vi. 43, describes the interest in archæology in the State, and

instances the results in the numerous county histories, in the Western Reserve Hist. Soc. publications, in those of the Nat. Hist. Soc. of Cincinnati, of the Archæological Soc. at Madisonville, of the Central Ohio Scientific Association (begun 1878), and of the District Hist. Society (beginning its reports in 1877. Cf. P. G. Thomson, _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 328). The course of the West. Reserve Hist. Soc. is sketched in the _Mag. West. Hist._, Feb., 1888 (vol. vii.).

[1755] _Life of Cutler_, ii. 14, 252.

[1756] _Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc._, iv.

[1757] Their survey is used in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_ by Sherwood.

[1758] Cf. no. 11, 23, 41.

[1759] Some minor references: Whittlesey in _Fireland’s Pioneer_ (June, 1865), and in his _Fugitive Essays_ (Hudson, O., 1852). C. H. Mitchener’s _Ohio Annals_ (Dayton, 1876). _Hist. Mag._, xii. 240. C. W. Butterfield in _Mag. West. Hist._, Oct., 1886 (iv. 777). I. Dille in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 359; and Hill and others in _Ibid._ 1877. C. Thomas in _Science_, xi. 314. Thomas J. Brown on artificial terraces in _Amer. Antiquarian_, May, 1888. Howe’s _Hist. Collections of Ohio_, as well as the numerous county histories, afford some material.

[1760] The annexed map of the vicinity of Chillicothe will show their abundance in a confined area. E. B. Andrews on those in the S. E. in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati, 1879) is of no original value except for Butler County. Squier and Davis give a plan of the fortified hill in this county. Walker’s _Athens County_. Isaac J. Finley and Rufus Putnam’s _Pioneer Record of Ross County_ (Cincinnati, 1871). A plan of the High Bank works in this county is given in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, v. 56. The Highland County works, called Fort Hill, are described in the _Ohio Arch. & Hist. Q._, 1887, p. 260. G. S. B. Hampstead’s _Antiq. of Portsmouth_ (1875) embodies results of a long series of surveys. Cf. _Journal Anthropological Institute_, vii. 132.

[1761] D. Drake’s _Picture of Cincinnati_ (1815); Harrison in _Ohio Hist. & Philos. Soc._, i.; Squier and Davis; Ford’s _Cincinnati_, i. ch. 2.

[1762] The best known of the ancient fortifications of this region is that called Fort Ancient, about 42 miles from Cincinnati. It was surveyed by Prof. Locke in 1843. Cf. L. M. Hosea in _Quart. Journal of Science_ (Cinn., Oct., 1874); Putnam in the _Amer. Architect_, xiii. 19; _Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1878; Force’s _Moundbuilders_; Warden’s _Recherches_; Squier and Davis, with plan reduced in MacLean, p. 21; Short, 51; and on its present condition, _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 168. There is an excellent map of the mounds in the Little Miami Valley, in Dr. C. L. Metz’s _Prehistoric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley_, in the _Journal of the Cincinnati Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. i., Oct., 1878. The explorations of Putnam and Metz are recorded in the _Peab. Mus. Repts._, xvii., xviii. (Marriott mound), and xx. Cf. Putnam’s lecture in _Mag. West. History_, Jan., 1888. There are explorations at Madisonville noticed in the _Journal of the Cinn. Soc. Nat. Hist._, Apr., 1880. Others in this region are recorded in L. B. Welch and J. M. Richardson’s _Prehistoric relics found near Wilmington_ (Sparks mound), and by F. W. Langdon in the appendix of Short.

[1763] M. C. Read’s _Archæol. of Ohio_ (Cleveland, 1888), with cut. Col. Whittlesey made the survey in Squier and Davis, and it is copied by Foster. O. C. Marsh in _Hist. Mag._, xii. 240; and in _Amer. Journal of Science_, xcii. (July, 1866). Isaac Smucker, a local antiquary, in _Newark American_, Dec. 19, 1872; in _Amer. Hist. Record_, ii. 481; and in _Amer. Antiq._, iii. 261 (July, 1881). Cf. Nadaillac, 99, and view in Lossing’s _War of 1812_, p. 565.

Other antiquities of the central region are described in no. 11 _Western Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts_ (Hardin Co.); in _Ohio Arch. Hist. Quart._, March, 1888 (Franklin Co.); _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1863 (Fairfield Co., etc.).

[1764] R. W. McFarland in _Ohio Arch. Hist. Quart._, i. 265 (Oxford).

[1765] Cox in _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci._, 1874 (fort in Clarke Co.).

[1766] _West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts_, no. 41 (1877); and for the Cuyahoga Valley in no. 5 (1871), both by Whittlesey. The works on the Huron River, east of Sandusky, were described, with a plan, by Abraham G. Steiner in _Columbian Mag._, Sept., 1789, reprinted in _Fireland’s Pioneer_, xi. 71. G. W. Hill in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874; E. O. Dunning on the Lick Creek mound in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, v. p. 11; S. D. Peet on a double-walled enclosure in Ashtabula Co. in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1876. Cf. Cornelius Baldwin on ancient burial cists in northeastern Ohio in _West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 56, and Yarrow on mound-burials in _First Rept. Bur. Ethnol._

[1767] Cf. Putnam in _Bull. Essex Inst._, iii. (Nov., 1871), and _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._ (Feb., 1872); Foster, p. 134, with plan. The _Smithsonian Repts._ cover notices by W. Pidgeon (1867), by A. Patton in Knox and Lawrence counties (1873), and by R. S. Robertson (1874).

[1768] _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xii. 473 (1879). For Illinois mounds see Thomas in _Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._; Davidson and Struve’s _Illinois_; E. Baldwin’s _La Salle Co._ (Chicago, 1877); W. McAdams’s _Antiq. of Cahokia_ (Edwardsville, 1883); H. R. Howland in the _Buffalo Soc. Nat. Hist. Bull._, iii.; and in _Smithsonian Repts._, by Chas. Rau (1868); largely on agricultural traces; by Dr. A. Patton (1873); by T. M. Perrine on Union Co. (1873); by T. McWhorter and others (1874); by W. H. Pratt on Whiteside Co. (1874); by J. Shaw on Rock River (1877); and by J. Cochrane on Mason Co. (1877).

[1769] His papers are in the _Smithsonian Repts._, 1873, 1875; _Peabody Mus. Reports_, vi. (1873), on the St. Clair River mounds; _Am. Journal of Arts, etc._, Jan., 1874; _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc._, 1875; on bone relics in _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 65; and on the Lake Huron mounds, in _American Naturalist_, Jan., 1883. Cf. other accounts in _Michigan Pioneer Collections_, ii. 40; iii. 41, 202; S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiq._, Jan., 1888; and on the old fort near Detroit, _Ibid._ p. 37; and Bela Hubbard’s _Memorials of a half century_.

[1770] The copy in Harvard College library has some annotations by George Gale. Lapham’s survey of Aztlan is reproduced in Foster, p. 102. Lapham’s book is summarized by Wm. Barry in the _Wisconsin Hist. Soc. Coll._, iii. 187. These _Collections_ contain other papers on mounds in Crawford Co. by Alfred Brunson (iii. 178); on man-shape mounds (iv. 365); J. D. Butler on “Prehistoric Wisconsin” (vii.); on Aztalan (ix. 103).

The _Transactions_ of the Wisconsin Acad. of Science are also of assistance: vol. iii., a report of a committee on the mounds near Madison, with cuts; vol. iv., a paper by J. M. DeHart on the “Antiquities and platycnemism [flat tibia bones] of the Moundbuilders.”

[1771] S. D. Peet has discussed this aspect in the _Amer. Antiquarian_ (1880), iii. p. 1; vi. 176; vii. 164, 215, 321; viii. 1; ix. 67. He also examines the evidence of the village life of their builders (ix. 10). Cf. his _Emblematic Mounds_; and his paper in the _Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, ix. 40.

[1772] None of the bones of extinct animals have been found in the mounds; nor has the buffalo, long a ranger of the Mississippi Valley, been identified in the shapes of the mounds. (Cf. Peet on the identification of animal mounds in _Amer. Antiq._, vi. 176.) Peet holds they followed the mastodon period (_Ibid._ ix. 67). The elephant mound, so called, has been often shown in cuts. (Cf. _Smithsonian Rept._, 1877, accompanying a paper by J. Warner, and Powell’s _Second Rept. Bur. of Eth._, 153.) Henshaw here discredits the idea of its being intended for an elephant. The evidence of elephant pipes is thought uncertain. Cf. article on mound pipes by Barber in _Amer. Naturalist_, April, 1882.

[1773] _Second Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, p. 159, where Henshaw thinks it may just as well be anything else. Cf. Isaac Smucker in _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 350.

[1774] Cf. _Amer. Antiq._, vi. 254.

[1775] _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvii., and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1883. He points out that the Ohio effigy mounds have a foundation of stones with clay superposed; the Georgia mounds are mainly of stone; while the Wisconsin mounds seem to be constructed only of earth.

Further references on the Wisconsin mounds: _Smithsonian Repts._, by E. E. Breed (1872); by C. K. Dean (1872); by Moses Strong (1876, 1877); by J. M. DeHart (1877); and again (1879).

Also: Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, p. 106; W. H. Canfield’s _Sauk County_; DeHart in _Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1879; their military character in _Ibid._, Jan., 1881; also as emblems in _Ibid._ 1883 (vi. 7); Nadaillac and other general works. There is a map of those near Beloit—some are in the college campus—in the _American Antiquarian_, iii. 95.

[1776] They have been described in the _Smithsonian Reports_ by T. R. Peale (1861); and in _Amer. Antiquarian_, July, 1888, by S. D. Peet. Other mounds and relics are described in the _Smithsonian Repts._ (1863) by J. W. Foster; (1870) by A. Barrandt; (1877) by W. H. R. Lykins; and (1879) by G. C. Broadhead; in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, viii., by Professor Swallow; in _Missouri Hist. Soc. Publ._, no. 6, by F. F. Hilder; in _Cinn. Quart. Jour. of Sci._, Jan., 1875, by Dr. S. H. Headlee; in the _Kansas City Rev._, i. 25, 531; in the _St. Louis Acad. of Science_ (1880) by W. P. Potter; Mr. A. J. Conant has been the most prolific writer in _Ibid._, April 5, 1876; in W. F. Switzler’s _History of Missouri_ (St. Louis, 1879), and in C. R. Burns’s _Commonwealth of Missouri_ (1877). Cf. also Poole’s _Index_, p. 858.

[1777] T. H. Lewis in _Science_, v. 131; vi. 453. On other Iowa mounds, see _Smithsonian Rept._, by J. B. Cutts (1872); by M. W. Moulton (1877), and again (1879); _Annals of Iowa_, vi. 121; and W. J. McGee in _Amer. Journal Science_, cxvi. 272.

[1778] _Smithsonian Rept._, 1863; and for mounds, 1879. Cf. L. C. Estes on the antiquities on the banks of Missouri and Lake Pepin in _Ibid._, 1866.

