left unfinished, but completed by John S. Phillips, and printed in Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes_, ii. He also printed _An Inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America_ (Boston, 1842; Philad., 1844); and _Some Observations in the Ethnography and Archæology of the American Aborigines_ (N. Haven, 1846,—from the _Amer. Jour. of Science_, 2d ser., ii.). Cf. _Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc._ ii. 219. Cf. Allibone’s _Dictionary_, ii. 1376. It is certainly evident that skull capacity is no sure measure of intelligence, and the Indian custom of misshaping the head offers some serious obstacles in the study. Cf. Nadaillac, _L’Amér. préhist._, 512; L. A. Gosse, _Les déformations artificielles du crane_ (Paris, 1855); Daniel Wilson’s “Indications of Ancient Customs suggested by certain cranial forms,” in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._ (1863); Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde_, p. 12; W. F. Whitney, on “Anomalies, injuries and diseases of the bones of the native races of No. America,” in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, xviii. 434. On the difficulties of the study see Lucien Carr in _Ibid._ xi. 361; Flower in the _Journal Anthropological Institute_, May, 1885; Dawson, _Fossil Men_, chap. 7. Further see: Anders Retzius, on “The Present State of Ethnology in relation to the form of the human skull,” in _Smithson. Rept._, 1859; Waitz’s _Introd. to Anthropology_, Eng. transl., pp. 233, 261; Carl Vogt’s _Lectures on Man_ (lect. 2); A. Quatrefages and E. T. Hamy, _Crania Ethica_ (Paris, 1873-77); Nott and Gliddon, _Types of Mankind_; Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhist._, ch. 9, and _Les premiers hommes_, i. ch. 3.

[1599] An anonymous book, _The Genesis of Earth and Man_ (Edinburgh, 1856), places the negro as the primal stock, and traces out the higher races by variation.

[1600] Dr. Nott had given some indication of his views in “An Examination of the physical history of the Jews in its bearing on the question of the Unity of the Races” (_Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, iii. 1850).

[1601] Cf. References in Allibone, i. 678; _Poole’s Index_, p. 796.

[1602] The editor’s collaborateurs were Alfred Maury, Francis Palszky, J. Aitken Meigs, J. Leidy, and Louis Agassiz. Nott had in the interval since his previous book furnished an appendix on the unity or plurality of Races to the English transl. of Gobineau’s _Moral Diversity of Races_ (Philad., 1856).

[1603] Haven gives a summary of the arguments of each (p. 90, etc.). For various views on this side see Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. ii. 36, 37, and his _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 2, where he allows that the proofs from traditions and customs are not conclusive; George Palmer’s _Migration from Shinar; or, the Earliest Links between the Old and New Continents_ (London, 1879); Edward Fontaine’s _How the World was Peopled_ (N. Y., 1876); Dr. Samuel Forrey in _Amer. Biblical Repository_, July, 1843; McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, under “Adam”; Henry Cowles’ _Pentateuch_ (N. Y., 1874),—not to name many others. See _Poole’s Index_, 1073.

[1604] Wilson’s first criticism was in the _Canadian Journal_ (1857); then in the _Edinburgh Philosophical Journal_ (Jan., 1858); in the _Smithsonian Rept._ (1862), p. 240, on the “American Cranial Type;” and in his _Prehist. Man_ (ii. ch. 20). Latham’s _Nat. Hist. of the Varieties of Man_. Charles Pickering’s _Races of Men_ (1848). The orthodox monogenism of A. de Quatrefages is expressed in his _De l’unité de l’espèce humaine_ (Paris, 1864, 1869); in his _Hist. générale des Races humaines_ (Paris, 1887); in his _Human Species_ (N. Y., 1879), and in papers in _Revue des Cours Scientifiques_, 1864-5, 1867-8; in his _Nat. Hist. of Man_ (Eng. transl., N. Y., 1875); in _Catholic World_, vii. 67; and in _Popular Science Monthly_, i. 61.

Cf. further, Retzius in _Archives des Sciences Naturelles_ (Genève, 1845-52); Col. Chas. Hamilton Smith’s _Nat. Hist. Human Species_ (1848); Dawson in _Leisure Hour_, xxiii. 813, and in his _Fossil Men_, p. 334, who holds the biblical account to be “the most complete and scientific;” Figuier’s _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p. 469. Geo. Bancroft sees no signs to reverse the old judgment respecting a single human race.

