Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. I (of 8)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. I (of 8) - Aboriginal America
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. I (of 8) - Aboriginal America" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

AMERICA, VOL. I (OF 8)***

generously made available by Internet Archive/American Libraries
(https://archive.org/details/americana)

which includes the more than 200 original illustrations.
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive/American Libraries. See
http://www.archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica01winsrich

Transcriber’s note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).

A carat character is used to denote superscription. A
single character following the carat is superscripted
(example: M^o). Multiple superscripted characters are
enclosed by curly brackets (example: 540.7^{mm}).

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

Aboriginal America

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICA

Edited by

JUSTIN WINSOR

Librarian of Harvard University
Corresponding Secretary Massachusetts Historical Society

VOL. I

Boston and New York
Houghton, Mifflin and Company
The Riverside Press, Cambridge

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A.
Electrotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

[Illustration]

CHARLES WILLIAM ELIOT, LL. D.

PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

_DEAR ELIOT:_

_Forty years ago, you and I, having made preparation together, entered
college on the same day. We later found different spheres in the world;
and you came back to Cambridge in due time to assume your high office.
Twelve years ago, sought by you, I likewise came, to discharge a duty
under you._

_You took me away from many cares, and transferred me to the more
congenial service of the University. The change has conduced to the
progress of those studies in which I hardly remember to have had a lack
of interest._

_So I owe much to you; and it is not, I trust, surprising that I desire
to connect, in this work, your name with that of your_

_Obliged friend_,

[Illustration]

CAMBRIDGE, 1889.

CONTENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

[_The cut on the title represents a mask, which forms the centre of
the Mexican Calendar Stone, as engraved in D. Wilson’s Prehistoric
Man, i. 333, from a cast now in the Collection of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland._]

INTRODUCTION.

PART I. AMERICANA IN LIBRARIES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES. _The Editor_ i

ILLUSTRATIONS: Portrait of Professor Ebeling, iii; of
James Carson Brevoort, x; of Charles Deane, xi.

PART II. EARLY DESCRIPTIONS OF AMERICA, AND COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTS
OF THE EARLY VOYAGES THERETO. _The Editor_ xix

ILLUSTRATIONS: Title of the _Newe Unbekanthe Landte_, xxi; of
Peter Martyr’s _De Nuper sub D. Carolo repertis insulis_
(1521), xxii; Portrait of Grynæus, xxiv; of Sebastian
Münster, xxvi, xxvii; of Monardes, xxix; of De Bry, xxx;
of Feyerabend, xxxi.

CHAPTER I.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ANCIENTS CONSIDERED IN
RELATION TO THE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA. _William H.
Tillinghast_ 1

ILLUSTRATIONS: Maps by Macrobius, 10, 11, 12; Carli’s _Traces of
Atlantis_, 17; Sanson’s _Atlantis Insula_, 18; Bory de St.
Vincent’s _Carte Conjecturale de l’Atlantide_, 19; Contour
Chart of the Bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, 20; The
Rectangular Earth, 30.

CRITICAL ESSAY 33

NOTES 38

A. The Form of the Earth, 38; B. Homer’s Geography, 39; C.
Supposed References to America, 40; D. Atlantis, 41; E.
Fabulous Islands of the Atlantic in the Middle Ages, 46;
F. Toscanelli’s Atlantic Ocean, 51. G. (_By the Editor._)
Early Maps of the Atlantic Ocean, 53.

ILLUSTRATIONS: Map of the Fifteenth Century, 53; Map of Fr.
Pizigani (A.D. 1367), and of Andreas Bianco (1436), 54;
Catalan Map (1375), 55; Map of Andreas Benincasa (1476), 56;
Laon Globe, 56; Maps of Bordone (1547), 57, 58; Map made at
the End of the Fifteenth Century, 57; Ortelius’s Atlantic
Ocean (1587), 58.

CHAPTER II.

PRE-COLUMBIAN EXPLORATIONS. _Justin Winsor_ 59

ILLUSTRATIONS: Norse Ship, 62; Plan of a Viking Ship 63, and her
Rowlock, 63; Norse Boat used as a Habitation, 64; Norman Ship
from the Bayeux Tapestry, 64; Scandinavian Flags, 64;
Scandinavian Weapons, 65; Runes, 66, 67; Fac-simile of the
Title of the Zeno Narrative, 70; Its Section on Frisland, 71;
Ship of the Fifteenth Century, 73; The Sea of Darkness, 74.

CRITICAL NOTES 76

A. Early Connection of Asiatic Peoples with the Western Coast
of America, 76; B. Ireland the Great, or White Man’s
Land, 82; C. The Norse in Iceland, 83; D. Greenland and
its Ruins, 85; E. The Vinland Voyages, 87; F. The Lost
Greenland Colonies, 107; G. Madoc and the Welsh, 109; H.
The Zeni and their Map, 111; I. Alleged Jewish Migration,
115; J. Possible Early African Migrations, 116.

ILLUSTRATIONS: Behring’s Sea and Adjacent Waters, 77; Buache’s
Map of the North Pacific and Fusang, 79; Ruins of the Church
at Kakortok, 86; Fac-simile of a Saga Manuscript and
Autograph of C. C. Rafn, 87; Ruin at Kakortok, 88; Map of
Julianehaab, 89; Portrait of Rafn, 90; Title-page of
_Historia Vinlandiæ Antiguæ per Thormodum Torfæum_, 91;
Rafn’s Map of Norse America, 95; Rafn’s Map of Vinland (New
England), 100; View of Dighton Rock, 101; Copies of its
Inscription, 103; Henrik Rink, 106; Fac-simile of the
Title-page of Hans Egede’s _Det gamle Gronlands nye
Perlustration_, 108; A British Ship of the Time of Edward I,
110; Richard H. Major, 112; Baron Nordenskjöld, 113.

THE CARTOGRAPHY OF GREENLAND. _The Editor_ 117

ILLUSTRATIONS: The Maps of Claudius Clavus (1427), 118, 119; of
Fra Mauro (1459), 120; Tabula Regionum Septentrionalium
(1467), 121; Map of Donis (1482), 122; of Henricus Martellus
(1489-90), 122; of Olaus Magnus (1539), 123; (1555), 124;
(1567), 125; of Bordone (1547), 126; The Zeno Map, 127; as
altered in the Ptolemy of 1561, 128; The Map of Phillipus
Gallæus (1585), 129; of Sigurd Stephanus (1570), 130; The
Greenland of Paul Egede, 131; of Isaac de la Peyrère (1647),
132.

CHAPTER III.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA. _Justin Winsor_ 133

ILLUSTRATIONS: Clavigero’s Plan of Mexico, 143; his Map of
Anahuac, 144; Environs du Lac de Méxique, 145; Brasseur de
Bourbourg’s Map of Central America, 151.

CRITICAL ESSAY 153

ILLUSTRATIONS: Manuscript of Bernal Diaz, 154; Sahagún, 156;
Clavigero, 159; Lorenzo Boturini, 160; Frontispiece of his
_Idea_, with his Portrait, 161; Icazbalceta, 163; Daniel G.
Brinton, 165; Brasseur de Bourbourg, 170.

NOTES 173

I. The Authorities on the so-called Civilization of Ancient
Mexico and Adjacent Lands, and the Interpretation of such
Authorities, 173; II. Bibliographical Notes upon the
Ruins and Archæological Remains of Mexico and Central
America, 176; III. Bibliographical Notes on the
Picture-Writing of the Nahuas and Mayas, 197.

ILLUSTRATIONS: The Pyramid of Cholula, 177; The Great Mound of
Cholula, 178; Mexican Calendar Stone, 179; Court of the
Mexico Museum, 181; Old Mexican Bridge near Tezcuco, 182; The
Indio Triste, 183; General Plan of Mitla, 184; Sacrificial
Stone, 185; Waldeck, 186; Désiré Charnay, 187; Charnay’s Map
of Yucatan, 188; Ruined Temple at Uxmal, 189; Ring and Head
from Chichen-Itza, 190; Viollet-le-Duc’s Restoration of a
Palenqué Building, 192; Sculptures from the Temple of the
Cross at Palenqué, 193; Plan of Copan, 194; Yucatan Types of
Heads, 195; Plan of Quirigua, 196; Fac-simile of Landa’s
Manuscript, 198; A Sculptured Column, 199; Palenqué
Hieroglyphics, 201; Léon de Rosny, 202; The Dresden Codex,
204; Codex Cortesianus, 206; Codex Perezianus, 207, 208.

CHAPTER IV.

THE INCA CIVILIZATION IN PERU. _Clements R. Markham_ 209

ILLUSTRATIONS: Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Map of Northwestern South
America, 210; Early Spanish Map of Peru, 211; Llamas, 213;
Architectural Details at Tiahuanaca, 214; Bas-Reliefs, 215;
Doorway and other Parts, 216; Image, 217; Broken Doorway,
218; Tiahuanaca Restored, 219; Ruins of Sacsahuaman, 220;
Inca Manco Ccapac, 228; Inca Yupanqui, 228; Cuzco, 229;
Warriors of the Inca Period, 230; Plan of the Temple of the
Sun, 234; Zodiac of Gold, 235; Quipus, 243; Inca Skull, 244;
Ruins at Chucuito, 245; Lake Titicaca, 246, 247; Map of the
Lake, 248; Primeval Tomb, Acora, 249; Ruins at Quellenata,
249; Ruins at Escoma, 250; Sillustani, 250; Ruins of an
Incarial Village, 251; Map of the Inca Road, 254; Peruvian
Metal-Workers, 256; Peruvian Pottery, 256, 257; Unfinished
Peruvian Cloth, 258.

CRITICAL ESSAY 259

ILLUSTRATIONS: House in Cuzco in which Garcilasso was born, 265;
Portraits of the Incas in the Title-page of Herrera, 267;
William Robertson, 269; Clements R. Markham, 272; Márcos
Jiménez de la Espada, 274.

NOTES 275

I. Ancient People of the Peruvian Coast, 275; II. The
Quichua Language and Literature, 278.

ILLUSTRATIONS: Mummy from Ancon, 276; Mummy from a Huaca at
Pisco, 277; Tapestry from the Graves of Ancon, 278; Idol from
Timaná, 281.

CHAPTER V.

THE RED INDIAN OF NORTH AMERICA IN CONTACT WITH THE FRENCH AND
ENGLISH. _George E. Ellis_ 283

CRITICAL ESSAY. _George E. Ellis and the Editor_ 316

CHAPTER VI.

THE PREHISTORIC ARCHÆOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICA. _Henry W. Haynes_ 329

ILLUSTRATIONS: Palæolithic Implement from the Trenton Gravels,
331; The Trenton Gravel Bluff, 335; Section of Bluff near
Trenton, 338; Obsidian Spear Point from the Lahontan Lake,
349.

THE PROGRESS OF OPINION RESPECTING THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF
MAN IN AMERICA. _Justin Winsor_ 369

ILLUSTRATIONS: Benjamin Smith Barton, 371; Louis Agassiz, 373;
Samuel Foster Haven, 374; Sir Daniel Wilson, 375; Professor
Edward B. Tylor, 376; Hochelagan and Cro-magnon Skulls, 377;
Theodor Waitz, 378; Sir John Lubbock, 379; Sir John William
Dawson, 380; Map of Aboriginal Migrations, 381; Calaveras
Skull, 385; Ancient Footprint from Nicaragua, 386;
Cro-magnon, Enghis, Neanderthal, and Hochelagan Skulls, 389;
Oscar Peschel, 391; Jeffries Wyman, 392; Map of Cape Cod,
showing Shell Heaps, 393; Maps of the Pueblo Region, 394,
397; Col. Charles Whittlesey, 399; Increase A. Lapham, 400;
Plan of the Great Serpent Mound, 401; Cincinnati Tablet, 404;
Old View of the Mounds on the Muskingum (Marietta), 405; Map
of the Scioto Valley, showing Sites of Mounds, 406; Works at
Newark, Ohio, 407; Major J. W. Powell, 411.

APPENDIX.

_Justin Winsor._

I. Bibliography of Aboriginal America 413

II. The Comprehensive Treatises on American Antiquities 415

III. Bibliographical Notes on the Industries and Trade of the
American Aborigines 416

IV. Bibliographical Notes on American Linguistics 421

V. Bibliographical Notes on the Myths and Religions of America 429

VI. Archæological Museums and Periodicals 437

ILLUSTRATIONS: Mexican Clay Mask, 419; Quetzalcoatl, 432; The
Mexican Temple, 433; The Temple of Mexico, 434; Teoyaomiqui,
435; Ancient Teocalli, Oaxaca, Mexico, 436.

INDEX 445

INTRODUCTION.

_By the Editor._

PART I. AMERICANA IN LIBRARIES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

HARRISSE, in the Introduction of his _Bibliotheca Americana
Vetustissima_, enumerates and characterizes many of the bibliographies
of Americana, beginning with the chapter, “De Scriptoribus rerum
Americanarum,” in the _Bibliotheca Classica_ of Draudius, in 1622.[1]
De Laet, in his _Nieuwe Wereldt_ (1625), gives a list of about
thirty-seven authorities, which he increased somewhat in later
editions.[2] The earliest American catalogue of any moment, however,
came from a native Peruvian, Léon y Pinelo, who is usually cited by the
latter name only. He had prepared an extensive list; but he published
at Madrid, in 1629, a selection of titles only, under the designation
of _Epitome de la biblioteca oriental i occidental_,[3] which included
manuscripts as well as books. He had exceptional advantages as
chronicler of the Indies.

In 1671, in Montanus’s _Nieuwe weereld_, and in Ogilby’s _America_,
about 167 authorities are enumerated.

Sabin[4] refers to Cornelius van Beughem’s _Bibliographia Historica_,
1685, published at Amsterdam, as having the titles of books on America.

The earliest exclusively American catalogue is the _Bibliothecæ
Americanæ Primordia_ of White Kennett,[5] Bishop of Peterborough,
published in London in 1713. The arrangement of its sixteen hundred
entries is chronological; and it enters under their respective dates
the sections of such collections as Hakluyt and Ramusio.[6] It
particularly pertains to the English colonies, and more especially to
New England, where, in the eighteenth century, three distinctively
valuable American libraries are known to have existed,—that of the
Mather family, which was in large part destroyed during the battle
of Bunker Hill, in 1775; that of Thomas Prince, still in large part
existing in the Boston Public Library; and that of Governor Hutchinson,
scattered by the mob which attacked his house in Boston in 1765.[7]

In 1716 Lenglet du Fresnoy inserted a brief list (sixty titles) in his
_Méthode pour étudier la géographie_. Garcia’s _Origen de los Indias de
el nuevo mundo_, Madrid, 1729, shows a list of about seventeen hundred
authors.[8]

In 1737-1738 Barcia enlarged Pinelo’s work, translating all his titles
into Spanish, and added numerous other entries which Rich[9] says were
“clumsily thrown together.”

Charlevoix prefixed to his _Nouvelle France_, in 1744, a list with
useful comments, which the English reader can readily approach in
Dr. Shea’s translation. A price-list which has been preserved of the
sale in Paris in 1764, _Catalogue des livres des ci-devant soi-disans
Jésuites du Collége de Clermont_, indicates the lack of competition at
that time for those choicer Americana, now so costly.[10] The _Regio
patronatu Indiarum_ of Frassus (1775) gives about 1505 authorities.
There is a chronological catalogue of books issued in the American
colonies previous to 1775, prepared by S. F. Haven, Jr., and appended
to the edition of Thomas’s _History of Printing_, published by the
American Antiquarian Society. Though by no means perfect, it is a
convenient key to most publications illustrative of American history
during the colonial period of the English possessions, and printed in
America. Dr. Robertson’s _America_ (1777) shows only 250 works, and it
indicates how far short he was of the present advantages in the study
of this subject. Clavigero surpassed all his predecessors in the lists
accompanying his _Storia del Messico_, published in 1780,—but the
special bibliography of Mexico is examined elsewhere. Equally special,
and confined to the English colonies, is the documentary register
which Jefferson inserted in his _Notes on Virginia_; but it serves to
show how scanty the records were a hundred years ago compared with the
calendars of such material now. Meuzel, in 1782, had published enough
of his _Bibliotheca Historica_ to cover the American field, though he
never completed the work as planned.

In 1789 an anonymous _Bibliotheca Americana_ of nearly sixteen hundred
entries was published in London. It is not of much value. Harrisse
and others attribute it to Reid; but by some the author’s name is
differently given as Homer, Dalrymple, and Long.[11]

An enumeration of the documentary sources (about 152 entries) used by
Muñoz in his _Historia del nuevo mundo_ (1793) is given in Fustér’s
_Biblioteca Valenciana_ (ii. 202-234) published at Valencia in
1827-1830.[12]

There is in the Library of Congress (Force Collection) a copy of an
_Indice de la Coleccion de manuscritos pertinecientes a la historia de
las Indias_, by Fraggia, Abella, and others, dated at Madrid, 1799.[13]

In the Sparks collection at Cornell are two other manuscript
bibliographies worthy of notice. One is a _Biblioteca Americana_, by
Antonio de Alcedo, dated in 1807. Sparks says his copy was made in 1843
from an original which Obadiah Rich had found in Madrid.[14]

Harrisse says that another copy is in the Carter-Brown Library; and
he asserts that, excepting some additions of modern American authors,
it is not much improved over Barcia’s edition of Pinelo. H. H.
Bancroft[15] mentions having a third copy, which had formerly belonged
to Prescott.

The other manuscript at Cornell is a _Bibliotheca Americana_, prepared
in twelve volumes by Arthur Homer, who had intended, but never
accomplished, the publication of it. Sparks found it in Sir Thomas
Phillipps’s library at Middlehill, and caused the copy of it to be
made, which is now at Ithaca.[16]

In 1808 Boucher de la Richarderie published at Paris his _Bibliothèque
universelle des voyages_,[17] which has in the fifth part a critical
list of all voyages to American waters. Harrisse disagrees with Peignot
in his favorable estimate of Richarderie, and traces to him the errors
of Faribault and later bibliographers.

The _Bibliotheca Hispano-Americana_ of Dr. José Mariano Beristain de
Souza was published in Mexico in 1816-1821, in three volumes. Quaritch,
pricing it at £96 in 1880, calls it the rarest and most valuable of
all American bibliographical works. It is a notice of writers who were
born, educated, or flourished in Spanish America, and naturally covers
much of interest to the historical student. The author did not live to
complete it, and his nephew finished it.

In 1818 Colonel Israel Thorndike, of Boston, bought for $6,500 the
American library of Professor Ebeling, of Germany, estimated to contain
over thirty-two hundred volumes, besides an extraordinary collection
of ten thousand maps.[18] The library was given by the purchaser to
Harvard College, and its possession at once put the library of that
institution at the head of all libraries in the United States for the
illustration of American history. No catalogue of it was ever printed,
except as a part of the General Catalogue of the College Library issued
in 1830-1834, in five volumes.

Another useful collection of Americana added to the same library was
that formed by David B. Warden, for forty years United States Consul at
Paris, who printed a catalogue of its twelve hundred volumes at Paris,
in 1820, called _Bibliotheca Americo-Septentrionalis_. The collection
in 1823 found a purchaser at $5,000, in Mr. Samuel A. Eliot, who gave
it to the College.[19]

[Illustration: EBELING.[20]]

The Harvard library, however, as well as several of the best
collections of Americana in the United States, owes more, perhaps, to
Obadiah Rich than to any other. This gentleman, a native of Boston,
was born in 1783. He went as consul of the United States to Valencia
in 1815, and there began his study of early Spanish-American history,
and undertook the gathering of a remarkable collection of books,[21]
which he threw open generously, with his own kindly assistance, to
every investigator who visited Spain for purposes of study. Here he
won the respect of Alexander H. Everett, then American minister to
the court of Spain. He captivated Irving by his helpful nature, who
says of him: “Rich was one of the most indefatigable, intelligent, and
successful bibliographers in Europe. His house at Madrid was a literary
wilderness, abounding with curious works and rare editions. ... He was
withal a man of great truthfulness and simplicity of character, of an
amiable and obliging disposition and strict integrity.” Similar was the
estimation in which he was held by Ticknor, Prescott, George Bancroft,
and many others, as Allibone has recorded.[22] In 1828 he removed
to London, where he established himself as a bookseller. From this
period, as Harrisse[23] fitly says, it was under his influence, acting
upon the lovers of books among his compatriots, that the passion for
forming collections of books exclusively American grew up.[24] In those
days the cost of books now esteemed rare was trifling compared with
the prices demanded at present. Rich had a prescience in his calling,
and the beginnings of the great libraries of Colonel Aspinwall, Peter
Force, James Lenox, and John Carter Brown were made under his fostering
eye; which was just as kindly vigilant for Grenville, who was then
forming out of the income of his sinecure office the great collection
which he gave to the British nation in recompense for his support.[25]
In London, watching the book-markets and making his catalogue, Rich
continued to live for the rest of his life (he died in February, 1850),
except for a period when he was the United States consul at Port
Mahon in the Balearic Islands. His bibliographies are still valuable,
his annotations in them are trustworthy, and their records are the
starting-points of the growth of prices. His issues and reissues of
them are somewhat complicated by supplements and combinations, but
collectors and bibliographers place them on their shelves in the
following order:

1. _A Catalogue of books relating principally to America, arranged
under the years in which they were printed_ (1500-1700), London, 1832.
This included four hundred and eighty-six numbers, those designated
by a star without price being understood to be in Colonel Aspinwall’s
collection. Two small supplements were added to this.

2. _Bibliotheca Americana Nova, printed since 1700 (to 1800)_, London,
1835. Two hundred and fifty copies were printed. A supplement appeared
in 1841, and this became again a part of his.

3. _Bibliotheca Americana Nova_, vol. i. (1701-1800); vol. ii.
(1801-1844), which was printed (250 copies) in London in 1846.[26]

It was in 1833 that Colonel Thomas Aspinwall, of Boston, who was for
thirty-eight years the American consul at London, printed at Paris
a catalogue of his collection of Americana, where seven hundred and
seventy-one lots included, beside much that was ordinarily useful, a
great number of the rarest of books on American history. Harrisse has
called Colonel Aspinwall, not without justice, “a bibliophile of great
tact and activity.” All but the rarest part of his collection was
subsequently burned in 1863, when it had passed into the hands of Mr.
Samuel L. M. Barlow,[27] of New York.

M. Ternaux-Compans, who had collected—as Mr. Brevoort thinks[28]—the
most extensive library of books on America ever brought together,
printed his _Bibliothèque Américaine_[29] in 1837 at Paris. It
embraced 1,154 works, arranged chronologically, and all of them of a
date before 1700. The titles were abridged, and accompanied by French
translations. His annotations were scant; and other students besides
Rich have regretted that so learned a man had not more benefited his
fellow-students by ampler notes.[30]

Also in 1837 appeared the _Catalogue d’ouvrages sur l’histoire de
l’Amérique_, of G. B. Faribault, which was published at Quebec, and was
more specially devoted to books on New France.[31]

With the works of Rich and Ternaux the bibliography of Americana
may be considered to have acquired a distinct recognition; and the
succeeding survey of this field may be more conveniently made if we
group the contributors by some broad discriminations of the motives
influencing them, though such distinctions sometimes become confluent.

First, as regards what may be termed professional bibliography. One of
the earliest workers in the new spirit was a Dresden jurist, Hermann E.
Ludewig, who came to the United States in 1844, and prepared an account
of the _Literature of American local history_, which was published in
1846. This was followed by a supplement, pertaining wholly to New York
State, which appeared in _The Literary World_, February 19, 1848. He
had previously published in the _Serapeum_ at Leipsic (1845, pp. 209)
accounts of American libraries and bibliography, which were the first
contributions to this subject.[32] Some years later, in 1858, there
was published in London a monograph on _The Literature of the American
Aboriginal Linguistics_,[33] which had been undertaken by Mr. Ludewig
but had not been carried through the press, when he died, Dec. 12,
1856.[34]

We owe to a Franco-American citizen the most important bibliography
which we have respecting the first half century of American history;
for the _Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima_ only comes down to 1551
in its chronological arrangement. Mr. Brevoort[35] very properly
characterizes it as “a work which lightens the labors of such as have
to investigate early American history.”[36]

It was under the hospitable roof of Mr. Barlow’s library in New York
that, “having gloated for years over second-hand compilations,”
Harrisse says that he found himself “for the first time within reach
of the fountain-heads of history.” Here he gathered the materials for
his _Notes on Columbus_, which were, as he says, like “pencil marks
varnished over.” These first appeared less perfectly than later, in
the _New York Commercial Advertiser_, under the title of “Columbus
in a Nut-shell.” Mr. Harrisse had also prepared (four copies only
printed) for Mr. Barlow in 1864 the _Bibliotheca Barlowiana_, which is
a descriptive catalogue of the rarest books in the Barlow-Aspinwall
Collection, touching especially the books on Virginian and New England
history between 1602 and 1680.

Mr. Barlow now (1864) sumptuously printed the _Notes on Columbus_
in a volume (ninety-nine copies) for private distribution. For some
reason not apparent, there were expressions in this admirable treatise
which offended some; as when, for instance (p. vii), he spoke of being
debarred the privileges of a much-vaunted public library, referring
to the Astor Library. Similar inadvertences again brought him hostile
criticism, when two years later (1866) he printed with considerable
typographical luxury his _Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima_, which
was published in New York. It embraces something over three hundred
entries.[37] The work is not without errors; and Mr. Henry Stevens,
who claims that he was wrongly accused in the book, gave it a bad
name in the _London Athenæum_ of Oct. 6, 1866, where an unfortunate
slip, in making “Ander Schiffahrt”[38] a personage, is unmercifully
ridiculed. A committee of the Société de Géographie in Paris, of which
M. Ernest Desjardins was spokesman, came to the rescue, and printed a
_Rapport sur les deux ouvrages de bibliographie Américaine de M. Henri
Harrisse_, Paris, 1867. In this document the claim is unguardedly
made that Harrisse’s book was the earliest piece of solid erudition
which America had produced,—a phrase qualified later as applying to
works of American bibliography only. It was pointed out that while
for the period of 1492-1551 Rich had given twenty titles, and Ternaux
fifty-eight, Harrisse had enumerated three hundred and eight.[39]

Harrisse prepared, while shut up in Paris during the siege of 1870,
his _Notes sur la Nouvelle France_, a valuable bibliographical essay
referred to elsewhere.[40] He later put in shape the material which he
had gathered for a supplemental volume to his _Bibliotheca Americana
Vetustissima_, which he called _Additions_,[41] and published it in
Paris in 1872. In his introduction to this latter volume he shows how
thoroughly he has searched the libraries of Europe for new evidences of
interest in America during the first half century after its discovery.
He notes the depredations upon the older libraries which have been
made in recent years, since the prices for rare Americana have ruled
so high. He finds[42] that the Biblioteca Colombina at Seville, as
compared with a catalogue of it made by Ferdinand Columbus himself, has
suffered immense losses. “It is curious to notice,” he finally says,
“how few of the original books relating to the early history of the New
World can be found in the public libraries of Europe. There is not a
literary institution, however rich and ancient, which in this respect
could compare with three or four private libraries in America. The
Marciana at Venice is probably the richest. The Trivulgiana at Milan
can boast of several great rarities.”

For the third contributor to the recent bibliography of Americana, we
must still turn to an adopted citizen, Joseph Sabin, an Englishman by
birth. Various publishing enterprises of interest to the historical
student are associated with Mr. Sabin’s name. He published a quarto
series of reprints of early American tracts, eleven in number, and an
octavo series, seven in number.[43] He published for several years,
beginning in 1869, the _American Bibliopolist_, a record of new books,
with literary miscellanies, largely upon Americana. In 1867 he began
the publication (five hundred copies) of the most extensive American
bibliography yet made, _A Dictionary of books relating to America, from
its discovery to the present time_. The author’s death, in 1881,[44]
left the work somewhat more than half done, and it has been continued
since his death by his sons.[45]

In the _Notas Para una bibliografia de obras anonimas i seudonimas_
of Diego Barros Arana, published at Santiago de Chile in 1882, five
hundred and seven books on America (1493-1876), without authors, are
traced to their writers.

* * * * *

As a second class of contributors to the bibliographical records of
America, we must reckon the students who have gathered libraries for
use in pursuing their historical studies. Foremost among such, and
entitled to be esteemed a pioneer in the modern spirit of research, is
Alexander von Humboldt. He published his _Examen critique de l’histoire
de la géographie du nouveau continent_,[46] in five volumes, between
1836 and 1839.[47] “It is,” says Brevoort,[48] “a guide which all
must consult. With a master hand the author combines and collates all
attainable materials, and draws light from sources which _he_ first
brings to bear in his exhaustive investigations.” Harrisse calls it
“the greatest monument ever erected to the early history of this
continent.”

Humboldt’s library was bought by Henry Stevens, who printed in 1863,
in London, a catalogue of it, showing 11,164 entries; but this was not
published till 1870. It included a set of the _Examen critique_, with
corrections, and the notes for a new sixth volume.[49] Harrisse, who
it is believed contemplated at one time a new edition of this book,
alleges that through the remissness of the purchaser of the library
the world has lost sight of these precious memorials of Humboldt’s
unperfected labors. Stevens, in the _London Athenæum_, October, 1866,
rebuts the charge.[50]

Of the collection of books and manuscripts formed by Col. Peter Force
we have no separate record, apart from their making a portion of the
general catalogue of the Library of Congress, the Government having
bought the collection in 1867.[51]

The library which Jared Sparks formed during the progress of his
historical labors was sold about 1872 to Cornell University, and is now
at Ithaca. Mr. Sparks left behind him “imperfect but not unfaithful
lists of his books,” which, after some supervision by Dr. Cogswell and
others, were put in shape for the press by Mr. Charles A. Cutter of
the Boston Athenæum, and were printed, in 1871, as _Catalogue of the
Library of Jared Sparks_. In the appendix was a list of the historical
manuscripts, originals and copies, which are now on deposit in Harvard
College Library.[52]

In 1849 Mr. H. R. Schoolcraft[53] printed, at the expense of the United
States Government, a _Bibliographical Catalogue of books, etc., in
the Indian tongues of the United States_,—a list later reprinted with
additions in his _Indian Tribes_ (in 1851), vol. iv.[54]

In 1861 Mr. Ephraim George Squier published at New York a monograph
on authors who had written in the languages of Central America,
enumerating one hundred and ten, with a list of the books and
manuscripts on the history, the aborigines, and the antiquities of
Central America, borrowed from other sources in part. At the sale of
Mr. Squier’s library in 1876, the catalogue[55] of which was made by
Mr. Sabin, the entire collection of his manuscripts fell, as mentioned
elsewhere,[56] into the hands of Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft of San
Francisco.

Probably the largest collection of books and manuscripts[57] which
any American has formed for use in writing is that which belongs to
Mr. Bancroft. He is the organizer of an extensive series of books on
the antiquities and history of the Pacific coast. To accomplish an
examination of the aboriginal and civilized history of so large a
field[58] as thoroughly as he has unquestionably made it, within a
lifetime, was a bold undertaking, to be carried out in a centre of
material rather than of literary enterprise. The task involved the
gathering of a library of printed books, at a distance from the purely
intellectual activity of the country, and where no other collection of
moment existed to supplement it. It required the seeking and making
of manuscripts, from the labor of which one might well shrink. It was
fortunate that during the gathering of this collection some notable
collections—like those of Maximilian,[59] Ramirez, and Squier, not to
name others—were opportunely brought to the hammer, a chance by which
Mr. Bancroft naturally profited.

Mr. Bancroft had been trained in the business habits of the book
trade, in which he had established himself in San Francisco as early
as 1856.[60] He was at this time twenty-four years old, having been
born of New England stock in Ohio in 1832, and having had already four
years residence—since 1852—in San Francisco as the agent of an eastern
bookseller. It was not till 1869 that he set seriously to work on his
history, and organized a staff of assistants.[61] They indexed his
library, which was now large (12,000 volumes) and was kept on an upper
floor of his business quarters, and they classified the references
in paper bags.[62] His first idea was to make an encyclopædia of
the antiquities and history of the Pacific Coast; and it is on the
whole unfortunate that he abandoned the scheme, for his methods were
admirably adapted to that end, but of questionable application to a
sustained plan of historical treatment. It is the encyclopedic quality
of his work, as the user eliminates what he wishes, which makes and
will continue to make the books that pass under his name of the first
importance to historical students.