[1779] _Kansas Rev._, ii. 617; Joseph Savage and B. F. Mudge in _Kansas Acad. Science_, vii.

[1780] _Smithsonian Rept._, by A. J. Comfort (1871) and by A. Barrandt (1872); W. McAdams in _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 153.

[1781] _Amer. Naturalist_, x. 410, by E. Palmer; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 715.

[1782] App. to Gleeson’s _Hist. of the Catholic Church in California_ (1872), ii., and Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 695.

[1783] P. W. Norris in _Smithsonian Report_, 1879.

[1784] Cf. George Gibbs in _Journal Amer. Geogr. Soc._, iv.; A. W. Chase in _Amer. Jour. Sci._, cvi. 26; _Amer. Architect_, xxi. 295; and Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 735.

[1785] Cf. S. H. Locket in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1872), and T. P. Hotchkiss in the same, and a paper in 1876; _Amer. Journal Science_, xlix. 38, by C. G. Forshey, and lxv. 186, by A. Bigelow.

[1786] T. H. Lewis, with plan, in _Amer. Journal Archæol._, iii. 375; previously noted by Atwater and by Squier and Davis.

[1787] Cf. Filson’s _Kentucke_.

[1788] _Amer. Philos. Soc. Trans._, iv., no. 26.

[1789] Thomas E. Pickett contributed this part (1871) to Collins’s _Hist. Kentucky_ (1878), i. 380; ii. 68, 69, 227, 302, 303, 457, 633, 765. Pickett’s contribution was published separately as _The testimony of the Mounds_ (Marysville, Ky., 1875). Prof. Shaler, as head of the Geological Survey of Kentucky, included in its Reports Lucien Carr’s treatise on the mounds, already mentioned; and touches the subject briefly in his _Kentucky_, p. 45. Cf. also Maj. Jona. Heart in Imlay’s _Western Territory_; S. S. Lyon in _Smithsonian Repts._, 1858, 1870, and R. Peter, in 1871, 1872; F. W. Putnam in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, xvii. 313 (1875); and _Nature_, xiii. 109.

[1790] The aboriginal remains of Tennessee have successively been treated in John Haywood’s _History of Tennessee_ (Nashville, 1823); by Gerard Troost in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._ (1845), i. 335; by Joseph Jones in _Smithsonian Contributions_, xx. (1876), who connected those who erected the works, through the Natchez Indians, with the Nahuas. Edward O. Dunning had described some of the Tennessee relics in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._, iii., iv., and v.; but Putnam in no. xi. (1878) gave the results of his opening of the stone graves, with his explorations of the sites of the villages of the people, and described their implements, nothing of which, as he said, showed contact with Europeans. Cyrus Thomas deems these remains the works of the Indian race (_Amer. Antiq._, vii. 129; viii. 162). The _Smithsonian Repts._ have had various papers on the Tennessee antiquities: I. Dille (1862); A. F. Danilsen (1863); M. C. Read (1867); E. A. Dayton, E. O. Dunning, E. M. Grant, and J. P. Stelle (1870); Rev. Joshua Hall, A. E. Law, and D. F. Wright (1874); and others (in 1877).

L. J. Du Pré, in _Harper’s Monthly_ (Feb., 1875), p. 347, reports upon a ten-acre adobe threshing-floor, preserved two feet and a half beneath black loam, near Memphis.

[1791] Col. Jones’s papers are: _Indian Remains in South Georgia, an address_ (Savannah, 1859); _Ancient tumuli on the Savannah River; Monumental Remains of Georgia_, part i. (Savannah, 1861); _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1869; _Antiquities of Southern Indians_ (1873); on effigy mounds in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1877); and on bird-shaped mounds in _Journal Anthropological Soc._, viii. 92. Cf. also the early chapters of his _Hist. of Georgia_.

Other writers: H. C. Williams and Geo. Stephenson in _Smithson. Rept._ (1870); and Wm. McKinley and M. F. Stephenson (1872). Cf. _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, iii., on Creeks and Cherokees; and on the great mound in the Etowah Valley, _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci._ (1871). Thomas (_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._) supposes the Etowah mound to be the one with a roadway described by Garcilasso de la Vega as being on De Soto’s route. Thomas describes other mounds of this group, giving cuts of the incised copper plates found in them, which he holds to be of European make. This forces him to the conclusion that the larger mound was built before De Soto’s incursion and the others later; and as they differ from those in Carolina, he determines they were not built by the Cherokees.

[1792] Cf. S. A. Agnew in _Smithsonian Reports_ (1867), and J. W. C. Smith (1874, cf. 1879); Jas. R. Page in _St. Louis Acad. Science Trans._, iii., and _Cinn. Q. Journal of Sci._, Oct., 1875; Haven, p. 51; and Edw. Fontaine’s _How the World was peopled_, 153.

[1793] E. Cornelius in _Amer. Journ. Sci._, i. 223; Pickett’s _Alabama_, ch. 3.

[1794] Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, iii., and in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1846, p. 124. Brinton’s _Floridian Peninsula_, ch. 6. _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv. 100; ix. 219. _Smithsonian Reports_ (1874), by A. Mitchell, and 1879.

[1795] J. M. Spainhour on antiquities in North Carolina, in _Smithson. Rept._, 1871; T. R. Peale on some near Washington, D. C. (_Ibid._, 1872); Schoolcraft, on some in Va., in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, i.; with Squier and Davis, and _Peabody Mus. Rept._, x., by Lucien Carr. There is a plan of a fort in Virginia in the _Amer. Pioneer_, Sept., 1842, and a paper on the graves in S. W. Virginia in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1885, p. 184.

[1796] W. E. Guest on those near Prescott, in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1856. T. C. Wallbridge describes some at the bay of Quinté in _Canadian Journal_ (1860), v. 409, and Daniel Wilson for Canada West in _Ibid._, Nov., 1856. T. H. Lewis on the remains in the valley of the Red River of the North, in _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 369; and for those in Manitoba papers by A. McCharles in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, iii. 72 (June, 1887), and by George Bryce in _Manitoba Hist. and Sci. Soc. Trans., No. 18_ (1884-85). Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 738, etc., for British Columbia.

[1797] Cf. for garden beds _Amer. Antiquarian_, i. and vii.; Foster, 155; Bela Hubbard’s _Memorials of a half century_ (Detroit). Shaler (_Kentucky_, 46) surmises that it was the buffalo coming into the Ohio Valley, and affording food without labor, that debased the moundbuilders to hunters.

[1798] Cf. Col. Whittlesey on rock inscriptions in the United States in _West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tract No. 42_. Col. Garrick Mallory’s special studies of pictographs are contained in the _Bull. U. S. Geological Survey of the territories_ (1877), and in the _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._ Wm. McAdams includes those of the Mississippi Valley in his _Records of ancient races in the Mississippi Valley_ (St. Louis, 1887). Cf. _Hist. Mag._, x. 307. Those in Ohio are enumerated in the _Final Rept. of the State Board of Centennial Managers_ (1877), by M. C. Read and Col. Whittlesey. Cf. also the _West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts Nos. 12, 42, 53_; the _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._ (1875); and _The Antiquary_, ii. 15. Those in the Upper Minnesota Valley are reported on by T. H. Lewis in the _Amer. Naturalist_, May, 1886, and July, 1887. J. R. Bartlett in his _Personal Narrative_ noted some of those along the Mexican boundary, and Froebel (_Seven Years’ Travel_, Lond., 1859, p. 519) controverts some of Bartlett’s views. Cf. Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, ii.; J. G. Bruff on those in the Sierra Nevada in _Smithson. Rept._, 1872. A. H. Keane reports upon some in North Carolina in the _Journal Anthropological Inst._ (London), xii. 281. C. C. Jones in his _Southern Indians_ (1873) covers the subject. Some in Brazil are noted in _Ibid._, Apr., 1873.

[1799] The first session of the International Congress of Prehistoric [Anthropology and] Archæology was held at Neuchâtel, and its proceedings were printed in the _Materiaux pour l’histoire de l’homme_. The second session was at Paris; the third at Norwich, England; the fourth at Copenhagen; and there have been others of later years. Cf. A. de Quatrefages’ _Rapport sur le progrès de l’anthropologie_ (Paris, 1868). Quatrefages himself is one of the most distinguished of the French school, and deserves as much as any to rank as the founder of the present French school of anthropologists. Cf. his _Hommes fossiles et hommes sauvages_ (1884). The English reader can most easily get possessed of his view, conservative in some respects, in Eliza A. Youman’s English version of his most popular book, _Nat. Hist. of Man_ (N. Y., 1875).

[1800] Founded in Paris in 1864 by Gabriel de Mortillet, and edited after vol. v. by Eugène Trutat and Emile Cartailhac.

[1801] Cf. C. Rau’s _Articles on anthropol. subjects contributed to the Annual Repts. of the Smithson. Inst., 1863-1877_ (Smiths. Inst., no. 440; Washington, 1882). The _Smithson. Rept._, 1880 (Washington, 1881), also contains a bibliography of anthropology by O. T. Mason. A considerable list of books is prefixed to Dr. Gustav Brühl’s _Culturvölker des alten Amerika_, which is a collection of tracts published at different times (1875-1887) at N. Y., Cincinnati, and St. Louis.

[1802] He had surveyed the condition of the science in 1867 in his introduction to Nilsson’s _Stone Age,—Primitive inhabitants of Scandinavia_. Cf. also _Smithsonian Report_, 1862.

[1803] Figuier’s books are nearly all accessible in English. His _Human Race_ and his _World before the Deluge_ cover some parts of the subject.

[1804] A few minor references: Dawson’s _Story of Earth and Man_, ch. 14, 15. Foster’s _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._, ch. 1, 2. Clodd’s _Childhood of the World_. Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, ch. 1. Principal Forbes in the _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1863; Oct., 1870. _London Quarterly Rev._, Apr., 1870. _Contemp. Rev._, xi. _Bibliotheca Sacra_, Apr., 1873. _Brit. Q. Rev._, Ap., Oct., 1863. _Lond. Rev._, Jan., 1860. _Lippincott’s Mag._, vol. i. _Nat. Q. Rev._, Mar., 1876. _Lakeside Monthly_, vol. x., etc.

[1805] Translated by N. D’Anvers and edited by W. H. Dall, with some radical changes of text (N. Y., 1884). Cf. Lucien Carr in _Science_, 1885, Feb. 27, p. 176. Dall discusses the evidences of the remains of the later prehistoric man in the United States in the _Smithsonian Contributions_, vol. xxii.

[1806] A few other references of lesser essays: D. G. Brinton’s _Review of the data for the study of the prehistoric chronology of America_ (Salem, 1887,—from the _Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci._, xxxvi.); his _Recent European Contributions to the study of Amer. Archæology_ (Philad. 1883); and his _Prehistoric Archæology_ (Philad., 1886). Seth Sweetzer on prehistoric man in the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1869, and Haven’s _Prehistoric Amer. Civilization_ in _Ibid._, April, 1871. J. L. Onderdonck in _Nat. Quart. Rev._ (April, 1878), xxxvi. 227. Ernest Marceau’s “Les anciens peuples de l’Amérique” in the _Revue Canadienne_, n. s., iv. 709. E. S. Morse in _No. Amer. Rev._, cxxxii. 602, or _Kansas Rev._, v. 90. H. Gillman’s _Ancient men of the Great Lakes_ (Detroit, 1877).