[1605] He found all three varieties of skulls in America: the long-headed (dolichocephalic), the short-headed (brachycephalic), and the medium (mesocephalic). He found the long heads to predominate, except in Peru. Meigs had earlier studied the subject in his _Observations on the Form of the Occiput_ (Philad., 1860). Cf. Busk in _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, April, 1873; Wyman, in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, 1871.

[1606] H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 129, 131, gives references on the autochthonous theory. It is held by Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, ii. 117; Fred. von Hellwald in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866; Bollaert’s “Contribution to an Introduction to the Anthropology of the New World” in _Memoirs, Anthrop. Society of London_, ii. 92; F. Müller, _Allgemeine Ethnographie_; and Simonin, _L’homme Américain_ (Paris, 1870). F. W. Putnam (_Report_ in _Wheeler’s Survey_, vii. p. 18) says: “The primitive race of America was as likely autochthonous and of Pliocene age as of Asiatic origin.” The autochthonous view is probably losing ground. Dall, in ch. 10, appended to the English translation of Nadaillac’s _Prehistoric America_, sums up the prevailing arguments against it. Cf. also Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des Indiens du Nouveau Monde_, ch. 1.

[1607] Cf. also Prescott’s _Essays_, 224.

[1608] This view has necessarily been abandoned in his later editions. Cf. orig. ed., iii. 307; and final revision, ii. 130.

[1609] Haven at the end of his second chapter tries to place Schoolcraft, and he does better than one would expect, at that day. For Schoolcraft’s special notes on Antiquities see his vol. i. p. 44; ii. 83; iii. 73; iv. 113; v. 85, 657. For bibliography see Pilling, Sabin, Field, etc.

[1610] Again he says: “Man may be assumed to be prehistoric wherever his chroniclings of himself are undesigned, and his history is wholly recoverable by induction. The term has, strictly speaking, no chronological significance; but in its relative application corresponds to other archæological, in contradistinction to geological periods.” Of America he says: “A continent where man may be studied under circumstances which seem to furnish the best guarantee of his independent development.” Dawkins (_Cave hunting_, 136) says: “For that series of events which extends from the borders of history back to the remote age, where the geologist, descending the stream of time, meets the archæologist, I have adopted the term _prehistoric_.”

The divisions of prehistoric time now most commonly employed are: For the oldest, the Palæolithic age, as Lubbock first termed it, which, with a shadowy termination, has an unknown beginning, covering an interval geologically of vast extent. It is the primitive stone age, the epoch of flint-chippers; and but a single positive vestige of any community of living is known to archæologists: the village of Solutré, in Eastern France, being held by some to be associated with man in this earlier stage of his development. This stone period is sometimes divided in Europe into an earlier and later period, representing respectively the men of the river drift and of the caves. In the first period, called sometimes that of the race of Canstadt, and by Mortillet the Chellean period, we have, as is claimed, a savage hunter race, represented by the Neanderthal skull; and because in two jaw-bones discovered the genial tubercle is undeveloped, a school of archæologists contend that the race was speechless (Horatio Hale’s “Origin of Language,” in _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, xxxv., Cambridge, 1886; and separate, p. 31). This theory, however, seems to rest on a misconception. Cf. Topinard on the jaw-bone from the Naulette cave in the _Revue d’Anthropologie_, 3d ser. i., p. 422 (1886). It is held that the ethnical relations of this race are unknown, and it is not palpably connected with the race of the later period, the race of the caves, which archæologists, like Carl Vogt, Lartet, and Christy, call the cave-bear epoch, as its evidences are found in the cave deposits of Europe.

This cave race is represented by the Cro-magnon skull, and, as Dawkins holds, is perpetuated to-day by the Eskimo, and was very likely also represented in the Guanches of the Canary Islands. Quatrefages calls it the race of Cro-magnon; and the vanishing of it into the Neolithic people is obscure. It is claimed by some, but the evidence is questionable, that the development of the muscles of speech make this race the first to speak, and that thus man, as a speaking being, is probably not ten thousand years old.