In 1875 the first five volumes of the series, denominated by
themselves _The Native Races of the Pacific States_, made their
appearance. It was clear that a new force had been brought to bear upon
historical research,—the force of organized labor from many hands;
and this implied competent administrative direction and ungrudged
expenditure of money. The work showed the faults of such a method, in
a want of uniform discrimination, and in that promiscuous avidity of
search, which marks rather an eagerness to amass than a judgment to
select, and give literary perspective. The book, however, was accepted
as extremely useful and promising to the future inquirer. Despite
a certain callowness of manner, the _Native Races_ was extremely
creditable, with comparatively little of the patronizing and flippant
air which its flattering reception has since begotten in its author or
his staff. An unfamiliarity with the amenities of literary life seems
unexpectedly to have been more apparent also in his later work.

In April, 1876, Mr. Lewis H. Morgan printed in the _North American
Review_, under the title of “Montezuma’s Dinner,” a paper in which he
controverted the views expressed in the _Native Races_ regarding the
kind of aboriginal civilization belonging to the Mexican and Central
American table-lands. A writer of Mr. Morgan’s reputation commanded
respect in all but Mr. Bancroft, who has been unwise enough to charge
him with seeking “to gain notoriety by attacking” his (Mr. B.’s) views
or supposed views. He dares also to characterize so well-known an
authority as “a person going about from one reviewer to another begging
condemnation for my _Native Races_.” It was this ungracious tone which
produced a divided reception for his new venture. This, after an
interval of seven years, began to make its appearance in vol. vi. of
the “Works,” or vol. i. of the _History of Central America_, appearing
in the autumn of 1882.

The changed tone of the new series, its rhetoric, ambitious in parts,
but mixed with passages which are often forceful and exact, suggestive
of an ill-assorted conjoint production; the interlarding of classic
allusions by some retained reviser who served this purpose for one
volume at least; a certain cheap reasoning and ranting philosophy,
which gives place at times to conceptions of grasp; flippancy
and egotism, which induce a patronizing air under the guise of a
constrained adulation of others; a want of knowledge on points where
the system of indexing employed by his staff had been deficient,—these
traits served to separate the criticism of students from the ordinary
laudation of such as were dazed by the magnitude of the scheme.

Two reviews challenging his merits on these grounds[63] induced
Mr. Bancroft to reply in a tract[64] called _The Early American
Chroniclers_. The manner of this rejoinder is more offensive than
that of the volumes which it defends; and with bitter language he
charges the reviewers with being “men of Morgan,” working in concert to
prejudice his success.

But the controversy of which record is here made is unworthy of the
principal party to it. His important work needs no such adventitious
support; and the occasion for it might have been avoided by ordinary
prudence. The extent of the library upon which the work[65] is based,
and the full citation of the authorities followed in his notes, and the
more general enumeration of them in his preliminary lists, make the
work pre-eminent for its bibliographical extent, however insufficient,
and at times careless, is the bibliographical record.[66]

The library formed by the late Henry C. Murphy of Brooklyn to assist
him in his projected history of maritime discovery in America, of which
only the chapter on Verrazano[67] has been printed, was the creation
of diligent search for many years, part of which was spent in Holland
as minister of the United States. The earliest record of it is a
_Catalogue of an American library chronologically arranged_, which was
privately printed in a few copies, about 1850, and showed five hundred
and eighty-nine entries between the years 1480 and 1800.[68]

[Illustration: JAMES CARSON BREVOORT.]

There has been no catalogue printed of the library of Mr. James Carson
Brevoort, so well known as a historical student and bibliographer, to
whom Mr. Sabin dedicated the first volume of his _Dictionary_. Some of
the choicer portions of his collection are understood to have become a
part of the Astor Library, of which Mr. Brevoort was for a few years
the superintendent, as well as a trustee.[69]

The useful and choice collection of Mr. Charles Deane, of Cambridge,
Mass., to which, as the reader will discover, the Editor has often had
recourse, has never been catalogued. Mr. Deane has made excellent use
of it, as his tracts and papers abundantly show.[70]

* * * * *

A distinct class of helpers in the field of American bibliography
has been those gatherers of libraries who are included under the
somewhat indefinite term of collectors,—owners of books, but who
make no considerable dependence upon them for studies which lead to
publication. From such, however, in some instances, bibliography has
notably gained,—as in the careful knowledge which Mr. James Lenox
sometimes dispensed to scholars either in privately printed issues or
in the pages of periodicals.

[Illustration: CHARLES DEANE.]

Harrisse in 1866 pointed to five Americana libraries in the United
States as surpassing all of their kind in Europe,—the Carter-Brown,
Barlow, Force, Murphy, and Lenox collections. Of the Barlow, Force (now
in the Library of Congress), and Murphy collections mention has already
been made.

The Lenox Library is no longer private, having been given to a board
of trustees by Mr. Lenox previous to his death,[71] and handsomely
housed, by whom it is held for a restricted public use, when fully
catalogued and arranged. Its character, as containing only rare or
unusual books, will necessarily withdraw it from the use of all but
scholars engaged in recondite studies. It is very rich in other
directions than American history; but in this department the partial
access which Harrisse had to it while in Mr. Lenox’s house led him to
infer that it would hold the first rank. The wealth of its alcoves,
with their twenty-eight thousand volumes, is becoming known gradually
in a series of bibliographical monographs, printed as contributions
to its catalogue, of which six have thus far appeared, some of them
clearly and mainly the work of Mr. Lenox himself.

Of these only three have illustrated American history in any
degree,—those devoted to the voyages of Hulsius and Thévenot, and to
the Jesuit Relations (Canada).[72]

The only rival of the Lenox is the library of the late John Carter
Brown, of Providence, gathered largely under the supervision of
John Russell Bartlett; and since Mr. Brown’s death it has been more
particularly under the same oversight.[73] It differs from the Lenox
Library in that it is exclusively American, or nearly so,[74] and
still more in that we have access to a thorough catalogue of its
resources, made by Mr. Bartlett himself, and sumptuously printed.[75]
It was originally issued as _Bibliotheca Americana: A Catalogue of
books relating to North and South America in the Library of John
Carter Brown of Providence, with notes by John Russell Bartlett_, in
three volumes,—vol. i., 1493-1600, in 1865 (302 entries); vol. ii.,
1601-1700, in 1866 (1,160 entries); vol. iii., 1701-1800, in two parts,
in 1870-1871 (4,173 entries).

In 1875 vol. i. was reprinted with fuller titles, covering the
years 1482[76]-1601, with 600 entries, doubling the extent of that
portion.[77] Numerous facsimiles of titles and maps add much to its
value. A second and similarly extended edition of vol. ii. (1600-1700)
was printed in 1882, showing 1,642 entries. The _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, as it is ordinarily cited, is the most extensive printed
list of all Americana previous to 1800, more especially anterior to
1700, which now exists.[78]

Of the other important American catalogues, the first place is to be
assigned to that of the collection formed at Hartford by Mr. George
Brinley, the sale of which since his death[79] has been undertaken
under the direction of Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull,[80] who has prepared
the catalogue, and who claims—not without warrant—that it embraces
“a greater number of volumes remarkable for their rarity, value, and
interest to special collectors and to book-lovers in general, than were
ever before brought together in an American sale-room.”[81]

The library of William Menzies, of New York, was sold in 1875,
from a catalogue made by Joseph Sabin.[82] The library of Edward
A. Crowninshield, of Boston, was catalogued in Boston in 1859, but
withdrawn from public sale, and sold to Henry Stevens, who took a
portion of it to London. It was not large,—the catalogue shows less
than 1,200 titles,—and was not exclusively American; but it was rich in
some of the rarest of such books, particularly in regard to the English
Colonies.[83]

The sale of John Allan’s collection in New York, in 1864, was a
noteworthy one. Americana, however, were but a portion of the
collection.[84] An English-American flavor of far less fineness, but
represented in a catalogue showing a very large collection of books and
pamphlets,[85] was sold in New York in May, 1870, as the property of
Mr. E. P. Boon.

Mr. Thomas W. Field issued in 1873 _An Essay towards an Indian
Bibliography, being a Catalogue of books relating to the American
Indians_, in his own library, with a few others which he did
not possess, distinguished by an asterisk. Mr. Field added many
bibliographical and historical notes, and gave synopses, so that
the catalogue is generally useful to the student of Americana, as
he did not confine his survey to works dealing exclusively with the
aborigines. The library upon which this bibliography was based was
sold at public auction in New York, in two parts, in May, 1875 (3,324
titles), according to a catalogue which is a distinct publication from
the _Essay_.[86]

The collection of Mr. Almon W. Griswold was dispersed by printed
catalogues in 1876 and 1880, the former containing the American
portion, rich in many of the rarer books.

Of the various private collections elsewhere than in the United
States, more or less rich in Americana, mention may be made of the
_Bibliotheca Mejicana_[87] of Augustin Fischer, London, 1869; of the
Spanish-American libraries of Gregorio Beéche, whose catalogue was
printed at Valparaiso in 1879; and that of Benjamin Vicuña Mackenna,
printed at the same place in 1861.[88]

In Leipsic, the catalogue of Serge Sobolewski (1873)[89] was
particularly helpful in the bibliography of Ptolemy, and in the voyages
of De Bry and others. Some of the rarest of Americana were sold in
the Sunderland sale[90] in London in 1881-1883; and remarkably rich
collections were those of Pinart and Bourbourg,[91] sold in Paris in
1883, and that of Dr. J. Court,[92] the first part of which was sold in
Paris in May, 1884. The second part had little of interest.

* * * * *

Still another distinctive kind of bibliographies is found in the
catalogues of the better class of dealers; and among the best of such
is to be placed the various lists printed by Henry Stevens, a native of
Vermont, who has spent most of his manhood in London. In the dedication
to John Carter Brown of his _Schedule of Nuggets_ (1870), he gives
some account of his early bibliographical quests.[93] Two years after
graduating at Yale, he says, he had passed “at Cambridge, reading
passively with legal Story, and actively with historical Sparks, all
the while sifting and digesting the treasures of the Harvard Library.
For five years previously he had scouted through several States during
his vacations, prospecting in out-of-the-way places for historical
nuggets, mousing through town libraries and country garrets in search
of anything old that was historically new for Peter Force and his
American Archives.... From Vermont to Delaware many an antiquated
churn, sequestered hen-coop, and dilapidated flour-barrel had yielded
to him rich harvests of old papers, musty books, and golden pamphlets.
Finally, in 1845, an irrefragable desire impelled him to visit the
Old World, its libraries and book-stalls. Mr. Brown’s enlightened
liberality in those primitive years of his bibliographical pupilage
contributed largely towards the boiling of his kettle.... In acquiring
_con amore_ these American Historiadores Primitivos, he ... travelled
far and near. In this labor of love, this journey of life, his tracks
often become your tracks, his labors your works, his _libri_ your
_liberi_,” he adds, in addressing Mr. Brown.

In 1848 Mr. Stevens proposed the publication, through the Smithsonian
Institution, of a general _Bibliographia Americana_, illustrating the
sources of early American history;[94] but the project failed, and
one or more attempts later made to begin the work also stopped short
of a beginning. While working as a literary agent of the Smithsonian
Institution and other libraries, in these years, and beginning that
systematic selection of American books, for the British Museum and
Bodleian, which has made these libraries so nearly, if not quite, the
equal of any collection of Americana in the United States, he also
made the transcriptions and indexes of the documents in the State
Paper Office which respectively concern the States of New Jersey,
Rhode Island, Maryland, and Virginia. These labors are now preserved
in the archives of those States.[95] Perhaps the earliest of his sale
catalogues was that of a pseudo “Count Mondidier,” embracing Americana,
which were sold in London in December, 1851.[96] His _English Library_
in 1853 was without any distinctive American flavor; but in 1854 he
began, but suspended after two numbers, the _American Bibliographer_
(100 copies).[97] In 1856 he prepared a _Catalogue of American Books
and Maps in the British Museum_ (20,000 titles), which, however,
was never regularly published, but copies bear date 1859, 1862, and
1866.[98] In 1858—though most copies are dated 1862[99]—appeared his
_Historical Nuggets; Bibliotheca Americana, or a descriptive Account
of my Collection of rare books relating to America_. The two little
volumes show about three thousand titles, and Harrisse says they
are printed “with remarkable accuracy.” There was begun in 1885, in
connection with his son Mr. Henry Newton Stevens, a continuation
of these _Nuggets_. In 1861 a sale catalogue of his _Bibliotheca
Americana_ (2,415 lots), issued by Puttick and Simpson, and in part
an abridgment of the _Nuggets_ with similarly careful collations, was
accepted by Maisonneuve as the model of his _Bibliothèque Américaine_
later to be mentioned.[100]

In 1869-1870 Mr. Stevens visited America, and printed at New Haven
his _Historical and Geographical Notes on the earliest discoveries in
America_, 1453-1530, with photo-lithographic facsimiles of some of
the earliest maps. It is a valuable essay, much referred to, in which
the author endeavored to indicate the entanglement of the Asiatic and
American coast lines in the early cartography.[101]

In 1870 he sold at Boston a collection of five thousand volumes,
catalogued as _Bibliotheca Historica_[102] (2,545 entries), being
mostly Americana, from the library of the elder Henry Stevens of
Vermont. It has a characteristic introduction, with an array of
readable notes.[103] His catalogues have often such annotations,
inserted on a principle which he explains in the introduction to
this one: “In the course of many years of bibliographical study and
research, having picked up various isolated grains of knowledge
respecting the early history, geography, and bibliography of this
western hemisphere, the writer has thought it well to pigeon-hole the
facts in notes long and short.”

In October, 1870, he printed at London a _Schedule of Two Thousand
American Historical Nuggets taken from the Stevens Diggings in
September, 1870, and set down in Chronological Order of Printing from
1490 to 1800 [1776], described and recommended as a Supplement to my
printed Bibliotheca Americana_. It included 1,350 titles.

In 1872 he sold another collection, largely Americana, according
to a catalogue entitled _Bibliotheca Geographica & Historica; or,
a Catalogue of [3,109 lots], illustrative of historical geography
and geographical history. Collected, used, and described, with an
Introductory Essay on Catalogues, and how to make them upon the Stevens
system of photo-bibliography_. The title calls it a first part; but
no second part ever appeared. Ten copies were issued, with about four
hundred photographic copies of titles inserted. Some copies are found
without the essay.[104]

The next year (1873) he issued a privately printed list of two thousand
titles of American “Continuations,” as they are called by librarians,
or serial publications in progress as taken at the British Museum,
quaintly terming the list _American books with tails to ’em_.[105]

Finally, in 1881, he printed Part I. of _Stevens’s Historical
Collections_, a sale catalogue showing 1,625 titles of books, chiefly
Americana, and including his Franklin Collection of manuscripts, which
he later privately sold to the United States Government, an agent of
the Boston Public Library yielding to the nation.[106]

One of the earliest to establish an antiquarian bookshop in the United
States was the late Samuel G. Drake, who opened one in Boston in
1830.[107] His special field was that of the North American Indians;
and the history and antiquities of the aborigines, together with the
history of the English Colonies, give a character to his numerous
catalogues.[108] Mr. Drake died in 1875, from a cold taken at a sale of
the library of Daniel Webster; and his final collections of books were
scattered in two sales in the following year.[109]

William Gowans, of New York, was another of the early dealers in
Americana.[110] The catalogues of Bartlett and Welford have already
been mentioned. In 1854, while Garrigue and Christern were acting
as agents of Mr. Lenox, they printed _Livres Curieux_, a list of
desiderata sought for by Mr. Lenox, pertaining to such rarities as the
letters of Columbus, Cartier, parts of De Bry and Hulsius, and the
Jesuit Relations. This list was circulated widely through Europe, but
not twenty out of the 216 titles were ever offered.[111]

About 1856, Charles B. Norton, of New York, began to issue American
catalogues; and in 1857 he established _Norton’s Literary Letter_,
intended to foster interest in the collection of Americana.[112] A
little later, Joel Munsell, of Albany, began to issue catalogues;[113]
and J. W. Randolph, of Richmond, Virginia, more particularly
illustrated the history of the southern parts of the United
States.[114] The most important Americana lists at present issued by
American dealers are those of Robert Clarke & Co., of Cincinnati, which
are admirable specimens of such lists.[115]

In England, the catalogues of Henry Stevens and E. G. Allen have
been already mentioned. The leading English dealer at present in the
choicer books of Americana, as of all other subjects—and it is not too
much to say, the leading one of the world—is Mr. Bernard Quaritch,
a Prussian by birth, who was born in 1819, and after some service
in the book-trade in his native country came to London in 1842, and
entered the service of Henry G. Bohn, under whose instruction, and as
a fellow-employé of Lowndes the bibliographer, he laid the foundations
of a remarkable bibliographical acquaintance. A short service in
Paris brought him the friendship of Brunet. Again (1845) he returned
to Mr. Bohn’s shop; but in April, 1847, he began business in London
for himself. He issued his catalogues at once on a small scale; but
they took their well-known distinctive form in 1848, which they have
retained, except during the interval December, 1854,-May, 1864, when,
to secure favorable consideration in the post-office rates, the
serial was called _The Museum_. It has been his habit, at intervals,
to collect his occasional catalogues into volumes, and provide them
with an index. The first of these (7,000 entries) was issued in 1860.
Others have been issued in 1864, 1868, 1870, 1874, 1877 (this with
the preceding constituting one work, showing nearly 45,000 entries
or 200,000 volumes), and 1880 (describing 28,009 books).[116] In the
preface to this last catalogue he says: “The prices of useful and
learned books are in all cases moderate; the prices of palæographical
and bibliographical curiosities are no doubt in most cases high, that
indeed being a natural result of the great rivalry between English,
French, and American collectors.... A fine copy of any edition of a
book is, and ought to be, more than twice as costly as any other.”[117]
While the Quaritch catalogues have been general, they have included a
large share of the rarest Americana, whose titles have been illustrated
with bibliographical notes characterized by intimate acquaintance with
the secrets of the more curious lore.

The catalogues of John Russell Smith (1849, 1853, 1865, 1867), and of
his successor Alfred Russell Smith (1871, 1874), are useful aids in
this department.[118] The _Bibliotheca Hispano-Americana_ of Trübner,
printed in 1870, offered about thirteen hundred items.[119] Occasional
reference can be usefully made to the lists of George Bumstead, Ellis
and White, John Camden Hotten, all of London, and to those of William
George of Bristol. The latest extensive Americana catalogue is _A
catalogue of rare and curious books, all of which relate more or less
to America_, on sale by F. S. Ellis, London, 1884. It shows three
hundred and forty-two titles, including many of the rarer books, which
are held at prices startling even to one accustomed to the rapid rise
in the cost of books of this description. Many of them were sold by
auction in 1885.

In France, since Ternaux, the most important contribution has come from
the house of Maisonneuve et Cie., by whom the _Bibliotheca Americana_
of Charles Leclerc has been successively issued to represent their
extraordinary stock. The first edition was printed in 1867 (1,647
entries), the second in 1878[120] (2,638 entries, with an admirable
index), besides a first supplement in 1881 (nos. 2,639-3,029).
Mr. Quaritch characterizes it as edited “with admirable skill and
knowledge.”

Less important but useful lists, issued in France, have been those of
Hector Bossange, Edwin Tross,[121] and the current _Americana_ series
of Dufossé, which was begun in 1876.[122]

In Holland, most admirable work has been done by Frederik Muller, of
Amsterdam, and by Mr. Asher, Mr. Tiele, and Mr. Otto Harrassowitz under
his patronage, of which ample accounts are given in another place.[123]
Muller’s catalogues were begun in 1850, but did not reach distinctive
merit till 1872.[124] Martin Nijhoff, at the Hague, has also issued
some American catalogues.

In 1858 Muller sold one of his collections of Americana to Brockhaus,
of Leipsic, and the _Bibliothèque Américaine_ issued by that publisher
in 1861, as representing this collection, was compiled by one of the
editors of the _Serapeum_, Paul Trömel, whom Harrisse characterizes as
an “expert bibliographer and trustworthy scholar.” The list shows 435
entries by a chronological arrangement (1507-1700). Brockhaus again, in
1866, issued another American list, showing books since 1508, arranged
topically (nos. 7,261-8,611). Mr. Otto Harrassowitz, of Leipsic, a
pupil of Muller, of Amsterdam, has also entered the field as a purveyor
of choice Americana. T. O. Weigel, of Leipsic, issued a catalogue,
largely American, in 1877.

* * * * *

So well known are the general bibliographies of Watt, Lowndes, Brunet,
Graesse, and others, that it is not necessary to point out their
distinctive merits.[125] Students in this field are familiar with the
catalogues of the chief American libraries. The library of Harvard
College has not issued a catalogue since 1834, though it now prints
bulletins of its current accessions. An admirable catalogue of the
Boston Athenæum brings the record of that collection down to 1871.
The numerous catalogues of the Boston Public Library are of much use,
especially the distinct volume given to the Prince Collection. The
Massachusetts Historical Society’s library has a catalogue printed
in 1859-60. There has been no catalogue of the American Antiquarian
Society since 1837, and the New England Historic Genealogical Society
has never printed any; nor has the Congregational Library. The State
Library at Boston issued a catalogue in 1880. These libraries, with
the Carter-Brown Library at Providence, which is courteously opened to
students properly introduced, probably make Boston within easy distance
of a larger proportion of the books illustrating American history, than
can be reached with equal convenience from any other literary centre.
A book on the private libraries of Boston was compiled by Luther
Farnham in 1855; but many of the private collections then existing have
since been scattered.[126] General Horatio Rogers has made a similar
record of those in Providence. After the Carter-Brown Collection, the
most valuable of these private libraries in New England is probably
that of Mr. Charles Deane in Cambridge, of which mention has already
been made. The collection of the Rev. Henry M. Dexter, D.D., of New
Bedford, is probably unexampled in this country for the history of the
Congregational movement, which so largely affected the early history of
the English Colonies.[127]

Two other centres in the United States are of the first importance in
this respect. In Washington, with the Library of Congress (of which
a general consolidated catalogue is now printing), embracing as it
does the collection formed by Col. Peter Force, and supplementing
the archives of the Government, an investigator of American history
is situated extremely favorably.[128] In New York the Astor and
Lenox libraries, with those of the New York Historical Society and
American Geographical Society, give the student great opportunities.
The catalogue of the Astor Library was printed in 1857-66, and that
of the Historical Society in 1859. No general catalogue of the Lenox
Library has yet been printed. An account of the private libraries of
New York was published by Dr. Wynne in 1860. The libraries of the
chief importance at the present time, in respect to American history,
are those of Mr. S. L. M. Barlow in New York, and of Mr. James Carson
Brevoort in Brooklyn. Mr. Charles H. Kalbfleisch of New York has a
small collection, but it embraces some of the rarest books. The New
York State Library at Albany is the chief of the libraries of its
class, and its principal characteristic pertains to American history.

The other chief American cities are of much less importance as centres
for historical research. The Philadelphia Library and the collection of
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania are hardly of distinctive value,
except in regard to the history of that State. In Baltimore the library
of the Peabody Institute, of which the first volume of an excellent
catalogue has been printed, and that of the Maryland Historical Society
are scarcely sufficient for exhaustive research. The private library
of Mr. H. H. Bancroft constitutes the only important resource of the
Pacific States;[129] and the most important collection in Canada is
that represented by the catalogue of the Library of Parliament, which
was printed in 1858.

This enumeration is intended only to indicate the chief places for
ease of general investigation in American history. Other localities are
rich in local helps, and accounts of such will be found elsewhere in
the present History.[130]

INTRODUCTION.

_By the Editor._

PART II. THE EARLY DESCRIPTIONS OF AMERICA AND COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTS OF
THE EARLY VOYAGES THERETO.

OF the earliest collection of voyages of which we have any mention we
possess only a defective copy, which is in the Biblioteca Marciana,
and is called _Libretto de tutta la navigazione del Rè di Spagna delle
isole e terreni nuovamente scoperti stampato per Vercellese_. It was
published at Venice in 1504,[131] and is said to contain the first
three voyages of Columbus. This account, together with the narrative of
Cabral’s voyage printed at Rome and Milan, and an original—at present
unknown—of Vespucius’ third voyage, were embodied, with other matter,
in the _Paesi novamente retrovati et novo mondo da Alberico Vesputio
Florentino intitulato_, published at Vicentia in 1507,[132] and again
possibly at Vicentia in 1508,—though the evidence is wanting to support
the statement,—but certainly at Milan in that year (1508).[133] There
were later editions in 1512,[134] 1517,[135] 1519[136] (published at
Milan), and 1521.[137] There are also German,[138] Low German,[139]
Latin,[140] and French[141] translations.

While this Zorzi-Montalboddo compilation was flourishing, an Italian
scholar, domiciled in Spain, was recording, largely at first hand, the
varied reports of the voyages which were then opening a new existence
to the world. This was Peter Martyr, of whom Harrisse[142] cites an
early and quaint sketch from Hernando Alonso de Herrera’s _Disputatio
adversus Aristotelez_ (1517).[143] The general historians have always
made due acknowledgment of his service to them.[144]

Harrisse could find no evidence of Martyr’s First Decade having
been printed at Seville as early as 1500, as is sometimes stated;
but it has been held that a translation of it,—though no copy is now
known,—made by Angelo Trigviano into Italian was the _Libretto de tutta
la navigazione del Rè di Spagna_, already mentioned.[145] The earliest
unquestioned edition was that of 1511, which was printed at Seville
with the title _Legatio Babylonica_; it contained nine books and a part
of the tenth book of the First Decade.[146] In 1516 a new edition,
without map, was printed at Alcalá in Roman letter. The part of the
tenth book of the First Decade in the 1511 edition is here annexed to
the ninth, and a new tenth book is added, besides two other decades,
making three in all.[147]

There exists what has been called a German version (_Die Schiffung
mitt dem lanndt der Gulden Insel_) of the First Decade, in which the
supposed author is called Johan von Angliara; and its date is 1520,
or thereabout; but Mr. Deane, who has the book, says that it is not
Martyr’s.[148] Some _Poemata_, which had originally been included
in the publication of the First Decade, were separately printed in
1520.[149]

[Illustration: TITLE OF THE NEWE UNBEKANTHE LANDTE (REDUCED).]

At Basle in 1521 appeared his _De nuper sub D. Carolo repertis
insulis_, the title of which is annexed in fac-simile. Harrisse[150]
has called it an extract from the Fourth Decade; and a similar
statement is made in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (vol. i. no. 67). But
Stevens and other authorities define it as a substitute for the lost
First Letter of Cortes, touching the expedition of Grijalva and the
invasion of Mexico; and it supplements, rather than overlaps, Martyr’s
other narratives.[151] Mr. Deane contends that if the Fourth Decade had
then been written, this might well be considered an abridgment of it.

The first complete edition (_De orbe novo_) of all the eight decades
was published in 1530 at Complutum; and with it is usually found the
map (“Tipus orbis universalis”) of Apianus, which originally appeared
in Camer’s _Solinus_ in 1520. In this new issue the map has its date
changed to 1530.[152]

In 1532, at Paris, appeared an abridgment in French of the first three
decades, together with an abstract of Martyr’s _De insulis_ (Basle,
1521), followed by abridgments of the printed second and third letters
of Cortes,—the whole bearing the title, _Extraict ov Recveil des Isles
nouuellemēt trouuees en la grand mer Oceane en temps du roy Despaigne
Fernād & Elizabeth sa femme, faict premierement en latin par Pierre
Martyr de Millan, & depuis translate en languaige francoys_.[153]

[Illustration: DE NVPER

SVB D. CAROLO REPERtis Insulis, simulqæ incolarum moribus, R. Petri
Martyris, Enchiridion, Dominæ Margaritæ, Diui Max. Cæs. filiæ dicatum.

BASILEAE, ANNO M. D. XXI.]

In 1533, at Basle, in folio, we find the first three decades and the
tract of 1521 (_De insulis_) united in _De rebus oceanicis et orbe
novo_.[154]

At Venice, in 1534, the _Summario de la generale historia de l’Indie
occidentali_ was a joint issue of Martyr and Oviedo, under the editing
of Ramusio.[155] An edition of Martyr, published at Paris in 1536,
sometimes mentioned,[156] does not apparently exist;[157] but an
edition of 1537 is noted by Sabin.[158] In 1555 Richard Eden’s _Decades
of the Newe Worlde, or West India_, appeared in black-letter at London.
It is made up in large part from Martyr,[159] and was the basis of
Richard Willes’ edition of Eden in 1577, which included the first four
decades, and an abridgment of the last four, with additions from Oviedo
and others,—all under the new name, _The History of Trauayle_.[160]

There was an edition again at Cologne in 1574,—the one which Robertson
used.[161] Three decades and the _De insulis_ are also included in a
composite folio published at Basle in 1582, containing also Benzoni
and Levinus, all in German.[162] The entire eight decades, in Latin,
which had not been printed together since the Basle edition of 1530,
were published in Paris in 1587 under the editing of Richard Hakluyt,
with the title: _De orbe novo Petri Martyris Anglerii Mediolanensis,
protonotarij, et Caroli quinti senatoris Decades octo, diligenti
temporum obseruatione, et vtilissimis annotationibus illustratæ, suôque
nitori restitutæ, labore et industria Richardi Haklvyti Oxoniensis
Angli. Additus est in vsum lectoris accuratus totius operis index_.
Parisiis, apud Gvillelmvm Avvray, 1587. With its “F. G.” map, it is
exceedingly rare.[163]

[Illustration: GRYNÆUS.

Fac-simile of cut in Reusner’s _Icones_ (Strasburg, 1590), p. 107.]

As illustrating in some sort his more labored work, the _Opus
epistolarum Petri Martyris_ was first printed at Complutum in
1530.[164] The letters were again published at Amsterdam, in 1670,[165]
in an edition which had the care of Ch. Patin, to which was appended
other letters by Fernando del Pulgar.[166]

The most extensive of the early collections was the _Novus orbis_,
which was issued in separate editions at Basle and Paris in 1532.
Simon Grynæus, a learned professor at Basle, signed the preface; and
it usually passes under his name. Grynæus was born in Swabia, was
a friend of Luther, visited England in 1531, and died in Basle, in
1541. The compilation, however, is the work of a canon of Strasburg,
John Huttich (born about 1480; died, 1544), but the labor of revision
fell on Grynæus.[167] It has the first three voyages of Columbus, and
those of Pinzon and Vespucius; the rest of the book is taken up with
the travels of Marco Polo and his successors to the East.[168] It
next appeared in a German translation at Strasburg in 1534, which was
made by Michal Herr, _Die New Welt_. It has no map, gives more from
Martyr than the other edition, and substitutes a preface by Herr for
that of Grynæus.[169] The original Latin was reproduced at Basle again
in 1537, with 1536 in the colophon.[170] In 1555 another edition was
printed at Basle, enlarged upon the 1537 edition by the insertion of
the second and third of the Cortes letters and some accounts of efforts
in converting the Indians.[171] Those portions relating to America
exclusively were reprinted in the Latin at Rotterdam in 1616.[172]

Sebastian Münster, who was born in 1489, was forty-three years old
when his map of the world—which is preserved in the Paris (1532)
edition of the _Novus orbis_—appeared. This is the first time that
Münster significantly comes before us as a describer of the geography
of the New World. Again in 1540 and 1542 he was associated with the
editions of Ptolemy issued at Basle in those years.[173] It is,
however, upon his _Cosmographia_, among his forty books, that Münster’s
fame chiefly rests. The earliest editions are extremely rare, and seem
not to be clearly defined by the bibliographers. It appears to have
been originally issued in German, probably in 1544 at Basle,[174]
under the mixed title: _Cosmographia. Beschreibūg aller lender Durch
Sebastianum Munsterum. Getruckt zü Basel durch Henrichum Petri, Anno
MDxliiij._[175] He says that he had been engaged upon it for eighteen
years, keeping Strabo before him as a model. To the section devoted to
Asia he adds a few pages “Von den neüwen inseln” (folios dcxxxv-dcxlij).