The principal work on the South American man is Alcède d’Orbigny’s _L’Homme Américaine_ (Paris, 1837). There are some local treatises, like Lucien de Rosny’s _Les Antilles: étude d’ethnographie et d’archéologie Americaines_ (Paris, 1886,—_Am. Soc. d’Ethnographie_, n. s., ii.), and papers by Nadaillac and others in the _Materiaux_, etc.

[1807] By Theo. Lyman and Hr. de Schlagintweit.

[1808] The long article on the Races of America in Cassino’s _Standard Nat. Hist._ (Boston, 1885), vol. vi., is based on Friedrich von Hellwald’s _Naturgeschichte des Menschen_, but it is widely varied in places under the supervision of Putnam and Carr. Cf. also J. C. Prichard’s _Researches into the physical history of mankind_ (Lond., 1841), 4th ed., vol. v., “Oceanic and American nations.”

[1809] Bandelier, in his several essays in the 2d volume of the _Peabody Museum Reports_, speaks of his neglecting such compilations as Bancroft’s in order to deal solely with the original sources, and the student will find the references in his foot-notes of those essays very full indications of what he must follow in the study of such sources.

[1810] Harrisse, _Bib. Am. Vet._; Rich, _Bibl. Nova_; Leclerc, nos. 350, 351; Pilling, p. xxviii.

[1811] Pilling, p. xii.

[1812] See Vol. II. p. 429.

[1813] _Bib. Mex. Guat_., p. 24; Pinart, no. 161. Cf. Icazbalceta on “Las bibliotecas de Eguiara y de Beristain” in _Memorias de la Académia Méxicana_, i. 353.

[1814] Vol. II. p. 430.

[1815] Also in Eng. transl., ii. 256.

[1816] Cf. Brinton’s _Aborig. Amer. Authors_, Philad., 1883.

[1817] See Vol. II p. 430.

[1818] Pilling, p. xxxi.

[1819] A school book, Marcius Willson’s _Amer. History_ (N. Y., 1847), went much farther than any book of its class, or even of the usual popular histories, in the matter of American antiquities, giving a good many plans and cuts of ruins.

[1820] For bibliog. detail regarding the _Nat. Races_, see Pilling’s _Proof Sheets_, p. 9. Reviews of the work are noted in _Poole’s Index_, p. 956.

[1821] Cf., for instance, Dall’s strictures on the tribes of the N. W. in _Contrib. to Amer. Ethnol._, i. p. 8.

[1822] Sabin, ii. 7233; Field, no. 169.

[1823] Bare mention may be made of a few other books of a general scope: Jean Benoit Scherer’s _Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le nouveau monde_ (Paris, 1777); D. B. Warden’s _Recherches sur les Antiquités de l’Am. Sept._ (Paris, 1827) in _Recueil de Voyages, publié par la Soc. Géog._ (Paris, 1825, ii. 372; cf. Dupaix, ii.); Ira Hill’s _Antiquities of Amer. Explained_ (Hagerstown, 1831); Louis Faliès’ _Etudes historiques et philosophiques sur les civilisations européenne, romaine, grecque, des populations primitives de l’Amérique septentrionale, les Chiapas, Palenqué des Nuhuas ancêtres des Toltèques, civilisation Yucatèque, Zapotèques, Mixtèques, royaume du Michoacan, populations du Nord-Ouest, du Nord et de l’Est, bassin du Mississipi, civilisation Toltèque, Aztèque, Amérique du centre, Péruvienne, domination des Incas, royaume de Quito, Océanie_ (Paris, 1872-74); Frederick Larkin’s _Ancient man in America. Including works in western New York, and portions of other states, together with structures in Central America_ (New York, 1880),—a book, however, hardly to be commended by archæologists; and Charles Francis Keary’s _Dawn of History, an introduction to prehistoric study_ (N. Y., 1887).

[1824] It is not necessary to enumerate many titles, but reference may be made to the summary of prehistoric conditions in Zerffi’s _Historical development of art_. It may be worth while to glance at A. Daux’s _Etudes préhistoriques. L’industrie humaine: ses origines, ses premiers essais et ses légendes depuis les premiers temps jusqu’au déluge_ (Paris, 1877); Dawson’s _Fossil men_, ch. 5; Joly’s _Man before Metals_; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 11; Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde_ (Paris, 1883); and Brühl’s _Culturvölker alt-Amerika’s_, ch. 14, 16.

[1825] Cf., particularly for California, Putnam’s _Report_ in Wheeler’s Survey.

[1826] There is some question if the early Americans ever carried on the heavier parts of the quarrying arts, as for building-stones. Cf. Morgan’s _Houses and House Life_, 274. They did quarry soap-stone (Elmer R. Reynolds, Schumacher and Putnam, in _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xii.) and mica (_Smithsonian Report_, 1879, by W. Gesner; C. D. Smith in _Ibid._ 1876; Dr. Brinton in _Proc. Numism. and Antiq. Soc. of Philad._, 1878, p. 18). That they quarried pipe-stone is also well known, and the famous red pipe-stone quarry, lying between the Missouri and Minnesota rivers, was under the protection of the Great Spirit, so that tribes at war with one another are said to have buried their hatchets as they approached it. Wilson, in the last chapter of the first volume of his _Prehistoric man_, examines this pipe-carving and tells the story of this famous quarry. He refers to the tobacco mortars of the Peruvians in which they ground the dry leaf; and to the pipes of the mounds in which it was smoked. Cf. J. F. Nadaillac’s _Les pipes et le tabac_ (Paris, 1885), taken from the _Materiaux pour l’histoire primitive de l’homme_ (ii. for 1885); and Lucien de Rosny on “Le tabac et ses accessoires parmi les indigènes de l’Amérique,” in _Mémoires sur l’Archéologie Américaine_, 1865, of the Soc. d’Ethnographie.

[1827] It should be remembered that the recognition of the Flint-folk as occupying a distinct stage of development is a modern notion. For a century and a half after European museums began to gather stone implements they were reputed relics of Celtic art. Treatment of American art necessarily makes part of the works of Squier and Davis; Schoolcraft; Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, ch. 6; Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times;_ Joly’s _Man before Metals_. Cf. references in _Poole’s Index_ under “Stone Age” and “Stone Implements.”

[1828] Cf. S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 15.

[1829] Rau is an authority on stone implements. See further his paper on stone implements in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1872; one on drilling stone without metal in _Ibid._ 1868; and one on cup-shaped and other lapidarian sculpture in the _Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology_, vol. v. (Powell’s _Rocky Mountain Survey_, 1882). These carved, cup-like cavities in rocks are also discussed in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, vol. i. ch. 3, where it is held that they were formed by the grinding process in shaping the rounded end of tools. H. W. Henshaw in the _Amer. Jour. of Archæology_ (i. 105) discusses another enigma in the stone relics, called sinkers or plummets. Foster (_Prehist. Races_, 230) believes they were used as weights to keep the thread taut in weaving.

[1830] Cf. also Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 292, and Charnay, Eng. transl., p. 70.

[1831] Cf. G. Crook “on the Indian method of making arrow-heads” in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1871, and C. C. Jones, Jr., on “the primitive manufacture of spear and arrowpoints along the Savannah River” in _Ibid._ 1879. A paper by Sellers in a later report is of importance. Cf. Stevens’ _Flint Chips_, pp. 75-85, and Schumacher in _Smithsonian Report_, 1873. True flint was not often, if ever, used in America, but rather chert or hornstone, and quartz, though implements are found of jasper, chalcedony, obsidian, quartzite, and argillite. Cf. Rau on the stock in trade of an aboriginal lapidary in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1877); and Rosny’s “Recherches sur les masques, le jade et l’industrie lapidaire chez les indigènes de l’Amérique” in _Arch. de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. i. Jade or jadite implements and ornaments have been found in Central America and Mexico, and others resembling them in northwestern America; but it is not yet clear that the unworked material, such as is used in the middle America specimens, is found in America _in situ_. Upon the solution of this last problem will depend the value of these implements when found in America as bearing upon questions of Asiatic intercourse. Cf. Dr. A. B. Meyer in the _Amer. Anthropologist_ (vol. i., July, 1888, p. 231), and F. W. Putnam in the _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1886, and in the _Proc. Amer. Antiq. Society_.

[1832] Wilson (_Prehistoric Man_, i. 200) points out that philology confirms it, the word for copper meaning “yellow stone.” On the question of their melting metal see letter of Prof. F. W. Putnam in _Kansas City Rev. of Science_, Dec. 1881; Wilson (i. 361); Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, 293.

[1833] Wilson (i. 209, 227) thinks the arboreal and other evidences carry the time when these mines were worked back, at latest, to a period corresponding to Europe’s mediæval era. The earliest modern references to copper in this region are in Sagard in 1632 (Haven, p. 127) and in the _Jesuit Relation_ of Allouez in 1666-67. Alexander Henry (_Travels and Adventures in Canada_) in 1765 is the earliest English explorer to mention it. Wilson holds to the belief that the present race of red Indians had no knowledge of these mining practices, but that they knew simply chance masses or exposed lodes. Wilson (i. 362) also gives reasons for supposing that the Lake Superior mines may have been a common meeting ground for all races of the continent.

[1834] Wilson, i. 205. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_, ch. 6, gives a section of the shaft as when discovered.

[1835] Of the Lake Superior mines, the earliest intelligent account we have is in C. T. Jackson’s _Geological Report to the U. S. Gov’t_, 1849; but a more extended and connected account appeared the next year in the _Report on the Geology of Lake Superior_ (Washington, 1850), by J. W. Foster and J. D. Whitney, which is substantially reproduced in Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_ (1873), ch. 7. Meanwhile, Col. Charles Whittlesey had published in vol. xiii. of the _Smithsonian Contributions_ his _Ancient Mining on the shores of Lake Superior_ (Washington, 1863, with a map), which is on the whole the best account, to be supplemented by his paper in the _Memoirs_ of the Boston Society of Natural History. Jacob Houghton supplied a description of the “ancient copper mines of Lake Superior” to Swineford’s _History and Review of the mineral resources of Lake Superior_ (Marquette, 1876). Cf. also _Annals of Science_ (Cleveland), i. for 1852; Dawson’s _Fossil Men_, 61; Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, 42; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 204; Dr. Harvey Read in the _Dist. Hist. Soc. Report_, ii. (1878); Joseph Henry in the _Smithsonian Reports_ (1861; also in 1862); and Short, p. 89, with references.

On the mines at Isle Royale, see Henry Gillman’s “Ancient works at Isle Royale” in _Appleton’s Journal_, Aug. 9, 1873; _Smithsonian Repts._, 1873, 1874, by A. C. Davis; the _Proceedings_ of the Amer. Asso. for the Advancement of Science, 1875; and Professor Winchell in _Popular Science Monthly_, Sept., 1881.