The interval before the shaped and polished stone implements were used may have been long in some places, and the gradation may have been confused in others; and it is indeed sometimes said that the one and the other condition exist in savage regions at the present day, as many archæologists hold that they have always existed, side by side, though this proposition is also denied. Indeed, it is a question if the terms of the archæologist, signifying ages or epochs, have any time value, being rather characteristics of stages of development than of passing time. Those who find the ruder implements to stand for a people living with the cave-bear find, as they contend, a shorter-headed race producing these finer stone implements, and call it the Reindeer epoch. One of Lubbock’s terms, the Neolithic age, has gained larger acceptance as a designation for this period since 1865, when he introduced it. With these polished stones we first find signs of domestic animals and of the practice of agriculture. Any considerable collection of these stone implements and ornaments will present to the observer great varieties, but with steady types, of such implements as axes, celts, hammers, knives, drills, scrapers, mortars and pestles, pitted stones, plummets, sinkers, spear-points, arrow-heads, daggers, pipes, gorgets,—not to name others.

On the American stone age, see Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, p. 37; L. P. Gratacap in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv.; and W. J. McGee, in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, Nov., 1888, for condensed views; but the student will prefer the more enlarged views of Rau, Abbott and others.

[1611] Cambridge, Eng., 1862; revised, 1865; and largely rewritten, London, 1876. Cf. his “Pre-Aryan American Man,” in the _Roy. Soc. Canada Trans._, i., 2d sect., 35, and his “Unwritten History” in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1862).

[1612] London, 1865, 1870; N. Y., 1878.

[1613] Tylor speaks of Klemm’s _Allgemeine Culturgeschichte der Menschheit_ and his _Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft_ as containing “invaluable collections of facts bearing on the history of civilization.”

[1614] _Royal Inst. of Gt. Brit. Proc._, reprinted in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867.

[1615] _Internat. Cong. Prehist. Archæol. Trans._, 1868.

[1616] London, 1871; 2d ed., 1874, somewhat amplified; Boston, 1874; N. Y., 1877.

[1617] See preface to _Primitive Culture_, 1st ed.

[1618] Vols. iii. and iv. of this treatise (Leipzig, 1862-64) are given to “Die Amerikaner,” and are provided with a list of books on the subject, and ethnological maps of North and South America. Brinton (_Myths_, p. 40) thinks it the best work yet written on the American Indians, though he thinks that Waitz errs on the religious aspects. Waitz has fully discussed the question of climate as affecting the development of people, and this is included with full references in that part of his great work which in the English translation is called an _Introduction to Anthropology_. Wallace and other observers contend that the direct efficacy of physical conditions is overrated, and that climate is but one of the many factors. F. H. Cushing discusses the question of habitation as affected by surroundings in the _Fourth Ann. Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, p. 473.

[1619] Cf. Quatrefages’ _Les Progrès de l’Anthropologie_ (Paris, 1868), and Paul Topinard’s _Anthropology_ (English translation, London, 1878). Quatrefages (_Human Race_, New York, 1879) explains the anthropological method (p. 27).

[1620] Given in _Popular Science Monthly_, Dec., 1884, p. 152; and in the same periodical p. 264, is an account and portrait of Tylor.

[1621] London, N. Y., 1865; 2d ed. somewhat enlarged, Lond., 1869; and later. Part of this work had appeared earlier in the _National Hist. Review_, 1861-64, including a paper (ch. 8) on No. Amer. Archæology in Jan., 1863, which was reprinted in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1862, and was translated in the _Revue Archéologique_, 1865.

This book of Lubbock’s and Tylor’s correlative work probably represent the best dealing with the subject in English; and some such book as Jas. A. Farrer’s _Primitive Manners and Customs_ (N. Y., 1879) will lead up to them with readers less studious. The English reader may find some comparative treatments in the English version of Waitz’s _Introd. to Anthropology_ (p. 284), etc.; much that is suggestive and in some way supplemental to Tylor and Lubbock in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_; some vigorous and perhaps sweeping characterizations in Lesley’s _Origin and Destiny of Man_ (ch. 6); and other aspects in Winchell’s _Preadamites_ (ch. 26), Foster’s _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._ (ch. 9), F. A. Allen in _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, vol. i. 79. Humboldt points out the non-pastoral character of the American tribes (_Views of Nature_, ii. 42). Helps’ _Realmah_ deals with the prehistoric condition of man.