[Illustration: MÜNSTER.

Fac-simile of the cut in the _Ptolemy_ of 1552.]

This account was scant; and though it was a little enlarged in the
second edition in 1545,[176] it remained of small extent through
subsequent editions, and was confined to ten pages in that of 1614.
The last of the German editions appeared in 1628.[177] The earliest
undoubted Latin text[178] appeared at Basle in 1550, with the same
series of new views, etc., by Manuel Deutsch, which were given in the
German edition of that date.[179] With nothing but a change of title
apparently, there were reissues of this edition in 1551, 1552, and
1554,[180] and again in 1559.[181] The edition of 1572 has the same
map, “Novæ insulæ,” used in the 1554 editions; but new names are added,
and new plates of Cusco and Cuba are also furnished.[182]

[Illustration: MÜNSTER.

Fac-simile of a cut in Reusner’s _Icones_ (Strasburg, 1590), p. 171.]

The earliest French edition, according to Brunet,[183] appeared in
1552; and other editions followed in that language.[184] Eden gave the
fifth book an English dress in 1553, which was again issued in 1572 and
1574.[185] A Bohemian edition, made by Jan z Puchowa, _Kozmograffia
Czieská_, was issued in 1554.[186] The first Italian edition was
printed at Basle in 1558, using the engraved plates of the other
Basle issues; and finally, in 1575, an Italian edition, according to
Brunet,[187] appeared at Colonia.

[Illustration: MONARDES.]

The best-known collection of voyages of the sixteenth century is that
of Ramusio, whose third volume—compiled probably in 1553, and printed
in 1556—is given exclusively to American voyages.[188] It contains,
however, little regarding Columbus not given by Peter Martyr and
Oviedo, except the letter to Fracastoro.[189] In Ramusio the narratives
of these early voyages first got a careful and considerate editor, who
at this time was ripe in knowledge and experience, for he was well
beyond sixty,[190] and he had given his maturer years to historical
and geographical study. He had at one time maintained a school for
topographical studies in his own house. Oviedo tells us of the
assistance Ramusio was to him in his work. Locke has praised his labors
without stint.[191]

Monardes, one of the distinguished Spanish physicians of this time, was
busy seeking for the simples and curatives of the New World plants,
as the adventurers to New Spain brought them back. The original issue
of his work was the _Dos Libros_, published at Seville in 1565,
treating “of all things brought from our West Indies which are used in
medicine, and of the Bezaar Stone, and the herb Escuerçonera.” This
book is become rare, and is priced as high as 200 francs and £9.[192]
The “segunda parte” is sometimes found separately with the date 1571;
but in 1574 a third part was printed with the other two,—making the
complete work, _Historia medicinal de nuestras Indias_,—and these were
again issued in 1580.[193] An Italian version, by Annibale Briganti,
appeared at Venice in 1575 and 1589,[194] and a French, with Du Jardin,
in 1602.[195] There were three English editions printed under the title
of _Joyfull Newes out of the newe founde world, wherein is declared the
rare and singular virtues of diverse and sundry Herbes, Trees, Oyles,
Plantes, and Stones, by Doctor Monardus of Sevill, Englished by John
Frampton_, which first appeared in 1577, and was reprinted in 1580,
with additions from Monardes’ other tracts, and again in 1596.[196]

The Spanish historians of affairs in Mexico, Peru, and Florida are
grouped in the _Hispanicarum rerum scriptores_, published at Frankfort
in 1579-1581, in three volumes.[197] Of Richard Hakluyt and his several
collections,—the _Divers Voyages_ of 1582, the _Principall Navigations_
of 1589, and his enlarged edition, of which the third volume (1600)
relates to America,—there is an account in Vol. III. of the present
work.[198]

[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF DE BRY.

This follows a print given in fac-simile in the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, i. 316.]

The great undertaking of De Bry was also begun towards the close
of the same century. De Bry was an engraver at Frankfort, and his
professional labors had made him acquainted with works of travel. The
influence of Hakluyt and a visit to the English editor stimulated him
to undertake a task similar to that of the English compiler.

[Illustration: FEYERABEND.

Sigmund Feyerabend was a prominent bookseller of his day in Frankfort,
and was born about 1527 or 1528. He was an engraver himself, and was
associated with De Bry in the publications of his _Voyages_.]

He resolved to include both the Old and New World; and he finally
produced his volumes simultaneously in Latin and German. As he gave
a larger size to the American parts than to the others, the commonly
used title, referring to this difference, was soon established as
_Grands et petits voyages_.[199] Theodore De Bry himself died in March,
1598; but the work was carried forward by his widow, by his sons John
Theodore and John Israel, and by his sons-in-law Matthew Merian and
William Fitzer. The task was not finished till 1634, when twenty-five
parts had been printed in the Latin, of which thirteen pertain to
America; but the German has one more part in the American series.
His first part—which was Hariot’s _Virginia_—was printed not only in
Latin and German, but also in the original English[200] and in French;
but there seeming to be no adequate demand in these languages, the
subsequent issues were confined to Latin and German. There was a gap in
the dates of publication between 1600 (when the ninth part is called
“postrema pars”) and 1619-1620, when the tenth and eleventh parts
appeared at Oppenheim, and a twelfth at Frankfort in 1624. A thirteenth
and fourteenth part appeared in German in 1628 and 1630; and these,
translated together into Latin, completed the Latin series in 1634.

Without attempting any bibliographical description,[201] the succession
and editions of the American parts will be briefly enumerated:—

=I.= _Hariot’s Virginia._ In Latin, English, German, and French, in
1590; four or more impressions of the Latin the same year. Other
editions of the German in 1600 and 1620.

=II=. _Le Moyne’s Florida._ In Latin, 1591 and 1609; in German, 1591,
1603.

=III.= _Von Staden’s Brazil._ In Latin, 1592, 1605, 1630; in German,
1593 (twice).

=IV.= _Benzoni’s New World._ In Latin, 1594 (twice), 1644; in German,
1594, 1613.

=V.= _Continuation of Benzoni._ In Latin, 1595 (twice); in German, two
editions without date, probably 1595 and 1613.

=VI.= _Continuation of Benzoni (Peru)._ In Latin, 1596, 1597, 1617; in
German, 1597, 1619.

=VII.= _Schmidel’s Brazil._ In Latin, 1599, 1625; in German, 1597,
1600, 1617.

=VIII.= _Drake, Candish, and Ralegh._ In Latin, 1599 (twice), 1625; in
German, 1599, 1624.

=IX.= _Acosta_, etc. In Latin, 1602, 1633; in German, probably 1601;
“additamentum,” 1602; and again entire after 1620.

=X.= _Vespucius, Hamor, and John Smith._ In Latin, 1619 (twice); in
German, 1618.

=XI.= _Schouten and Spilbergen._ In Latin, 1619,—appendix, 1620; in
German, 1619,—appendix, 1620.

=XII.= _Herrera._ In Latin, 1624; in German, 1623.

=XIII.= _Miscellaneous_,—_Cabot_, etc. In Latin, 1634; in German, the
first seven sections in 1627 (sometimes 1628); and sections 8-15 in
1630.

_Elenchus: Historia Americæ sive Novus orbis_, 1634 (three issues).
This is a table of the Contents to the edition which Merian was selling
in 1634 under a collective title.

The foregoing enumeration makes no recognition of the almost
innumerable varieties caused by combination, which sometimes pass for
new editions. Some of the editions of the same date are usually called
“counterfeits;” and there are doubts, even, if some of those here named
really deserve recognition as distinct editions.[202]

While there is distinctive merit in De Bry’s collection, which caused
it to have a due effect in its day on the progress of geographical
knowledge,[203] it must be confessed that a certain meretricious
reputation has become attached to the work as the test of a collector’s
assiduity, and of his supply of money, quite disproportioned to
the relative use of the collection in these days to a student.
This artificial appreciation has no doubt been largely due to the
engravings, which form so attractive a feature in the series, and
which, while they in many cases are the honest rendering of genuine
sketches, are certainly in not a few the merest fancy of some
designer.[204]

There are several publications of the De Brys sometimes found grouped
with the _Voyages_ as a part, though not properly so, of the series.
Such are Las Casas’ _Narratio regionum Indicarum_; the voyages of the
“Silberne Welt,” by Arthus von Dantzig, and of Olivier van Noort;[205]
the _Rerum et urbis Amstelodamensium historia_ of Pontanus, with its
Dutch voyages to the north; and the _Navigations aux Indes par les
Hollandois_.[206]

Another of De Bry’s editors, Gasper Ens, published in 1680 his
_West-unnd-Ost Indischer Lustgart_, which is a summary of the sources
of American history.[207]

There are various abridgments of De Bry. The earliest is Ziegler’s
_America_, Frankfort, 1614,[208] which is made up from the first nine
parts of the German _Grands Voyages_. The _Historia antipodum, oder
Newe Welt_ (1631), is the first twelve parts condensed by Johann Ludwig
Gottfried, otherwise known as Johann Phillippe Abelin, who was, in
Merian’s day, a co-laborer on the _Voyages_. He uses a large number of
the plates from the larger work.[209] The chief rival collection of De
Bry is that of Hulsius, which is described elsewhere.[210]

Collections now became numerous. Conrad Löw’s _Meer oder Seehanen Buch_
was published at Cologne in 1598.[211] The Dutch Collection of Voyages,
issued by Cornelius Claesz, appeared in uniform style between 1598 and
1603, but it never had a collective title. It gives the voyages of
Cavendish and Drake.[212]

It was well into the next century (1613) when Purchas began his
publications, of which there is an account elsewhere.[213] Hieronymus
Megiser’s _Septentrio novantiquus_ was published at Leipsic in 1613.
In a single volume it gave the Zeni and later accounts of the North,
besides narratives pertaining to New France and Virginia.[214] The
_Journalen van de Reysen op Oostindie_ of Michael Colijn, published
at Amsterdam in 1619, is called by Muller[215] the first series of
voyages published in Dutch with a collective title. It includes,
notwithstanding the title, Cavendish, Drake, and Raleigh. Another Dutch
folio, Herckmans’ _Der Zeevaert lof_, etc. (Amsterdam, 1634), does not
include any American voyages.[216] The celebrated Dutch collection,
edited by Isaac Commelin, at Amsterdam, and known as the _Begin en
Voortgangh van de Oost-Indische Compagnie_, would seem originally to
have included, among its voyages to the East and North,[217] those of
Raleigh and Cavendish; but they were later omitted.[218]

The collection of Thevenot was issued in 1663; but this has been
described elsewhere.[219] The collection usually cited as Dapper’s was
printed at Amsterdam, 1669-1729, in folio (thirteen volumes). It has no
collective title, but among the volumes are two touching America,—the
_Beschrijvinge_ of Montanus,[220] and Nienhof’s _Brasiliaansche Zee-en
Lantreize_.[221] A small collection, _Recueil de divers voyages faits
en Africa et en l’Amérique_,[222] was published in Paris by Billaine
in 1674. It includes Blome’s Jamaica, Laborde on the Caribs, etc. Some
of the later American voyages were also printed in the second edition
of a Swedish _Reesa-book_, printed at Wysingzborg in 1674, 1675.[223]
The Italian collection, _Il genio vagante_, was printed at Parma in
1691-1693, in four volumes.

_An Account of Several Voyages_ (London, 1694) gives Narborough’s to
Magellan’s Straits, and Marten’s to Greenland.

The important English _Collection of Voyages and Travels_ which passes
under the name of its publisher, Churchill, took its earliest form
in 1704, appearing in four volumes; but was afterwards increased by
two additional volumes in 1733, and by two more in 1744,—these last,
sometimes called the _Oxford Voyages_, being made up from material in
the library of the Earl of Oxford. It was reissued complete in 1752. It
has an introductory discourse by Caleb Locke; and this, and some other
of its contents, constitutes the _Histoire de la navigation_, Paris,
1722.[224]

John Harris, an English divine, had compiled a _Collection of Voyages_
in 1702 which was a rival of Churchill’s, differing from it in being
an historical summary of all voyages, instead of a collection of some.
Harris wrote the Introduction; but it is questionable how much else he
had to do with it.[225] It was revised and reissued in 1744-1748 by Dr.
John Campbell, and in this form it is often regarded as a supplement
to Churchill.[226] It was reprinted in two volumes, folio, with
continuations to date, in 1764.[227]

The well-known Dutch collection (_Voyagien_) of Vander Aa was printed
at Leyden in 1706, 1707. It gives voyages to all parts of the world
made between 1246 and 1693. He borrows from Herrera, Acosta, Purchas,
De Bry, and all available sources, and illuminates the whole with
about five hundred maps and plates. In its original form it made
twenty-eight, sometimes thirty, volumes of small size, in black-letter,
and eight volumes in folio, both editions being issued at the same time
and from the same type. In this larger form the voyages are arranged
by nations; and it was the unsold copies of this edition which, with
a new general title, constitutes the edition of 1727. In the smaller
form the arrangement is chronological. In the folio edition the voyages
to Spanish America previous to 1540 constitute volumes three and four;
while the English voyages, to 1696, are in volumes five and six.[228]

In 1707 Du Perier’s _Histoire universelle des voyages_ had not so
wide a scope as its title indicated, being confined to the early
Spanish voyages to America;[229] the proposed subsequent volumes
not having been printed. An English translation, under Du Perier’s
name, was issued in London in 1708;[230] but when reissued in 1711,
with a different title, it credited the authorship to the Abbé
Bellegarde.[231] In 1711, also, Captain John Stevens published in
London his _New Collection of Voyages_; but Lawson’s Carolina and
Cieza’s Peru were the only American sections.[232] In 1715 the French
collection known as Bernard’s _Recueil de voiages au Nord_, was begun
at Amsterdam. A pretty wide interpretation is given to the restricted
designation of the title, and voyages to California, Louisiana, the
Upper Mississippi (Hennepin), Virginia, and Georgia are included.[233]
Daniel Coxe, in 1741, united in one volume _A Collection of Voyages_,
three of which he had already printed separately, including Captain
James’s to the Northwest. A single volume of a collection called _The
American Traveller_ appeared in London in 1743.[234]

The collection known as _Astley’s Voyages_ was published in London in
four volumes in 1745-1747; the editor was John Green, whose name is
sometimes attached to the work. It gives the travels of Marco Polo,
but has nothing of the early voyages to America,[235]—these being
intended for later volumes, were never printed. These four volumes were
translated, with some errors and omissions, into French, and constitute
the first nine volumes of the Abbé Prevost’s _Histoire générale des
voyages_, begun in Paris in 1746, and completed, in twenty quarto
volumes, in 1789.[236] An octavo edition was printed (1749-1770) in
seventy-five volumes.[237] It was again reprinted at the Hague in
twenty-five volumes quarto (1747-1780), with considerable revision,
following the original English, and with Green’s assistance; besides
showing some additions. The Dutch editor was P. de Hondt, who also
issued an edition in Dutch in twenty-one volumes quarto,—including,
however, only the first seventeen volumes of his French edition, thus
omitting those chiefly concerning America.[238] A small collection
of little moment, _A New Universal Collection of Voyages_, appeared
in London in 1755.[239] De Brosses’ Histoire des navigations aux
terres australes depuis 1501 (Paris, 1756), two volumes quarto, covers
Vespucius, Magellan, Drake, and Cavendish.[240]

Several English collections appeared in the next few years; among which
are _The World Displayed_ (London, 1759-1761), twenty vols. 16mo,—of
which seven volumes are on American voyages, compiled from the larger
collections,[241]—and _A Curious Collection of Travels_ (London, 1761)
is in eight volumes, three of which are devoted to America.[242]

The Abbé de la Porte’s _Voyageur François_, in forty-two volumes,
1765-1795 (there are other dates), may be mentioned to warn the
student of its historical warp with a fictitious woof.[243] John
Barrows’ _Collection of Voyages_ (London, 1765), in three small
volumes, was translated into French by Targe under the title of _Abrégé
chronologique_. John Callender’s _Voyages to the Terra australis_
(London, 1766-1788), three volumes, translated for the first time a
number of the narratives in De Bry, Hulsius, and Thevenot. It gives
the voyages of Vespucius, Magellan, Drake, Galle, Cavendish, Hawkins,
and others.[244] Dodsley’s _Compendium of Voyages_ was published
in the same year (1766) in seven volumes.[245] The _New Collection
of Voyages_, generally referred to as Knox’s, from the publisher’s
name, appeared in seven volumes in 1767, the first three volumes
covering American explorations.[246] In 1770 Edward Cavendish Drake’s
_New Universal Collection of Voyages_ was published at London. The
narratives are concise, and of a very popular character.[247] David
Henry, a magazinist of the day, published in 1773-1774 _An Historical
Account of all the Voyages Round the World by English Navigators_,
beginning with Drake and Cavendish.[248]

La Harpe issued in Paris, 1780-1801, in thirty-two volumes,—Comeyras
editing the last eleven,—his _Abrégé de l’histoire générale des
voyages_, which proved a more readable and popular book than Prévost’s
collection. There have been later editions and continuations.[249]

Johann Reinhold Forster made a positive contribution to this field
of compilation when he printed his _Geschichte der Entdeckungen und
Schifffahrten im Norden_ at Frankfort in 1785.[250] He goes back to
the earliest explorations, and considers the credibility of the Zeno
narrative. He starts with Gomez for the Spanish section. A French
collection by Berenger, _Voyages faits autour du monde_ (Paris,
1788-1789), is very scant on Magellan, Drake, and Cavendish. A
collection was published in London (1789) by Richardson on the voyages
of the Portuguese and Spaniards during the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Mavor’s _Voyages, Travels, and Discoveries_ (London,
1796-1802), twenty-five volumes, is a condensed treatment, which passed
to other editions in 1810 and 1813-1815.

A standard compilation appeared in John Pinkerton’s _General Collection
of Voyages_ (London, 1808-1814), in seventeen volumes,[251] with over
two hundred maps and plates, repeating the essential English narratives
of earlier collections, and translating those from foreign languages
afresh, preserving largely the language of the explorers. Pinkerton, as
an editor, was learned, but somewhat pedantic and over-confident; and
a certain agglutinizing habit indicates a process of amassment rather
than of selection and assimilation. Volumes xii., xiii., and xiv. are
given to America; but the operations of the Spaniards on the main, and
particularly on the Pacific coast of North America, are rather scantily
chronicled.[252]

In 1808 was begun, under the supervision of Malte-Brun and others, the
well-known _Annales des voyages_, which was continued to 1815, making
twenty-five volumes. A new series, _Nouvelles annales des voyages_, was
begun in 1819. The whole work is an important gathering of original
sources and learned comment, and is in considerable part devoted to
America. A French _Collection abrégée des voyages_, by Bancarel,
appeared in Paris in 1808-1809, in twelve volumes.

_The Collection of the best Voyages and Travels_, compiled by Robert
Kerr, and published in Edinburgh in 1811-1824, in eighteen octavo
volumes, is a useful one, though the scheme was not wholly carried
out. It includes an historical essay on the progress of navigation
and discovery by W. Stevenson. It also includes among others the
Northmen and Zeni voyages, the travels of Marco Polo and Galvano, the
African discoveries of the Portuguese. The voyages of Columbus and his
successors begin in vol. iii.; and the narratives of these voyages are
continued through vol. vi., though those of Drake, Cavendish, Hawkins,
Davis, Magellan, and others come later in the series.

The _Histoire générale des voyages_, undertaken by C. A. Walkenaer in
1826, was stopped in 1831, after twenty-one octavos had been printed,
without exhausting the African portion.

The early Dutch voyages are commemorated in Bennet and Wijk’s
_Nederlandsche Ontdekkingen in America_, etc., which was issued at
Utrecht in 1827,[253] and in their _Nederlandsche Zeereizen_, printed
at Dordrecht in 1828-1830, in five volumes octavo. It contains
Linschoten, Hudson, etc.

Albert Montémont’s _Bibliothèque universelle des voyages_ was published
in Paris, 1833-1836, in forty-six volumes.

G. A. Wimmer’s _Die Enthüllung des Erdkreises_ (Vienna, 1834), five
volumes octavo, is a general summary, which gives in the last two
volumes the voyages to America and to the South Seas.[254]

In 1837 Henri Ternaux-Compans began the publication of his _Voyages,
relations, et mémoires originaux pour servir à l’histoire de la
découverte de l’Amérique_, of which an account is given on another page
(see p. vi).

The collection of F. C. Marmocchi, _Raccolta di viaggi dalla scoperta
del Nuevo Continente_, was published at Prato in 1840-1843, in five
volumes; it includes the Navarrete collection on Columbus, Xeres on
Pizarro, and other of the Spanish narratives.[255] The last volume of a
collection in twelve volumes published in Paris, _Nouvelle bibliothèque
des voyages_, is also given to America.

The Hakluyt Society in London began its valuable series of publications
in 1847, and has admirably kept up its work to the present time,
having issued its volumes generally under satisfactory editing. Its
publications are not sold outside of its membership, except at second
hand.[256]

Under the editing of José Ferrer de Couto and José March y Labores,
and with the royal patronage, a _Historia de la marina real Española_
was published in Madrid, in two volumes, 1849 and 1854. It relates the
early voyages.[257] Édouard Charton’s _Voyageurs anciens et modernes_
was published in four volumes in Paris, 1855-1857; and it passed
subsequently to a new edition.[258]

A summarized account of the Portuguese and Spanish discoveries, from
Prince Henry to Pizarro, was published in German by Theodor Vogel, and
also in English in 1877.

A _Nouvelle histoire des voyages_, by Richard Cortambert, is the
latest and most popular presentation of the subject, opening with the
explorations of Columbus and his successors; and Édouard Cat’s _Les
grandes découvertes maritimes du treizième au seizième siècle_ (Paris,
1882) is another popular book.

NARRATIVE AND CRITICAL

HISTORY OF AMERICA

CHAPTER I.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ANCIENTS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO
THE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA.

BY WILLIAM H. TILLINGHAST,

_Assistant Librarian of Harvard University._

AS Columbus, in August, 1498, ran into the mouth of the Orinoco,
he little thought that before him lay, silent but irrefutable, the
proof of the futility of his long-cherished hopes. His gratification
at the completeness of his success, in that God had permitted the
accomplishment of all his predictions, to the confusion of those who
had opposed and derided him, never left him; even in the fever which
overtook him on the last voyage his strong faith cried to him, “Why
dost thou falter in thy trust in God? He gave thee India!” In this
belief he died. The conviction that Hayti was Cipangu, that Cuba was
Cathay, did not long outlive its author; the discovery of the Pacific
soon made it clear that a new world and another sea lay between the
landfall of Columbus and the goal of his endeavors.

The truth, when revealed and accepted, was a surprise more profound
to the learned than even the error it displaced. The possibility of
a short passage westward to Cathay was important to merchants and
adventurers, startling to courtiers and ecclesiastics, but to men of
classical learning it was only a corroboration of the teaching of the
ancients. That a barrier to such passage should be detected in the very
spot where the outskirts of Asia had been imagined, was unexpected
and unwelcome. The treasures of Mexico and Peru could not satisfy
the demand for the products of the East; Cortes gave himself, in his
later years, to the search for a strait which might yet make good the
anticipations of the earlier discoverers. The new interpretation, if
economically disappointing, had yet an interest of its own. Whence came
the human population of the unveiled continent? How had its existence
escaped the wisdom of Greece and Rome? Had it done so? Clearly, since
the whole human race had been renewed through Noah, the red men of
America must have descended from the patriarch; in some way, at some
time, the New World had been discovered and populated from the Old.
Had knowledge of this event lapsed from the minds of men before their
memories were committed to writing, or did reminiscences exist in
ancient literatures, overlooked, or misunderstood by modern ignorance?
Scholars were not wanting, nor has their line since wholly failed, who
freely devoted their ingenuity to the solution of these questions, but
with a success so diverse in its results, that the inquiry is still
pertinent, especially since the pursuit, even though on the main point
it end in reservation of judgment, enables us to understand from what
source and by what channels the inspiration came which held Columbus so
steadily to his westward course.

Although the elder civilizations of Assyria and Egypt boasted a
cultivation of astronomy long anterior to the heroic age of Greece,
their cosmographical ideas appear to have been rude and undeveloped,
so that whatever the Greeks borrowed thence was of small importance
compared with what they themselves ascertained. While it may be doubted
if decisive testimony can be extorted from the earliest Grecian
literature, represented chiefly by the Homeric and Hesiodic poems, it
is probable that the people among whom that literature grew up had not
gone, in their conception of the universe, beyond simple acceptance
of the direct evidence of their senses. The earth they looked upon
as a plane, stretching away from the Ægean Sea, the focus of their
knowledge, and ever less distinctly known, until it ended in an horizon
of pure ignorance, girdled by the deep-flowing current of the river
Oceanus. Beyond Oceanus even fancy began to fail: there was the realm
of dust and darkness, the home of the powerless spirits of the dead;
there, too, the hemisphere of heaven joined its brother hemisphere of
Tartarus.[259] This conception of the earth was not confined to Homeric
times, but remained the common belief throughout the course of Grecian
history, underlying and outlasting many of the speculations of the
philosophers.

That growing intellectual activity which was signalized by a notable
development of trade and colonization in the eighth century, in the
seventh awoke to consciousness in a series of attempts to formulate
the conditions of existence. The philosophy of nature thus originated,
wherein the testimony of nature in her own behalf was little sought
or understood, began with the assumption of a flat earth, variously
shaped, and as variously supported. To whom belongs the honor of first
propounding the theory of the spherical form of the earth cannot be
known. It was taught by the Italian Pythagoreans of the sixth century,
and was probably one of the doctrines of Pythagoras himself, as it was,
a little later, of Parmenides, the founder of the Eleatics.[260]

In neither case can there be a claim for scientific discovery. The
earth was a sphere because the sphere was the most perfect form; it was
at the centre of the universe because that was the place of honor; it
was motionless because motion was less dignified than rest.

Plato, who was familiar with the doctrines of the Pythagoreans, adopted
their view of the form of the earth, and did much to popularize it
among his countrymen.[261] To the generation that succeeded him, the
sphericity of the earth was a fact as capable of logical demonstration
as a geometrical theorem. Aristotle, in his treatise “On the Heaven,”
after detailing the views of those philosophers who regarded the
earth as flat, drum-shaped, or cylindrical, gives a formal summary
of the grounds which necessitate the assumption of its sphericity,
specifying the tendency of all things to seek the centre, the unvarying
circularity of the earth’s shadow at eclipses of the moon, and the
proportionate change in the altitude of stars resulting from changes
in the observer’s latitude. Aristotle made the doctrine orthodox; his
successors, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, and Ptolemy, constituted it an
inalienable possession of the race. Greece transmitted it to Rome, Rome
impressed it upon barbaric Europe; taught by Pliny, Hyginus, Manilius,
expressed in the works of Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, it passed into the
school-books of the Middle Ages, whence, reinforced by Arabian lore, it
has come down to us.[262]

That the belief ever became in antiquity or in the Middle Ages widely
spread among the people is improbable; it did not indeed escape
opposition among the educated; writers even of the Augustan age
sometimes appear in doubt.[263]

The sphericity of the earth once comprehended, there follow certain
corollaries which the Greeks were not slow to perceive. Plato, indeed,
who likened the earth to a ball covered with party-colored strips
of leather, gives no estimate of its size, although the description
of the world in the _Phaedo_ seems to imply immense magnitude;[264]
but Aristotle states that mathematicians of his day estimated the
circumference at 400,000 stadia,[265] and Archimedes puts the common
reckoning at somewhat less than 300,000 stadia.[266] How these figures
were obtained we are not informed. The first measurement of the earth
which rests on a known method was that made about the middle of the
third century B.C., by Eratosthenes, the librarian at Alexandria, who,
by comparing the estimated linear distance between Syene, under the
tropic, and Alexandria with their angular distance, as deduced from
observations on the shadow of the gnomon at Alexandria, concluded that
the circumference of the earth was 250,000 or 252,000 stadia.[267] This
result, owing to an uncertainty as to the exact length of the stade
used in the computation, cannot be interpreted with confidence, but
if we assume that it was in truth about twelve per cent. too large,
we shall probably not be far out of the way.[268] Hipparchus, in many
matters the opponent of Eratosthenes, adopted his conclusion on this
point, and was followed by Strabo,[269] by Pliny, who regarded the
attempt as somewhat over-bold, but so cleverly argued that it could not
be disregarded,[270] and by many others.

Fortunately, as it resulted, this overestimate was not allowed to stand
uncontested. Posidonius of Rhodes (B.C. 135-51), by an independent
calculation based upon the difference in altitude of Canopus at Rhodes
and at Alexandria, reached a result which is reported by Cleomedes
as 240,000, and by Strabo as 180,000 stadia.[271] The final judgment
of Posidonius apparently approved the smaller number; it hit, at all
events, the fancy of the time, and was adopted by Marinus of Tyre and
by Ptolemy,[272] whose authority imposed it upon the Middle Ages.
Accepting it as an independent estimate, it follows that Posidonius
allowed but 500 stadia to a degree, instead of 700, thus representing
the earth as about 28 per cent. smaller than did Eratosthenes.[273]

To the earliest writers the known lands constituted the earth; they
were girdled, indeed, by the river Oceanus, but that was a narrow
stream whose further bank lay in fable-land.[274] The promulgation
of the theory of the sphericity of the earth and the approximate
determination of its size drew attention afresh to the problem of
the distribution of land and water upon its surface, and materially
modified the earlier conception. The increase of geographical knowledge
along lines of trade, conquest, and colonization had greatly extended
the bounds of the known world since Homer’s day, but it was still
evident that by far the larger portion of the earth, taking the
smallest estimate of its size, was still undiscovered,—a fair field for
speculation and fantasy.[275]

We can trace two schools of thought in respect to the configuration
of this unknown region, both represented in the primitive conception
of the earth, and both conditioned by a more fundamental postulate. It
was a near thought, if the earth was a sphere, to transfer to it the
systems of circles which had already been applied to the heavens. The
suggestion is attributed to Thales, to Pythagoras, and to Parmenides;
and it is certain that the earth was very early conceived as divided
by the polar and solstitial circles into five zones, whereof two only,
the temperate in either sphere, so the Greeks believed, were capable
of supporting life; of the others, the polar were uninhabitable from
intense cold, as was the torrid from its parching heat. This theory,
which excluded from knowledge the whole southern hemisphere and a large
portion of the northern, was approved by Aristotle and the Homeric
school of geographers, and by the minor physicists. As knowledge grew,
its truth was doubted. Polybius wrote a monograph, maintaining that the
middle portion of the torrid zone had a temperate climate, and his view
was adopted by Posidonius and Geminus, if not by Eratosthenes. Marinus
and Ptolemy, who knew that commerce was carried on along the east coast
of Africa far below the equator, cannot have fallen into the ancient
error, but the error long persisted; it was always in favor with the
compilers, and thus perhaps obtained that currency in Rome which
enabled it to exert a restrictive and pernicious check upon maritime
endeavor deep into the Middle Ages.[276]

Upon the question of the distribution of land and water, unanimity
no longer prevailed. By some it was maintained that there was one
ocean, confluent over the whole globe, so that the body of known
lands, that so-called continent, was in truth an island, and whatever
other inhabitable regions might exist were in like manner surrounded
and so separated by vast expanses of untraversed waves. Such was the
view, scarcely more than a survival of the ocean-river of the poets
deprived of its further bank by the assumption of the sphericity of
the earth, held by Aristotle,[277] Crates of Mallus, Strabo, Pliny,
and many others. If this be called the oceanic theory, we may speak of
its opposite as the continental: according to this view, the existing
land so far exceeded the water in extent that it formed in truth the
continent, holding the seas quite separate within its hollows. The
origin of the theory is obscure, even though we recall that Homer’s
ocean was itself contained. It was strikingly presented by Plato in the
_Phaedo_, and is implied in the Atlantis myth; it may be recalled, too,
that Herodotus, often depicted as a monster of credulity, had broken
the bondage of the ocean-river, because he could not satisfy himself of
the existence of the ocean in the east or north; and while reluctantly
admitting that Africa was surrounded by water, considered Gaul to
extend indefinitely westward.[278] Hipparchus revived the doctrine,
teaching that Africa divided the Indian Ocean from the Atlantic in the
south, so that these seas lay in separate basins. The existence of an
equatorial branch of the ocean, a favorite dogma of the other school,
was also denied by Polybius, Posidonius, and Geminus.[279]

The reports of traders and explorers led Marinus to a like conclusion;
both he and Ptolemy, misinterpreting their information, believed
that the eastern coast of Asia ran south instead of north, and they
united it with the eastern trend of Africa, supposing at the same time
that the two continents met also in the west.[280] The continental
theory, despite its famous disciples, made no headway at Rome, and was
consequently hardly known to the Middle Ages before its falsity was
proved by the circumnavigation of Africa.[281]

That portion of Europe, Asia, and Africa known to the ancients, whether
regarded as an island, or as separated from the rest of the world by
climatic conditions merely, or by ignorance, formed a distinct concept
and was known by a particular name, _ἡ οἰκουμένη_. Originally supposed
to be circular, it was later thought to be oblong and as having a
length more than double its width. Those who believed in its insularity
likened its shape to a sling, or to an outspread chlamys or military
cloak, and assumed that it lay wholly within the northern hemisphere.
In absolute figures, the length of the known world was placed by
Eratosthenes at 77,800 stadia, and by Strabo at 70,000. The latter
figure remained the common estimate until Marinus of Tyre, in the
second century a.d., receiving direct information from the silk-traders
of a caravan route to China, substituted the portentous exaggeration of
90,000 stadia on the parallel of Rhodes, or 225°. Ptolemy, who followed
Marinus in many things, shrank from the naïveté whereby the Tyrian had
interpreted a seven months’ caravan journey to represent seven months’
travelling in a direct line at the rate of twenty miles a day, and cut
down his figures to 180°, or 72,000 stadia.[282] It appears, therefore,
that Strabo considered the known world as occupying not much over one
third of the circuit of the temperate zone, while Marinus, who adopted
180,000 stadia as the measure of the earth, claimed a knowledge of
two thirds of that zone, and supposed that land extended indefinitely
eastward beyond the limit of knowledge.