See further, on the copper implements of these ancient workers: Abbott’s _Primitive Industry_, ch. 28; Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, 251; P. R. Hoy’s _How and by whom were the copper implements made?_ (Racine, 1886, in _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iv. 132); J. D. Butler’s address on “Prehistoric Wisconsin” in the _Wisconsin Hist. Coll._, vol. vii. (see also vol. viii.), with his “Copper Age in Wisconsin” in the _Proc. of the Amer. Antiquarian Society_, April, 1877, and his paper on copper tools in the _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iii. 99; H. W. Haynes on “Copper implements of America” in _Proc. Amer. Antiq. Soc._, Oct., 1884, p. 335; Putnam on the copper objects of North and South America preserved in the Peabody Museum (_Reports_, xv. 83); Read and Whittlesey in the _Final Report, Ohio Board Cent. Managers_, 1877, ch. 3; and _Poole’s Index_, p. 300. Reynolds has recently in the _Journal of the Anthropol. Soc._ (Washington) claimed copper mining for the modern Indians.

[1836] Clavigero (Philad., Eng. transl., i. 20); Prescott, i. 138; Folsom’s ed. of Cortes’ letters, 412; Lockhart’s transl. of Bernal Diaz (Lond., 1844, i. 36).

[1837] Cf. on copper implements from Mexico: P. J. J. Valentini’s _Mexican copper tools: the use of copper by the Mexicans before the Conquest; and The Katunes of Maya history, a chapter in the early history of Central America. From the German, by S. Salisbury, jr._ (Worcester, 1880), from the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr. 30, 1879; F. W. Putnam in _Ibid._, n. s., ii. 235 (Oct. 21, 1882); Charnay, Eng. transl., p. 70; H. L. Reynolds, Jr., on the “Metal art of ancient Mexico” in _Popular Science Monthly_, Aug., 1887 (vol. xxxi., p. 519).

[1838] Cf. St. John Vincent Day’s _Prehistoric use of iron and steel: with observations_ (London, 1877). This book grew out of papers printed in the _Proc. Philosoph. Soc. of Glasgow_ (1871-75).

[1839] Cf. Dr. Washington Matthews on the “Navajo silversmiths” in the _2d Rept. Bureau of Ethnol._ (Washington, 1883), p. 167.

[1840] The chief European collections are in the British Museum, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, the Louvre, and at Copenhagen, Vienna, Brussels, not to name others; and among private ones, the Christy and Evans collections in England and the Uhde in Heidelberg.

[1841] _Transactions_, n. s., iii. 510.

[1842] Cf. Lucien de Rosny’s “Introduction à une histoire de la céramique chez les indiens du nouveau monde” in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. i., and Stevens’ _Flint Chips_, 241. Further references: Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 17; Catlin’s _N. A. Indians_, ch. 16; F. V. Hayden’s _Contrib. to the Ethnog. of the Missouri Valley_, 355; A. Demmin’s _Hist. de la Céramique_ (Paris, 1868-1875); Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, and his _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 4.

[1843] For the Atlantic coast, papers by Abbott (_American Naturalist_, Ap. 72, etc.), later more comprehensively treated in his _Primitive Industry_, ch. 11; and for the middle Atlantic region, a paper by Francis Jordan, Jr., in the _Amer. Philosoph. Soc. Proc._ (1888, vol. xxv.). For Florida, _Schoolcraft in the New York Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1846, p. 124. For the moundbuilders, Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, p. 237, and in _Amer. Naturalist_, vii. 94 (Feb., 1873); Nadaillac, ch. 4; and Putnam in _Amer. Nat_., ix. 321, 393, and _Peabody Mus. Repts._, viii. For the Mississippi Valley in general, Edw. Evers in _The Contributions to the archæology of Missouri_; W. H. Holmes in the _Fourth Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, an improvement of a paper in the _Proc. of the Davenport Acad. of Sciences_, vol. iv. Joseph Jones in the _Smithsonian Contrib._, xxii., and Putnam in the _Peabody Mus. Repts_., have described the pottery of Tennessee. The _Pacific R. R. Repts/_ yield us something; and Putnam (_Reports_) was the first to describe the Missouri pottery. J. H. Devereux treats the pottery of Arkansas in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1872. On the Pueblo pottery, see papers of W. H. Holmes and F. H. Cushing in the _Fourth Rept. Bur. of Ethn_. (pp. 257, 743); and James Stevenson’s illustrated catalogue in the _Third Rept._, p. 511. F. W. Putnam (_Amer. Art Review_, Feb., 1881), supplementing his work in vol. vii. of Wheeler’s Survey, thinks that the present Pueblo Indians make an inferior ware to their ancestors’ productions. The pottery of the cliff-dwellers is described in Hayden’s _Annual Rept._ (1876). Paul Schumacher explains the method of manufacturing pottery and basket-work among the Indians of Southern California in the _Peabody Museum Rept._, xii. 521. O. T. Mason’s papers in recent _Smithsonian Reports_ and in the _Amer. Naturalist_ are among the best investigations in this direction.

[1844] For some special phases, see S. Blondel’s _Recherches sur les bijoux des peuples primitifs ... Méxicains et Péruviens_ (Paris, 1876); F. W. Putnam’s _Conventionalism in Ancient American Art_ (Salem, 1887, from the _Bull. Essex Inst._, xviii., for 1886); Mexican masks in Stevens’ _Flint chips_, 328; S. D. Peet on “Human faces in aboriginal art,” in the _American Antiquarian_ (May, 1886, or viii. 133); the description of terra-cotta figures in Herman Strebel’s _Alt-Mexico_. A terra-cotta vase in the Museo Nacional is figured in Brasseur’s _Popol Vuh_ (1861).

It is not known that stringed instruments were ever used, notwithstanding the suggestion of the twanging of the bow-string; but museums often contain specimens of musical pipes used by the aborigines. The opening chapter of J. F. Rowbotham’s _Hist. of Music_ (London, 1885) gives what evidence we have, with references, as to kinds of music common to the American aborigines, and their fictile wind instruments. Cf. A. J. Hipkins’ _Musical instruments, historic, rare, and unique. The selection, introduction, and descriptive notes by A. J. Hipkins; illustrated by William Gibb_ (Edinburgh, 1888); H. T. Cresson on Aztec music in the _Proc. Acad. Nat. Sciences_ (Philad., 1883); and Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_ (ii. 37), with the references in Bancroft’s index (v. p. 717).

In Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races of the Earth_ (Philad., 1857) there is a section by Francis Pulszky on “Iconographic researches on human races and their art.”

[1845] Mrs. Zelia Nuttall’s essay on some Mexican feather-work preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna appeared in the _Archæol. and Ethnolog. Papers of the Peabody Museum_, vol. i. no. 1 (Cambridge, 1888), and here she discusses the question if this is a standard or head-dress, and holds it to have been a head-dress. The contrary view is taken by F. von Hochstetter in his _Ueber Mexicanische Reliquien aus der Zeit Montezuma’s_ (Vienna, 1884), who supposes it to have been among the presents sent by Cortes in 1519 to Charles V., in the possession of whose nephew it is known to have been in 1596.

[1846] Cf. Horatio Hale on _The Origin of Primitive Money_ (N. Y., 1886,—from the _Popular Science Monthly_, xxviii. 296); W. B. Weedon’s _Indian Money as a factor in New England Civilization_ (Baltimore, 1884),—Johns Hopkins (University Studies); Ashbel Woodward’s _Wampum_ (Albany, 1878); Ernst Ingersoll in the _Amer. Naturalist_ (May, 1883); and the cuts of wampum belts in the _Second Rept. Bur. Ethnology_ (pp. 242, 244, 246, 248, 252, 254).

[1847] Cf. D. G. Brinton’s _The lineal measures of the Semi-civilized nations of Mexico and Central America. Read before the American Philosophical Society, Jan. 2, 1885_ (Philadelphia, 1885).

[1848] _Wilson’s Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 6.

[1849] Wilson, i. 168. See _post_, Vol. II. 508, for an old cut of a raft under sail.

[1850] _Peabody Mus. Rept._, ii. 602-8.

[1851] _Chips_, ii. 248. Cf. Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens_ (Paris, 1883), p. 187.

[1852] It has been a question whether the palæolithic man talked, and it has been asserted and denied, from the character of certain inferior maxillary bones found in caves, that he had the power of articulate speech. Dr. Brinton has recently, from an examination of the lowest stocks of linguistic utterances now known, endeavored to set forth “a somewhat correct conception of what was the character of the rudimentary utterances of the race.” Cf. Brinton, _Language of the Palæolithic Man_, Philadelphia, 1888; Mortillet, _La préhistorique Antiquité de l’Homme_ (Paris, 1883); H. Steinthal, _Der Ursprung der Sprache_ (Berlin, 1888). Horatio Hale, on “The origin of languages and the antiquity of speaking man,” in the _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc_., xxxv. 279, cites the views of some physiologists to show that the pre-glacial man could not talk, because there are only rudimentary signs of the presence of important vocal muscles to be discovered in the most ancient jaw-bones which have been found. Rau inferred that the totally diverse character, as he thought, of the American tongues indicated strongly that the earliest man could not articulate (_Contrib. to N. A. Ethnology_, v. 92). For other somewhat wild speculations, see Col. E. Carette’s _Etude sur les temps antéhistoriques, La Langage_ (Paris, 1878).

[1853] Morgan thought he had found a test in his _Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the Human Family_ (Washington, 1871).

[1854] _Journal Anthropological Inst._, v. 216.

[1855] _Science of Language_, i. 326.

[1856] For recognition of it in American philology, see Bancroft, iii. 670, and Short, 471.

[1857] Cf. Waitz, _Introd. to Anthropology_ (Eng. transl.), p. 238; Wedgwood, _Origin of Language_; Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, ch. 8; Tylor’s _Anthropology_, ch. 6; Topinard’s _Anthropologie_; J. P. Lesley’s _Man’s Origin and Destiny_ (who considers the test so far a failure); William D. Whitney’s “Testimony of language respecting the unity of the human race,” in the _North American Review_, July, 1867.

[1858] The “Lenguas y naciones Americanas” forms part of the first volume of Lorenzo Hervas’s _Catálogo de las Lenguas de las Naciones Conocidas, y numeracion, division, y clases de estas segun la diversidad de sas idiomas y dialectos_ (Madrid, 1800-1805, in 6 vols.), which served in some measure Johann Severin Vater, and J. C. Adelung in their _Mithridates, oder Allgemeine Sprachenkunde_ (Berlin, 1806-17, in 4 vols.) and his _Analekten der Sprachenkunde_ (Leipzig, 1821).

There has more been done so far to map out the ethnological fields of middle America than to determine those of the more northern parts. Cf. the map in Orozco y Berra’s _Geografía de las lenguas de Mexico_ (1864), and that in V. A. Malte-Brun’s paper in the _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Américanistes_, 1877, ii. 10. The maps in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, ii. and v., will serve ordinary readers. For the broader northern field, see the papers by L. H. Morgan and George Gibbs in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1861, 1862. The Bureau of Ethnology have in preparation such a map, and they mark on it, it is understood, about seventy distinct stocks.