[1622] London, N. Y., 1870; 2d ed.; 3d ed., 1875; 4th ed., 1882,—each with additions and revisions.

[1623] Cf. his _Studies in Anc. Hist._ He elucidates the early practice of capturing a wife, and controverts Morgan’s _Ancient Society_. Cf. W. F. Allen in _Penn. Monthly_, June, 1880.

[1624] Cf. also his “Early Condition of Man,” in _British Ass. Proc._, 1867; and Lyell’s _Principles of Geology_, 11th ed., ii. 485; Dawkins in _No. Amer. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 348.

[1625] Darwin took Lubbock’s side, _Descent of Man_, i. 174. Bradford, in his _American Antiquities_, held the barbarous American to be a degraded remnant of a society originally more cultivated; and a similar view was held by S. F. Jarvis in his _Discourse_ before the New York Hist. Soc. (Proc., iii., N. Y., 1821). Cf. Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., 67, 276. Rawlinson (_Antiquity of man historically considered_) considers savagery a “corruption and degradation,—the result of adverse circumstances during a long period.”

[1626] N. Y., 1869; originally in _Good Words_, Mar.-June, 1868.

[1627] Dawson’s _Fossil Men and their modern representatives_ (London, 1880, 1883) is “an attempt to illustrate the characters and conditions of prehistoric men in Europe by those of the American races.” A conservative reliance on the biblical record, as long understood, characterizes Dawson’s usual speculations. Cf. his _Nature and the Bible_, his _Story of the Earth_, his _Origin of the World_, and his _Address_ as president of the geological section of the Amer. Association in 1876. He confronts his opponents’ views of the long periods necessary to effect geographical changes by telling them that in historic times “the Hyrcanian ocean has dried up and Atlantis has gone down.”

[1628] Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 218) says: “I think that American archæologists and geologists must refuse to accept the distinction of a palæolithic from a neolithic period until further evidence can be obtained.”

[1629] These are very nearly the views of Winchell in his _Preadamites_, p. 420.

[1630] Cf. his papers in _Methodist Quarterly_, xxxvi. 581; xxxvii. 29.

[1631] This is also considered important evidence by Dawson, as well as Winchell’s estimate, in his _5th Report, Minnesota Geol. Survey_ (1876), of the 8,000 or 9,000 years necessary for the falls of St. Anthony to have worked back from Fort Snelling. Edw. Fontaine’s _How the World was peopled_ (N. Y., 1872) is another expression of this recent-origin belief.

[1632] This cataclysmic element of force, as opposed to the gradual uniformity theory of Lyell, finds expounders in Huxley and Prestwich, and is the burden of H. H. Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_ (London, 1887) in its palæontological and archæological aspects, its geological aspects having been touched by him so far only in some papers in the _Geological Mag._ This great overthrow of the gigantic animals, during which the man intermediate between the palæolithic and neolithic age lived, was not universal, so that the less unwieldy species largely saved themselves; and it was in effect the scriptural flood, of which traditions were widely preserved among the North American tribes (_Mammoth and the Flood_, 307, 444).

[1633] Southall answered his detractors in the _Methodist Quarterly_, xxxvii. 225. Geo. Rawlinson (_Antiq. of Man historically considered, Present Day Tract, No. 9_, or _Journal of Christian Philosophy_, April, 1883) speaks of the antiquity of prehistoric man as involving considerations “to a large extent speculative” as to limits, “that are to be measured not so much by centuries as by millenia.” He condenses the arguments for a recent origin of man.

[1634] There is a cursory survey in John Scoffern’s _Stray leaves of science and folk lore_ (London, 1870).

[1635] Cf. his papers in _Leisure Hour_, xxiii. 740, 766; xxvi. 54.

[1636] Current periodical views can be traced in Poole’s _Index_ (vols. i. and ii.) under “Man,” “Races,” “Prehistoric,” etc.

The views of the cosmogonists, running back to the beginning of the sixteenth century, are followed down to the birth of modern geology in Pattison’s _The Earth and the Word_ (Lond., 1858), and condensed in M’Clintock & Strong’s _Cyclopædia_ (iii. 795).

[1637] _Verse 1._ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

_Verse 2._ And the earth was without form and void, etc.