What did the ancients picture to themselves of this unknown portion of
the globe? The more imaginative found there a home for ancient myth and
modern fable; the geographers, severely practical, excluded it from the
scope of their survey; philosophers and physicists could easily supply
from theory what they did not know as fact. Pythagoras, it is said, had
taught that the whole surface of the earth was inhabited. Aristotle
demonstrated that the southern hemisphere must have its temperate zone,
where winds similar to our own prevailed; his successors elaborated the
hint into a systematized nomenclature, whereby the inhabitants of the
earth were divided into four classes, according to their location upon
the surface of the earth with relation to one another.[283]

This system was furthest developed by the oceanic school. The rival of
Eratosthenes, Crates of Mallus (who achieved fame by the construction
of a large globe), assumed the existence of a southern continent,
separated from the known world by the equatorial ocean; it is possible
that he introduced the idea of providing a distinct residence for
each class of earth-dwellers, by postulating four island continents,
one in each quarter of the globe. Eratosthenes probably thought that
there were inhabitable regions in the southern hemisphere, and Strabo
added that there might be two, or even more, habitable earths in the
northern temperate zone, especially near the parallel of Rhodes.[284]
Crates introduced his views at Rome, and the oceanic theory remained
a favorite with the Roman physicists. It was avowed by Pliny, who
championed the existence of antipodes against the vulgar disbelief.
In the fine episode in the last book of Cicero’s _Republic_, the
younger Scipio relates a dream, wherein the elder hero of his name,
Scipio Africanus, conveying him to the lofty heights of the Milky Way,
emphasized the futility of fame by showing him upon the earth the
regions to which his name could never penetrate: “Thou seest in what
few places the earth is inhabited, and those how scant; great deserts
lie between them, and they who dwell upon the earth are not only so
scattered that naught can spread from one community to another, but so
that some live off in an oblique direction from you, some off toward
the side, and some even dwell directly opposite to you.”[285] Mela
confines himself to a mention of the _Antichthones_, who live in the
temperate zone in the south, and are cut off from us by the intervening
torrid zone.[286]

[Illustration: MACROBIUS

From _Macrobii Ambrosii Aurelii Theodosii in Somnium Scipionis, Lib.
II._ (Lugduni, 1560).]

Indeed, the southern continent, the other world, as it was
called,[287] made a more distinct impression than the possible other
continents in the northern hemisphere. Hipparchus thought that
Trapobene might be a part of this southern world, and the idea that
the Nile had its source there was widespread: some supposing that it
flowed beneath the equatorial ocean; others believing, with Ptolemy,
that Africa was connected with the southern continent. The latter
doctrine was shattered by the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope; but
the continent was revived when Tierra del Fuego, Australia, and New
Zealand were discovered, and attained gigantic size on the maps of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries only within the last two centuries
has it shrunk to the present limits of the antarctic ice.

[Illustration: MACROBIUS

From _Avr. Theodosii Macrobii Opera_ (Lipsiæ, 1774).]

The oceanic theory, and the doctrine of the Four Worlds, as it has been
termed,[288]_ terra quadrifiga_, was set forth in the greatest detail
in a commentary on the Dream of Scipio, written by Macrobius, probably
in the fifth century a.d. In the concussion and repulsion of the ocean
streams he found a sufficient cause for the phenomena of the tides.[289]

Such were the theories of the men of science, purely speculative,
originating in logic, not discovery, and they give no hint of actual
knowledge regarding those distant regions with which they deal.
From them we turn to examine the literature of the imagination, for
geography, by right the handmaid of history, is easily perverted to the
service of myth.

[Illustration: MACROBIUS

After Santarem’s _Atlas_, as a “mappemonde tirée d’un manuscrit de
Macrobe du Xème siècle.”]

The expanding horizon of the Greeks was always hedged with fable: in
the north was the realm of the happy Hyperboreans, beyond the blasts
of Boreas; in the east, the wonderland of India; in the south, Panchæa
and the blameless Ethiopians; nor did the west lack lingering places
for romance. Here was the floating isle of Æolus, brazen-walled; here
the mysterious Ogygia, navel of the sea;[290] and on the earth’s
extremest verge were the Elysian Fields, the home of heroes exempt from
death, “where life is easiest to man. No snow is there, nor yet great
storm nor any rain, but always ocean sendeth forth the breeze of the
shrill west to blow cool on men.”[291] Across the ocean river, where
was the setting of the sun, all was changed. There was the home of the
Cimmerians, who dwelt in darkness; there the grove of Persephone and
the dreary house of the dead.[292]

In the Hesiodic poems the Elysian Fields are transformed into islands,
the home of the fourth race, the heroes, after death:—

“Them on earth’s utmost verge the god assign’d
A life, a seat, distinct from human kind:
Beside the deepening whirlpools of the main,
In those blest isles where Saturn holds his reign,
Apart from heaven’s immortals calm they share
A rest unsullied by the clouds of care:
And yearly thrice with sweet luxuriance crown’d
Springs the ripe harvest from the teeming ground.”[293]

“Those who have had the courage to remain stedfast thrice in each life,
and to keep their souls altogether from wrong,” sang Pindar, “pursue
the road of Zeus to the castle of Cronos, where o’er the isles of
the blest ocean breezes blow, and flowers gleam with gold, some from
the land on glistering trees, while others the water feeds; and with
bracelets of these they entwine their hands and make crowns for their
heads.”[294]

The Islands of the Blest, _μακάρων νῆσοι_, do not vanish henceforward
from the world’s literature, but continue to haunt the Atlantic through
the Roman period and deep into the Middle Ages. In the west, too, were
localized other and wilder myths; here were the scenes of the Perseus
fable, the island of the weird and communistic sisters, the Graeae,
and the Gorgonides, the homes of Medusa and her sister Gorgons, the
birthplace of the dread Chimaera.[295] The importance of the far west
in the myths connected with Hercules is well known. In the traditionary
twelve labors the Greek hero is confused with his prototype the Tyrian
Melkarth, and those labors which deal with the west were doubtless
borrowed from the cult which the Greeks had found established at Gades
when trade first led them thither. In the tenth labor it is the western
isle Erytheia, which Hercules visits in the golden cup wherein Helios
was wont to make his nocturnal ocean voyage, and from which he returns
with the oxen of the giant Geryon. Even more famous was the search for
the apples of the Hesperides, which constituted the eleventh labor.
This golden fruit, the wedding gift produced by Gaa for Hera, the
prudent goddess, doubtful of the security of Olympus, gave in charge
to the Hesperian maids, whose island garden lay at earth’s furthest
bounds, near where the mysterious Atlas, their father or their uncle,
wise in the secrets of the sea, watched over the pillars which propped
the sky, or himself bore the burden of the heavenly vault. The poets
delighted to depict these isles with their shrill-singing nymphs, in
the same glowing words which they applied to the Isles of the Blessed.
“Oh that I, like a bird, might fly from care over the Adriatic waves!”
cries the chorus in the Crowned Hippolytus,

“Or to the famed Hesperian plains, Whose rich trees bloom with gold, To
join the grief-attuned strains My winged progress hold: Beyond whose
shores no passage gave The ruler of the purple wave;

“But Atlas stands, his stately height
The awfull boundary of the skies:
There fountains of Ambrosia rise,
Wat’ring the seat of Jove: her stores
Luxuriant there the rich soil pours
All, which the sense of gods delights.”[296]

When these names first became attached to some of the Atlantic islands
is uncertain. Diodorus Siculus does not apply either term to the island
discovered by the Carthaginians, and described by him in phrases
applicable to both. The two islands described by sailors to Sertorius
about 80 B.C. were depicted in colors which reminded Plutarch of the
Isles of the Blessed, and it is certain that toward the close of the
republic the name _Insulae Fortunatae_ was given to certain of the
Atlantic islands, including the Canaries. In the time of Juba, king of
Numidia, we seem to distinguish at least three groups, the _Insulae
Fortunatae_, the _Purpurariae_, and the _Hesperides_, but beyond
the fact that the first name still designated some of the Canaries
identification is uncertain; some have thought that different groups
among the Canaries were known by separate names, while others hold that
one or both of the Madeira and Cape de Verde groups were known.[297]
The Canaries were soon lost out of knowledge again, but the Happy
or Fortunate Islands continued to be an enticing mirage throughout
the Middle Ages, and play a part in many legends, as in that of St.
Brandan, and in many poems.[298]

Beside these ancient, widespread, popular myths, embodying the
universal longing for a happier life, we find a group of stories of
more recent date, of known authorship and well-marked literary origin,
which treat of western islands and a western continent. The group
comprises, it is hardly necessary to say, the tale of Atlantis, related
by Plato; the fable of the land of the Meropes, by Theopompus; and the
description of the Saturnian continent attributed to Plutarch.

The story of Atlantis, by its own interest and the skill of its
author, has made by far the deepest impression. Plato, having given
in the _Republic_ a picture of the ideal political organization, the
state, sketched in the _Timaeus_ the history of creation, and the
origin and development of mankind; in the _Critias_ he apparently
intended to exhibit the action of two types of political bodies
involved in a life-and-death contest. The latter dialogue was
unfinished, but its purport had been sketched in the opening of the
_Timaeus_. Critias there relates “a strange tale, but certainly true,
as Solon declared,” which had come down in his family from his ancestor
Dropidas, a near relative of Solon. When Solon was in Egypt he fell
into talk with an aged priest of Saïs, who said to him: “Solon, Solon,
you Greeks are all children,—there is not an old man in Greece. You
have no old traditions, and know of but one deluge, whereas there have
been many destructions of mankind, both by flood and fire; Egypt alone
has escaped them, and in Egypt alone is ancient history recorded;
you are ignorant of your own past.” For long before Deucalion, nine
thousand years ago, there was an Athens founded, like Saïs, by Athena;
a city rich in power and wisdom, famed for mighty deeds, the greatest
of which was this. At that time there lay opposite the columns of
Hercules, in the Atlantic, which was then navigable, an island larger
than Libya and Asia together, from which sailors could pass to other
islands, and so to the continent. The sea in front of the straits is
indeed but a small harbor; that which lay beyond the island, however,
is worthy of the name, and the land which surrounds that greater sea
may be truly called the continent. In this island of Atlantis had grown
up a mighty power, whose kings were descended from Poseidon, and had
extended their sway over many islands and over a portion of the great
continent; even Libya up to the gates of Egypt, and Europe as far as
Tyrrhenia, submitted to their sway. Ever harder they pressed upon the
other nations of the known world, seeking the subjugation of the whole.
“Then, O Solon, did the strength of your republic become clear to all
men, by reason of her courage and force. Foremost in the arts of war,
she met the invader at the head of Greece; abandoned by her allies,
she triumphed alone over the western foe, delivering from the yoke all
the nations within the columns. But afterwards came a day and night of
great floods and earthquakes; the earth engulfed all the Athenians who
were capable of bearing arms, and Atlantis disappeared, swallowed by
the waves: hence it is that this sea is no longer navigable, from the
vast mud-shoals formed by the vanished island.” This tale so impressed
Solon that he meditated an epic on the subject, but on his return,
stress of public business prevented his design. In the _Critias_ the
empire and chief city of Atlantis is described with wealth of detail,
and the descent of the royal family from Atlas, son of Poseidon, and
a nymph of the island, is set forth. In the midst of a council upon
Olympus, where Zeus, in true epic style, was revealing to the gods his
designs concerning the approaching war, the dialogue breaks off.

[Illustration: TRACES OF ATLANTIS.

Section of a map given in _Briefe über Amerika aus dem Italienischen
des Hn. Grafen Carlo Carli übersetzt, Dritter Theil_ (Gera, 1785),
where it is called an “Auszug aus denen Karten welche der Pariser
Akademie der Wissenschaften (1737, 1752) von dem Herrn von Buache
übergeben worden sind.”]

[Illustration: ATLANTIS INSULA

The annexed cut is an extract from Sanson’s map of America, showing
views respecting the new world as constituting the Island of Atlantis.
It is called: _Atlantis insula à Nicolao Sanson, antiquitati restituta;
nunc demum majori forma delineata, et in decem regna juxta decem
Neptuni filios distributa. Præterea insulæ, nostræq. continentis
regiones quibus imperavere Atlantici reges; aut quas armis tentavere,
ex conatibus geographicis Gulielmi Sanson, Nicolai filii_ (Amstelodami
apud Petrum Mortier). Uricoechea in the _Mapoteca Colombiana_ puts this
map under 1600, and speaks of a second edition in 1688, which must be
an error. Nicholas Sanson was born in 1600, his son William died in
1703. Beside the undated Amsterdam print quoted above, Harvard College
Library possesses a copy in which the words _Novus orbis potius Altera
continent sive_ are prefixed to the title, while the date MDCLXVIIII
is inserted after _filii_. This copy was published by Le S. Robert at
Paris in 1741.]

[Illustration: CARTE CONJECTURALE DE L’ATLANTIDE.

From a map in Bory de St. Vincent’s _Essais sur les isles Fortunées_,
Paris [1803]. A map in Anastasius Kircher’s _Mundus Subterraneus_
(Amsterdam, 1678), i. 82, shows Atlantis as a large island midway
between the pillars of Hercules and America.]

[Illustration: CONTOUR CHART OF THE BOTTOM OF THE ATLANTIC.

Sketched from the colored map of the United States Hydrographic
office, as given in Alexander Agassiz’s _Three Cruises of the Blake_
(Cambridge, 1888), vol. i. The outline of the continents is shown by an
unbroken line. The 500 fathom shore line is a broken one (—— —— —— ——).
The 2,000 fathom shore line is made by a dash and dot (——.——.——.——).
The large areas in mid-ocean enclosed by this line, have this or lesser
depths. Of the small areas marked by this line, the depth of 2,000
fathoms or less is within these areas in all cases except as respects
the small areas on the latitude of Newfoundland, where the larger areas
of 2,000 fathoms’ depth border on the small areas of greater depth.
Depths varying from 1,500 to 1,000 fathoms are shown by horizontal
lines; from 1,000 to 500 by perpendicular lines; and the crossed lines
show the shallowest spots in mid-ocean of 500 fathoms or less. The
areas of greatest depth (over 3,500 fathoms) are marked with crosses.]

Such is the tale of Atlantis. Read in Plato, the nature and meaning of
the narrative seem clear, but the commentators, ancient and modern,
have made wild work. The voyage of Odysseus has grown marvellously in
extent since he abandoned the sea; Io has found the pens of the learned
more potent goads than Hera’s gadfly; but the travels of Atlantis have
been even more extraordinary. No region has been so remote, no land
so opposed by location, extent, or history to the words of Plato, but
that some acute investigator has found in it the origin of the lost
island. It has been identified with Africa, with Spitzbergen, with
Palestine. The learned Latreille convinced himself that Persia best
fulfilled the conditions of the problem; the more than learned Rudbeck
ardently supported the claims of Sweden through three folios. In such
a search America could not be overlooked. Gomara, Guillaume de Postel,
Wytfliet, are among those who have believed that this continent was
Atlantis; Sanson in 1669, and Vaugondy in 1762, ventured to issue a
map, upon which the division of that island among the sons of Neptune
was applied to America, and the outskirts of the lost continent were
extended even to New Zealand. Such work, of course, needs no serious
consideration. Plato is our authority, and Plato declares that Atlantis
lay not far west from Spain, and that it disappeared some 8,000 years
before his day. An inquiry into the truth or meaning of the record as
it stands is quite justifiable, and has been several times undertaken,
with divergent results. Some, notably Paul Gaffarel[299] and Ignatius
Donnelly,[300] are convinced that Plato merely adapted to his purposes
a story which Solon had actually brought from Egypt, and which was in
all essentials true. Corroboration of the existence of such an island
in the Atlantic is found, according to these writers, in the physical
conformation of the Atlantic basin, and in marked resemblances between
the flora, fauna, civilization, and language of the old and new worlds,
which demand for their explanation the prehistoric existence of just
such a bridge as Atlantis would have supplied. The Atlantic islands are
the loftiest peaks and plateaus of the submerged island. In the widely
spread deluge myths Mr. Donnelly finds strong confirmation of the final
cataclysm; he places in Atlantis that primitive culture which M. Bailly
sought in the highlands of Asia, and President Warren refers to the
north pole. Space fails for a proper examination of the matter, but
these ingenious arguments remain somewhat top-heavy when all is said.
The argument from ethnological resemblances is of all arguments the
weakest in the hands of advocates. It is of value only when wielded by
men of judicial temperament, who can weigh difference against likeness,
and allow for the narrow range of nature’s moulds. The existence of
the ocean plateaus revealed by the soundings of the “Dolphin” and the
“Challenger” proves nothing as to their having been once raised above
the waves; the most of the Atlantic islands are sharply cut off from
them. Even granting the prehistoric migration of plants and animals
between America and Europe, as we grant it between America and Asia, it
does not follow that it took place across the mid-ocean, and it would
still be a long step from the botanic “bridge” and elevated “ridge” to
the island empire of Plato. In short, the conservative view advocated
by Longinus, that the story was designed by Plato as a literary
ornament and a philosophic illustration, is no less probable to-day
than when it was suggested in the schools of Alexandria. Atlantis is
a literary myth, belonging with _Utopia_, the _New Atlantis_, and the
_Orbis alter et idem_ of Bishop Hall.

* * * * *

Of the same type is a narrative which has come down indirectly, among
the flotsam and jetsam of classic literature: it is a fragment from a
lost work by Theopompus of Chios, a historian of the fourth century
B.C., found in the _Varia Historia_ of Aelian, a compiler of the third
century A.D.[301] The story is told by the satyr Silenus to Midas,
king of Phrygia, and is, as few commentators have refrained from
remarking, worthy the ears of its auditor.[302] “Selenus tolde Midas of
certaine Islands, named Europa, Asia, and Libia, which the Ocean Sea
circumscribeth and compasseth round about. And that without this worlde
there is a continent or percell of dry lande, which in greatnesse (as
hee reported) was infinite and unmeasurable, that it nourished and
maintained, by the benifite of the greene medowes and pasture plots,
sundrye bigge and mighty beastes; that the men which inhabite the same
climats, exceede the stature of us twise, and yet the length of there
life is not equale to ours.” Many other wonders he related of the two
cities, Machimus, the warlike, and Euseues, the city of peace, and how
the inhabitants of the former once made an attack upon Europe, and came
first upon the Hyperboreans; but learning that they were esteemed the
most holy of the dwellers in that island, they “had them in contempte,
detesting and abhorring them as naughty people, of preposterous
properties, and damnable behauiour, and for that cause interrupted
their progresse, supposing it an enterprise of little worthinesse or
rather none at al, to trauaile into such a countrey.” The concluding
passage relating to the strange country inhabited by the Meropes, from
whose name later writers have called the continent Meropian, bears only
indirectly upon the subject, as characterizing the whole narrative.[303]

Without admitting the harsh judgment of Aelian, who brands Theopompus
as a “coyner of lyes and a forger of fond fables,” it is clear that
we are dealing here with literature, not with history, and that the
identification of the land of the Meropes, or, as Strabo calls it,
Meropis, with Atlantis or with America is arbitrary and valueless.[304]

The same remark applies to the account of the great Saturnian continent
that closes the curious and interesting dialogue “On the Face appearing
in the Orb of the Moon,” attributed to Plutarch, and printed with his
_Morals_:

“‘An isle, Ogygia, lies in Ocean’s arms,’” says the narrator, “about
five days’ sail west from Britain; and before it are three others, of
equal distance from one another, and also from that, bearing northwest,
where the sun sets in summer. In one of these the barbarians feign
that Saturn is detained in prison by Zeus.” The adjacent sea is termed
the Saturnian, and the continent by which the great sea is circularly
environed is distant from Ogygia about five thousand stadia, but from
the other islands not so far. A bay of this continent, in the latitude
of the Caspian Sea, is inhabited by Greeks. These, who had been
visited by Heracles, and revived by his followers, esteemed themselves
inhabitants of the firm land, calling all others islanders, as dwelling
in land encompassed by the sea. Every thirty years these people send
forth certain of their number, who minister to the imprisoned Saturn
for thirty years. One of the men thus sent forth, at the end of his
service, paid a visit to the great island, as they called Europe. From
him the narrator learned many things about the state of men after
death, which he unfolds at length, the conclusion being that the souls
of men ultimately arrive at the moon, wherein lie the Elysian Fields of
Homer. “And you, O Lamprias,” he adds, “may take my relation in such
part as you please.” After which hint there is, I think, but little
doubt as to the way in which it should be taken by us.[305]

That Plato, Theopompus, and Plutarch, covering a range of nearly five
centuries, should each have made use of the conception of a continent
beyond the Atlantic, is noteworthy; but it is more naturally accounted
for by supposing that all three had in mind the continental hypothesis
of land distribution, than by assuming for them an acquaintance with
the great western island, America. From this point of view, the result
of our search into the geographical knowledge and mythical tales of the
ancients is purely negative. We find, indeed, well-developed theories
of physical geography, one of which accords remarkably well with the
truth; but we also find that these theories rest solely on logical
deductions from the mathematical doctrine of the sphere, and on an
aesthetic satisfaction with symmetry and analogy. This conclusion could
be invalidated were it shown that exploration had already revealed
the secrets of the west, and we must now consider this branch of the
subject.

The history of maritime discovery begins among the Phœnicians. The
civilization of Egypt, as self-centred as that of China, accepted
only the commerce that was brought to its gates; but the men of Sidon
and Tyre, with their keen devotion to material interests, their
almost modern ingenuity, had early appropriated the carrying trade
of the east and the west. As they looked adventurously seaward from
their narrow domain, the dim outline of Cyprus beckoned them down a
long lane of island stations to the rich shores of Spain. Even their
religion betrayed their bent: El and Cronos, their oldest deities,
were wanderers, and vanished in the west; on their traces Melkarth led
a motley swarm of colonists to the Atlantic. These legends, filtering
through Cyprus, Crete, or Rhodes, or borne by rash adventurers from
distant Gades, appeared anew in Grecian mythology, the deeds of
Melkarth mingling with the labors of Hercules. We do not know when the
Phœnicians first reached the Atlantic, nor what were the limits of
their ocean voyages. Gades, the present Cadiz, just outside the Straits
of Gibraltar, was founded a few years before 1100 B.C., but not, it is
probable, without previous knowledge of the commercial importance of
the location. There were numerous other settlements along the adjacent
coast, and the gold, silver, and tin of these distant regions grew
familiar in the markets of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India. The trade
with Tartessus, the El Dorado of antiquity, gave the Phœnician merchant
vessels a name among the Jews, as well in the tenth century, when
Solomon shared the adventures of Hiram, as in the sixth, when Ezekiel
depicted the glories of Tyrian commerce. The Phœnician seamanship was
wide-famed; their vessels were unmatched in speed,[306] and their
furniture and discipline excited the outspoken admiration of Xenophon.
Beside the large Tarshish ships, they possessed light merchant vessels
and ships of war, provided with both sails and oars, and these,
somewhat akin to steamships in their independence of wind, were well
adapted for exploration. Thus urged and thus provided, it is improbable
that the Phœnicians shunned the great ocean. The evidence is still
strong in favor of their direct trade with Britain for tin, despite
what has been urged as to tin mines in Spain and the prehistoric
existence of the trade by land across Gaul.[307]

* * * * *

Whether the Tyrians discovered any of the Atlantic islands is unknown;
the adventures and discoveries attributed to Hercules, who in this
aspect is but Melkarth in Grecian raiment, points toward an early
knowledge of western islands, but these myths alone are not conclusive
proof. Diodorus Siculus attributes to the Phœnicians the discovery, by
accident, of a large island, with navigable rivers and a delightful
climate, many days’ sail westward from Africa. In the compilation _De
Mirabilibus Auscultationibus_, printed with the works of Aristotle,
the discovery is attributed to Carthaginians. Both versions descend
from one original, now lost, and it is impossible to give a date to the
event, or to identify the locality.[308] Those who find America in the
island of Diodorus make improbabilities supply the lack of evidence.
Stories seldom lose in the telling, and while it is not impossible that
a Phœnician ship might have reached America, and even made her way
back, it is not likely that the voyage would have been tamely described
as of many _days’_ duration.

When Carthage succeeded Tyre as mistress of the Mediterranean commerce,
interest in the West revived. In the middle of the fifth century B.C.,
two expeditions of importance were dispatched into these waters. A
large fleet under Hanno sailed to colonize, or re-colonize, the western
coast of Africa, and succeeded in reaching the latitude of Sierra
Leone. Himilko, voyaging in the opposite direction, spent several
months in exploring the ocean and tracing the western shores of Europe.
He appears to have run into the Sargasso Sea, but beyond this little is
known of his adventures.[309]

Ultimately the Carthaginians discovered and colonized the Canary
Islands, and perhaps the Madeira and Cape Verde groups; the evidence
of ethnology, the presence of Semitic inscriptions, and the occurrence
in the descriptions of Pliny, Mela, and Ptolemy of some of the modern
names of the separate islands, establishes this beyond a doubt for
the Canaries.[310] There is no evidence that the Phœnicians or
Carthaginians penetrated much beyond the coast islands, or that they
reached any part of America, or even the Azores.

The achievements of the Greeks and Romans were still more limited. A
certain Colaeus visited Gades towards the middle of the seventh century
B.C., and was, according to Herodotus, the first Greek who passed
outside of the columns of Hercules. His example could not have been
widely followed, for we find Pindar and his successors referring to the
Pillars as the limit of navigation. In 600 B.C., Massilia was founded,
and soon became a rival of Carthage in the western Mediterranean. In
the fourth century we have evidence of an attempt to search out the
secrets of the ocean after the manner of Hanno and Himilko. In that
century, Pytheas made his famous voyage to the lands of tin and amber,
discovering the still mysterious Thule; while at the same time his
countryman Euthymenes sailed southward to the Senegal. With these
exceptions we hear of no Grecian or Roman explorations in the Atlantic,
and meet with no indication that they were aware of any other lands
beyond the sea than the Fortunate Isles or the Hesperides of the early
poets.[311]

About 80 B.C., Sertorius, being for a time driven from Spain by the
forces of Sulla, fell in, when on an expedition to Baetica, with
certain sailors who had just returned from the “Atlantic islands,”
which they described as two in number, distant 10,000 stadia from
Africa, and enjoying a wonderful climate. The account in Plutarch is
quite consistent with a previous knowledge of the islands, even on
the part of Sertorius. Be this as it may, the glowing praises of the
eye-witnesses so impressed him that only the unwillingness of his
followers prevented his taking refuge there. Within the next few years,
the Canaries, at least, became well known as the _Fortunatae Insulae_;
but when Horace, in the dark days of civil war, urged his countrymen
to seek a new home across the waves, it was apparently the islands
of Sertorius that he had in mind, regarding them as unknown to other
peoples.[312]

As we trace the increasing volume and extent of commerce from the days
of Tyre and Carthage and Alexandria to its fullest development under
the empire, and remember that as the drafts of luxury-loving Rome upon
the products of the east, even of China and farther India, increased,
the true knowledge of the form of the earth, and the underestimate
of the breadth of the western ocean, became more widely known, the
question inevitably suggests itself, Why did not the enterprise which
had long since utilized the monsoons of the Indian Ocean for direct
passage to and from India essay the passage of the Atlantic? The
inquiry gains force as we recall that the possibility of such a route
to India had been long ago asserted. Aristotle suggested, if he did not
express it; Eratosthenes stated plainly that were it not for the extent
of the Atlantic it would be possible to sail from Spain to India along
the same parallel;[313] and Strabo could object nothing but the chance
of there being another island-continent or two in the way,—an objection
unknown to Columbus. Seneca, the philosopher, iterating insistence upon
the smallness of the earth and the pettiness of its affairs compared
with the higher interests of the soul, exclaims: “The earth, which you
so anxiously divide by fire and sword into kingdoms, is a point, a
mere point, in the universe.... How far is it from the utmost shores
of Spain to those of India? But very few days’ sail with a favoring
wind.”[314]

Holding these views of the possibility of the voyage, it is improbable
that the size of their ships and the lack of the compass could have
long prevented the ancients from putting them in practice had their
interest so demanded.[315] Their interest in the matter was, however,
purely speculative, since, under the unity and power of the Roman
empire, which succeeded to and absorbed the commercial supremacy of the
Phœnicians, international competition in trade did not exist, nor were
the routes of trade subject to effective hostile interruption. The two
causes, therefore, which worked powerfully to induce the voyages of Da
Gama and Columbus, after the rise of individual states had given scope
to national jealousy and pride, and after the fall of Constantinople
had placed the last natural gateway of the eastern trade in the hands
of Arab infidels, were non-existent under the older civilization. It
is certain, too, that the ancients had a vivid horror of the western
ocean. In the Odyssey, the western Mediterranean even is full of peril.
With knowledge of the ocean, the Greeks received tales of “Gorgons
and Chimeras dire,” and the very poets who sing the beauties of the
Elysian or Hesperian isles dwell on the danger of the surrounding sea.
Beyond Gades, declared Pindar, no man, however brave, could pass;
only a god might voyage those waters. The same idea recurs in the
reports of travellers and the writings of men of science, but here it
is the storms, or more often the lack of wind, the viscid water or
vast shoals, that check and appall the mariner. Aristotle thought that
beyond the columns the sea was shallow and becalmed. Plato utilized
the common idea of the mudbanks and shoal water of the Atlantic in
accounting for the disappearance of Atlantis. Scylax reported the ocean
not navigable beyond Cerne in the south, and Pytheas heard that beyond
Thule sea and air became confounded. Even Tacitus believed that there
was a peculiar resistance in the waters of the northern ocean.[316]

Whether the Greeks owed this dread to the Phœnicians, and whether
the latter shared the feeling, or simulated and encouraged it for the
purpose of concealing their profitable adventures beyond the Straits,
is doubtful. In two cases, at least, it is possible to trace statements
of this nature to Punic sources, and antiquity agreed in giving the
Phœnicians credit for discouraging rivalry by every art.[317]

To an age averse to investigation for its own sake, ignorant of
scientific curiosity, and unimpelled by economic pressure, tales like
these might seem decisive against an attempt to sail westward to India.
Rome could thoroughly appreciate the imaginative mingling of science
and legend which vivified the famous prophecy of the poet Seneca:

Venient annis saecula seris
Quibus Oceanus vincula rerum
Laxet, et ingens patebit tellus
Tethysque novos deteget orbes
Nec sit terris ultima Thule.[318]

But even were it overlooked that the prophecy suited better the
revelation of an unknown continent, such as the theory of Crates and
Cicero placed between Europe and Asia, than the discovery of the
eastern coast of India, mariners and merchants might be pardoned if
they set the deterrent opinions collected by the elder Seneca above the
livelier fancies of his son.[319]

The scanty records of navigation and discovery in the western waters
confirm the conclusions drawn from the visions of the poets and the
theories of the philosophers. No evidence from the classic writers
justifies the assumption that the ancients communicated with America.
If they guessed at the possibility of such a continent, it was only as
we to-day imagine an antarctic continent or an open polar sea. Evidence
from ethnological comparisons is of course admissible, but those who
are best fitted to handle such evidence best know its dangers; hitherto
its use has brought little but discredit to the cause in which it was
invoked.