Cf. Horatio Hale on “Indian migrations as evidenced by language,” in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, v. 18, 108 (Jan., April, 1883), and issued separately, Chicago, 1883. Lucien Adam criticised the views of Hall in the Copenhagen _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Amér._, 1883, p. 123.

[1859] _Nat. Races_, iii. 558.

[1860] Cf. _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1879.

[1861] _Fossil Men_, 310.

[1862] A prominent feature is the process of uniting words lengthwise, so to speak, which gives a single utterance the import of a sentence. This characteristic of the American languages has been called polysynthetic, incorporative, holophrastic, aggregative, and agglutinative. H. H. Bancroft instances the word for letter-postage in Aztec as being “Amatlacuilolitquitcatlaxtlahuilli,” which really signifies by its component parts, “payment received for carrying a paper on which something is written.” Cf. Brinton’s _On polysynthesism and incorporation as characteristic of American languages_ (Philad., 1885).

[1863] Hayden says: “The dialects of the western continent, radically united among themselves and radically distinguished from all others, stand in hoary brotherhood by the side of the most ancient vocal systems of the human race.”

[1864] Morgan, in his _Systems of Consanguinity_, contends for this linguistic unity, though (in 1866) he admits that “the dialects and stock languages have not been explored with sufficient thoroughness.”

[1865] Gallatin says of them: “They bear the impress of primitive languages, ... and attest the antiquity of the population,—an antiquity the earliest we are permitted to assume.” This was of course written before the geological evidences of the antiquity of man were understood, and the remoteness referred to was a period near the great dispersion of Babel.

[1866] The appendix of this work has a good general summary of the Ethnography and Philology of America, by A. H. Keane.

[1867] The interlinking method of communication between tribes of different languages is what is called sign or gesture language, and the study of it shows that in much the same forms it is spread over the continent. It has been specially studied by Col. Garrick Mallery. Cf. his papers in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, ii. 218; _Proc. Amer. Asso. Adv. Science_, Saratoga meeting, 1880; and at length in the _First Annual Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_ (1881). He notes his sources of information on pp. 395, 401. He had earlier printed under the Bureau’s sanction his _Introduction to the Study of Sign Language_ (Washington, 1880). The subject is again considered in the _Third Rept._ of the Bureau, p. xxvi. Cf. also W. P. Clark’s _Indian Sign-language, with Explanatory Notes_ (Philad., 1885). Morgan (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 227) expresses the opinion that it has the germinal principle “from which came, first, the pictographs of the northern Indians and of the Aztecs; and, secondly, as its ultimate development, the ideographic and possibly the hieroglyphic language of the Palenqué and Copan monuments.”

In addition to languages and dialects, we have a whole body of jargons, a conventional mixture of tongues, adduced by continued intercourse of peoples speaking different languages. They grew up very early, where the French came in contact with the aborigines, and Father Le Jeune mentions one in 1633 (_Hist. Mag._, v. 345). The Chinook jargon, for instance, was, if not invented, at least developed by the Hudson Bay Company’s servants, out of French, English, and several Indian tongues (whose share predominates), to facilitate their trade with the natives, and does not contain, at an outside limit, more than 400 or 500 words. There is some reason to believe that the Indian portion of this jargon is older, however, than the English contact (Bancroft, iii. 632-3; Gibbs’s _Chinook Dictionary_; Horatio Hale in Wilkes’ _U. S. Explor. Exped._).

[1868] See the section on “Americana,” with a foot-note on linguistic collections. Haven summed up what had been done in this field in 1855 in his _Archæology of the U. S._ p. 53.

[1869] There is a less extensive survey, but wider in territory, in Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_, ch. 10.

[1870] Vol. III. p. 355.

[1871] See Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_.

[1872] Duponceau’s report in Heckewelder, _Hist. Acc. of the Indian Nations_, 1819, is in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, 1822. Pickering says that Duponceau was the earliest to discover and make known the common characteristics of the American tongues.

[1873] These are enumerated in the appendix of _The Calendar of the Sparks MSS._, issued by the library of Harvard University. They are also cited with some in other depositories by Pilling in his _Proof-sheets_.

[1874] Also in J. B. Scherer’s _Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le Nouveau Monde_ (Paris, 1777).

[1875] We know little of what Jefferson might have accomplished, for his manuscripts were burned in 1801 (Schoolcraft’s _Ind. Tribes_, ii. 356). As early as 1804 the U. S. War Department issued a list of words, for which its agents should get in different tribes the equivalent words. Gallatin used these results. Different lists of test words have been often used since. George Gibbs had a list. The Bureau of Ethnology has a list.

[1876] Cf. synopsis in Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, p. 65.

[1877] For Hale’s later views see his _Origin of language and antiquity of speaking man_ (Cambridge, 1886), from the _Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Science_, xxxv.; and his _Development of language_ (Toronto, 1888), from the _Proc. Canadian Inst._, 3d ser., vi.

[1878] Among other workers in the northern philology may be named Schoolcraft in his _Indian Tribes_ (ii. and iii. 340), who makes no advance upon Gallatin; W. W. Turner in the _Smithsonian Report_, vi.; R. S. Riggs adds a Dacota bibliography to his _Grammar and Dictionary of the Dacota language_ (Washington, Smiths. Inst., 1852); George Gibbs in the _Smithsonian Repts._ for 1865 and 1870, and as collaborator in other studies, of which record is made in J. A. Stevens’ memoir of Gibbs, first printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, and then in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873; F. W. Hayden’s _Contributions to the ethnography and philology of the Indian tribes of the Missouri Valley_ (Philad., 1862), being vol. xiii. of the _Trans. Amer. Philosophical Soc._

A contemporary of Gallatin, but a man sorely harassed, as others see him, with eccentricities and unstableness of head, was C. F. Rafinesque, who had nevertheless a certain tendency to acute observation, which prevents his books from becoming wholly worthless. His first publication was an introduction to Marshall’s _History of Kentucky_, which he printed separately as _Ancient History, or Annals of Kentucky, with a survey of the ancient monuments of North America, and a tabular view of the principal languages and primitive nations of the whole earth_ (Frankfort, Ky., 1824). In this he makes a comparison of four principal words from fourteen Indian tongues with thirty-four primitive languages of the old world. In 1836 he printed at Philadelphia _The American Nations, or outlines of their general history, ancient and modern, including the whole history of the earth and mankind in the western hemisphere; the philosophy of American history; the annals, traditions, civilization, languages, etc., of all American nations, tribes, empires and states_ (in two volumes).

[1879] It embraces:

FIRST SERIES: No. 1. J. G. Shea, _French Onondaga Dictionary_.

2. G. Mengarini, _Selish or Flat-head Grammar_.

3. B. Smith, _Grammatical Sketch of the Heve language_.

4. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta, _Grammar of the Mutsun language_.

5. B. Smith, _Grammar of the Pima or Névome language_.

6. M. C. Pandosy, _Grammar and Dictionary of the Yakama language_.

7. B. Sitjar, _Vocabulary of the language of the San Antonio Mission_.

8. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta, _Vocabulary or phrase-book of the Mutsun language_.

9. Abbé Maillard, _Grammar of the Micmaque language_.

10. J. Bruyas, _Radices Verborum Iroqæorum_.

11. G. Gibbs, _Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Clallam and Lummi_.

12. G. Gibbs, _Dictionary of the Chinook jargon_.

13. G. Gibbs, _Alphabetical Vocabulary of the Chinook language_.

SECOND SERIES: 1. W. Matthews, _Grammar and Dictionary of the language of the Hidatsa_.

2. W. Matthews, _Hidatsa-English Dictionary_.

The first series was printed in New York, 1860-63; the second, 1873-74. There is full bibliographical detail in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_.

[1880] The following are already published:

1. _The Chronicles of the Mayas_, ed. by Brinton.

2. _The Iroquois Book of Rites_, ed. by Horatio Hale.

3. _The Comedy-ballet of Gueguence_, ed. by Brinton.

4. _The National Legend of the Creeks_, ed. by Albert S. Gatschet.

5. _The Lenâpé and their Legends._

6. _The Annals of the Cakchiquels_, ed. by Brinton.

[1881] This series contains:

1. Juan de Albornoz, _Arte de la lengua Chiapaneca y Doctrina Cristiana por Luis Barrientos_ (Paris, 1875).

2. P. E. Pettitot, _Dictionnaire de la langue Dènè-Dindjie_ (Paris, 1876).

3. P. E. Pettitot, _Vocabulaire Français-Esquimau_ (Paris, 1876).

4. P. Franco, _Noticias de los Indios del Departamento de Veragua_, etc. (San Francisco, 1882).

Pilling (_Proof-sheets_, 589, 1042-1044) gives an account of Pinart’s published and MS. linguistic collections, as well as (p. 587) of Francisco Pimentel’s _Las Lenguas indígenas de México_ (Mexico, 1862-65).

[1882] It embraces:

1. E. Uricoechea, _Lengua Chibcha_ (Paris, 1871).

2. Eujenio Castillo i Orozco, _Vocabulario Paéz-Castellano_, etc. (Paris, 1877).

3. Raymond Breton, _Grammaire Caraïbe, ed. par L. Adam et Ch. Leclerc_ (Paris, 1878).

4. _Ollantai, drame, trad. par Pacheco Zegarra_ (Paris, 1878).

5. R. Celedon, _La Lengua goajra, con una introd. por E. Uricoechea_ (Paris, 1878).

6. L. Adam et V. Henry, _La Lengua Chiquita_ (Paris, 1880).

7. Antonio Magio, _La Lengua de los Indios Baures_ (Paris, 1880).

8. J. Crevaux, P. Sagot, et L. Adam, _Langues de la région des Guyanes_ (Paris, 1882).

9. J. D. Haumonté, Parisot, et L. Adam, _La Langue Taensa_ (Paris, 1882). This has been pronounced a deception.

10. Francisco Pareja, _La Lengua Timuquana_, 1614 (Paris, 1886).

[1883] Cf. Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, pp. 217-218.

[1884] Brinton (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 60), referring to Father Cuoq’s _Lexique de la langue Iroquoise_, speaks of that author as “probably the best living authority on the Iroquois.” Pilling, _Proof-sheets_, 185, etc., gives the best account of his writings. Cf. Mrs. E. A. Smith on the Iroquois in _Journal Anthropolog. Inst._, xiv. 244.

[1885] The languages covered are: Dakota, Chibcha, Nahuatl, Kechua, Quiché, Maya, Montagnais, Chippeway, Algonquin, Cri, Iroquois, Hidatsa, Chacta, Caraïbe, Kiriri, Guarani. Adam has been one of the leading spirits in the Congrès des Américanistes. There was published in 1882, as a part of the _Bibliothèque linguistique Américaine, a Grammaire et Vocabulaire de la langue taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par F. D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam_. It was printed from a manuscript said to have been discovered in 1872, in the library of Mons. Haumonté. Dr. Brinton, finding, as he claimed, that Adam had been imposed upon, printed in the _American Antiquarian_, March, 1885, “The Tænsa Grammar and Dictionary, a Deception Exposed,” the points of which were epitomized by Professor H. W. Haynes in the _American Antiquarian Society Proceedings_ (April, 1885), and Adam answered in _Le Tænsa, a-t-il été forgé de toutes pièces_ (Paris, 1885).