[1638] Cf. also J. D. Whitney’s _Climatic Changes_. The present proportion of land to water is reckoned as four is to eleven. The ocean’s average depth is variously estimated at from eleven to thirteen times that of the average elevation of land above water, or as 11,000 or 13,000 feet is to 1,000 feet. The bulk of water on the globe is computed at thirty-six times the cubic measurement of the land above water (_Ibid._ 194, 209).

[1639] For an extended discussion of the Atlantis question, see _ante_, ch. 1.

[1640] It is enough to indicate the necessary correlation of this subject with the transformation theory of J. B. A. Lamarck as enunciated in his _Philosophie Zoologique_ (Paris, 1809; again, 1873), which Cuvier opposed; and with the new phase of it in what is called Darwinism, a theory of the survival of the fittest, leading ultimately to man. Lyell (_Principles of Geology_, 11th ed., ii, 495) presents the diverse sides of the question, which is one hardly germane to our present purpose.

[1641] London, 1863, 3 eds., each enlarged; Philad., 1863. In his final edition Lyell acknowledges his obligations to Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Man_ and John Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_. His final edition is called: _The geological evidences of the antiquity of man, with an outline of glacial and post-tertiary geology and remarks on the origin of species with special reference to man’s first appearance on the earth_. 4th ed., revised (London, 1873).

[1642] _Recent Origin of Man_, p. 10.

[1643] Another way of looking at it gives reasons for this omission: “The first chapter of Genesis is not a geological treatise. It is absolutely valueless in geological discussion, and has no value whatever save as representing what the Jews borrowed from the Babylonians, and as preserving for us an early cosmology” (Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_, Lond., 1887, p. ix). Between Lyell and Gabriel de Mortillet (_La préhistorique Antiquité de l’Homme_, Paris, 1881) on the one hand and Southall on the other, there are the more cautious geologists, like Prestwich, who claim that we must wait before we can think of measuring by years the interval from the earliest men. (Cf. “Theoretical considerations on the drift containing implements,” in _Roy. Soc. Philos. Trans._, 1862)

[1644] Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1873, p. 33.

[1645] Winchell’s book is an enlargement of an article contributed by him to M’Clintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia of Biblical literature_, etc. (vol viii., 1879),—the editors of which, by their foot-notes, showed themselves uneasy under some of his inferences and conclusions, which do not agree with their conservative views.

[1646] Lois Agassiz advanced (1863) this view of the first emergence of land in America, in the _Atlantic Monthly_, xi. 373; also in _Geol. Sketches_, p. 1,—marking the Laurentian hills along the Canadian borders of the United States as the primal continent. Cf. Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, ch. 9. Mortillet holds that so late as the early quaternary period Europe was connected with America by a region now represented by the Faröes, Iceland, and Greenland. Some general references on the antiquity of man in America follow:—Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_. Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, ch. 2. Nadaillac, _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 8. Foster, _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._, and _Chicago Acad. of Sciences, Proc._, i. (1869). Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 7. Emil Schmidt, _Die ältesten Spuren des Menschen in Nord Amerika_ (Hamburg, 1887). A. R. Wallace in _Nineteenth Century_ (Nov., 1887, or _Living Age_, clxxv. 472). _Pop. Science Monthly_, Mar., 1877. An epitome in _Science_, Apr. 3, 1885, of a paper by Dr. Kollmann in the _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_. F. Larkin, _Ancient Man in America_ (N. Y., 1880). The biblical record restrains Southall in all his estimates of the antiquity of man in America, as shown in his _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 25.

[1647] Hugh Falconer (_Palæontological Memoirs_, ii. 579) says: “The earliest date to which man has as yet been traced back in Europe is probably but as yesterday in comparison with the epoch at which he made his appearance in more favored regions.”

[1648] Cf. also Putnam’s _Report_ in Wheeler’s Survey, 1879, p. 11.

[1649] Cf. H. H. Bancroft, iv. 703: Short, 125, etc.

[1650] Dr. Brinton concludes that since the region is one of a rapid deposition of strata, the tracks may not be older than quaternary. The track here figured was 9½ inches long; some were 10 inches. The maximum stride was 18 inches. Cf. Dr. Earl Flint in _Amer. Antiquarian_ (vi. 112), Mar., 1884, and (vii. 156) May,1885; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, 1884, p. 356; 1885, p. 414; _Amer. Ant. Soc. Proc._, 1884, p. 92.