* * * * *

The geographical doctrines which antiquity bequeathed to the
Middle Ages were briefly these: that the earth was a sphere with a
circumference of 252,000 or 180,000 stadia; that only the temperate
zones were inhabitable, and the northern alone known to be inhabited;
that of the southern, owing to the impassable heats of the torrid zone,
it could not be discovered whether it were inhabited, or whether,
indeed, land existed there; and that of the northern, it was unknown
whether the intervention of another continent, or only the shoals and
unknown horrors of the ocean, prevented a westward passage from Europe
to Asia. The legatee preserved, but did not improve his inheritance.
It has been supposed that the early Middle Ages, under the influence
of barbarism and Christianity, ignored the sphericity of the earth,
deliberately returning to the assumption of a plane surface, either
wheel-shaped or rectangular. That knowledge dwindled after the fall
of the empire, that the early church included the learning as well
as the religion of the pagans in its ban, is undeniable; but on this
point truth prevailed. It was preserved by many school-books, in many
popular compilations from classic authors, and was accepted by many
ecclesiastics. St. Augustine did not deny the sphericity of the earth.
It was assumed by Isidor of Seville, and taught by Bede.[320] The
schoolmen buttressed the doctrine by the authority of Aristotle and the
living science which the Arabs built upon the Almagest. Gerbert, Albert
the Great, Roger Bacon, Dante, were as familiar with the idea of the
earth-globe as were Hipparchus and Ptolemy. The knowledge of it came to
Columbus not as an inspiration or an invention, but by long, unbroken
descent from its unknown Grecian, or pre-Grecian, discoverer.

[Illustration: THE RECTANGULAR EARTH.

Sketched in the _Bollettino della Società geografica italiana_ (Roma,
1882), p. 540, from the original in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana
in Florence. The representation of this sketch of the earth by Cosmas
Indicopleustes more commonly met with is from the engraving in the
edition of Cosmas in Montfaucon’s _Collectio nova patrum_, Paris, 1706.
The article by Marinelli which contains the sketch given here has also
appeared separately in a German translation (_Die Erdkunde bei den
Kirchenvätern_, Leipzig, 1884). The continental land beyond the ocean
should be noticed.]

As to the distribution of land and water, the oceanic theory of
Crates, as expounded by Macrobius, prevailed in the west, although the
existence of antipodes fell a victim to the union, in the ecclesiastic
mind, of the heathen theory of an impassable torrid zone with the
Christian teaching of the descent of all men from Adam.[321] The
discoveries made by the ancients in the ocean, of the Canaries and
other islands known to them, were speedily forgotten, while their
geographic myths were superseded by a ranker growth. The Saturnian
continent, Meropis, Atlantis, the Fortunate Isles, the Hesperides, were
relegated to the dusty realm of classical learning; but the Atlantic
was not barren of their like. Mediæval maps swarmed with fabulous
islands, and wild stories of adventurous voyages divided the attention
with tales of love and war. Antillia was the largest, and perhaps the
most famous, of these islands; it was situated in longitude 330° east,
and near the latitude of Lisbon, so that Toscanelli regarded it as much
facilitating the plan of Columbus. Well known, too, was Braçir, or
Brazil, having its proper position west and north of Ireland, but often
met with elsewhere; both this island and Antillia afterward gave names
to portions of the new continent.[322]

Antillia, otherwise called the Island of Seven Cities, was discovered
and settled by an archbishop and six bishops of Spain, who fled into
the ocean after the victory of the Moors, in 714, over Roderick; it is
even reported to have been rediscovered in 1447.[323] Mayda, Danmar,
Man Satanaxio, Isla Verde, and others of these islands, of which but
little is known beside the names, appear for the first time upon the
maps of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but their origin is
quite unknown. It might be thought that they were derived from confused
traditions of their classical predecessors, with which they have been
identified, but modern folk-lore has shown that such fancies spring
up spontaneously in every community. To dream of a distant spot where
joy is untroubled and rest unbroken by grief or toil is a natural and
inalienable bent of the human mind. Those happy islands which abound in
the romances of the heathen Celts, Mag Mell, Field of Delight, Flath
Inis, Isle of the Heroes, the Avallon of the Arthur cycle, were but a
more exuberant forth-putting of the same soil that produced the Elysian
Fields of Homer or the terrestrial paradise of the Hebrews. The later
growth is not born of the seed of the earlier, though somewhat affected
by alien grafts, as in the case of the famous island of St. Brandan,
where there is a curious commingling of Celtic, Greek, and Christian
traditions. It is dangerous, indeed, to speak of earlier or later in
reference to such myths; one group was written before the others, but
it is quite possible that the earthly paradise of the Celt is as old as
those of the Mediterranean peoples. The idea of a phantom or vanishing
island, too, is very old,—as old, doubtless, as the fact of fog-banks
and mirage,—and it is well exemplified in those mysterious visions
which enticed the sailors of Bristol to many a fruitless quest before
the discovery of America, and for centuries tantalized the inhabitants
of the Canaries with hope of discovery. The Atlantic islands were
not all isles of the blessed; there were many Isles of Demons, such
as Ramusio places north of Newfoundland, a name of evil report which
afterward attached itself with more reason to Sable Island and even to
the Bermudas:

“Kept, as suppos’d by Hel’s infernal dogs; Our fleet found there most
honest courteous hogs.”[324]

Not until the revival of classical learning did the continental system
of Ptolemy reach the west; the way, however, had been prepared for it.
The measurement of a degree, executed under the Calif Mamun, seemed
to the Europeans to confirm the smallest estimate of the size of the
earth, which Ptolemy also had adopted,[325] while the travels of Marco
Polo, revealing the great island of Japan, exaggerated the popular idea
of the extent of the known world, until the 225° of Marinus seemed
more probable than the 180° of Ptolemy. If, however, time brought this
shrinkage in the breadth of the Atlantic, the temptation to navigators
was opposed by the belief in the dangers of the ocean, which shared
the persistent life of the dogma of the impassable torrid zone, and
was strongly reinforced by Arab lore. Their geographers never tire
of dilating on the calms and storms, mudbanks and fogs, and unknown
dangers of the “Sea of Darkness.” Nevertheless, as the turmoil of
mediæval life made gentler spirits sigh for peace in distant homes,
while the wild energy of others found the very dangers of the sea
delightful, there was opened a double source of adventures, both real
and imaginary. Those pillars cut with inscriptions forbidding further
advance westward, which we owe to Moorish fancy, confounding Hercules
and Atlas and Alexander, were transformed into a knightly hero pointing
oceanwards, or became guide-posts to the earthly paradise.

If there be a legendary flavor in the flight of the seven bishops, we
must set down the wanderings of the Magrurin[326] among the African
islands, the futile but bold attempts of the Visconti to circumnavigate
Africa, as real, though without the least footing in a list of
claimants for the discovery of America. The voyages of St. Brandan
and St. Malo, again, are distinctly fabulous, and but other forms of
the ancient myth of the soul-voyages; and the same may be said of the
strange tale of Maelduin.[327] But what of those other Irish voyages
to Irland-it-mikla and Huitramannaland, of the voyage of Madoc, of the
explorations of the Zeni? While these tales merit close investigation,
it is certain that whatever liftings of the veil there may have
been—that there were any is extremely doubtful—were unheralded at the
time and soon forgotten.[328]

It was reserved for the demands of commerce to reveal the secrets of
the west. But when the veil was finally removed it was easy for men to
see that it had never been quite opaque. The learned turned naturally
to their new-found classics, and were not slow to find the passages
which seemed prophetic of America. Seneca, Virgil, Horace, Aristotle,
and Theopompus, were soon pressed into the service, and the story of
Atlantis obtained at once a new importance. I have tried to show in
this chapter that these patrons of a revived learning put upon these
statements an interpretation which they will not bear.

The summing up of the whole matter cannot be better given than in
the words applied by a careful Grecian historian to another question
in ancient geography: “In some future time perhaps our pains may
lead us to a knowledge of those countries. But all that has hitherto
been written or reported of them must be considered as mere fable
and invention, and not the fruit of any real search, or genuine
information.”[329]

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE views of the ancient Mediterranean peoples upon geography are
preserved almost solely in the ancient classics. The poems attributed
to Homer and Hesiod, the so-called Orphic hymns, the odes of Pindar,
even the dramatic works of Æschylus and his successors, are sources for
the earlier time. The writings of the earlier philosophers are lost,
and their ideas are to be found in later writers, and in compilations
like the Biographies of Diogenes Laertius (3d cent. A.D.), the _De
placitis philosophorum_ attributed to Plutarch, and the like. Among
the works of Plato the _Phaedo_ and _Timaeus_ and the last book of the
_Republic_ bear on the form and arrangement of the earth; the Timaeus
and _Critias_ contain the fable of Atlantis. The first scientific
treatises preserved are the _De Caelo_ and _Meteorologica_ of
Aristotle.[330] It is needless to speak in detail of the geographical
writers, accounts of whom will be found in any history of Greek and
Roman literature. The minor pieces, such as the _Periplus_ of Hanno,
of Scylax of Caryanda, of Dionysius Periegetes, the Geography of
Agatharcides, and others, have been several times collected;[331] and
so have the minor historians, which may be consulted for Theopompus,
Hecataeus, and the mythologists.[332] The geographical works of
Pytheas (B.C. 350?), of Eratosthenes (B.C. 276-126), of Polybius (B.C.
204-122), of Hipparchus (flor. circ. B.C. 125), of Posidonius (1st
cent. B.C.), are preserved only in quotations made by later writers;
they have, however, been collected and edited in convenient form.[333]
The most important source of our knowledge of Greek geography and
Greek geographers is of course the great _Geography_ of Strabo, which
a happy fortune preserved to us. The long introduction upon the nature
of geography and the size of the earth and the dimensions of the known
world is of especial interest, both for his own views and for those he
criticises.[334] Strabo lived about B.C. 60 to A.D. 24.

The works of Marinus of Tyre having perished, the next important
geographical work in Greek is the world-renowned _Geography_ of
Ptolemaeus, who wrote in the second half of the second century A.D.
Despite the peculiar merits and history of this work, it is not so
important for our purpose as the work of Strabo, though it exercised
infinitely more influence on the Middle Ages and on early modern
geography.[335]

The astronomical writers are also of importance. Eudoxus of Cnidus,
said to have first adduced the change in the altitude of stars
accompanying a change of latitude as proof of the sphericity of
the earth, wrote works now known only in the poems of Aratus, who
flourished in the latter half of the third century B.C.[336] Geminus
(circ. B.C. 50),[337] and Cleomedes,[338] whose work is famous for
having preserved the method by which Eratosthenes measured the
circumference of the earth, were authors of brief popular compilations
of astronomical science. Of vast importance in the history of
learning was the astronomical work of Ptolemy, _ἡ μεγάλη σύνταξις τῆς
ἀστρονομίας_, which was so honored by the Arabs that it is best known
to us as the _Almagest_, from _Tabric al Magisthri_, the title of
the Arabic translation which was made in 827. It has been edited and
translated by Halma (Paris, 1813, 1816).

Much is to be learned from the _Scholia_ attached in early times to the
works of Hesiod, Homer, Pindar, the _Argonautica_ of Apollonius Rhodius
(B.C. 276-193?), and to the works of Aristotle, Plato, etc. In some
cases these are printed with the works commented upon; in other cases,
the _Scholia_ have been printed separately. The commentary of Proclus
(A.D. 412-485) upon the _Timaeus_ of Plato is of great importance in
the Atlantis myth.[339]

Much interest attaches to the dialogue entitled _On the face appearing
in the orb of the moon_, which appears among the _Moralia_ of Plutarch.
Really a contribution to the question of life after death, this work
also throws light upon geographical and astronomical knowledge of its
time.

Among the Romans we find much the same succession of sources. The
poets, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Tibullus, Lucretius, Lucan, Seneca, touch
on geographical or astronomical points and reflect the opinion of their
day.[340]

The first six books of the great encyclopaedia compiled by Pliny
the elder (A.D. 23-79)[341] contain an account of the universe and
the earth, which is of the greatest value, and was long exploited by
compilers of later times, among the earliest and best of whom was
Solinus.[342] Equally famous with Solinus was the author of a work of
more independent character, Pomponius Mela, who lived in the first
century A.D. His geography, commonly known as _De situ orbis_ from
the mediæval title, though the proper name is _De chorographia_, is
a work of importance and merit. In the Middle Ages it had wonderful
popularity.[343] Cicero, who contemplated writing a history of
geography, touches upon the arrangement of the earth’s surface several
times in his works, as in the _Tusculan Disputations_, and notably in
the sixth book of the _Republic_, in the episode known as the “Dream
of Scipio.” The importance of this piece is enhanced by the commentary
upon it written by Macrobius in the fifth century A.D.[344] A peculiar
interest attaches to the poems of Avienus, of the fourth century A.D.,
in that they give much information about the character attributed to
the Atlantic Ocean.[345] The astronomical poems of Manilius[346] and
Hyginus were favorites in early Middle Ages. The astrological character
of the work of Manilius made it popular, but it conveyed also the
true doctrine of the form of the earth. The curious work of Marcianus
Capella gave a résumé of science in the first half of the fifth century
A.D., and had a like popularity as a school-book and house-book which
also helped maintain the truth.[347]

Such in the main are the ancient writers upon which we must chiefly
rely in considering the present question. In the interpretation of
these sources much has been done by the leading modern writers on
the condition of science in ancient times; like Bunbury, Ukert,
Forbiger, St. Martin, and Peschel on geography;[348] like Zeller on
philosophy, not to name many others;[349] and like Lewis and Martin
on astronomy;[350] but there is no occasion to go to much length in
the enumeration of this class of books. The reader is referred to the
examination of the literature of special points of the geographical
studies of the ancients to the notes following this Essay.

* * * * *

Mediæval cosmology and geography await a thorough student; they are
imbedded in the wastes of theological discussions of the Fathers, or
hidden in manuscript cosmographies in libraries of Europe. It should
be noted that confusion has arisen from the use of the word _rotundus_
to express both the sphericity of the earth and the circularity of the
known lands, and from the use of _terra_, or _orbis terrae_, to denote
the inhabited lands, as well as the globe. It has been pointed out by
Ruge (_Gesch. d. Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, p. 97) that the later
Middle Age adopted the circular form of the _oekoumene_ in consequence
of a peculiar theory as to the relation of the land and water masses
of the earth, which were conceived as two intercepting spheres. The
_oekoumene_ might easily be spoken of as a round disk without implying
that the whole earth was plane.[351] That the struggle of the Christian
faith, at first for existence and then for the proper harvesting of the
fruits of victory, induced its earlier defenders to wage war against
the learning as well as the religion of the pagans; that Christians
were inclined to think time taken from the contemplation of the true
faith worse than wasted when given to investigations into natural
phenomena, which might better be accepted for what they professed to
be; and that they often found in Scripture a welcome support for the
evidence of the senses,—cannot be denied. It was inevitable that St.
Chrysostom, Lactantius, Orosius and Origines rejected or declined
to teach the sphericity of the earth. The curious systems of Cosmas
and Aethicus, marked by a return to the crudest conceptions of the
universe, found some favor in Europe. But the truth was not forgotten.
The astronomical poems of Aratus, Hyginus, and Manilius were still
read. Solinus and other plunderers of Pliny were popular, and kept
alive the ancient knowledge. The sphericity of the earth was not denied
by St. Augustine; it was maintained by Martianus Capella, and assumed
by Isidor of Seville. Bede[352] taught the whole system of ancient
geography; and but little later, Virgilius, bishop of Saltzburg, was
threatened with papal displeasure, not for teaching the sphericity
of the earth, but for upholding the existence of antipodes.[353]
The canons of Ptolemy were cited in the eleventh century by Hermann
Contractus in his _De utilitatibus astrolabii_, and in the twelfth by
Hugues de Saint Victor in his _Eruditio didascalica_. Strabo was not
known before Pope Nicholas V., who ordered the first translation. Not
many to-day can illustrate the truth more clearly than the author of
_L’Image du Monde_, an anonymous poem of the thirteenth century. If two
men, he says, were to start at the same time from a given point and go,
the one east, the other west,—

Si que andui egaumont alassent
Il convendroit qu’il s’encontrassent
Dessus le leu dont il se mûrent.[354]

In general, the mathematical and astronomical treatises were earlier
known to the West than the purely metaphysical works: this was the case
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries; in the thirteenth the schoolmen
were familiar with the whole body of Aristotle’s works. Thus the
influence of Aristotle on natural science was early important, either
through Arabian commentators or paraphrasers, or through translations
made from the Arabic, or directly from the Greek.[355]

Jourdain affirms that it was the influence of Aristotle and his
interpreters that kept alive in the Middle Ages the doctrine that India
and Spain were not far apart. He also maintains that the doctrine of
the sphericity of the earth was familiar throughout the Middle Age,
and, if anything, more of a favorite than the other view.

The field of the later ecclesiastical and scholastic writers, who kept
up the contentions over the form of the earth and kindred subjects,
is too large to be here minutely surveyed. Such of them as were well
known to the geographical students of the centuries next preceding
Columbus have been briefly indicated in another place;[356] and if
not completely, yet with helpful outlining, the whole subject of the
mediæval cosmology has been studied by not a few of the geographical
and cartographical students of later days.[357] So far as these studies
pertain to the theory of a Lost Atlantis and the fabulous islands of
the Atlantic Ocean, they will be particularly illustrated in the notes
which follow this Essay.

[Illustration: Wm. H. Tillinghast]

NOTES.

=A.= THE FORM OF THE EARTH.—It is not easy to demonstrate that the
earliest Greeks believed the earth to be a flat disk, although that is
the accepted and probably correct view of their belief. It is possible
to examine but a small part of the earliest literature, and what we
have is of uncertain date and dubious origin; its intent is religious
or romantic, not scientific; its form is poetic. It is difficult to
interpret it accurately, since the prevalent ideas of nature must be
deduced from imagery, qualifying words and phrases, and seldom from
direct description. The interpreter, doubtful as to the proportion in
which he finds mingled fancy and honest faith, is in constant danger
of overreaching himself by excess of ingenuity. In dealing with such
a literature one is peculiarly liable to abuse the always dangerous
argument by which want of knowledge is inferred from lack of mention.
Other difficulties beset the use of later philosophic material, much
of which is preserved only in extracts made by antagonists or by
compilers, so that we are forced to confront a lack of context and
possible misunderstanding or misquotation. The frequent use of the
word _στρογγύλος_, which has the same ambiguity as our word “round”
in common parlance, often leads to uncertainty. A more fruitful cause
of trouble is inherent in the Greek manner of thinking of the world.
It is often difficult to know whether a writer means the planet, or
whether he means the agglomeration of known lands which later writers
called _ἡ οἰκουμένη_. It is not impossible that when writers refer to
the earth as encircled by the river Oceanus, they mean, not the globe,
but the known lands, the eastern continent, as we say, what the Romans
sometimes called _orbis terrae or orbis terrarum_, a term which may
mean the “circle of the lands,” not the “orb of the earth.” At a later
time it was a well-known belief that the earth-globe and water-globe
were excentrics, so that a segment of the former projected beyond the
surface of the latter in one part, and constituted the known world.[358]

I cannot attach much importance to the line of argument with which
modern writers since Voss have tried to prove that the Homeric poems
represent the earth flat. That Poseidon, from the mountains of the
Solymi, sees Odesseus on the sea to the west of Greece (_Od._ v. 282);
that Helios could see his cattle in Thrinakia both as he went toward
the heavens and as he turned toward the earth again (_Od._ xii. 380);
that at sunset “all the ways are darkened;” that the sun and the
stars set in and rose from the ocean,—these and similar proofs seem
to me to have as little weight as attaches to the expressions “ends
of the earth,” or to the flowing of Oceanus around the earth. There
are, however, other and better reasons for assuming that the earth in
earliest thought was flat. Such is the most natural assumption from the
evidence of sight, and there is certainly nothing in the older writings
inconsistent with such an idea. We know, moreover, that in the time of
Socrates it was yet a matter of debate as to whether the earth was flat
or spherical, as it was in the time of Plutarch.[359] We are distinctly
told by Aristotle that various forms were attributed to earth by
early philosophers, and the implication is that the spherical theory,
whose truth he proceeds to demonstrate, was a new thought.[360] It is
very unlikely, except to those who sincerely accept the theory of a
primitive race of unequalled wisdom, that the sphericity of the earth,
having been known to Homer, should have been cast aside by the Ionic
philosophers and the Epicureans, and forgotten by educated people five
or six centuries later, as it must have been before the midnight voyage
of Helios in his golden cup, and before similar attempts to account
for the return of the sun could have become current. Ignorance of the
true shape of the earth is also indicated by the common view that the
sun appeared much larger at rising to the people of India than to the
Grecians, and at setting presented the same phenomenon in Spain.[361]
As we have seen, the description of Tartarus in the Theogony of Hesiod,
which Fick thinks an interpolation of much later date, likens the earth
to a lid.

The question has always been an open one. Crates of Mallos, Strabo, and
other Homer-worshippers of antiquity, could not deny to the poet any
knowledge current in their day, but their reasons for assuming that he
knew the earth to be a globe are not strong. In recent years President
Warren has maintained that Homer’s earth was a sphere with Oceanus
flowing around the equator, that the pillars of Atlas meant the axis of
the earth, and that Ogygia was at the north pole.[362] Homer, however,
thought that Oceanus flowed around the known lands, not that it merely
grazed their southern border: it is met with in the east where the sun
rises, in the west (_Od._ iv. 567), and in the north (_Od._ v. 275).

That “Homer and all the ancient poets conceived the earth to be
a plane” was distinctly asserted by Geminus in the first century
B.C.,[363] and has been in general steadfastly maintained by moderns
like Voss,[364] Völcker,[365] Buchholtz,[366] Gladstone,[367]
Martin,[368] Schaefer,[369] and Gruppe.[370] It is therefore
intrinsically probable, commonly accepted, and not contradicted by what
is known of the literature of the time itself.[371]

=B.= HOMER’S GEOGRAPHY.—There is an extensive literature on the
geographic attainments of Homer, but it is for the most part rather sad
reading. The later Greeks had a local identification for every place
mentioned in the _Odyssey_; but conservative scholars at present are
chary of such, while agreed in confining the scene of the wanderings
to the western Mediterranean. Gladstone, in _Homer and the Homeric
Age_, has argued with ingenuity for the transfer of the scene from
the West to the East, and has constructed on this basis one of the
most extraordinary maps of “the ancient world” known. K. E. von Baer
(_Wo ist der Schauplatz d. Fahrten d. Odysseus zu finden? 1875_),
agreeing with Gladstone, “identifies” the Lastrygonian harbor with
Balaklava, and discovers the very poplar grove of Persephone. It is
a favorite scheme with others to place the wanderings outside the
columns of Hercules, among the Atlantic isles,[372] and to include
a circumnavigation of Africa. The better opinion seems to me that
which leaves the wanderings in the western Mediterranean, which
was considered to extend much farther north than it actually does.
The maps which represent the voyage within the actual coast lines
of the sea, and indicate the vessel passing through the Straits to
the ocean, are misleading. There is not enough given in the poem to
resolve the problem. The courses are vague, the distances uncertain or
conventional,—often neither are given; and the matter is complicated
by the introduction of a _floating_ island, and the mysterious voyages
from the land of the Phaeacians. It is a pleasant device adopted by
Buchholtz and others to assume that where the course is not given, the
wind last mentioned must be considered to still hold, and surely no one
will grudge the commentators this amelioration of their lot.

=C.= SUPPOSED REFERENCES TO AMERICA.—It is well known that Columbus’s
hopes were in part based on passages in classical authors.[373]
Glareanus, quoting Virgil in 1527, after Columbus’s discovery had made
the question of the ancient knowledge prominent, has been considered
the earliest to open the discussion;[374] and after this we find it a
common topic in the early general writers on America, like Las Casas
(_Historia General_), Ramusio (introd. vol. iii.), and Acosta (book i.
ch. 11, etc.)

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was not an uncommon
subject of academic and learned discussion.[375] It was a part of the
survey made by many of the writers who discussed the origin of the
American tribes, like Garcia,[376] Lafitau,[377] Samuel Mather,[378]
Robertson,[379] not to name others.

It was not till Humboldt compassed the subject in his _Examen Critique
de l’histoire de la géographie du nouveau continent_ (Paris, 1836),
that the field was fully scanned with a critical spirit, acceptable to
the modern mind. He gives two of the five volumes which comprise the
work to this part of his subject, and very little has been added by
later research, while his conclusions still remain, on the whole, those
of the most careful of succeeding writers. The French original is not
equipped with guides to its contents, such as a student needs; but this
is partly supplied by the index in the German translation.[380] The
impediments which the student encounters in the _Examen Critique_ are
a good deal removed in a book which is on the whole the easiest guide
to the sources of the subject,—Paul Gaffarel’s _Etude sur les rapports
de l’Amérique et de l’ancien continent avant Christophe Colomb_ (Paris,
1869).[381]

The literature of the supposed old-world communication with America
shows other phases of this question of ancient knowledge, and may be
divided, apart from the Greek embraced in the previous survey, into
those of the Egyptians, Phœnicians, Tyrians, Carthaginians, and Romans.

The Egyptian theory has been mainly worked out in the present century.
Paul Felix Cabrera’s _Teatro critico Americano_, printed with Rio’s
_Palenqué_ (Lond., 1822), formulates the proofs. An essay by A.
Lenoir, comparing the Central American monuments with those of Egypt,
is appended to Dupaix’s _Antiquités Méxicaines_ (1805). Delafield’s
_Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of America_ (Cincinnati,
1839), traces it to the Cushites of Egypt, and cites Garcia y Cubas,
_Ensayo de an Estudio Comparativo entre las Pirámides Egipcias y
Méxicanas_. Brasseur de Bourbourg discussed the question, _S’il existe
des sources de l’histoire primitive du Méxique dans les monuments
égyptiens de l’histoire primitive de l’ancien monde dans les monuments
américains?_ in his ed. of Landa’s _Relations des Choses de Yucatan_
(Paris, 1864). Buckle (_Hist. of Civilization_, i. ch. 2) believes the
Mexican civilization to have been strictly analogous to that of India
and Egypt. Tylor (_Early Hist. of Mankind_, 98) compares the Egyptian
hieroglyphics with those of the Aztecs. John T. C. Heaviside, _Amer.
Antiquities, or the New World the Old, and the Old World the New_
(London, 1868), maintains the reverse theory of the Egyptians being
migrated Americans. F. de Varnhagen works out his belief in _L’origine
touranienne des américains tupis-caribes et des anciens égyptiens
montrée principalement par la philologie comparée; et notice d’une
émigration en Amérique effectuée à travers l’Atlantique plusieurs
siècles avant notre ère_ (Vienne 1876).[382]

Aristotle’s mention of an island discovered by the Phœnicians was
thought by Gomara and Oviedo to refer to America. The elder leading
writers on the origin of the Indians, like Garcia, Horn, De Laet, and
at a later day Lafitau, discuss the Phœnician theory; as does Voss
in his annotations on Pomponius Mela (1658), and Count de Gebelin
in his _Monde primitif_ (Paris, 1781). In the present century the
question has been touched by Cabrera in Rio’s _Palenqué_ (1822). R. A.
Wilson, in his _New Conquest of Mexico_, assigns (ch. v.) the ruins
of Middle America to the Phœnicians. Morlot, in the _Actes de la
Société Jurassienne d’Emulation_ (1863), printed his “La découverte de
l’Amérique par les Phènicièns.” Gaffarel sums up the evidences in a
paper in the _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Amér._ (Nancy), i. 93.[383]

The Tyrian theory has been mainly sustained by a foolish book, by a
foolish man, _An Original History of Anc. America_ (London, 1843), by
Geo. Jones, later known as the Count Johannes (cf. Bancroft’s _Native
Races_, v. 73).

The Carthaginian discovery rests mainly on the statements of Diodorus
Siculus.[384]

Baron Zach in his _Correspondenz_ undertakes to say that Roman voyages
to America were common in the days of Seneca, and a good deal of wild
speculation has been indulged in.[385]

=D.= ATLANTIS.—The story of Atlantis rests solely upon the authority
of Plato, who sketched it in the _Timaeus_, and began an elaborated
version in the _Critias_ (if that fragment be by him), which old
writers often cite as the _Atlanticus_. This is frequently forgotten
by those who try to establish the truth of the story, who often write
as if all statements in print were equally available as “authorities,”
and quote as corroborations of the tale all mentions of it made by
classical writers, regardless of the fact that all are later than
Plato, and can no more than Ignatius Donnelly corroborate him. In
fact, the ancients knew no better than we what to make of the story,
and diverse opinions prevailed then as now. Many of these opinions
are collected by Proclus in the first book of his commentary on
the _Timaeus_,[386] and all shades of opinion are represented from
those who, like Crantor, accepted the story as simply historical, to
those who regarded it as a mere fable. Still others, with Proclus
himself, accepted it as a record of actual events, while accounting
for its introduction in Plato by a variety of subtile metaphysical
interpretations. Proclus reports that Crantor, the first commentator
upon Plato (_circa_ B.C. 300), asserted that the Egyptian priests said
that the story was written on pillars which were still preserved,[387]
and he likewise quotes from the _Ethiopic History_ of Marcellus, a
writer of whom nothing else is known, a statement that according to
certain historians there were seven islands in the external sea sacred
to Proserpine; and also three others of great size, one sacred to
Pluto, one to Ammon, and another, the middle one, a thousand stadia
in size, sacred to Neptune. The inhabitants of it preserved the
remembrance, from their ancestors, of the Atlantic island which existed
there, and was truly prodigiously great, which for many periods had
dominion over all the islands in the Atlantic sea, and was itself
sacred to Neptune.[388] Testimony like this is of little value in such
a case. What comes to us at third hand is more apt to need support
than give it; yet these two passages are the strongest evidence of
knowledge of Atlantis outside of Plato that is preserved. We do indeed
find mention of it elsewhere and earlier. Thus Strabo[389] says that
Posidonius (B.C. 135-51) suggested that, as the land was known to
have changed in elevation, Atlantis might not be a fiction, but that
such an island-continent might actually have existed and disappeared.
Pliny[390] also mentions Atlantis in treating of changes in the
earth’s surface, though he qualifies his quotation with “si Platoni
credimus.”[391] A mention of the story in a similar connection is made
by Ammianus Marcellinus.[392]

In the Scholia to Plato’s _Republic_ it is said that at the great
Panathenaea there was carried in procession a _peplum_ ornamented with
representations of the contest between the giants and the gods, while
on the _peplum_ carried in the little Panathenaea could be seen the
war of the Athenians against the Atlantides. Even Humboldt accepted
this as an independent testimony in favor of the antiquity of the
story; but Martin has shown that, apart from the total inconsistency
of the report with the expressions of Plato, who places the narration
of this forgotten deed of his countrymen at the celebration of the
festival of the little Panathenaea, the scholiast has only misread
Proclus, who states that the _peplum_ depicted the repulse of the
barbarians, _i. e._ Persians, by the Greeks.[393] To these passages
it is customary to add references to the Meropian continent of
Theopompus,[394] the Saturnian of Plutarch, the islands of Aristotle,
Diodorus and Pausanias,—which is very much as if one should refer to
the _New Atlantis_ of Bacon as evidence for the existence of More’s
_Utopia_.[395] Plutarch in his life of Solon attributes Solon’s having
given up the idea of an epic upon Atlantis to his advanced age rather
than to want of leisure; but there is nothing to show that he had any
evidence beyond Plato that Solon ever thought of such a poem, and Plato
does not say that Solon began the poem, though Plutarch appears to
have so understood him.[396] Thus it seems more probable that all the
references to Atlantis by ancient writers are derived from the story in
Plato than that they are independent and corroborative statements.