The languages of the southern and southwestern United States have been particularly studied by Albert S. Gatschet, among whose publications may be named _Zwölf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nord Amerikas_ (Weimar, 1877); _The Timucua language_ of Florida (Philad., 1878, 1880); _The Chumeto language_ of California (Philad., 1882); _Der Yuma Sprachstamm_ of Arizona and the neighboring regions (Berlin, 1877, 1883); _Wortverzeichniss eines Viti-Dialectes_ (Berlin, 1882); _The Shetimasha Indians of St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana_ (Washington, 1883); but his most important contribution is the linguistic, historic, and ethnographic introduction to his _Migration Legend of the Creek Indians_ (Philad., 1884), in which he has surveyed the whole compass of the southern Indians. The extent of Mr. Gatschet’s studies will appear from Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, pp. 285-292, 955.

[1886] _Contents_.—1. Sur quelques familles de langues du Méxique. 2. Sur différents idiomes de la Nouvelle-Espagne. 3. Sur la famille de langues Tapijulapane-Mixe. 4. Sur la famille de langue Pirinda-Othomi. 5. Sur les lois phonétiques dans les idiomes de la famille Mame-Huastèque. 6. Sur le pronom personnel dans les idiomes de la famille Maya-Quiché. 7. Sur l’étude de la prophétie en langue Maya d’Ahkuil-Chel. 8. Sur le système de numération chez les peuples de la famille Maya-Quiché. 9. Sur le déchiffrement des écritures calculiformes du Mayas. 10. Sur les signes de numération en Maya.

Pilling (_Proof-sheets_, pp. 145-148, 904-906) enumerates many of the separate publications.

[1887] Brinton has printed _The philosophical grammar of the American languages as set forth by Wilhelm von Humboldt, with a translation of an unpublished memoir by him on the American verb_ (Philad., 1885). The great work of A. von Humboldt and Bonpland, _Voyage aux régions équinoxiales du nouveau continent_ (Paris, 1816-31), gives some linguistic matter in the third volume.

[1888] These are enumerated in the list in Bancroft, i.; in Field, nos. 208-218; and in Leclerc, _Index_; with more detail in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, pp. 102-110, 894-896. Cf. also Sabin, iii. nos. 9,521 etc.

[1889] Brinton, who possesses his papers, published a Memoir of him in the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1884. His publications and MS. collections are given in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, PP. 72, 73, 879-881.

[1890] He cites (iii. 725-26) many opinions; and quotes Sahagún as saying that the Apalaches were Nahuas and spoke the Mexican tongue (_Ibid_. iii. 727). Is this any evidence of the Floridian immigration?

[1891] A considerable body of literature in this language has come down to us. Bancroft (iii. 728) enumerates a number of the principal religious manuals, etc. Icazbalceta in the first volume of his _Bibliografia Mexicana_ (Mexico, 1886), in cataloguing the books issued in Mexico before 1600, includes all that were printed in the native tongue. Brinton gives some account of such native authors in his _Aboriginal American authors and their productions, especially those in the native languages. A chapter in the history of literature_ (Philad., 1883). Cf. his paper in the _Congrès des Amér._, Copenhagen, 1883, p. 54. Bancroft (iii. 730) gives some citations as to its literary value. Brinton has illustrated this quality in some of his lesser monographs, as in his _Ancient Nahuatl Poetry_ (Philad., 1887); and in his _Study of the Nahuatl language_ (1886), in which he gives specimens and enumerates the dictionaries and texts. He says there are more than a hundred authors in it (_Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 22). Icazbalceta has collected many Nahua MSS., and his brother-in-law, Francisco Pimentel, has used them in his _Cuadro descriptivo y comparativo de las Lenguas indigenas de México_ (1862), of which there is a German translation by Isidor Epstein (N. Y., 1877). This is based on a second augmented edition (Mexico, 1874-75), in which the tongues of northern Mexico are better represented, and a general classification of the languages is added. Pimentel (i. 154) asserts that it is a mistake to suppose that the Chichimecs spoke Nahua. Cf., however, Bancroft (iii. 724) and Short, 255, 480. Pimentel’s opinions are weighty, and follow in this respect those of Orozco y Berra, Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl; but later, Veytia had maintained the reverse.

Lucien Adam includes the Nahua in his _Etudes sur six langues Américaines_ (Paris, 1878). Aubin wrote “Sur la langue Méxicaine et la philologie Américaine” in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. i. Brasseur contributed various articles on Mexican philology to the _Revue Orientale et Américaine_. Dr. C. Hermann Berendt formed an _Analytical Alphabet for the Mexican and Central America languages_ (N. Y., 1869). Buschmann has a study in the _Mémoirs de l’Académie de Berlin_, and separately, _Ueber die Astekischen Ortsnamen_ (Berlin, 1853). Henri de Charencey in his _Mélanges de Philologie_ (Paris, 1883) has a paper “Sur quelques familles de langues du Méxique.” V. A. Malte-Brun gave in the _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Américanistes_, 1877 (vol. ii. p. 10), a paper “La distribution ethnographique des nations et des langues au Méxique.” Reference has been made elsewhere to the important publication of Manuel Orozco y Berra, _Geografia de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México, precedidos de un ensayo de classificacion de las mismas lenguas y de apuntes para las inmigraciones de las tribus_ (Mexico, 1864). The work is said to be the fruit of twelve years’ constant study, and to have been based in some part on MSS. belonging to Icazbalceta, dating back to the latter part of the sixteenth century (enumerated in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, ii. 559). There is some adverse criticism. Peschel (_Races of Men_, 438) thinks the linguistic map of Mexico in Orozco y Berra’s work the only good feature in the book, since the author spreads old errors anew in consequence of his unacquaintance with Buschmann’s researches. A series of linguistic monographic essays on the Aztec names of places is embraced in Dr. Antonio Peñafiel’s _Nombres Geografico de Mexico. Catalogo alfabetico de los nombres de lugar pertenecientes al idioma “Nahuatl” estudio jeroglifico de la matricula de los tributos del codice Mendocino_ (Mexico, 1885). In the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., 179, iii. there is an essay by Siméon, “La langue Méxicaine et son histoire.”

The affiliation of the Aztec with the Pueblo stocks is traced by Bancroft, iii. 665, who follows out the diversities of those stocks (pp. 671, 681). Cf. for various views Morgan’s _Systems of Consanguinity_, 260; Buschmann’s _Die Völker und Sprachen Neu Mexico’s_, and _First Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_, p. xxxi.

[1892] Some authorities give fourteen dialects of the Maya. Cf. the table in Bancroft, iii. 562, etc., and the statements in Garcia y Cubas, translated by Geo. F. Henderson as _The Republic of Mexico_. It is still spoken in the greatest purity about the Balize, as is commonly said; but Le Plongeon goes somewhat inland and says he found it “in all its pristine purity” in the neighborhood of Lake Peten. Le Plongeon, with that extravagance which has in the end deprived him of the sympathy and encouragement due to his noteworthy labors, says, “One third of this Maya tongue is pure Greek,” following Brasseur in one of his vagaries, who thought he found in 15,000 Maya vocables at least 7,000 that bore a striking resemblance to the language of Homer.

[1893] The bibliographies will add to this enumeration. The _Pinart Catalogue_ (pp. 98-100) gives a partial list. Only some of the more important monographs upon features of the Maya language can be mentioned: Father Pedro Beltran de Santa Rosa’s _Arte del idioma Maya_ (Mexico, 1746) was so rare that Brasseur did not secure it, but Leclerc catalogues it (no. 2,280), as well as the reprint (Merida, 1859) edited by José D. Espinosa. There is a study of the Maya tongues included in a paper printed first by Carl Hermann Berendt in the _Journal of the Amer. Geog. Soc._ (viii. 132, for 1876), which was later issued separately as _Remarks on the centres of ancient civilization in Central America and their geographical distribution_ (N. Y., 1876). It is accompanied by a map. (Cf. also his “Explorations in Central America” in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867.) Brasseur included in his _Manuscrit Troano_ (Paris, 1869-70), and later published separately, a _Dictionnaire, Grammaire et Chrestomathie de la langue Maya_ (Paris, 1872); the dictionary containing 10,000 words, the grammar being a translation from Father Gabriel de Saint Bonaventure, while the chrestomathy was a gathering of specimens ancient and modern, of the language. Brasseur, in his mutable way, found in the first season of his studies the Greek, Latin, English, German, Scandinavian, not to name others, to have correspondences with the Maya, and ended in deriving them from that tongue as the primitive language. (Cf. Short, 476.) Dr. Brinton has a paper on _The Ancient Phonetic Alphabet of Yucatan_ (N. Y., 1870), and he read at the Buffalo meeting (1886) of the Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science a paper on the phonetic element of the graphic system of the Mayas, etc., which is printed in the _American Antiquarian_, viii. 347. In the introduction of his _Maya Chronicles_ (Philad., 1882) he examines the language and literature of the Mayas. He refers to a “Disertacion sobre la historia de la lengua Maya o Yucateca” by Crescencio Carrello y Ancona in the _Revista de Merida_, 1870. Charencey has printed various special papers, like a _Fragment de Chrestomathie de la langue Maya antique_ (Paris, 1875) from the _Revue de Philologie et d’Ethnographie_, and a paper read before the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes (_Compte Rendu_, p. 379), “De la formation des mots en lengua Maya.” Landa’s _Relation_ as published by Brasseur (Paris, 1864) is of course a leading source.

Of the Quiché branch of the Maya we know most from Brasseur’s _Popul Vuh_ and from his _Gramatica de la lengua Quiché_ (Paris, 1862), in the appendix of which he printed the _Rabinal Achi_, a drama in the Quiché tongue. Father Ildefonso José Flores, a native of the country, was professor of the Cakchiquel language in the university of Guatemala in the last century, and published a _Arte de la lengua metropolitana del Reyno Cakchiquel_ (Guatemala, 1753), which was unknown to later scholars, till Brasseur discovered a copy in 1856 (Leclerc, no. 2,270). The literature of the Cakchiquel dialect is examined in the introduction to Brinton’s _Grammar of the Cakchiquel language_ (Philad., 1884), edited for the American Philosophical Society. Cf. Brinton’s little _treatise On the language and ethnologic position of the Xinca Indians of Guatemala_ (Philadelphia, 1884); his _So-called Alaguilac language of Guatemala_ in the _Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc._, 1887, p. 366; and Otto Stoll’s _Zur Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala_ (Zurich, 1884).