[1651] _Story of the Earth and Man._

[1652] _The Great Ice-Age, and its Relations to the Antiquity of Man_ (1874).

[1653] _Mammoth and the Flood._

[1654] “We cannot fix a date, in the historical sense, for events which happened outside history, and cannot measure the antiquity of man in terms of years.” Dawkins in _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 338. Tylor (_Early Hist. of Mankind_, 197) says “Geological evidence, though capable of showing the lapse of vast periods of time, has scarcely admitted of these periods being brought into definite chronological terms.” Prestwich (_On the geol. position and age of flint-implement-bearing beds_, London, 1864,—from the _Roy. Soc. Phil. Trans._) says: “However we extend our present chronology with respect to the first appearance of men, it is at present unsafe and premature to count by hundreds of thousands of years.” Southall (_Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 33) epitomizes the extreme views of the advocates of glaciation in the present temperate zone.

[1655] Cf. Louis Agassiz, _Geological Sketches_ (1865), p. 210; 2d series (1886), p. 77.

[1656] J. Adhémer, _Revolutions de la Mer_, who advocates this theory, connects with it the movement of the apsides, and thinks that it is the consequent great accumulation of ice at the north pole which by its weight displaces the centre of gravity; and as the action is transferred from one pole to the other, the periodic oscillation of that centre of gravity is thus caused. The theory no doubt borrows something of its force with some minds from the great law of mutability in nature. That it is a grand field for such theorizers as Lorenzo Burge, his _Preglacial Man and the Aryan Race_ shows; but authorities like Lyell and Sir John Herschel find no sufficient reason in it for the great ice-sheet which they contend for. Cf. H. Le Hon’s _Influence des lois cosmiques sur la climatologie et la géologie_ (Bruxelles, 1868). W. B. Galloway’s _Science and Geology in relation to the Universal Deluge_ (Lond., 1888) points out what he thinks the necessary effects of such changes of axis. J. D. Whitney (_Climatic changes of later geological times, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zoöl._, vii. 392, 394) disbelieves all these views, and contends that the most eminent astronomers and climatologists are opposed to them.

[1657] Of the manifold reasons which have been assigned for these great climatic changes (Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, 391, and Croll, _Discussions_, enumerates the principal reasons) there is at least some considerable credence given to the one of which James Croll has been the most prominent advocate, and which points to that reduction of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit which in 22,000 years will be diminished from the present scale to one sixth of it, or to about half a million miles. This change in the eccentricity induces physical changes, which allow a greater or less volume of tropical water to flow north. In this way the once mild climate of Greenland is accounted for (Wallace’s _Island Life_). Croll first advanced his views in the Philosophical Mag., Aug., 1864; but he did not completely formulate his theory till in his _Climate and time in their geological relations, a theory of secular changes of the earth’s climate_ (N. Y., 1875). It gained the acquiescence of Lyell and others; but a principal objector appeared in the astronomer Simon Newcomb (_Amer. Jl. of Sci. and Arts_, April, 1876; Jan., 1884; _Philosoph. Mag._, Feb., 1884). Croll answered in _Remarks_ (London, 1884), but more fully in a further development of his views in his _Discussions on Climate and Cosmology_ (N. Y., 1886). Whitney’s _Climatic Changes_ argues on entirely different grounds.

[1658] _Principles of Geology_, ch. 10-13, where he gives a secondary place to the arguments of Croll.

[1659] Emile Cartailhac’s _L’Age de pierre dans les souvenirs et superstitions populaires_ (Paris, 1877).

[1660] Joly, _L’Homme avant les métaux_, or in the English transl., _Man before Metals_, ch. 2. Nadaillac (_Les Premiers Hommes_, i. 127) reproduces Mahudel’s cuts.