With the decline of the Platonic school at Alexandria even the name
of Atlantis readily vanished from literature. It is mentioned by
Tertullian,[397] and found a place in the strange system of Cosmas
Indicopleustes,[398] but throughout the Middle Ages little or nothing
was known of it. That it was not quite forgotten appears from its
mention in the _Image du Monde_, a poem of the thirteenth century,
still in MS., where it is assigned a location in the _Mer Betée_ (=
coagulée).[399] Plato was printed in Latin in 1483, 1484, 1491, and
in Greek in 1513, and in 1534 with the commentary of Proclus on the
Timaeus.[400] The _Timaeus_ was printed separately five times in the
sixteenth century, and also in a French and an Italian translation.[401]

The discovery of America doubtless added to the interest with which
the story was perused, and the old controversy flamed up with new
ardor. It was generally assumed that the account given by Plato was not
his invention. Opinions were, however, divided as to whether he had
given a correct account. Of those who believed that he had erred as
to the locality or as to the destruction of the island, some thought
that America was the true Atlantis, while others, with whose ideas
we have no concern here, placed Atlantis in Africa, Asia, or Europe,
as prejudice led them. Another class of scholars, sensible of the
necessity of adhering to the text of the only extant account, accepted
the whole narrative, and endeavored to find in the geography of the
Atlantic, or as indicated by the resemblances between the flora, fauna,
and civilization of America and of the old world, additional reasons
for believing that such an island had once existed, and had disappeared
after serving as a bridge by which communication between the continents
was for a time carried on. The discussion was prolonged over centuries,
and is not yet concluded. The wilder theories have been eliminated
by time, and the contest may now be said to be between those who
accept Plato’s tale as true and those who regard it as an invention.
The latter view is at present in favor with the most conservative
and careful scholars, but the other will always find advocates.
That Atlantis was America was maintained by Gomara, Guillaume de
Postel, Horn, and others incidentally, and by Birchrod in a special
treatise,[402] which had some influence even upon the geographer
Cellarius. In 1669 the Sansons published a map showing America divided
among the descendants of Neptune as Atlantis was divided, and even as
late as 1762 Vaugondy reproduced it.[403] In his edition of Plato,
Stallbaum expressed his belief that the Egyptians might have had some
knowledge of America.[404] Cluverius thought the story was due to a
knowledge of America.[405]

Very lately Hyde Clark has found in the Atlantis fable evidence
of a knowledge of America: he does not believe in the connecting
island Atlantis, but he holds that Plato misinterpreted some account
of America which had reached him.[406] Except for completeness it
is scarcely worth mentioning that Blackett, whose work can really
be characterized by no other word than absurd, sees America in
Atlantis.[407]

Here should be mentioned a work by Berlioux, which puts Euhemerus to
the blush in the manner in which history with much detail is extorted
from mythology.[408] He holds that Atlantis was the northwestern coast
of Africa; that under Ouranos and Atlas, astronomers and kings, it was
the seat of a great empire which had conquered portions of America and
kept a lively commercial intercourse with that country.

Ortelius in several places speaks of the belief that America was the
old Atlantis, and also attributes that belief to Mercator.[409]

That Atlantis might really have existed[410] and disappeared, leaving
the Atlantic islands as remnants, was too evident to escape notice.
Ortelius suggested that the island of Gades might be a fragment of
Atlantis,[411] and the doctrine was early a favorite. Kircher, in his
very curious work on the subterranean world, devotes considerable space
to Atlantis, rejecting its connection with America, while he maintains
its former existence, and holds that the Azores, Canaries, and other
Atlantic islands were formerly parts thereof, and that they showed
traces of volcanic fires in his day.[412]

Las Casas in his history of the Indies devoted an entire chapter to
Atlantis, quoting the arguments of Proclus, in his commentary on
Plato, in favor of the story, though he is himself more doubtful. He
also cites confirmative passages from Philo and St. Anselm, etc. He
considers the question of the Atlantic isles, and cites authorities for
great and sudden changes in the earth’s surface.[413]

The same view was taken by Becman,[414] and Fortia D’Urban. Turnefort
included America in the list of remnants; and De la Borde followed
Sanson in extending Atlantis to the farthest Pacific islands.[415] Bory
de St. Vincent,[416] again, limited Atlantis to the Atlantic, and gave
on a map his ideas of its contour.

D’Avezac maintains this theory in his _Iles africaines de l’Océan
Atlantique_,[417] p. 5-8. Carli devoted a large part of the second
volume of his _Lettere Americane_ to Atlantis, controverting Baily,
who placed Atlantis in Spitzbergen. Carli goes at considerable length
into the topographical and geological arguments in favor of its
existence.[418] The early naturalists, when the doctrine of great and
sudden changes in the earth’s surface was in favor, were inclined
to look with acquiescence on this belief. Even Lyell confessed a
temptation to accept the theory of an Atlantis island in the northern
Atlantic, though he could not see in the Atlantic islands trace of a
mid-Atlantic bridge.[419] About the middle of this century scholars
in several departments of learning, accepting the evidences of
resemblances between the product of the old and new world, were induced
to turn gladly to such a connection as would have been offered by
Atlantis; and the results obtained at about the same time by studies in
the pre-Columbian traditions and civilization of Mexico were brought
forward as supporting the same theory. That the Antilles were remnants
of Atlantis; that the Toltecs were descendants from the panic-stricken
fugitives of the great catastrophe, whose terrors were recorded in
their traditions, as well as in those of the Egyptians, was ardently
urged by Brasseur de Bourbourg.[420]

In 1859 Retzius announced that he found a close resemblance between the
skulls of the Guanches of the Canaries and the Guaranas of Brazil, and
recalled the Atlantis story to explain it.[421] In 1846 Forbes declared
his belief in the former existence of a bridge of islands in the North
Atlantic, and in 1856 Heer attempted to show the necessity of a similar
connection from the testimony of palæontological botany.

In 1860, Unger deliberately advocated the Atlantis hypothesis to
explain the likeness between the fossil flora of Europe and the living
flora of America, enumerating over fifty similar species; and Kuntze
found in the case of the tropical seedless banana, occurring at once in
America before 1492 and in Africa, a strong evidence of the truth of
the theory.[422]

A condensed review of the scientific side of the question is given
by A. Boué in his article _Ueber die Rolle der Veränderungen des
unorganischen Festen im grossen Massstabe in der Natur_.[423]

The deep-sea soundings taken in the Atlantic under the auspices of
the governments of the United States, England, and Germany resulted
in discoveries which gave a new impetus to the Atlantis theory.
It was shown that, starting from the Arctic plateau, a ridge runs
down the middle of the Atlantic, broadening toward the Azores, and
contracting again as it trends toward the northeast coast of South
America. The depth over the ridge is less than 1,000 fathoms, while
the valleys on either side average 3,000; it is known after the U. S.
vessel which took the soundings as the Dolphin ridge. A similar though
more uniformly narrow ridge was found by the “Challenger” expedition
(1873-76), extending from somewhat north of Ascension Island directly
south between South America and Africa. It is known as the Challenger
ridge. There is, beside, evidence for the existence of a ridge across
the tropical Atlantic, connecting the Dolphin and Challenger ridges.
Madeira, the Canaries, and the Cape Verde Islands are cut off from
these ridges by a deep valley, but are connected by shoals with the
continent. Upon the publication of the Challenger chart (_Special
Report_, vii. 1876), those who favored the theory of communication
between the continents were not slow to appropriate its disclosures in
their interests (_Nature_, Dec. 21, 1876, xv. 158). In March, 1877, W.
Stephen Mitchell delivered a lecture at South Kensington, wherein he
placed in juxtaposition the theory of Unger and the revelations of the
deep-sea soundings, when he announced, however, that he did not mean
to assert that these ridges had ever formed a connecting link above
water between the continents.[424] Others were less cautious,[425] but
in general this interpretation did not commend itself as strongly to
conservative men of science as it might have done a few years before,
because such men were gradually coming to doubt the fact of changes of
great moment in the earth’s surface, even those of great duration.

In 1869, M. Paul Gaffarel published his first treatise on
Atlantis,[426] advocating the truth of the story, and in 1880 he made
it the subject of deeper research, utilizing the facts which ocean
exploration had placed at command.[427] This is the best work which has
appeared upon this side of the question, and can only be set against
the earlier work by Martin.[428] The same theory has been supported
by D. P. de Novo y Colson, who went so far as to predict the ultimate
recovery of some Atlantean manuscripts from submarine grottoes of some
of the Atlantic islands,—a hope which surpasses Mr. Donnelly.[429]

Winchell found the theory too useful in his scheme of ethnology to be
rejected,[430] but it was reserved for Ignatius Donnelly to undertake
the arrangement of the deductions of modern science and the data of
old traditions into a set argument for the truth of Plato’s story. His
book,[431] in many ways a rather clever statement of the argument, so
evidently presented only the evidence in favor of his view, and that
with so little critical estimate of authorities and weight of evidence,
that it attracted only uncomplimentary notice from the scientific
press.[432] It was, however, the first long presentation of the case
in English, and as such made an impression on many laymen. In 1882
was also published the second volume of the _Challenger Narrative_,
containing a report by M. Renard on the geologic character of the
mid-Atlantic island known as St. Paul’s rocks. The other Atlantic
islands are confessedly of volcanic origin, and this, which laymen
interpreted in favor of the Atlantis theory, militated with men of
science against the view that they were remnants of a sunken continent.
St. Paul’s, however, was, as noted by Darwin, of doubtful character,
and Renard came to the conclusion that it was composed of crystalline
schists, and had therefore probably been once overlaid by masses since
removed.[433] This conclusion, which tended in favor of Atlantis, was
controverted by A. Geikie[434] and by M. E. Wadsworth,[435] (the latter
having personally inspected specimens,) on the ground that the rocks
were volcanic in origin, and that, had they been schists, the inference
of denudation would not follow. Dr. Guest declared that ethnologists
have fully as good cause as the botanists to regard Atlantis as a
fact.[436] A. J. Weise in treating of the Discoveries of America
adopted the Atlantis fable unhesitatingly, and supposes that America
was known to the Egyptians through that channel.[437]

That the whole story was invented by Plato as a literary ornament
or allegorical argument, or that he thus utilized a story which he
had really received from Egypt, but which was none the less a myth,
was maintained even among the early Platonists, and was the view of
Longinus. Even after the discovery of America many writers recognized
the fabulous touch in it, as Acosta,[438] who thought, “being well
considered, they are rediculous things, resembling rather to _Ovid’s_
tales then a Historie of Philosophie worthy of accompt,” and “cannot be
held for true but among children and old folkes”—an opinion adopted by
the judicious Cellarius.[439]

Among more recent writers, D’Anville, Bartoli,[440] Gosselin,[441]
Ukert,[442] approved this view.

Humboldt threw the weight of his great influence in favor of the
mythical interpretation, though he found the germ of the story in
the older geographic myth of the destruction of Lyctonia in the
Mediterranean (Orph. _Argonaut._, 1274, etc.);[443] while Martin, in
his work on the _Timaeus_, with great learning and good sense, reduced
the story to its elements, concluding that such an island had never
existed, the tale was not invented by Plato, but had really descended
to him from Solon, who had heard it in Egypt.

Prof. Jowett regards the entire narrative as “due to the imagination of
Plato, who could easily invent ‘Egyptians or anything else,’ and who
has used the name of Solon ... and the tradition of the Egyptian priest
to give verisimilitude to his story;”[444] and Bunbury is of the same
opinion, regarding the story as “a mere fiction,” and “no more intended
to be taken seriously ... than the tale of Er the Pamphylian.”[445] Mr.
Archer-Hind, the editor of the only separate edition of the _Timaeus_
which has appeared in England, thinks it impossible to determine
“whether Plato has invented the story from beginning to end, or whether
it really more or less represents some Egyptian legend brought home by
Solon,” which seems to be a fitting conclusion to the whole matter.

The literature of the subject is widely scattered, but a good deal has
been done bibliographically in some works which have been reserved
for special mention here. The earliest is the _Dissertation sur
l’Atlantide_, by Th. Henri Martin,[446] wherein, beside a carefully
reasoned examination of the story itself and similar geographic myths,
the opposing views of previous writers are set forth in the second
section, _Histoire des Systèmes sur l’Atlantide_, pp. 258-280. Gaffarel
has in like manner given a résumé of the literature, which comes down
later than that of Martin, in the two excellent treatises which he has
devoted to the subject; he is convinced of the existence of such an
island, but his work is marked by such care, orderliness, and fulness
of citations that it is of the greatest value.[447] The references
in these treatises are made with intelligence, and are, in general,
accurate and useful. That this is not the case with the work of Mr.
Donnelly deprives the volume of much of the value which it might have
had.[448]

=E.= FABULOUS ISLANDS OF THE ATLANTIC IN THE MIDDLE AGES.—Fabulous
islands belong quite as much to the domain of folk-lore as to that of
geography. The legends about them form a part of the great mass of
superstitions connected with the sea. What has been written about these
island myths is for the most part scattered in innumerable collections
of folk-tales and in out-of-the-way sources, and it does not lie within
the scope of the present sketch to track in these directions all that
has been said. It will not be out of place, however, to refer to a
few recent works where much information and many references can be
found. One of the fullest collections, though not over-well sorted,
is by Lieut. F. S. Bassett,[449] consisting of brief notes made in
the course of wide reading, well provided with references, which are,
however, often so abbreviated as to inflict much trouble on those who
would consult them,—an all too common fault. Of interest is a chapter
on _Les îles_, in a similar work by M. Paul Sebillot.[450] An island
home has often been assigned to the soul after death, and many legends,
some mediæval, some of great antiquity, deal with such islands, or with
voyages to them. Some account of these will be found in Bassett, and
particularly in an article by E. Beauvois in the _Revue de l’histoire
de Religion_,[451] where further references are to be found. Wm.
F. Warren has also collected many references to the literature of
this subject in the course of his endeavor to show that Paradise was
at the North Pole.[452] The long articles on _Eden_ and _Paradise_
in McClintock and Strong’s _Biblical Encyclopedia_ should also be
consulted.

In what way the fabulous islands of the Atlantic originated is not
known, nor has the subject been exhaustively investigated. The islands
of classical times, in part actual discoveries, in part born of
confused reports of actual discoveries, and in part probably purely
mythical, were very generally forgotten as ancient civilization
declined.[453] The other islands which succeeded them were in part
reminiscences of the islands known to the ancients or invented by
them, and in part products of a popular mythology, as old perhaps as
that of the Greeks, but until now unknown to letters. The writers who
have dealt with these islands have treated them generally from the
purely geographic point of view. The islands are known principally
from maps, beginning with the fourteenth century, and are not often
met with in descriptive works. Formaleoni, in his attempt to show
that the Venetians had discovered the West Indies prior to Columbus,
made studies of the older maps which naturally led him to devote
considerable attention to these islands.[454]

They are also considered by Zurla.[455] The first general account of
them was given by Humboldt in the _Examen Critique_,[456] and to what
he did little if anything has since been added. D’Avezac[457] treated
the subject, giving a brief sketch of the islands known to the Arab
geographers,—a curious matter which deserves more attention.

Still more recently Paul Gaffarel has treated the matter briefly, but
carefully.[458] A study of old maps by H. Wuttke, in the _Jahresbericht
des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Dresden_,[459] gives considerable attention
to the islands; and Theobald Fischer, in his commentary on the
collection of maps reproduced by Ongania, has briefly touched on the
subject,[460] as has Cornelio Desimoni in various papers in the _Atti
della Società Ligure di Storia patria_, xiv., and other years, in the
_Atti dell’ Acad. dei Nuova Lincei_, in the _Gionale ligustico_, etc.
R. H. Major’s _Henry the Navigator_ should also be consulted.[461]

* * * * *

Strictly speaking, the term mythical islands ought to include, if not
Frisland and Drogeo, at least the land of Bus, the island of Bimini
with its fountain of life, an echo of one of the oldest of folk-tales,
the island of Saxenburg, and the other non-existent islands, shoals,
and rocks, with which the imagination of sailors and cartographers have
connected the Atlantic even into the present century. In fact, the
name is by common consent restricted to certain islands which occur
constantly on old charts: the Island of St. Brandan, Antillia or Isle
of the Seven Cities, Satanaxio, Danmar, Brazil, Mayda, and Isla Verte.
It is interesting to note that the Arab geographers had their fabulous
islands, too, though so little is known of them that it is at present
impossible to say what relation they bear to those mentioned. They say
that Ptolemy assigned 25,000 islands to the Atlantic, but they name
and describe seventeen only, among which we may mention the Eternal
Islands (Canaries? Azores?),[462] El-Ghanam (Madeira?), Island of the
Two Sorcerers (Lancerote?), etc.[463]

There has been some difference of opinion as to which of the Atlantic
islands answer to the ancient conception of the Fortunate Islands. It
is probable that the idea is at the bottom of several of these, but it
may be doubted whether the island of St. Brandan is not entirely due to
the christianizing of this ancient fable.

We proceed now to examine the accounts of some of these islands.

ST. BRANDAN.—St. Brandan, or Brendan, who died May 16, 577, was Abbot
of Cluainfert, in Ireland, according to the legend, where he was
visited by a friend, Barontus, who told him that far in the ocean lay
an island which was the land promised to the saints. St. Brandan set
sail for this island in company with 75 monks, and spent seven years
upon the ocean, in two voyages (according to the Irish text in the
MS. _book of Lismore_, which is probably the most archaic form of the
legend), discovering this island and many others equally marvellous,
including one which turned out to be the back of a huge fish, upon
which they celebrated Easter. This story cannot be traced beyond the
eleventh century, its oldest form being a Latin prose version in a
MS. of that century. It is known also in French, English, and German
translations, both prose and verse, and was evidently a great favorite
in the Middle Ages. Intimately connected with the St. Brandan legend
is that of St. Malo, or Maclovius, Bishop of Aleth, in Armorica, a
disciple of St. Brandan, who accompanied his superior, and whose
eulogists, jealous of the fame of the Irish saint, provided for the
younger a voyage on his own account, with marvels transcending those
found by Brandan. His church-day is November 17th. The story of St.
Brandan is given by Humboldt and D’Avezac,[464] and by Gaffarel.[465]
Further accounts will be found in the _Acta Sanctorum_ of the
Bollandists,[466] and in the introductions and notes to the numerous
editions of the voyages, among which reference only need be made to the
original Latin edited by M. Jubinal,[467] and to the English version
edited by Thomas Wright for the Percy Society.[468] A Latin text of the
fourteenth century is now to be found in the _Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae
ex codice Salmanticensi nunc premium integre edita opera C. de Smedt
et J. de Backer_ (Edinb. etc., 1888), 4to, pp. 111-154. As is well
known, Philoponus gives an account of the voyages of St. Brandan with a
curious map, in which he places the island N. W. of Spain and N. E. of
the Canaries, or _Insulae Fortunatae_.[469] The island of St. Brandan
was at first apparently imagined in the north, but it afterward took a
more southerly location. Honoré d’Autun identifies it with a certain
island called Perdita, once discovered and then lost in the Atlantic;
we have here, perhaps, some reminiscence of the name “Aprositos,” which
Ptolemy bestows on one of the _Fortunatae Insulae_.[470] In some of
the earlier maps there is an inlet on the west coast of Ireland called
_Lacus Fortunatus_, which is packed with islands which are called
_Insulae Fortunatae_ or _Beatae_, and sometimes given as 300 or 368
in number.[471] But the Pizigani map of 1367 puts the _Isole dicte
Fortunate S. Brandany_ in the place of Madeira; and Behaim’s globe, in
1492, sets it down in the latitude of Cape de Verde,—a legend against
it assigning the discovery to St. Brandan in 565.

It is this island which was long supposed to be seen as a mountainous
land southeast of the Canaries. After the discovery of the Azores
expeditions were fitted out to search for it, and were continued until
1721, which are described by Viera, and have been since retold by all
writers on the subject.[472] The island was again reported as seen in
1759.

ANTILLIA, OR ISLE OF SEVEN CITIES.—The largest of these islands, the
one most persistent in its form and location, is Antillia, which is
depicted as a large rectangular island, extending from north to south,
lying in the mid-Atlantic about lat. 35° N. This island first appears
on the map of 1424, preserved at Weimar, and is found on the principal
maps of the rest of the century, notably in the Bianco of 1436.[473] On
some maps of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries appears a smaller
island under the name of Sette Citade, or Sete Ciudades, which is
properly another name for Antillia, as Toscanelli says in his famous
letter, wherein he recommended Antillia as likely to be useful as a
way-station on the India voyage. We owe to Behaim the preservation on
his globe of 1492 of the legend of this island. It was discovered and
settled, according to him, by refugees from Spain in 714, after the
defeat of King Roderick by the Moors. The settlers were accompanied by
an archbishop and six bishops, each of whom built him a town. There
is a story that the island was rediscovered by a Portuguese sailor in
1447.[474]

In apparent connection with _Antillia_ are the smaller islands _Danmar_
or _Tanmar_, _Reillo_ or _Royllo_, and _Satanaxio_. The latter alone
is of special interest. Formaleoni found near Antillia, on the map of
Bianco of 1436, an island with a name which he read as “Y.^d laman
Satanaxio,”—a name which much perplexed him, until he found, in an
old Italian romance, a legend that in a certain part of India a great
hand arose every day from the sea and carried off the inhabitants into
the ocean. Adapting this tale to the west, he translated the name
“Island of the hand of Satan,”[475] in which interpretation Humboldt
acquiesced. D’Avezac, however, was inclined to think that there were
two islands, one called Delamar, a name which elsewhere appears as
Danmar or Tanmar, and Satanaxio, or, as it appears on a map by Beccario
at Parma, _Satanagio_,[476] and suggests that the word is a corrupt
form for S. Atanaxio or S. Atanagio, i. e. St. Athanasius, with which
Gaffarel is inclined to agree.[477]

Formaleoni saw in _Antillia_ a foreknowledge of the Antilles, and
Hassel believed that North and South America were respectively
represented by Satanaxio and Antillia, with a strait between, just as
the American continent was indeed represented after the discovery. It
is certainly curious that Beccario designates the group of Antillia,
Satanagio, and Danmar, as _Isle de novo reperte_, the name afterwards
applied to the discoveries of Columbus; but it is not now believed that
the fifteenth-century islands were aught but geographical fancies. To
transfer their names to the real discoveries was of course easy and
natural.[478]

BRAZIL.—Among the islands which prefigured the Azores on
fourteenth-century maps appears _I. de Brazi_ on the Medicean portulano
of 1351, and it is apparently Terceira or San Miguel.[479] On the
Pizigani map of 1367 appear three islands with this name, _Insula de
Bracir_ or _Bracie_, two not far from the Azores, and one off the south
or southeast end of Ireland. On the Catalan map of 1375 is an _Insula
de Brazil_ in the southern part of the so-called Azores group, and an
_Insula de Brazil_ (?) applied to a group of small islands enclosed
in a heavy black ring west of Ireland. The same reduplication occurs
in the Solerio of 1385, in a map of 1426 preserved at Regensburg,
in Bianco’s map of 1436, and in that of 1448: here _de Braxil_ is
the easternmost of the Azores group (i. e. _y de Colombi, de Zorzi_,
etc.), while the large round island—more like a large ink-blot than
anything else—west of Ireland is _y de Brazil d. binar_.[480] In a map
in St. Mark’s Library, Venice, dated about 1450, Brazil appears in
four places. Fra Mauro puts it west of Ireland,[481] and it so appears
in Ptolemy of 1519, and Ramusio in 1556; but Mercator and Ortelius
inscribe it northwest of the Azores.

Humboldt has shown[482] that brazil-wood, being imported into Europe
from the East Indies long before the discovery of America, gave its
name to the country in the west where it was found in abundance, and
he infers that the designation of the Atlantic island was derived from
the same source. The duplication of the name, however, seems to point
to a confusion of different traditions, and in the Brazil off Ireland
we doubtless have an attempt to establish the mythical island of _Hy
Brazil_, or _O’Brasile_, which plays a part as a vanishing island in
Irish legends, although it cannot be traced to its origin. In the epic
literature of Ireland relating to events of the sixth and subsequent
centuries, and which was probably written down in the twelfth, there
are various stories of ocean voyages, some involuntary, some voluntary,
and several, like the voyage of the sons of Ua Corra about 540, of St.
Brandan about 560, and of Mailduin in the eighth century, taking place
in the Atlantic, and resulting in the discovery of numerous fabulous
islands.[483] The name of Brazil does not appear in these early
records, but it seems to belong to the same class of legends.[484]
It is first mentioned, as far as I know, by William Betoner, called
William of Worcester, who calls the island _Brasyle_ and _Brasylle_,
and says that July 15, 1480, his brother-in-law, John Jay, began a
voyage from Bristol in search of the island, returning Sept. 18 without
having found it.[485] This evidently belongs to the series of voyages
made by Bristol men in search of this island, which is mentioned
by Pedro d’Ayala, the Spanish ambassador to England, in his famous
letter of July 25, 1498, where he says that such voyages in search of
_Brazylle_ and the _seven cities_ had been made for seven years past,
“according to the fancies of the Genoese,” meaning Sebastian Cabot.[486]

It would seem that the search for Brazil was of older date than Cabot’s
arrival. He probably gave an additional impetus to the custom, adding
to the stories of the fairy isles the legends of the _Sette Citade_ or
_Antillia_. Hardiman,[487] quoting from a MS. history of Ireland, in
the library of the Royal Irish Academy, written about 1636, mentions
an “iland, which lyeth far att sea, on the west of Connaught, and some
times is perceived by the inhabitants of the _Oules_ and _Iris_ ... and
from Saint Helen Head. Like wise several seamen have discovered it, ...
one of whom, named Captain Rich, who lives about Dublin, of late years
had a view of the land, and was so neere that he discovered a harbour
... but could never make to land” because of “a mist which fell upon
him.... Allsoe in many old mappes ... you still find it by the name of
_O’Brasile_ under the longitude of 03°, 00´, and the latitude of 50°
20´.”[488] In 1675 a pretended account of a visit to this island was
published in London, which is reprinted by Hardiman.[489]

An account of the island as seen from Arran given in O’Flaherty’s
_Sketch of the Island of Arran_,[490] is quoted by H. Halliday
Sterling, _Irish Minstrelsy_, p. 307 (London, 1887). Mr. Marshall, in a
note in _Notes and Queries_, Sept. 22, 1883 (6th s., viii. 224), quotes
Guest, _Origines Celticae_ (London, 1883), i. 126, and R. O’Flaherty,
_Ogygia, sive rerum Hibernicarum chronologiae_ (London, 1685; also
in English translation, Dublin, 1793), as speaking of O’Brazile. The
latter work I have not seen. Mr. Marshall also quotes a familiar
allusion to it by Jeremy Taylor (_Dissuasive from Popery_, 1667). This
note was replied to in the same periodical, Dec. 15, 1883, by Mr.
Kerslake, “N.” and W. Fraser. Fraser’s interest had been attracted by
the entry of the island—much smaller than usual—on a map of the French
Geographer Royal, Le Sieur Tassin, 1634-1652, and he read a paper
before the Geological Society of Ireland, Jan. 20, 1870, suggesting
that Brazil might be the present _Porcupine Bank_, once above water.
On the same map _Rockall_ is laid down as two islands, where but a
solitary rock is now known.[491] Brasil appears on the maps of the last
two centuries, with _Mayda_ and _Isle Verte_, and even on the great
Atlas by Jefferys, 1776, is inserted, although called “imaginary island
of O’Brasil.” It grows constantly smaller, but within the second half
of this century has appeared on the royal Admiralty charts as _Brazil
Rock_.[492]

It would be too tedious to enumerate the numerous other imaginary
islands of the Atlantic to which clouds, fogs, and white caps have
from time to time given rise. They are marked on all charts of the
last century in profusion; mention, however, may be made of the “land
of _Bus_” or _Busse_, which Frobisher’s expedition coasted along in
1576, and which has been hunted for with the lead even as late as 1821,
though in vain.

=F.= TOSCANELLI’S ATLANTIC OCEAN.—It has been shown elsewhere (Vol.
II. pp. 30, 31, 38, 90, 101, 103) that Columbus in the main accepted
the view of the width of the Atlantic, on the farther side of which
Asia was supposed to be, which Toscanelli had calculated; and it has
not been quite certain what actual measurement should be given to this
width, but recent discoveries tend to make easier a judgment in the
matter.

When Humboldt wrote the _Examen Critique_, Toscanelli’s letter to
Columbus, of unknown date,[493] enclosing a copy of the one he sent
to Martinez in 1474, was known only in the Italian form in Ulloa’s
translation of the _Historie del S. D. Fernando Colombo_ (Venice,
1571), and in the Spanish translation of Ulloa’s version by Barcia
in the _Historiades primitivos de las Indias occidentales_ (Madrid,
1749), i. 5 bis, which was reprinted by Navarrete, _Coleccion de los
viages y descubrimientos_, etc., ii. p. 1. In the letter to Martinez,
in this form, it is said that there are in the map which accompanied it
twenty-six _spaces_ between Lisbon and _Quisai_, each space containing
250 miles according to the Ulloa version, but according to the
re-translation of Barcia 150 miles. This, with several other changes
made by Barcia, were followed by Navarrete and accepted as correct
by Humboldt, who severely censures Ximenes for adopting the Italian
rendering in his _Gnomone fiorent_. But the Latin copy of the letter in
Columbus’s handwriting, discovered by Harrisse and made public (with
fac-simile) in his _D. Fernando Colon_ (Seville, 1871),[494] sustained
the correctness of Ulloa’s version, giving 250 miliaria to the space.
This authoritative rendering also showed that while the translator
had in general followed the text, he had twice inserted a translation
of miles into degrees, and once certainly, incorrectly, making in
one place 100 miles = 35 leagues, and in another, 2,500 miles = 225
leagues. Probably this discrepancy led to the omissions made by Barcia;
he was wrong, however, in changing the number 250, supposing the 150
not to be a typographical error, and in omitting the phrase, “which
space (from Lisbon to Quinsai) is about the third part of the sphere.”
The Latin text showed, too, that this whole passage about distances was
not in the Martinez letter at all, but formed the end of the letter
to Columbus, since in the Latin it follows the date of the Martinez
letter, into which it has been interpolated by a later hand. Finally
the publication of Las Casas’s _Historia de las Indias_ (Madrid, 1875)
gave us another Spanish version, which differs from Barcia’s in closely
agreeing with the Ulloa version, and which gives the length of a space
at 250 miles.

There were then 26 × 250 = 6500 miles between Lisbon and Quinsai, and
this was about one third of the circumference of the earth in this
latitude, but it is not clear whether Roman or Italian miles were meant.