We owe to Brinton, also, a few discussions of the Nicaragua tongues, both in their Maya and Aztec relations. He has discussed the local dialect of this region in the introduction of _The Güegüence; a comedy ballet in the Nahuatl-Spanish dialect of Nicaragua_ (Philadelphia, 1883), and in his _Notes on the Mangue, an extinct dialect formerly spoken in Nicaragua_ (Philadelphia, 1886).

[1894] Notwithstanding this commonness of origin, if such be the case, there is a striking truth in what Max Müller says: “The thoughts of primitive humanity were not only different from our thoughts, but different also from what we think their thoughts ought to have been.”

[1895] See Vol. IV. p. 295.

[1896] Such are Sagard’s _Histoire du Canada_ (1636); Nicolas Perrot’s _Mémoire sur les Mœurs, Coutumes et Religion des Sauvages_, involving his experience from 1665 to 1699; Lafitau’s _Mœurs des Sauvages_ (1724), and the like.

[1897] Bancroft (iii. 136) says: “It does not appear, notwithstanding Mr. Squier’s assertion to the contrary, that the serpent was actually worshipped either in Yucatan or Mexico.” Cf. Brinton’s _Myths_, ch. 4; Chas. S. Wake’s _Serpent Worship_ (London, 1888); and J. G. Bourke’s _Snake-dance of the Moquis of Arizona; being a narrative of a journey from Santa Fé, New Mexico, to the villages of the Moqui Indians of Arizona, with a description of the manners and customs of this peculiar people, to which is added a brief dissertation upon serpent-worship in general, with an account of the tablet dance of the Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico, etc._ (London, 1884).

[1898] Brinton (_Myths_, etc., 141) declares sun-worship, which some investigators have made the base of all primitive religions, to be but a “short and easy method with mythology,” and that “no one key can open all the arcana of symbolism.” He refers to D’Orbigny (_L’Homme Américain_), Müller (_Amer. Urreligionen_), and Squier (_Serpent Symbol_) as supporting the opposing view. We may find like supporters of the sun as a central idea in Schoolcraft, Tylor, Brasseur. Cf. Bancroft’s _Native Races_ (iii. 114) in opposition to Brinton.

[1899] This monotheism is denied by Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, 52). “Of monotheism, either as displayed in the one personal definite God of the Semitic races, or in the dim pantheistic sense of the Brahmins, there was not a single instance on the American continent,”—the Iroquois “Neu” and “Hawaneu,” which, as Brinton says, have deceived Morgan and others, being but the French “Dieu” and “Le bon Dieu” rendered in Indian pronunciation (_Myths of the New World_, p. 53). The aborigines instituted, however, in two instances, the worship of an immaterial god, one among the Quichuas of Peru and another at Tezcuco (_Ibid._ p. 55).

Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 185), examining the _Hist. de los Méxicanos por sus Pinturas_ (_Anales del Museo_, ii. 86), Motolinía, Gómara, Sahagún, Tobar, and Durán, finds no trace of monotheism till we come to Acosta. Torquemada speaks of supreme _gods_; and Bandelier thinks that Ixtlilxochitl, in conveying the idea of a single god, evidently distorts and disfigures Torquemada.

Bancroft (iii. 198) accords honesty to Ixtlilxochitl’s account of the religion of the Tezcucan ruler Nezahualcoyotl, as reaching the heights of Mexican monotheistic conception, because he thinks his descendants, if he had fabled, would never have ended his description with so pagan a statement as that which makes the Tezcucan recognize the sun as his father and the earth as his mother.

Max Müller tells us that we should distinguish between monotheism and henotheism, which is the temporary preeminence of one god over the host of gods, and which was as near monotheism as the American aborigines came.

[1900] He also masses the evidence which shows, as he thinks, that “on Catholic missions has followed the debasement, and on Protestant missions the destruction, of the Indian race.” _Amer. Hero-Myths_, pp. 206, 238.

[1901] Unfortunately, Brinton enforces this view and others with a degree of confidence that does not help him to convince the cautious reader, as when he speaks of the opinions of those who disagree with him as “having served long enough as the last refuge of ignorance” (_Amer. Hero-Myths_, 145).

[1902] The whole question of comparative mythology involves in its broad aspects the subject of American myths. The literature of this general kind is large, but reference may be made to Girard de Rialle’s _La Mythologie Comparée_ (Paris, 1878); for the idea of God, Dawson’s _Fossil Men_, ch. 9 and 10; Lubbock’s _Origin of Civilization_, ch. 4, 5, 6; J. P. Lesley’s _Man’s origin and destiny_, ch. 10; and for the geographical distribution of myths, Tylor’s _Early Hist. of Mankind_, ch. 12; Max Müller’s _Chips_, vol. ii.; and in a general way, Brinton’s _Religious sentiment, its source and aim_ (N. Y., 1876). Reference may also be made to Joly’s _Man before Metals_, ch. 7; Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens_ (Paris, 1883); and G. Brühl’s _Culturvölker Alt-Amerikas_ (Cincinnati, 1876-78), ch. 10 and 19. Brinton (_Myths_, 210) tracks the Deluge myth among the Indians, and Bancroft gives many instances of it (_Native Races_, v., index). Brinton thinks a paper by Charencey, “Le Déluge d’après les traditions indiennes de l’Amérique du Nord,” in the _Revue Américaine_, a help for its extracts, but complains of its uncritical spirit.

We find sufficient data of the aboriginal belief in the future life both in Bancroft’s final chapter (vol. iii. part i.) and in Brinton’s _Myths_, ch. 9. Brinton delivered an address on the “Journey of the soul,” which is printed in the _Proceedings_ (Jan., 1883) of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia.

[1903] In studying the mythology of these tribes we must depend mainly on confined monographs. Mrs. E. A. Smith treats the myths of the Iroquois in the _Second Annual Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_. Charles Godfrey Leland has covered _The Algonquin legends of New England; or, myths and folk-lore of the Micmac, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot tribes_ (Boston, 1884). Brinton has a book on _The Lenâpé and their legends_ (Philad., 1885); and one may refer to the _Life and Journals of David Brainard_. S. D. Peet has a paper on “The religious beliefs and traditions of the aborigines of North America” in the _Journal of the Victoria Institute_ (London, 1888, vol. xxi. 229); one on “Animal worship and Sun worship in the east and west compared” in the _American Antiquarian_, Mar., 1888; and a paper on the religion of the moundbuilders in _Ibid._ vi. 393. The _Dahcotah, or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort Snelling_ (N. Y., 1849) of Mrs. Mary Eastman has been a serviceable book. S. R. Riggs covers the mythology of the Dakotas in the _Amer. Antiquarian_ (v. 147), and in this periodical will be found various studies concerning other tribes.

[1904] Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 185, calls it the earliest statement of the Nahua mythology.

[1905] There is more or less of original importance on the Aztec myths in Alfredo Chavero’s “La Piedra del Sol,” likewise in the _Anales_ (vol. i.). Cf. also the “Ritos Antiguos, sacrificios e idolatrias de los indios de la Nueva España,” as printed in the _Coleccion de doc. ined. para la hist. de España_ (liii. 300).

Bancroft (vol. iii. ch. 6-10), who is the best source for reference, gives also the best compassed survey of the entire field; but among writers in English he may be supplemented by Prescott (i. ch. 3, introd.); Helps in his _Spanish Conquest_ (vol. ii.); Tylor’s _Primitive Culture_; Albert Réville’s _Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by the native religions of Mexico and Peru_, translated by P. H. Wicksteed (London, 1884, being the Hibbert lectures for 1884); on the analogies of the Mexican belief, a condensed statement in Short’s _No. America of Antiq._, 459; a popular paper in _The Galaxy_, May, 1876. Bandelier intended a fourth paper to be added to the three printed in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._ (vol. ii.), namely, one on “The Creeds and Beliefs of the Ancient Mexicans,” which has never, I think, been printed.

Among the French, we may refer to Ternaux-Compans’ _Essai sur la théogonie Méxicaine_ (Paris, 1840) and the works of Brasseur. Klemm’s _Cultur-Geschichte_ and Müller’s _Urreligionen_ will mainly cover the German views. Of the Mexican writers, it may be worth while to name J. M. Melgar’s _Examen comparativa entre los signos simbolicos de las Teogonias y Cosmogonias antiguas y los que existen en los manuscritos Méxicanos_ (Vera Cruz, 1872).

The readiest description of their priesthood and festivals will be found in Bancroft (ii. 201, 303, with references). Tenochtitlan is said to have had 2,000 sacred buildings, and Torquemada says there were 80,000 throughout Mexico; while Clavigero says that a million priests attended upon them. Bancroft (iii. ch. 10) describes this service. There is a chance in all this of much exaggeration.

The history of human sacrifice as a part of this service is the subject of disagreement among the earlier as well as with the later writers. Bancroft (iii. 413, 442) gives some leading references. Cf. Prescott (i. 77) and Nadaillac (p. 296). Las Casas in his general defence of the natives places the number of sacrifices very low. Zumárraga says there were 20,000 a year. The Aztecs, if not originating the practice, as is disputed by some, certainly made much use of it.

[1906] _Anales del Museo Nacional_, ii. 247; Bancroft, iii. 240, 248.

[1907] Bandelier thinks Durán the earliest to connect St. Thomas with Quetzalcoatl. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 456.

[1908] Müller agrees with Ixtlilxochitl that Quetzalcoatl and Huemac were one and the same, and that Ternaux erred in supposing them respectively Olmec and Toltec deities. Cf. Brasseur’s _Palenqué_, 40, 66. Cf. D. Daly on “Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican Messiah” in _Gentleman’s Mag._, n. a., xli. 236.

[1909] For the later views in general see Clavigero, Tylor, Brasseur (_Nations Civil._, i. 253), Prescott (i. 62), Bancroft (iii. 248, 263; v. 24, 200, 255, 257), and Short (267, 274).

[1910] The god Paynal was a sort of deputy war-god. See H. H. Bancroft’s _Native Races_.

[1911] Cf. references in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, ii. 571; Short, p. 206.

[1912] Cf. _Relacion de las ceremonias y Ritos de Michoacan_, a manuscript in the library of Congress, of which there is a copy in Madrid, which is printed in the _Coleccion de doc. ined. para la hist. de España_, liii.

[1913] For further modern treatment see Schultz-Sellack’s “Die Amerikanischen Götter der vier Weltgegenden und ihre Tempel in Palenque” in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, xi.(1879); Brasseur’s Landa, p. lx; Ancona’s _Yucatan_ (i. ch. 10); Powell’s _First Report Bureau of Ethnology_; for sacrifices, Nadaillac (p. 266); and for festivals and priestly service, Bancroft (ii. 689). For Yucatan folk-lore, see Brinton in _Folk-lore Journal_ (vol. i. for 1883).

[1914] _First series_: vol. iv., W. Sargent on articles from an old grave at Cincinnati, exhumed in 1794; vol. v., G. Turner on the same; vol. vi., W. Dunbar on the Indian sign language; J. Madison on remains of fortifications in the west; B. S. Barton on affinities of Indian words. _New series_: vol. i., H. H. Brackenridge on Indian populations and tumuli; C. W. Short on an Indian fort near Lexington, Ky.; vol. iii., D. Zeisberger on a Delaware grammar; vol. iv., J. Heckewelder on Delaware names, etc.