[1661] Foster, _Prehistoric Races_, 50, notes some obscure facts which might indicate that man lived back of the glacial times, in the Miocene tertiary period. These are the discoveries associated with the names of Desnoyers and the Abbé Bourgeois, and familiar enough to geologists. They have found little credence. Cf. Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_, 410, and his _Scientific Lectures_, 140; Büchner’s _Man_, p. 31; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii, 425; and _L’Homme tertiaire_ (Paris, 1885); Peschel’s _Races of Men_, p. 34; Edward Clodd in _Modern Review_, July, 1880; Dawkins’ _Address_, Salford, 1877, p. 9; Joly, _Man before Metals_, 177. Quatrefages (_Human Species_, N. Y., 1879, p. 150) assents to their authenticity. Many of these look to the later tertiary (Pliocene) as the beginning of the human epoch; but Dawkins (_No. Am. Rev._, cxxxvii, 338; cf. his _Early Man in Britain_, p. 90), as well as Huxley, say that all real knowledge of man goes not back of the quaternary. Cf. further, Quatrefages, _Introd. à l’étude des races humaines_ (Paris, 1887), p. 91; and his _Nat. Hist. Man_ (N. Y., 1874), p. 44.

Winchell (McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, viii. 491-2, and in his _Preadamites_) concisely classes the evidences of tertiary man as “Preglacial remains erroneously supposed human,” and “Human remains erroneously supposed pre-glacial;” but he confines these conclusions to Europe only, allowing that the American non-Caucasian man might, perhaps, be carried back (p. 492) into the tertiary age.

Cf. on the tertiary (Pliocene) man, E. S. Morse in _Amer. Naturalist_, xviii. 1001,—an address at the Philad. meeting, Am. Asso. Adv. Science and his earlier paper in the _No. Amer. Rev._; C. C. Abbott in _Kansas City Rev._, iii. 413 (also see iv. 84, 326); _Cornhill Mag._, li. 254 (also in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xxvii. 103, and _Eclectic Mag._, civ. 601). Dr. Morton believed that the Eocene man, of the oldest tertiary group, would yet be discovered. Agassiz, in 1865 (_Geol. Sketches_, 200), thought the younger naturalists would live to see sufficient proofs of the tertiary man adduced. S. R. Pattison (_Age of Man geologically considered in Present Day Tract, no. 13_, or _Journal of Christ. Philos._ July, 1883) does not believe in the tertiary man, instancing, among other conclusions, that no trace of cereals is found in the tertiary strata, and that these strata show other conditions unfavorable to human life. His conclusions are that man has existed only about 8,000 years, and that it is impossible for geological science at present to confute or disprove it. In his view man appeared in the first stage of the quaternary period, was displaced by floods in the second, and for the third lived and worked on the present surface.

[1662] Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, 4th ed., ch. 18. Daniel Wilson, on “The supposed evidence of the existence of interglacial man,” in the _Canadian Journal_, Oct., 1877. Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 1; _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 10; and his _De la période glaciaire et de l’existence de l’homme durant cette période en Amérique_ (Paris, 1884), extracted from _Matériaux_, etc. G. F. Wright on “Man and the glacial period in America,” in _Mag. West. Hist._ (Feb., 1885), i. 293 (with maps), and his “Preglacial man in Ohio,” in the _Ohio Archæol. and Hist. Quart._ (Dec., 1887), i. 251. Miss Babbitt’s “Vestiges of glacial man in Minnesota,” in the _Amer. Naturalist_, June, July, 1884, and _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._ xxxii. 385.

[1663] Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 323, considers them flood-gravels instead, in supporting his thesis.

[1664] _Pop. Science Monthly_, xxii. 315. _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874-75. Reports of progress, etc., in the _Peabody Museum Reports_, nos. x. and xi. (1878, 1879). Prof. N. S. Shaler accompanies the first of these with some comments, in which he says: “If these remains are really those of man, they prove the existence of interglacial man on this part of our shore.” He is understood latterly to have become convinced of their natural character. J. D. Whitney and Lucien Carr agree as to their artificial character (_Ibid._ xii. 489). Cf. Abbott on Flint Chips (refuse work) in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 506; H. W. Haynes in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, Jan., 1881; F. W. Putnam in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, no. xiv. p. 23; Henry Carvell Lewis on _The Trenton gravel and its relation to the antiquity of man_ (Philad., 1880); also in the _Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia_ (1877-1879, pp. 60-73; and 1880, p. 306). Abbott has also registered the discovery of a molar tooth (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, xvi. 177), and the under jaw of a man (_Ibid._ xviii. 408, and _Matériaux_, etc., xviii. 334.) On recent discoveries of human skulls in the Trenton gravels, see _Peab. Mus. Rept._ xxii. 35. The subject of the Trenton-gravels man, and of his existence in the like gravels in Ohio and Minnesota, was discussed at a meeting of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist., of which there is a report in their _Proceedings_, vol. xxiii. These papers have been published separately: _Palæolithic man in eastern and central North America_ (Cambridge, 1888). CONTENTS:—Putnam, F. W. Comparison of palæolithic implements.—Abbott, C. C. The antiquity of man in the valley of the Delaware.—Wright, G. F. The age of the Ohio gravel-beds.—Upham, Warren. The recession of the ice-sheet in Minnesota in its relation to the gravel deposits overlying the quartz implements found by Miss Babbitt at Little Falls, Minn.—Discussion and concluding remarks, by H. W. Haynes, E. S. Morse, F. W. Putnam. Cf. also _Amer. Antiquarian_, Jan., 1888, p. 46; Th. Belt’s _Discovery of stone implements in the glacial drift of No. America_ (Lond., 1878, and _Q. Jour. Sci._ xv. 63; Dawkins in _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 347.)