If the MS. in the Biblioteca Nazionale at Florence [_Cod.
Magliabechiano Classe_ xi. _num._ 121], described by G. Uzielli in the
_Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana_, x. 1 (1873), 13-28
(“Ricerche intorno a Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, ii. Della grandezza
della terra secondo Paolo Toscanelli”), actually represents the work
of Toscanelli, it is of great value in settling this point. The MS.
is inscribed “Discorso di M^o Paolo Puteo Toscanelli sopra la cometa
del 1456.” In it were found two papers: 1. A plain projection in
rectangular form apparently for use in sketching a map. It is divided
into spaces, each subdivided into five degrees, and numbers 36 spaces
in length. It is believed by Sig. Uzielli that this is the form used in
the map sent to Martinez. If this be so, the 26 spaces between Lisbon
and Quinsai = 130°. 2. A list of the latitude and longitude of various
localities, at the end of which is inscribed this table:

Gradus continet .68 miliaria minus 3ª unius.
Miliarum tria millia bracchia.
Bracchium duos palmas.
Palmus. 12. uncias. 7. filos.

The Florentine mile of 3,000 braccia da terra contains, according to
Sig. Uzielli, 1653.6^m. (as against 1481^m. to the Roman mile). Hence
Toscanelli estimated a degree of the meridian at 111,927^m, or only
552^m. more than the mean adopted by Bessel and Bayer. Since, according
to the letter, one space = 250 miles, and by the map one space = 5°,
we have 50 miles to a degree, which would point to an estimate for a
latitude of about 42°, allowing 67 2-3 miles to an equatorial degree.
Lisbon was entered in the table of Alphonso at 41° N. (true lat. 38°
41’ N.) By this reckoning Quinsai would fall 124° west of Lisbon or
10° west of San Francisco. It does not appear that the Florence MS.
can be traced directly to Toscanelli, but the probability is certainly
strong that we have here some of the astronomer’s working papers, and
that Ximenes did not deserve the rebuke administered by Humboldt for
allowing 250 miles to a space, and assuming that a space contained
five degrees. Certainly Humboldt’s use of 150 miles is unjustifiable,
and his calculation of 52° as the angular distance between Lisbon and
Quinsai, according to Toscanelli, is very much too small, whatever
standard we take for the mile. If we follow Uzielli, the result
obtained by Ruge (_Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, p.
230), 104°, is also too small.[495]

[Illustration: GAFFAREL’S MAP.

From a map by Gaffarel, “L’Océan Atlantique et les restes de
l’Atlantide,” in the _Revue de Géographie_, vi. p. 400, accompanying a
paper by Gaffarel in the numbers for April-July, 1880, and showing such
rocks and islets as have from time to time been reported as seen, or
thought to have been seen, and which Gaffarel views as vestiges of the
lost continent.]

=G.= EARLY MAPS OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.—_By the Editor_—The
cartographical history of the Atlantic Ocean is, even down to our own
day, an odd mixture of uncertain fact and positive fable. The island of
Bresil or Brazil was only left off the British Admiralty charts within
twenty years (see Vol. II. p. 36), and editions of the most popular
atlases, like Colton’s, within twenty-five years have shown Jacquet
Island, the Three Chimneys, Maida, and others lying in the mid-sea.
It may possibly be a fair question if some of the reports of islands
and rocks made within recent times may not have had a foundation in
temporary uprisings from the bed of the sea.[496] We must in this
country depend for the study of this subject on the great collections
of facsimiles of early maps made by Santarem, Kunstmann, Jomard, and on
the Sammlung which is now in progress at Venice, under the editing of
Theobald Fischer, and published by Ongania.[497]

We may place the beginning of the Atlantic cartography[498] in the map
of Marino Sanuto in 1306, who was first of the nautical map-makers of
that century to lay down the Canaries;[499] but Sanuto was by no means
sure of their existence, if we may judge from his omission of them in
his later maps.[500]

[Illustration: FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

A conventional map of the older period, which is given in Santarem’s
_Atlas_ as a “Mappemonde qui se trouve au revers d’une Médaille du
Commencement du XVe Siècle.”]

[Illustration

NOTE.—The above maps are reduced a little from the engraving in
_Allgemeine Geographische Ephemeriden_ (Weimar, 1807), vol. xxiv. p.
248. The smaller is an extract from that of Fr. Pizigani (1367), and
the larger that of Andreas Bianco (1436). There is another fac-simile
of the latter in F. M. Erizzo’s _Le Scoperte Artiche_ (Venice, 1855).]

[Illustration: CATALAN MAP, 1375.

After a sketch in St. Martin’s _Atlas_, pl. vii.]

There are two maps of Hygden (A.D. 1350), but the abundance of
islands which they present can hardly be said to show more than a
theory.[501] There is more likelihood of well considered work in the
Portolano Laurenziano-Gaddiano (A.D. 1351), preserved in the Biblioteca
Mediceo-Laurenziana at Florence, of which Ongania, of Venice, published
a fac-simile in 1881.[502] There are two maps of Francisco Pizigani,
which seem to give the Canaries, Madeira, and the Azores better than
any earlier one. One of these maps (1367) is in the national library
at Parma, and the other (1373) is in the Ambrosian library at Milan
(_Studi biog. e bibliog._, vol. ii. pp. viii, 57, 58). The 1367 map
is given by Jomard and Santarem. The most famous of all these early
maps is the Catalan Mappemonde of 1375, preserved in the great library
at Paris. It gives the Canaries and other islands further north, but
does not reach to the Azores.[503] These last islands are included,
however, in another Catalan planisphere of not far from the same era,
which is preserved in the national library at Florence, and has been
reproduced by Ongania (1881).[504] The student will need to compare
other maps of the fourteenth century, which can be found mentioned in
the _Studi_, etc., with references in the _Kohl Maps_, sect. 1. The
phototypic series of Ongania is the most important contribution to
this study, though the yellow tints of the original too often render
the details obscurely.[505] So for the next century there are the same
guides; but a number of conspicuous charts may well be mentioned. Chief
among them are those of Andrea Bianco contained in the Atlas (1436),
in the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice, published by Ongania (1871), who
also published (1881) the Carta Nautica of Bianco, in the Biblioteca
Ambrosiana in Milan.[506]

[Illustration: ANDREAS BENINCASA, 1476.

After a sketch in St. Martin’s _Atlas_, pl. vii.]

The 1436 map has been reproduced in colors in Pietro Amat de San
Filippo’s _Planisferio disegnato del 1436_ (_Bollettino Soc.
Geografia_, 1879, p. 560); and a sketch of the Atlantic part is given
in the _Allgem. Geog. Ephemeriden_, xxiv. no. 248.[507]

During the next twenty years or more, the varying knowledge of the
Atlantic is shown in a number of maps, a few of which may be named:—The
Catalan map “de Gabriell de Valsequa, faite à Mallorcha en 1439,”
which shows the Azores, and which Vespucius is said to have owned
(Santarem, pl. 54). The planisphere “in lingua latina dell’ anno 1447,”
in the national library at Florence (Ongania, 1881). The world maps of
Giovanni Leardo (Johannes Leardus), 1448 and 1452, the former of which
is given in Santarem (pl. 25,—also _Hist. Cartog._ iii. 398), and the
latter reproduced by Ongania, 1880. One is in the Ambrosian library,
and the other in the Museo Civico at Vicenza (cf. _Studi_, etc., ii.
72, 73). In the Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuele at Rome there is the
sea-chart of Bartolomaeus de Pareto of 1455, on which we find laid down
the Fortunate Islands, St. Brandan’s, Antillia, and Royllo.[508] The
World of Fra Mauro[509] has been referred to elsewhere in the present
volume.

[Illustration: LAON GLOBE.

From a “projection Synoptique Cordiforme” in the _Bull. de la Soc. de
Géog._, 4e série, xx. (1860), in connection with a paper by D’Avezac
(p. 398). Cf. Oscar Peschel in _Ausland_ May 12, 1861; also in his
_Abhandlungen_, i. 226.]

We come now to the conditions of the Atlantic cartography immediately
preceding the voyage of Columbus. The most prominent specimens of this
period are the various marine charts of Grogioso and Andreas Benincasa
from 1461 to 1490. Some of these are given by Santarem, Lelewel, and
St. Martin; but the best enumeration of them is given in the _Studi
biog. e bibliog. della Soc. Geog. Ital._ ii. 66, 77-84, 92, 99, 100.
Of Toscanelli’s map of 1474, which influenced Columbus, we have no
sketch, though some attempts have been made to reconstruct it from
descriptions. (Cf. Vol. II. p. 103; Harrisse’s _Christophe Colomb._,
i. 127, 129.) Brief mention may also be made of the Laon globe of 1486
(dated 1493), of which D’Avezac gives a projection in the _Bulletin
de la Soc. de Géog._ xx. 417; of the Majorcan (Catalan) Carta nautica
of about 1487 (cf. _Studi_, etc., ii. no. 397; _Bull. Soc. Géog._, i.
295); of the chart in the Egerton MSS., Brit. Mus., made by Christofalo
Soligo about the same time, and which has no dearth of islands (cf.
_Studi_, etc., i. 89); of those of Nicola Fiorin, Canepa, and Giacomo
Bertran (_Studi_, etc., ii. 82, 86, and no. 398). The globe of Behaim
(1492) gives the very latest of these ante-Columbian views (see Vol.
II. 105).

[Illustration: _A Fac-simile from_ BORDONE, 1547.]

[Illustration: END OF FIFTEENTH CENTURY. (Santarem’s _Atlas_.)]

It took, after this, a long time for the Atlantic to be cleared, even
partially, of these intrusive islands, and to bring the proper ones
into accurate relations. How the old ideas survived may be traced in
the maps of Ruysch, 1508 (Vol. II. 115); Coppo, 1528, with its riot of
islands (II. 127); Mercator, 1541 (II. 177); Bordone, 1547; Zaltière,
1566 (II. 451); Porcacchi, 1572 (II. 453); Ortelius, 1575, 1587,—not to
continue the series further.

[Illustration]

NOTE.—The left of the annexed cuts is from Bordone’s _Isolario_, 1547;
the right one is an extract from the “World” of Ortelius, 1587.

CHAPTER II.

PRE-COLUMBIAN EXPLORATIONS.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR, THE EDITOR.

IN the previous chapter, in attempting to trace the possible connection
of the new world with the old in the dimmest past, it was hard, if
not hopeless, to find among the entangled myths a path that we could
follow with any confidence into the field of demonstrable history.
It is still a doubt how far we exchange myths for assured records,
when we enter upon the problems of pre-Columbian explorations, which
it is the object of the present chapter to discuss. We are to deal
with supposable colonizations, from which the indigenous population
of America, as the Spaniards found it, was sprung, wholly or in part;
and we are to follow the venturesome habits of navigators, who sought
experience and commerce in a strange country, and only incidentally
left possible traces of their blood in the peoples they surprised. If
Spain, Italy, and England gained consequence by the discoveries of
Columbus and Cabot, there were other national prides to be gratified
by the priority which the Basques, the Normans, the Welsh, the Irish,
and the Scandinavians, to say nothing of Asiatic peoples, claimed as
their share in the gift of a new world to the old. The records which
these peoples present as evidences of their right to be considered the
forerunners of the Spanish and English expeditions have in every case
been questioned by those who are destitute of the sympathetic credence
of a common kinship. The claims which Columbus and Cabot fastened upon
Spain and England, to the disadvantage of Italy, who gave to those
rival countries their maritime leaders, were only too readily rejected
by Italy herself, when the opportunity was given to her of paling such
borrowed glories before the trust which she placed in the stories of
the Zeni brothers.

* * * * *

There is not a race of eastern Asia—Siberian, Tartar, Chinese,
Japanese, Malay, with the Polynesians—which has not been claimed
as discoverers, intending or accidental, of American shores, or as
progenitors, more or less perfect or remote, of American peoples; and
there is no good reason why any one of them may not have done all that
is claimed. The historical evidence, however, is not such as is based
on documentary proofs of indisputable character, and the recitals
advanced are often far from precise enough to be convincing in details,
if their general authenticity is allowed. Nevertheless, it is much
more than barely probable that the ice of Behring Straits or the line
of the Aleutian Islands was the pathway of successive immigrations,
on occasions perhaps far apart, or may be near together; and there is
hardly a stronger demonstration of such a connection between the two
continents than the physical resemblances of the peoples now living
on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean in these upper latitudes, with
the similarity of the flora which environs them on either shore.[510]
It is quite as conceivable that the great northern current, setting
east athwart the Pacific, should from time to time have carried along
disabled vessels, and stranded them on the shores of California and
farther north, leading to the infusion of Asiatic blood among whatever
there may have been antecedent or autochthonous in the coast peoples.
It is certainly in this way possible that the Chinese or Japanese may
have helped populate the western slopes of the American continent.
There is no improbability even in the Malays of southeastern Asia
extending step by step to the Polynesian islands, and among them and
beyond them, till the shores of a new world finally received the
impress of their footsteps and of their ethnic characteristics. We may
very likely recognize not proofs, but indications, along the shores of
South America, that its original people constituted such a stock, or
were increased by it.

* * * * *

As respects the possible early connections of America on the side of
Europe, there is an equally extensive array of claims, and they have
been set forth, first and last, with more persistency than effect.[511]

Leaving the old world by the northern passage, Iceland lies at the
threshold of America. It is nearer to Greenland than to Norway, and
Greenland is but one of the large islands into which the arctic
currents divide the North American continent. Thither, to Iceland, if
we identify the localities in Geoffrey of Monmouth, King Arthur sailed
as early as the beginning of the sixth century, and overcame whatever
inhabitants he may have found there. Here too an occasional wandering
pirate or adventurous Dane had glimpsed the coast.[512] Thither, among
others, came the Irish, and in the ninth century we find Irish monks
and a small colony of their countrymen in possession.[513] Thither the
Gulf Stream carries the southern driftwood, suggesting sunnier lands
to whatever race had been allured or driven to its shelter.[514] Here
Columbus, when, as he tells us,[515] he visited the island in 1477,
found no ice. So that, if we may place reliance on the appreciable
change of climate by the precession of the equinoxes, a thousand years
ago and more, when the Norwegians crossed from Scandinavia and found
these Christian Irish there,[516] the island was not the forbidding
spot that it seems with the lapse of centuries to be becoming.

[Illustration: NORSE SHIP.

This cut is copied from one in Nordenskiöld’s _Voyage of the Vega_
(London, 1881), vol. i. p. 50, where it is given as representing the
vessel found at Sandefjord in 1880. It is drawn from the restoration
given in _The Viking ship discovered at Gokstad in Norway (Langskibet
fra Gokstad ved Sandefjord) described by N. Nicholaysen_ (Christiania,
1882). The original vessel owed its preservation to being used as
a receptacle for the body of a Viking chief, when he was buried
under a mound. When exhumed, its form, with the sepulchral chamber
midships, could be made out, excepting that the prow and stern in their
extremities had to be restored. In the ship and about it were found,
beside some of the bones of a man, various appurtenances of the vessel,
and the remains of horses buried with him. They are all described in
the book above cited, from which the other cuts herewith given of the
plan of the vessel and one of its rowlocks are taken. The _Popular
Science Monthly_, May, 1881, borrowing from _La Nature_, gives a view
of the ship as when found _in situ_. There are other accounts in _The
Antiquary_, Aug., 1880; Dec., 1881; 1882, p. 87; _Scribner’s Magazine_,
Nov., 1887, by John S. White; _Potter’s American Monthly_, Mar., 1882.
Cf. the illustrated paper, “Les navires des peuples du nord,” by Otto
Jorell, in _Congrès Internat. des Sciences géographiques_ (Paris, 1875;
pub. 1878), i. 318.]

Of an earlier discovery in 1872 there is an account in _The ancient
vessel found in the parish of Tune, Norway_ (Christiania, 1872). This
is a translation by Mr. Gerhard Gadé of a Report in the Proceedings of
the Society for preserving Norwegian Antiquities. (Cf. _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xiii. p. 10.) This vessel was also buried under a mound,
and she was 43½ feet long and four feet deep.

There is in the Nicholaysen volume a detailed account of the naval
architecture of the Viking period, and other references may be made
to Otto Jorell’s _Les navires des peuples du Nord_, in the _Congrès
internat. des sciences géog., compte rendu, 1875_ (1878, i. 318);
_Mémoires de la Soc. royal des Antiquaires du Nord_ (1887, p. 280);
Preble, in _United Service_ (May, 1883, p. 463), and in his _Amer.
Flag_, p. 159; De Costa’s _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, p.
xxxvii; Fox’s _Landfall of Columbus_, p. 3; _Pop. Science Monthly_,
xix. 80; _Van Nostrand’s Eclectic Engineering Mag._, xxiii. 320; _Good
Words_, xxii. 759; Higginson’s _Larger History U. S._ for cuts; and J.
J. A. Worsaae’s _Prehistory of the North_ (Eng. transl., London,1886)
for the burial in ships.

There is a paper on the daring of the Norsemen as navigators by G.
Brynjalfson (_Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, Copenhagen, p.
140), entitled “Jusqu’où les anciens Scandinaves ont-ils pénétré vers
le pôle arctique dans leurs expéditions à la mer glaciale?”

It was in A.D. 875 that Ingolf, a jarl[517] of Norway, came to
Iceland with Norse settlers. They built their habitation at first where
a pleasant headland seemed attractive, the present Ingolfshofdi, and
later founded Reikjavik, where the signs had directed them; for certain
carved posts, which they had thrown overboard as they approached
the island, were found to have drifted to that spot. The Christian
Irish preferred to leave their asylum rather than consort with the
new-comers, and so the island was left to be occupied by successive
immigrations of the Norse, which their king could not prevent. In
the end, and within half a century, a hardy little republic—as for
a while it was—of near seventy thousand inhabitants was established
almost under the arctic circle. The very next year (A.D. 876) after
Ingolf had come to Iceland, a sea-rover, Gunnbiorn, driven in his ship
westerly, sighted a strange land, and the report that he made was not
forgotten.[518] Fifty years later, more or less, for we must treat the
dates of the Icelandic sagas with some reservation, we learn that a
wind-tossed vessel was thrown upon a coast far away, which was called
Ireland the Great. Then again we read of a young Norwegian, Eric the
Red, not apparently averse to a brawl, who killed his man in Norway
and fled to Iceland, where he kept his dubious character; and again
outraging the laws, he was sent into temporary banishment,—this time
in a ship which he fitted out for discovery; and so he sailed away
in the direction of Gunnbiorn’s land, and found it. He whiled away
three years on its coast, and as soon as he was allowed ventured back
with the tidings, while, to propitiate intending settlers, he said
he had been to Greenland, and so the land got a sunny name. The next
year, which seems to have been A.D. 985, he started on his return with
thirty-five ships, but only fourteen of them reached the land. Wherever
there was a habitable fiord, a settlement grew up, and the stream of
immigrants was for a while constant and considerable. Just at the end
of the century (A.D. 999), Leif, a son of Eric, sailed back to Norway,
and found the country in the early fervor of a new religion; for King
Olaf Tryggvesson had embraced Christianity and was imposing it on his
people. Leif accepted the new faith, and a priest was assigned to him
to take back to Greenland; and thus Christianity was introduced into
arctic America. So they began to build churches[519] in Greenland, the
considerable ruins of one of which stand to this day.[520] The winning
of Iceland to the Church was accomplished at the same time.

[Illustration: PLAN OF VIKING SHIP.]

There were two centres of settlement on the Greenland coast, not where
they were long suspected to be, on the coast opposite Iceland, nor as
supposed after the explorations of Baffin’s Bay, on both the east and
west side of the country; but the settlers seem to have reached and
doubled Cape Farewell, and so formed what was called their eastern
settlement (Eystribygd), near the cape, while farther to the north they
formed their western colony (Westribygd).[521] Their relative positions
are still involved in doubt.

[Illustration: ROWLOCK OF THE VIKING SHIP.]

In the next year after the second voyage of Eric the Red, one of the
ships which were sailing from Iceland to the new settlement, was driven
far off her course, according to the sagas, and Bjarni Herjulfson, who
commanded the vessel, reported that he had come upon a land, away to
the southwest, where the coast country was level; and he added that
when he turned north it took him nine days to reach Greenland.[522]
Fourteen years later than this voyage of Bjarni, which is said to have
been in A.D. 986,—that is, in the year 1000 or thereabouts,—Leif, the
same who had brought the Christian priest to Greenland, taking with him
thirty-five companions, sailed from Greenland in quest of the land seen
by Bjarni, which Leif first found, where a barren shore stretched back
to ice-covered mountains, and because of the stones there he called the
region Hellu land. Proceeding farther south, he found a sandy shore,
with a level forest-country back of it, and because of the woods it was
named Markland. Two days later they came upon other land, and tasting
the dew upon the grass they found it sweet. Farther south and westerly
they went, and going up a river came into an expanse of water, where
on the shores they built huts to lodge in for the winter, and sent
out exploring parties. In one of these, Tyrker, a native of a part of
Europe where grapes grew, found vines hung with their fruit, which
induced Leif to call the country Vinland.

[Illustration: NORSE BOAT USED AS A HABITATION.

From Viollet-le-Duc’s _Habitation humaine_ (Paris, 1875).]

[Illustration: NORMAN SHIP FROM THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY.

From Worsaae’s _Danes and Norwegians in England_, etc. “With the
exception of very imperfect representation carved on rocks and runic
stones [see Higginson’s _Larger History_, p. 27], there are no images
left in the countries of Scandinavia of ships of the olden times; but
the tapestry at Bayeux, in Normandy, is a contemporary evidence of the
appearance of the Normanic ships.”]

[Illustration: SCANDINAVIAN FLAGS.

This group from Worsaae’s _Danes and Norwegians in England, etc._, p.
64, shows the transition from the raven to the cross.]

Attempts have been made to identify these various regions by the
inexact accounts of the direction of their sailing, by the very general
descriptions of the country, by the number of days occupied in going
from one point to another, with the uncertainty if the ship sailed
at night, and by the length of the shortest day in Vinland,—the last
a statement that might help us, if it could be interpreted with a
reasonable concurrence of opinion, and if it were not confused with
other inexplicable statements. The next year Leif’s brother, Thorvald,
went to Vinland with a single ship, and passed three winters there,
making explorations meanwhile, south and north. Thorfinn Karlsefne,
arriving in Greenland in A.D. 1006, married a courageous widow named
Gudrid, who induced him to sail with his ships to Vinland and make
there a permanent settlement, taking with him livestock and other
necessaries for colonization. Their first winter in the place was a
severe one; but Gudrid gave birth to a son, Snorre, from whom it is
claimed Thorwaldsen, the Danish sculptor, was descended. The next
season they removed to the spot where Leif had wintered, and called the
bay Hóp. Having spent a third winter in the country, Karlsefne, with a
part of the colony, returned to Greenland.

[Illustration: FROM OLAUS MAGNUS.

Fac-simile of Norse weapons from the _Historia_ of Olaus Magnus (b.
1490; d. 1568), Rome, 1555, p. 222.]

The saga then goes on to say that trading voyages to the settlement
which had been formed by Karlsefne now became frequent, and that the
chief lading of the return voyages was timber, which was much needed in
Greenland. A bishop of Greenland, Eric Upsi, is also said to have gone
to Vinland in A.D. 1121. In 1347 the last ship of which we have any
record in these sagas went to Vinland after timber. After this all is
oblivion.

There are in all these narratives many details beyond this outline,
and those who have sought to identify localities have made the most
they could of the mention of a rock here or a bluff there, of an
island where they killed a bear, of others where they found eggs, of
a headland where they buried a leader who had been killed, of a cape
shaped like a keel, of broadfaced natives who offered furs for red
cloths, of beaches where they hauled up their ships, and of tides that
were strong; but the more these details are scanned in the different
sagas the more they confuse the investigator, and the more successive
relators try to enlighten us the more our doubts are strengthened, till
we end with the conviction that all attempts at consistent unravelment
leave nothing but a vague sense of something somewhere done.

[Illustration: FULL-SIZE FAC-SIMILE OF THE TABLET, _engraved by Prof.
Magnus Petersen, with the Runes as he sees them_.

(TRANSLITERATION OF THE LEADEN TABLET.),

+ (AT) Þ(E)R KUEN(E) SINE PRINSINED (B)AD (M)OTO
LANANA KRISTI DONAVISTI GARDIAR IARDIAR
IBODIAR KRISTUS UINKIT KRISTUS REGNAT
KRISTUS IMPERAT KRISTUS AB OMNI
MALO ME ASAM LIPERET KRUX KRISTI
SIT SUPER ME ASAM HIK ET UBIQUE
+ KHORDA + IN KHORDA + KHORDAE
(t) (M)AGLA + SANGUIS KRISTI SIGNET ME

RUNES, A.D. 1000.

This cut is of some of the oldest runes known, giving two lines in
Danish and the rest in Latin, as the transliteration shows. It is
copied from _The oldest yet found Document in Danish, by Prof Dr.
George Stephens_ (Copenhagen, 1888,—from the _Mémoires des Antiquaires
du Nord_, 1887). The author says that the leaden tablet on which the
runes were cut was found in Odense, Fyn, Denmark, in 1883, and he
places the date of it about the year A.D. 1000.

George Stephens’s _Handbook of the old Northern Runic Monuments of
Scandinavia and England_ is a condensation, preserving all the cuts,
and making some additions to his larger folio work in 3 vols., _The
old-northern Runic monuments of Scandinavia and England, now first
collected and deciphered_ (London, etc., 1866-68). It does not contain
either Icelandic or Greenland runes. He says that by the time of the
colonization of Iceland “the old northern runes as a system had died
out on the Scandinavian main, and were followed by the later runic
alphabet. But even this modern Icelandic of the tenth century has not
come down to us. If it had, it would be very different from what is
now vulgarly so called, which is the greatly altered Icelandic of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.... The oldest written Icelandic
known to us is said to date from about the year 1200.... The whole
modern doctrine of one uniform Icelandic language all over the immense
north in the first one thousand winters after Christ is an impossible
absurdity.... It is very seldom that any of the Scandinavian runic
stones bear a date.... No Christian runic gravestone is older than the
fourteenth century.”

On runes in general, see Mallet, Bohn’s ed., pp. 227, 248, following
the cut of the Kingektorsoak stone, in Rafn’s _Antiq. Americanæ_;
Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. 88; Wollheim’s _Nat. Lit. der
Scandinavier_ (Berlin, 1875), vol. i. pp. 2-15; Legis-Glueckselig’s
_Die Runen and ihre Denkmäler_ (Leipzig, 1829); De Costa’s _Pre-Columb.
Disc._, pp. xxx; _Revue polit. et lit._, Jan. 10, 1880.

It is held that runes are an outgrowth of the Latin alphabet. (L. F. A.
Wimmer’s _Runeskriftens Oprindelse og Udvikling i norden_, Copenhagen,
1874.)]

Everywhere else where the Northmen went they left proofs of their
occupation on the soil, but nowhere in America, except on an island
on the east shore of Baffin’s Bay,[523] has any authentic runic
inscription been found outside of Greenland. Not a single indisputable
grave has been discovered to attest their alleged centuries of fitful
occupation. The consistent and natural proof of any occupation of
America south of Davis Straits is therefore lacking; and there is
not sufficient particularity in the descriptions[524] to remove the
suspicion that the story-telling of the fireside has overlaid the
reports of the explorer. Our historic sense is accordingly left to
consider, as respects the most general interpretation, what weight
of confidence should be yielded to the sagas, pre-Columbian as they
doubtless are. But beyond this is perhaps, what is after all the
most satisfactory way of solving the problem, a dependence on the
geographical and ethnical probabilities of the case. The Norsemen
have passed into credible history as the most hardy and venturesome
of races. That they colonized Iceland and Greenland is indisputable.
That their eager and daring nature should have deserted them at this
point is hardly conceivable. Skirting the Greenland shores and inuring
themselves to the hardships and excitements of northern voyaging,
there was not a long stretch of open sea before they could strike the
Labrador coast. It was a voyage for which their ships, with courageous
crews, were not unfitted. Nothing is more likely than that some ship
of theirs may have been blown westerly and unwillingly in the first
instance, just as Greenland was in like manner first made known to the
Icelanders. The coast once found, to follow it to the south would have
been their most consistent action.

[Illustration: FROM OLAUS MAGNUS.

Fac-simile of a cut to the chapter “De Alphabeto Gothorum” in the
_Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus_ (Romæ, M.D.LV.).]

We may consider, then, that the weight of probability[525] is in favor
of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American mainland at some
point, or at several, somewhere to the south of Greenland; but the
evidence is hardly that which attaches to well-established historical
records.

The archæological traces, which are lacking farther south, are
abundant in Greenland, and confirm in the most positive way the Norse
occupation. The ruins of churches and baptisteries give a color of
truth to the ecclesiastical annals which have come down to us, and
which indicate that after having been for more than a century under the
Bishop of Iceland, a succession of bishops of its own was established
there early in the twelfth century. The names of seventeen prelates
are given by Torfæus, though it is not quite certain that the bishops
invariably visited their see. The last known to have filled the office
went thither in the early years of the fifteenth century. The last
trace of him is in the celebration of a marriage at Gardar in 1409.

The Greenland colonists were equipped with all the necessities of a
permanent life. They had horses, sheep, and oxen, and beef is said to
have been a regular article of export to Norway. They had buildings
of stone, of which the remains still exist. They doubtless brought
timber from the south, and we have in runic records evidence of
their explorations far to the north. They maintained as late as the
thirteenth century a regular commercial intercourse with the mother
country,[526] but this trade fell into disuse when a royal mandate
constituted such ventures a monopoly of the throne; and probably
nothing so much conduced to the decadence and final extinction of
the colonies as this usurped and exclusive trade, which cut off all
personal or conjoined intercourse.

The direct cause of the final extinction of the Greenland colonies is
involved in obscurity, though a variety of causes, easily presumable,
would have been sufficient, when we take into consideration the
moribund condition into which they naturally fell after commercial
restriction had put a stop to free intercourse with the home government.

The Eskimos are said to have appeared in Greenland about the middle
of the fourteenth century, and to have manifested hostility to such a
degree that about 1342 the imperilled western colony was abandoned. The
eastern colony survived perhaps seventy years longer, or possibly to a
still later period. We know they had a new bishop in 1387, but before
the end of that century the voyages to their relief were conducted only
after long intervals.

Before communication was wholly cut off, the attacks of the Skrælings,
and possibly famine and the black death, had carried the struggling
colonists to the verge of destruction. Bergen, in Norway, upon which
they depended for succor, had at one time been almost depopulated by
the same virulent disease, and again had been ravaged by a Hanseatic
fleet. Thus such intercourse as the royal monopoly permitted had
become precarious, and the marauding of freebooters, then prevalent in
northern waters, still further served to impede the communications,
till at last they wholly ceased, during the early years of the
fifteenth century.

It has sometimes been maintained that the closing in of ice-packs was
the final stroke which extinguished the last hopes of the expiring
colonists.[527] This view, however, meets with little favor among the
more enlightened students of climatic changes, like Humboldt.[528]

There has been published what purports to be a bull of Pope Nicholas
V,[529] directing the Bishop of Iceland to learn what he could of the
condition of the Greenland colonies, and in this document it is stated
that part of the colonists had been destroyed by barbarians thirty
years before,—the bull bearing date in 1448. There is no record that
any expedition followed upon this urging, and there is some question
as to the authenticity of the document.[530] In the _Relation_ of La
Peyrère there is a story of some sailors visiting Greenland so late as
1484; but it is open to question.

* * * * *

Early in the sixteenth century fitful efforts to learn the fate of
the colonies began, and these were continued, without result, well
into the seventeenth century; but nothing explicable was ascertained
till, in 1721, Hans Egede, a Norwegian priest, prevailed upon the
Danish government to send him on a mission to the Eskimos. He went,
accompanied by wife and children; and the colony of Godthaab, and
the later history of the missions, and the revival of trade with
Europe, attest the constancy of his purpose and the fruits of his
earnestness. In a year he began to report upon certain remains which
indicated the former occupation of the country by people who built
such buildings as was the habit in Europe. He and his son Paul Egede,
and their successors in the missions, gathered for us, first among
modern searchers, the threads of the history of this former people;
and, as time went on, the researches of Graah, Nordenskjöld, and
other explorers, and the studious habits of Major, Rink, and the rest
among the investigators, have enabled us to read the old sagas of the
colonization of Greenland with renewed interest and with the light of
corroborating evidence.[531]

[Illustration:

DEI COMMENTARII DEL

Viaggio in Persia di M. Caterino Zeno il K. & delle guerre fatte nell’
Imperio Persiano, dal tempo di Vssuncassano in quà.