[1915] It celebrated its centennial in 1880, when an impromptu address was delivered by R. C. Winthrop, which is printed by this society, and is also contained, with a statement of the occasion of it, in his _Speeches and Addresses_, 1878-1886. For a record of the interest in archæological studies about 1790, see _Reports_ of the American Philosophical Society, xxii. no. 119.

[1916] _First series_: vol. i., S. H. Parsons on discoveries in the western country; vol. iii., E. A. Kendall and J. Davis on an examination of the much controverted inscription of the so-called Dighton Rock; E. Stiles on an Indian idol. _New series_: vol. i., Rasle’s Abenaki dictionary; vol. v., W. Sargent’s plan of the Marietta mounds, etc.

[1917] This society published the original edition of S. G. Morton’s _Inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of the aboriginal race of America_ (2d ed., Philadelphia, 1844), which glances at their moral and intellectual character, their habits of interment, their maritime enterprise, and their physical condition.

[1918] Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1564.

[1919] Vol. ii., S. S. Haldeman on linguistic ethnology; vol. iii., J. C. Nott and L. Agassiz on the unity of the human race; vol. v., Col. Whittlesey on ancient human remains in Ohio; vol. vi., J. L. Leconte on the California Indians; vol. xi., Whittlesey on ancient mining at Lake Superior; Morgan on Iroquois laws of descent; D. Wilson on a uniform type of the American crania; vol. xiii., Morgan on the bestowing of Indian names; vol. xvii., Whittlesey on the antiquity of man in America; W. De Haas on the archæology of the Mississippi Valley; W. H. Dall on the Alaska tribes; vol. xix., Dall on the Eskimo tongue, etc.

[1920] _Abstracts of the Transactions prepared by J. W. Powell_ (Washington, 1879, etc.).

[1921] The student will find some general help, at least, from the publications of such as these: the Peabody Academy of Science (Salem, Mass.), _Memoirs_, 1869, etc.; Essex Institute (Salem, Mass.), _Bulletin_, 1869, and _Proceedings_, 1848, etc.; Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, _Memoirs_, 1810-16; _Transactions_, 1866, etc.; the Lyceum of Natural History, became in 1876 the New York Academy of Sciences, _Annals_, 1823, etc.; _Proceedings_, 1870, etc.; Transactions; the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, _Proceedings_; Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, _Proceedings and Collections_ (Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 1884, etc.); the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, _Journal_ and _Proceedings_, 1876; Indianapolis Academy of Sciences, _Transactions_, 1870, etc.; Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, _Bulletin_, 1870, and _Transactions_, 1870; Davenport (Iowa) Academy of Science, _Proceedings_, 1867; St. Louis Academy of Science, _Transactions_, 1856; Kansas Academy of Science, _Transactions_, 1872; California Academy of Sciences, _Proceedings_, 1854, etc., and _Memoirs_, 1868, etc.; Geographical Society of the Pacific, its official organ _Kosmos_,—not to name others.

In British America we may refer to the Natural History Society of Montreal, publishing _The Canadian Naturalist_, 1857, etc.; the Canadian Institute, _Proceedings_; the Royal Society of Canada, _Proceedings_; the Nova Scotia Institute of Natural Science, _Proceedings and Transactions_, 1867,—not to mention others; and among periodicals the _Canadian Monthly_, the _Canadian Antiquarian_, and the _Canadian Journal_.

[1922] The tendency of general periodicals to questions of this kind is manifest by the references in _Poole’s Index_, under such heads as American Antiquities, Anthropology, Archæology, Caves and Cave-dwellers, Ethnology, Lake Dwellings, Man, Mounds and Moundbuilders, Prehistoric Races, etc.

[1923] The history of its incipiency and progress can be gathered from the _Reports_ of the Museum, with summaries in those numbered i., xi. and xix.

[1924] Cf. Waldo Higginson’s _Memorials of the Class of 1833, Harvard College_, p. 60, and the contemporary tributes from eminent associates noted in _Poole’s Index_, p. 1434.

[1925] The documentary history, by W. J. Rhees, of the Smithsonian Institution, forms vol. xvii. of its _Miscellaneous Collections_. Cf. J. Henry on its organization in the _Proceedings_ of the Amer. Asso. for the Adv. of Science, vol. i. A _Catalogue of the publications of the S. I. with an alphabetical index of articles_, by William J. Rhees (Washington, 1882), constitutes no. 478 of its series.

The early management of the Smithsonian decided that the “knowledge” of its founder meant science, and from the start gave not a little attention to archæology as a science. When the Bureau of Ethnology became a part of the Institution, and its _Reports_ included papers necessarily historical as well as archæological, the way was prepared for a broader meaning to the term “knowledge,” and as a significant recognition of the allied field of research the present government of the Smithsonian gave hearty concurrence to the act of Congress which in Dec., 1888, made also the American Historical Association, which had existed without incorporation since 1884, a section of the Smithsonian Institution.

[1926] Its mound explorations have been conducted by Cyrus Thomas; those among the Pueblos of the southwest by James Stevenson (d. 1888); while Major Powell himself has controlled personally the body of searchers in the linguistic fields (_American Antiquarian_, viii. 32). It would seem that its profession “to organize anthropological research” is not to its full extent true, since the physiological side of the subject seems to be left in Washington to the Army Medical Museum.

[1927] Cf. Charles Rau’s _Archæological Collections of the United States National Museum_ (1876) in _Smithsonian Contributions_, xx., with many illustrative woodcuts; and a paper by Ernest Ingersoll in _The Century_, January, 1885. Cf. also F. W. Putnam’s contribution on American Archæological Collections in the _American Naturalist_, vii. 29.

[1928] B. P. Poore’s _Descriptive Catal. Govt. Pub._, p. 593; Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1379; Allibone’s _Dictionary_, iii. p. 1952, for references and opposing criticisms. Some of the condemnation of the book is too sweeping, for amid its ignorance, confusion, and indiscrimination there is much to be picked out which is of importance. Cf. Parkman’s _Jesuits_, p. lxxx; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. ch. 19; Brinton’s _Myths_, p. 40. Cf. on Schoolcraft’s death (with a portrait) _Historical Mag._, April, 1865; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1865.

F. S. Drake’s _Indian Tribes of the United States_ (Philad., 1884) is, with some additional matter, a rearrangement of Schoolcraft, the omission to acknowledge which on the title-page being an unworthy bibliographical deceit. Schoolcraft’s rivalry of Geo. Catlin and his ignoring of Catlin’s work is commented on at some length by Donaldson in the _Smithsonian Inst. Report_, 1885, part ii. pp. 373-383.

[1929] For full details of this and other publications mentioned in this paper, see S. H. Scudder’s _Catalogue of Scientific Serials, 1633-1876_, published by the library of Harvard University in 1879.

[1930] Sabin, xvii., no. 70354. The Congrès Archéologique de France began its Séances générales in 1834, but the interest of its _Comptes rendus_ for Americanists is for comparative illustration. The two volumes of _Mémoires de la Société Ethnologique_ (Paris, 1841-45) contain nothing bearing directly on American archæology. Much the same may be said of the _Annales Archéologiques fondées par Didron aîné_, in 1844, and continued to 1870; of the _Bulletin Archéologique_ (1844-46) of the Athénæum Français, and of its continuation, the _Bulletin Archéologique Français_ (1846-56); and of the _Annales_ of the Institut Archéologique (1844, etc.).

[1931] _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1876.

[1932] A _Revue Ethnographique_ was begun in 1869. A Societé Ethnologique, publishing _Bulletin_ (1846-47) and _Mémoires_ (1841-45), is a distinct organization.

[1933] S. H. Scudder, in his _Catalogue of Scientific Serials_, no. 1528, endeavors to put into something like orderly arrangement the exceedingly devious devices of duplication of this and allied publications.

[1934] A _Revue d’Anthropologie_ was begun at Paris, under the direction of Broca, in 1872. A Société d’Anthropologie began two series, _Bulletins_ and _Mémoires_, in 1860. Mortillet conducted _L’Homme_ from 1883 to 1887, when he and his associates in this work suspended its publication to devote themselves to a _Dictionnaire des Sciences Anthropologiques_ and to a _Bibliothèque Anthropologique_.

[1935] Rosny died April 23, 1871.

[1936] Its publications began in 1665. Cf. synopsis in Scudder’s _Catalogue_, pp. 26-27. Cf. C. A. Alexander on the origin and history of the Royal Society, in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1863.

[1937] Some of the local societies deal to some extent in American subjects; _e. g._, the _Journal of the Manchester Geographical Society_, begun in 1885.

[1938] Not to be confounded with _The Ethnological Journal_, vol. i., 1848-49, and vol. ii., 1854, incomplete; and _The Ethnological Journal_, 1 vol., 1865-66.

[1939] Cf. J. R. Bartlett on an Antwerp meeting, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1868.

[1940] Such periodicals as _Nature_ and _Popular Science Review_ show how anthropological science is attracting attention.

[1941] See Scudder’s _Catalogue_.

[1942] The third volume of Bastian’s _Culturländer des Alten America_ (Berlin, 1886) comprises “Nachträge und Ergänzungen aus den Sammlungen des Ethnologischen Museums.”

[1943] _Congrès des Américanistes, Compte Rendus_, Nancy, ii. 271.

[1944] Cf. Oscar Montelius, _Bibliographie de l’archéologie préhistorique de la Suède pendant le 19e siècle, suivie d’un exposé succinct des sociétés archéologiques suédoises_ (Stockholm, 1875).

[1945] It is described by Tylor in his _Anahuac_, ch. 9; by Brocklehurst in his _Mexico to-day_, ch. 21; by Bandelier in the _American Antiquarian_ (1878), ii. 15; in Mayer’s _Mexico_; and in the summary of information (fifteen years old, however) in Bancroft’s _Mexico_, iv. 553, etc., with references, p. 565, which includes references to the Uhde collection at Heidelberg, the Christy collection in London (Tylor), that of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia (_Trans._, iii. 570), not to name the Mexican sections of the large museums of America and Europe. Henry Phillips, Jr. (_Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc._, xxi. p. 111) gives a list of public collections of American Archæology. There are some private collections mentioned in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, Nouv. Ser._, vol. i. A. de Longperier’s _Notice des Monuments dans la Salle des Antiquités Américaines_ (Paris, 1880) covers a part of the great Paris exhibition of that year. Something is found in E. T. Stevens’s _Flint Chips, a guide to prehistoric archæology as illustrated in the Blackmore Museum_ [at Salisbury, England], London, 1870.

[1946] There is an account of Mendoza in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1888, p. 172.

[1947] _Coleccion de las Antigüedades Mexicanas que ecsisten en el Museo Nacional, litografiadas por Frederico Waldeck_ (Mexico, 1827—fol.); Sabin, iv. 15796. See miscellaneous references on Mexican relics in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 565.

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

—Obvious errors were corrected.