[1665] Cf. also _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xix. 492; _Science_, vii. 41; _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, xxi. 124; _Matériaux_, etc. xviii. 334; _Philad. Acad. Nat. Sciences, Proc._ (1880, p. 306). Abbott refers to the contributions of Henry C. Lewis of the second Geol. Survey of Penna. (_Proc. Philad. Acad. Nat. Sciences_, and “The antiquity and origin of the Trenton gravels,” in Abbott’s book), and of George H. Cook in the _Annual Reports_ of the New Jersey state geologist. Abbott has recently summarized his views on the “Evidences of the Antiquity of Man in Eastern North America,” in the _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, xxxvii., and separately (Salem, 1888).

[1666] Figuier, _Homme Primitif_, introd.

[1667] The references are very numerous; but it is enough to refer to the general geological treatises: Vogt’s _Lectures on Man_, nos. 9, 10; Nadaillac’s _Les Prem. Hommes_, ii. 7; Dawkins in _Intellectual Observer_, xii. 403; and Ed. Lartet, _Nouvelles recherches sur la coexistence de l’homme et des grands mammifères fossiles, réputés caractéristiques de la dernière période geologique_, in the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_, 4^e série, xv. 256. Buffon first formulated the belief in extinct animals from some mastodon bones and teeth sent to him from the Big Bone Lick in Kentucky, about 1740, and Cuvier first applied the name mastodon, though from the animal’s resemblance to the Siberian mammoth it has sometimes been called by the latter name. There are in reality the fossil remains of both mastodon and mammoth found in America. On the bones from the Big Bone Lick see Thomson’s _Bibliog. Ohio_, no. 44.

[1668] Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, i. ch. 2; _Proc. Amer. Acad. Nat. Sciences_, July, 1859; _Amer. Journal of Sci. and Arts_, xxxvi. 199; cix. 335; _Pop. Sci. Rev._, xiv. 278; A. H. Worthen’s _Geol. Survey, Illinois_ (1866), i. 38; Haven in _Smithsonian Contrib._, viii. 142; H. H. Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_ (Lond., 1887), p. 319; J. P. MacLean’s _Mastodon, Mammoth and Man_ (Cincinnati, 1886). Cf. references under “Mammoth” and “Mastodon,” in _Poole’s Index_. Koch represented that he found the remains of a mastodon in Missouri, with the proofs about the relics that the animal had been slain by stone javelins and arrows (_St. Louis Acad. of Sci. Trans._, i. 62, 1857). The details have hardly been accepted on Koch’s word, since some doubtful traits of his character have been made known (Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._, 116; Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_, 37). There have been claims also advanced for a stone resembling a hatchet, found with such animals in the modified drift of Jersey Co., Illinois. E. L. Berthoud (_Acad. Nat. Sci., Philad. Proc._ 1872) has reported on human relics found with extinct animals in Wyoming and Colorado. Dr. Holmes (_Ibid._ July, 1859) had described pottery found with the bones of the megatherium. Lyell seems to have hesitated to associate man with the extinct animals in America, when the remains found at Natchez were shown to him in an early visit to America (_Antiquity of Man_, 237). Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 317, enumerates the later discoveries, some being found under recent conditions (_Ibid._ 278), and so recent that the trunk itself has been observed (p. 299). In the earliest instance of the bones being reported, Dr. Mather, communicating the fact to the _Philosophical Trans. Roy. Soc._ (1714),