LIBRI DVE.

ET DELLO SCOPRIMENTO dell’ Isole Frislanda, Eslanda, Engrouelanda,
Estotilanda, & Icaria, fatto sotto il Polo Artico, da due fratelli
zeni, M. Nicolòil, K. e M. Antonio.

LIBRO VNO.

CON VN DISEGNO PARTICOLARE DI tutte le dette parte di Tramontana da lor
scoperte.

CON GRATIA, ET PRIVILEGIO.

VERITAS.

IN VENETIA

Per Francesco Marcolini. M D LVIII. ]

* * * * *

We are told that it was one result of these Northman voyages that the
fame of them spread to other countries, and became known among the
Welsh, at a time when, upon the death of Owen Gwynedd, who ruled in
the northern parts of that country, the people were embroiled in civil
strife. That chieftain’s son, Prince Madoc, a man bred to the sea, was
discontented with the unstable state of society, and resolved to lead a
colony to these western lands, where they could live more in peace.

[Illustration:

DELLO SCOPRÍMENTO DEL l’Isole Frislanda, Eslanda, Engṙoueland
Estosilanda, & Icaria, fatto per due fratelli Zeni M. Nicolò il
Cavaliere, & M. Antonio Libro Vno, col disegno di dètte Isole.

Ne’mille, & dugento anni del la nostra salute se molto famoso in
Venetia M. Marin zeno chi mato per la sua gran virtù, et de strezza
d’inge gno podestà in alcune Republi. d’Italia, ne’governi dellequali
si portò Sempre cosi bène, che era amato, & grandemènte riverito il suo
nome da quelli anzo, che non l’havevano mai per presenza conosciuto;
etra l’altre sue belle opere particolarmente si narra.

NOTE.—The cuts above are facsimiles of the title and of the first
page of the section on Frisland, etc., from the Harvard College copy.
The book is rare. The Beckford copy brought £50; the Hamilton, £38;
the Tross catalogue (1882) price one at 150 francs; the Tweitmeyer,
Leipzig, 1888, at 250 marks; Quaritch (1885), at £25. Cf. Court
Catalogue, no. 378; Leclerc, no. 3002; Dufossé, no. 4965; Carter-Brown,
i. 226; Murphy, nos. 2798-99. The map is often in fac-simile, as in the
Harvard College copy.]

Accordingly, in A.D. 1170, going seaward on a preliminary exploration
by the south of Ireland, he steered west, and established a pioneer
colony in a fertile land. Leaving here 120 persons, he returned to
Wales, and fitted out a larger expedition of ten ships, with which he
again sailed, and passed out of view forever. The evidence in support
of this story is that it is mentioned in early annals, and that
sundry persons have discovered traces of the Welsh tongue among the
lighter-colored American Indians, to say nothing of manifold legends
among the Indians of an original people, white in color, coming from
afar towards the northeast,—proofs not sufficient to attract the
confidence of those who look for historical tests, though, as Humboldt
contends,[532] there may be no impossibility in the story.

* * * * *

There seems to be a general agreement that a crew of Arabs, somewhere
about the eleventh or twelfth century, explored the Atlantic westward,
with the adventurous purpose of finding its further limits, and that
they reached land, which may have been the Canaries, or possibly the
Azores, though the theory that they succeeded in reaching America is
not without advocates. The main source of the belief is the historical
treatise of the Arab geographer Edrisi, whose work was composed about
the middle of the twelfth century.[533]

[Illustration: SHIP OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.

From the _Isolario_ (Venice, 1547).]

In the latter part of the fourteenth century,[534] as the story goes,
two brothers of Venice, Nicolo and Antonio Zeno, being on a voyage
in the North Atlantic were wrecked there, and lived for some years
at Frislanda, and visited Engroneland. During this northern sojourn
they encountered a sailor, who, after twenty-six years of absence, had
returned, and reported that the ship in which he was had been driven
west in a gale to an island, where he found civilized people, who
possessed books in Latin and could not speak Norse, and whose country
was called Estotiland; while a region on the mainland, farther south,
to which he had also gone, was called Drogeo, and that here he had
encountered cannibals. Still farther south was a great country with
towns and temples. This information, picked up by these exiled Zeni,
was finally conveyed to another brother in Venice, accompanied by a map
of these distant regions. These documents long remained in the family
palace in Venice, and were finally neglected and became obscured, until
at last a descendant of the family compiled from them, as best he
could, a book, which was printed in Venice in 1558 as _Dei Commentarii
del Viaggio_, which was accompanied by a map drawn with difficulty from
the half obliterated original which had been sent from Frislanda.[535]
The original documents were never produced, and the publication took
place opportunely to satisfy current curiosity, continually incited
by the Spanish discoveries. It was also calculated to appeal to the
national pride of Italy, which had seen Spain gain the glory of her own
sons, Columbus and Vespucius, if it could be established that these
distant regions, of which the Zeni brothers so early reported tidings,
were really the great new world.[536] The cartography of the sixteenth
century shows that the narrative and its accompanying map made an
impression on the public mind, but from that day to this it has been
apparent that there can be no concurrence of opinion as to what island
the Frislanda of the Zeni was, if it existed at all except in some
disordered or audacious mind; and, as a matter of course, the distant
regions of Estotiland and Drogeo have been equally the subject of
belief and derision. No one can be said wholly to have taken the story
out of the category of the uncertain.

[Illustration: THE SEA OF DARKNESS. (From Olaus Magnus.)]

The presence of the Basques on the coasts of North America long
before the voyage of Columbus is often asserted,[537] and there is
no improbability in a daring race of seamen, in search of whales,
finding a way to the American waters. There are some indications
in the early cartography which can perhaps be easily explained
on this hypothesis;[538] there are said to be unusual linguistic
correspondences in the American tongues with those of this strange
people.[539] There are the reports of the earliest navigators, who have
left indisputable records that earlier visitors from Europe had been
before them, and Cabot may have found some reminders of such;[540] and
it is even asserted that it was a Basque mariner, who had been on the
Newfoundland banks, and gave to Columbus some premonitions of the New
World.[541]

Certain claims of the Dutch have also been advanced;[542] and one for
an early discovery of Newfoundland, in 1463-64, by John Vas Costa
Cortereal was set forth by Barrow in his _Chronological Hist. of
Voyages into the Arctic Regions_ (London, 1818); but he stands almost
alone in his belief.[543] Biddle in his _Cabot_ has shown its great
improbability.

In the years while Columbus was nourishing his purpose of a western
voyage, there were two adventurous navigators, as alleged, who were
breasting the dangers of the Sea of Darkness both to the north and
to the south. It cannot be said that either the Pole Skolno, in his
skirting the Labrador coasts in 1476,[544] or the Norman Cousin, who
is thought to have traversed a part of the South American coast in
1488-89,[545] have passed with their exploits into the accepted truths
of history; but there was nothing improbable in what was said of them,
and they flourish as counter-rumors always survive when attendant upon
some great revelation like that of Columbus.

CRITICAL NOTES ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

=A.= EARLY CONNECTION OF ASIATIC PEOPLES WITH THE WESTERN COAST OF
AMERICA.— The question of the origin of the Americans, whether an
autochthonous one or associated with the continents beyond either
ocean, is more properly discussed in another place of the present
volume. We can only indicate here in brief such of the phases of the
question as suppose an Asiatic connection, and the particular lines of
communication.

The ethnic unity of the American races, as urged by Morton and others,
hardly meets the requirements of the problem in the opinion of most
later students, like Sir Daniel Wilson, for instance; and yet, if A.
H. Keane represents, as he claims, the latest ethnological beliefs,
the connection with Asia, of the kind that forms ethnic traces, must
have been before the history of the present Asiatic races, since the
correspondence of customs, etc. is not sufficient for more recent
affiliation.[546] It should be remembered also, that if this is true,
and if there is the strong physical resemblance between Asiatics and
the indigenous tribes of the northwest coast which early travellers and
physiologists have dwelt on, we have in such a correspondence strong
evidence of the persistency of types.[547]

The Asiatic theory was long a favorite one. So popular a book as
Lafitau’s _Mœurs des Sauvages_ (Paris, 1724) advocated it. J. B.
Scherer’s _Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le nouveau
monde_ (Paris, 1777) was on the same side. One of the earliest in this
country, Benj. Smith Barton, to give expression to American scholarship
in this field held like opinions in his _New Views of the Origin of
the Tribes of America_ (Philad., 1797).[548] Twenty years later (1816)
one of the most active of the American men of letters advocated the
same views,—Samuel L. Mitchell in the _Archæologia Americana_ (i. 325,
338, 346). The weightiest authority of his time, Alex. von Humboldt,
formulated his belief in several of his books: _Vues des Cordillères;
Ansichten der Natur; Cosmos_.[549]

[Illustration: BEHRING SEA AND ADJACENT WATERS

NOTE.—Sketch map from the _U. S. Geodetic Survey_, 1880, App. xvi; also
in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xv. p. 114. Cf. Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_,
i. 35.]

Of the northern routes, that by Behring’s Straits is the most
apparent, and Lyell says that when half-way over Dover Straits, which
have not far from the same dimensions, he saw both the English and
French shores at the same time, he was easily convinced that the
passage by Behring’s Straits solved many of the difficulties of the
American problem.[550]

The problem as to the passage by the Aleutian Islands is converted into
the question whether primitive people could have successfully crossed
an interval from Asia of 130 miles to reach the island Miedna, 126
more to Behring’s Island, and then 235 to Attu, the westernmost of the
Aleutian Islands, or nearly 500 miles in all, and to have crossed in
such numbers as to affect the peopling of the new continent. There are
some, like Winchell, who see no difficulty in the case.[551] There are
no authenticated relics, it is believed, to prove the Tartar occupancy
of the northwest of America.[552] That there have been occasional
estrays upon the coasts of British Columbia, Oregon, and California, by
the drifting thither of Chinese and Japanese junks, is certainly to be
believed; but the argument against their crews peopling the country is
usually based upon the probable absence of women in them,—an argument
that certainly does not invalidate the belief in an infusion of Asiatic
blood in a previous race.[553]

The easterly passage which has elicited most interest is one alleged
to have been made by some Buddhist priests to a country called Fusang,
and in proof of it there is cited the narrative of one Hœi-Shin, who
is reported to have returned to China in A.D. 499. Beside much in the
story that is ridiculous and impossible, there are certain features
which have led some commentators to believe that the coast of Mexico
was intended, and that the Mexican maguey plant was the tree fusang,
after which the country is said to have been called. The story was
first brought to the attention of Europeans in 1761, when De Guignes
published his paper on the subject in the 28th volume (pp. 505-26) of
the Academy of Inscriptions.[554] It seems to have attracted little
attention till J. H. von Klaproth, in 1831, discredited the American
theory in his “Recherches sur le pays de Fousang,” published in the
_Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_ (2d ser., vol. xxi.), accompanied by a
chart. In 1834 there appeared at Paris a French translation, _Annales
des Empereurs du Japon_ (_Nipon o dai itsi rau_), to which (vol. iv.)
Klaproth appended an “Aperçu de l’histoire mythologique du Japon,” in
which he returned to the subject, and convinced Humboldt at least,[555]
that the country visited was Japan, and not Mexico, though he could but
see striking analogies, as he thought, in the Mexican myths and customs
to those of the Chinese.[556]

In 1841, Karl Friedrich Neumann, in the _Zeitschrift für allgemeine
Erdkunde_ (new series, vol. xvi.), published a paper on “Ost Asien und
West Amerika nach Chinesischen Quellen aus dem fünften, sechsten und
siebenten Jahrhundert,” in which he gave a version of the Hœi-shin
(Hœi-schin, Hui-shën) narrative, which Chas. G. Leland, considering
it a more perfect form of the original than that given by De Guignes,
translated into English in _The Knickerbocker Mag._ (1850), xxxvi. 301,
as “California and Mexico in the fifth century.”[557]

[Illustration: CARTE DES TERRES NOUVELLEMENT CONNUES AU NORD DE LA MER
DU SUD

NOTE.—The map of Buache, 1752, showing De Guignes’ route of the
Chinese emigration to Fusang. Reduced from the copy in the _Congrès
internationale des Américanistes, Compte Rendu, Nancy, 1875_.]

The next to discuss the question, and in an affirmative spirit,
was Charles Hippolyte de Paravey, in the _Annales de Philosophie
Chrétienne_ (Feb., 1844), whose paper was published separately as
_L’Amérique sous le nom de pays de Fou-Sang, est elle citée dès le
5^e siècle de notre ère, dans les grandes annales de la Chine_, etc.
_Discussion ou dissertation abrégée, où l’affirmative est prouvée_
(Paris, 1844); and in 1847 he published _Nouvelles preuves que le pays
du Fousang est l’Amérique_.[558]

The controversy as between De Guignes and Klaproth was shared, in 1862,
by Gustave d’Eichthal, taking the Frenchman’s side, in the _Revue
Archéologique_ (vol. ii.), and finally in his _Etudes sur les origines
Bouddhiques de la civilisation Américaine_ (Paris, 1865).[559]

In 1870, E. Bretschneider, in his “Fusang, or who discovered America?”
in the _Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal_ (Foochow, Oct.,
1870), contended that the whole story was the fabrication of a lying
priest.[560]

In 1875 there was new activity in discussing the question. Two French
writers of considerable repute in such studies attracted attention: the
one, Lucien Adam, in the Congrès des Américanistes at Nancy (_Compte
Rendu_, i. 145); and the other, Léon de Rosny, entered the discussions
at the same session (_Ibid._ i. p. 131).[561]

The most conspicuous study for the English reader was Charles Godfrey
Leland’s _Fusang, or The discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist
priests in the fifth century_ (London, 1875).[562]

The Marquis d’Hervey de Saint Denis published in the _Actes de la Soc.
d’Ethnographie_ (1869), vol. vi., and later in the _Comptes Rendus_
of the French Academy of Inscriptions, a _Mémoire sur le pays connu
des anciens Chinois sous le nom de Fousang, et sur quelques documents
inédits pour servir à l’identifier_, which was afterwards published
separately in Paris, 1876, in which he assented to the American
theory. The student of the subject need hardly go, however, beyond E.
P. Vining’s _An inglorious Columbus: or, Evidence that Hwui Shăn and
a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered America in the
fifth century_ A.D. (New York, 1885), since the compiler has made it a
repository of all the essential contributions to the question from De
Guignes down. He gives the geographical reasons for believing Fusang to
be Mexico (ch. 20), comparing the original description of Fusang with
the early accounts of aboriginal Mexico, and rehearsing the traditions,
as is claimed, of the Buddhists still found by the Spaniards pervading
the memories of the natives, and at last (ch. 37) summarizing all the
grounds of his belief.[563]

* * * * *

The consideration of the Polynesian route as a possible avenue
for peopling America involves the relations of the Malays to the
inhabitants of the Oceanic Islands and the capacity of early man to
traverse long distances by water.[564]

E. B. Tylor has pointed out the Asiatic relations of the Polynesians
in the _Journal of the Anthropological Inst._, xi. 401. Pickering,
in the ethnological chart accompanying the reports of the Wilkes
Expedition, makes the original people of Chili and Peru to be Malay,
and he connects the Californians with the Polynesians.[565]

The earliest elaboration of this theory was in John Dunmore Lang’s
_View of the origin and migrations of the Polynesian nations,
demonstrating their ancient discovery and progressive settlement of the
continent of America_ (London, 1834; 2d ed., Sydney, 1877). /Francis
A. Allen has advanced similar views at the meetings of the Congrès des
Américanistes at Luxembourg and at Copenhagen.[566]

The Mongol theory of the occupation of Peru, which John Ranking so
enthusiastically pressed in his _Historical researches on the conquest
of Peru, Mexico, Bogota, Natchez, and Talomeco, in the thirteenth
century, by the Mongols, accompanied with elephants; and the local
agreement of history and tradition, with the remains of elephants and
mastodontes found in the new world_ [etc.] (London, 1827), implies
that in the thirteenth century the Mongol emperor Kublai Khan sent a
fleet against Japan, which, being scattered in a storm, finally in part
reached the coasts of Peru, where the son of Kublai Khan became the
first Inca.[567] The book hardly takes rank as a sensible contribution
to ethnology, and Prescott says of it that it embodies “many curious
details of Oriental history and manners in support of a whimsical
theory.”[568]

=B.= IRELAND THE GREAT, OR WHITE MAN’S LAND.—The claims of the Irish
to have preceded the Norse in Iceland, and to have discovered America,
rest on an Icelandic saga, which represents that in the tenth century
Are Marson, driven off his course by a gale, found a land which became
known as Huitramannaland, or white man’s land, or otherwise as Irland
it Mikla.[569] This region was supposed by the colonists of Vinland
to lie farther south, which Rafn[570] interprets as being along the
Carolina coast,[571] and others have put it elsewhere, as Beauvois in
Canada above the Great Lakes; and still others see no more in it than
the pressing of some storm-driven vessel to the Azores[572] or some
other Atlantic island. The story is also coupled, from another source,
with the romance of Bjarni Asbrandson, who sailed away from Iceland
and from a woman he loved, because the husband and relatives of the
woman made it desirable that he should. Thirty years later, the crew of
another ship, wrecked on a distant coast,[573] found that the people
who took them prisoners spoke Irish,[574] and that their chieftain
was this same renegade, who let them go apparently for the purpose of
conveying some token by which he would be remembered to the Thurid
of his dreams. Of course all theorists who have to deal with these
supposed early discoveries by Europeans connect, each with his own pet
scheme, the prevailing legendary belief among the American Indians that
white men at an early period made their appearance on the coasts all
the way from Central America to Labrador.[575] Whether these strange
comers be St. Patrick,[576] St. Brandan even, or some other Hibernian
hero, with his followers, is easily to be adduced, if the disposing
mind is inclined.

There have been of late years two considerable attempts to establish
the historical verity of some of these alleged Irish visits.[577]

=C.= THE NORSE IN ICELAND.—The chief original source for the Norse
settlement of Iceland is the famous _Landnamabók_,[578] which is a
record by various writers, at different times, of the partitioning and
ownership of lands during the earliest years of occupation.[579] This
and other contemporary manuscripts, including the _Heimskringla_ of
Snorre Sturleson and the great body of Icelandic sagas, either at first
hand or as filtered through the leading writers on Icelandic history,
constitute the material out of which is made up the history of Iceland,
in the days when it was sending its adventurous spirits to Greenland
and probably to the American main.[580]

Respecting the body of the sagas, Laing (_Heimskringla_, i. 23) says:
“It does not appear that any saga manuscript now existing has been
written before the fourteenth century, however old the saga itself may
be. It is known that in the twelfth century, Are Frode, Sæmund and
others began to take the sagas out of the traditionary state and fix
them in writing; but none of the original skins appear to have come
down to our time, but only some of the numerous copies of them.” Laing
(p. 24) also instances numerous sagas known to have existed, but they
are not now recognized;[581] and he gives us (p. 30) the substance of
what is known respecting the writers and transcribers of this early
saga literature. It is held that by the beginning of the thirteenth
century the sagas of the discoveries and settlements had all been put
in writing, and thus the history, as it exists, of mediæval Iceland is,
as Burton says (_Ultima Thule_, i. 237), more complete than that of any
European country.[582]

Among the secondary writers, using either at first or second hand the
early MS. sources, the following may be mentioned:—

One of the earliest brought to the attention of the English public
was _A Compendious Hist. of the Goths, Swedes and Vandals, and other
northern powers_ (London, 1650 and 1658), translated in an abridged
form from the Latin of Olaus Magnus, which had been for more than a
hundred years the leading comprehensive authority on the northern
nations. The _Svearikes Historia_ (Stockholm, 1746-62) of Olof von
Dalin and the similar work of Sven Lagerbring (1769-1788), covering
the early history of the north, are of interest for the comparative
study of the north, rather than as elucidating the history of Iceland
in particular.[583] More direct aid will be got from Mallet’s _Northern
Antiquities_ (London edition, 1847) and from Wheaton’s _Northmen_. More
special is the _Histoire de l’Island_ of Xavier Marmier; and the German
historian F. C. Dahlman also touches Iceland with particular attention
in his _Geschichte von Dänemark bis zur Reformation, mit Inbegriff von
Norwegen und Island_ (Hamburg, 1840-43).

A history of more importance than any other yet published, and of the
widest scope, was that of Sweden by E. J. Geijer (continued by F. F.
Carlson), which for the early period (down to 1654) is accessible in
English in a translation by J. H. Turner (London, 1845).[584]

Prominent among the later school of northern historians, all touching
the Icelandic annals more or less, have been Peter Andreas Munch in his
_Det Norske Folks Historie_ (Christiania, 1852-63);[585] N. M. Petersen
in his _Danmarks Historie i Hedenold_ (Copenhagen, 1854-55); K. Keyser
in his _Norges Historie_ (Christiania, 1866-67); J. E. Sars in his
_Udsigt over den Norske Historie_ (Christiania, 1873-77); but all are
surpassed by Konrad Maurer’s _Island von seiner ersten Entdeckung
bis zum Untergange des Freistaates_,—A.D. 800-1262 (Munich, 1874),
published as commemorating the thousandth anniversary of the settlement
of Iceland, and it has the repute of being the best book on early
Icelandic history.[586]

The change from Paganism to Christianity necessarily enters into all
the histories covering the tenth and eleventh centuries; but it has
special treatment in C. Merivale’s _Conversion of the Northern Nations_
(Boyle lectures,—London, 1866).[587]

There is a considerable body of the later literature upon Iceland,
retrospective in character, and affording the results of study more or
less patient as to the life in the early Norse days in Iceland.[588]

G.W. Dasent’s introduction to his _Story of Burnt Njal_ (Edinburgh,
1861)[589] and his _Norsemen in Iceland_ (Oxford Essays, 1858) give
what Max Müller (_Chips from a German Workshop_, ii. 191) calls “a
vigorous and lively sketch of primitive northern life;” and are well
supplemented by Sabine Baring-Gould’s _Iceland, its scenes and sagas_
(London, 1863 and later), and Richard F. Burton’s _Ultima Thule, with
an historical introduction_ (London, 1875).[590]

=D.= GREENLAND AND ITS RUINS.—The sagas still serve us for the
colonization of Greenland, and of particular use is that of Eric the
Red.[591] The earliest to use these sources in the historic spirit
was Torfæus in his _Historia Gronlandiæ Antiquæ_ (1715).[592] The
natural successor of Torfæus and the book upon which later writers
mostly depend is David Crantz’s _Historie von Grönland, enthaltend die
Beschreibung des Landes und der Einwohner, insbesonders die Geschichten
der dortigen Mission. Nebst Fortsetzung_ (Barby, 1765-70, 3 vols.). An
English translation appeared in London in 1767, and again, though in an
abridged form with some changes, in 1820.[593]

[Illustration: RUINS OF THE CHURCH AT KATORTOK.

After a cut in Nordenskjöld’s _Den Andra Dicksonska Expeditionen till
Grönland_, p. 369, following one in _Efter Meddelelser om Grönland_.]

Crantz says of his own historic aims, referring to Torfæus and to the
accounts given by the Eskimos of the east coast, that he has tried
to investigate “where the savage inhabitants came from, and how the
ancient Norwegian inhabitants came to be so totally extirpated,” while
at the same time he looks upon the history of the Moravian missions as
his chiefest theme.

* * * * *

The principal source for the identification of the ruins of Greenland
is the work compiled by Rafn and Finn Magnusen, _Grönlands Historiske
Mindesmærker_,[594] with original texts and Danish versions. Useful
summaries and observations will be found in the paper by K. Steenstrup
on “Old Scandinavian ruins in South Greenland” in the _Compte Rendu,
Congrès des Américanistes_ (Copenhagen, 1883, p. 108), and in one
on “Les Voyages des Danois au Greenland” in the same (p. 196).
Steenstrup’s paper is accompanied by photographs and cuts, and a map
marking the site of the ruins. The latest account of them is by Lieut.
Holm in the _Meddelelser om Grönland_ (Copenhagen, 1883), vol. vi.
Other views and plans showing the arrangement of their dwellings and
the curious circular ruins,[595] which seems to have usually been
near their churches, are shown in the Baron Nordenskjöld’s _Den andra
dicksonska expeditionen till Grönland, dess inre isöken och dess
ostkust, utförd år 1883_ (Stockholm, 1885), the result of the ripest
study and closest contact.

We need also to scan the narratives of Hans Egede and Graah. Parry
found in 1824, on an island on the Baltic coast, a runic stone,
commemorating the occupancy of the spot in 1135 (_Antiquitates
Americanæ_; Mallet’s _Northern Antiquities_, 248); and in 1830 and 1831
other runes were found on old gravestones (Rink’s _Danish Greenland_,
app. v.; Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 151). These last are in the Museum
at Copenhagen. Most of these imperishable relics have been found in the
district of Julianeshaab.[596]

=E.= THE VINLAND VOYAGES.—What Leif and Karlsefne knew they
experienced, and what the sagas tell us they underwent, must have just
the difference between a crisp narrative of personal adventure and the
oft-repeated and embellished story of a fireside narrator, since the
traditions of the Norse voyages were not put in the shape of records
till about two centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript
of such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later still. It
is indeed claimed that the transmission by tradition in those days was
a different matter in respect to constancy and exactness from what it
has been known to be in later times; but the assumption lacks proof and
militates against well-known and inevitable processes of the human mind.

[Illustration: SAGA MANUSCRIPT.

This is a portion of one of the plates in the _Antiquitates Americanæ_,
given by Rafn to Charles Sumner, with a key in manuscript by Rafn
himself. His signature is from a copy of his _Mémoire_ given by him to
Edward Everett, and now in Harvard College library.]

In regard to the credibility of the sagas, the northern writers
recognize the change which came over the oral traditionary chronicles
when the romancing spirit was introduced from the more southern
countries, at a time while the copies of the sagas which we now have
were making, after having been for so long a time orally handed
down; but they are not so successful in making plain what influence
this imported spirit had on particular sagas, which we are asked to
receive as historical records. They seem sometimes to forget that it
is not necessary to have culture, heroes, and impossible occurrences
to constitute a myth. A blending of history and myth prompts Horn
to say “that some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on
facts, but the telling and re-telling have changed them into pure
myths.” The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories that the
patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make appear as genuine
chronicles.[597] It is certainly unfortunate that the period of
recording the older sagas coincides mainly with the age of this
southern romancing influence.[598] It is a somewhat anomalous condition
when long-transmitted oral stories are assigned to history, and certain
other written ones of the age of the recorded sagas are relegated to
myth. If we would believe some of the northern writers, what appears
to be difference in kind of embellishment was in reality the sign that
separated history from fable.[599] Of the interpreters of this olden
lore, Torfæus has been long looked upon as a characteristic exemplar,
and Horn[600] says of his works that they are “perceptibly lacking
in criticism. Torfæus was upon the whole incapable of distinguishing
between myth and history.”[601]

[Illustration: RUIN AT KATORTOK.

After a cut in Nordenskjöld’s _Exped. till Grönland_, p. 371, following
the _Meddel. om Grönland_, vi. 98.]

Erasmus Rask, in writing to Wheaton in

1831,[602] enumerates eight of the early manuscripts which mention
Vinland and the voyages; but Rafn, in 1837, counted eighteen such
manuscripts.[603] We know little or nothing about the recorders or date
of any of these copies, excepting the _Heimskringla_,[604] nor how long
they had existed orally. Some of them were doubtless put into writing
soon after the time when such recording was introduced, and this date
is sometimes put as early as A.D. 1120, and sometimes as late as the
middle or even end of that century. Meanwhile, Adam of Bremen, in the
latter part of the eleventh century (A.D. 1073), prepared his _Historia
Ecclesiastica_, an account of the spread of Christianity in the north,
in which he says he was told by the Danish king that his subjects
had found a country to the west, called Winland.[605] A reference is
also supposed to be made in the _Historia Ecclesiastica_ of Ordericus
Vitalis, written about the middle (say A.D. 1140) of the twelfth
century. But it was not until somewhere between A.D. 1385 and 1400 that
the oldest Icelandic manuscript which exists, touching the voyages,
was compiled,—the so-called _Codex Flatoyensis_,[606] though how much
earlier copies of it were made is not known. It is in this manuscript
that we find the saga of Olaf Tryggvesson,[607] wherein the voyages
of Leif Ericson are described, and it is only by a comparison of
circumstances detailed here and in other sagas that the year A.D. 1000
has been approximately determined as the date.[608] In this same codex
we find the saga of Eric the Red, one of the chief narratives depended
upon by the advocates of the Norse discovery, and in Rask’s judgment
it “appears to be somewhat fabulous, written long after the event, and
taken from tradition.”[609]

[Illustration:

_Environs of_ Julianehaab THE ÖSTER BYGD _or_ Eastern Settlement

Reference: _Norse ruins or traces of them_

NOTE.—The above is a reproduction of a corner map in the map of _Danish
Greenland_ given in Rink’s book of that name. The sea in the southwest
corner of the cut is not shaded; but shading is given to the interior
ice field on the northern and northeastern part of the map. Rink gives
a similar map of the Westerbygd.]

The other principal saga is that of Thorfinn Karlsefne, which with
some differences and with the same lack of authenticity, goes over the
ground covered by that of Eric the Red.[610]

[Illustration: RAFN.]

Of all the early manuscripts, the well-known _Heimskringla_ of Snorro
Sturleson (b. 1178; d. 1241), purporting to be a history of the Norse
kings down to A.D. 1177, is the most entitled to be received as an
historical record, and all that it says is in these words: “Leif also
found Vinland the Good.”[611]

Saxo Grammaticus (d. about 1208) in his _Historia Danica_ begins with
myths, and evidently follows the sagas, but does not refer to them
except in his preface.[612]

[Illustration:

HISTORIA VINLANDIÆ ANTIQVÆ. seu Partis Americæ Septentrionalis, ubi
Nominis ratio recensetur, situs terræ ex dierumbrumalium spatio
expenditur, soli fertilitas & incolarum barbaries, peregrinorum
temporarius incolatus & gesta, vicinarum terrarum nomina & facies ex
Antiqvitibus Islandicis in lucem producta exponuntur per THORMODUM
TORFÆUM Rerum Norvegicarum Historiographum Regium.

HAVNIÆ, Ex Typographéo Regiæ Majest, & Universit, 1705. Impensis
Authoris. ]

For about five hundred years after this the stories attracted little or
no attention.[613] We have seen that Peringskiöld produced these sagas
in 1697. Montanus in his _Nieuwe en onbekende Weereld_ (Amsterdam,
1671), and Campanius, in 1702, in his _Kort Beskrifning om Provincien
Nya Swerige uti America_ (Stockholm),[614] gave some details. The
account which did most, however, to revive an interest in the subject
was that of Torfæus in his _Historia Vinlandiæ Antiquæ_ (Copenhagen,
1705), but he was quite content to place the scene of his narrative
in America, without attempting to identify localities.[615] The
voyages were, a few years later, the subject of a dissertation at
the University of Upsala in Sweden.[616] J. P. Cassell, of Bremen,
discusses the Adam of Bremen story in another Latin essay, still
later.[617]

About 1750, Pieter Kalm, a Swede, brought the matter to the attention
of Dr. Franklin, as the latter remembered twenty-five years later, when
he wrote to Samuel Mather that “the circumstances gave the account a
great appearance of authenticity.”[618] In 1755, Paul Henri Mallet
(1730-1807), in his _Histoire de Dannemarc_, determines the localities
to be Labrador and Newfoundland.[619]

In 1769, Gerhard Schöning, in his _Norges Riges Historie_, established
the scene in America. Robertson, in 1777, briefly mentions the
voyages in his _Hist. of America_ (note xvii.), and, referring to
the accounts given by Peringskiöld, calls them rude and confused,
and says that it is impossible to identify the landfalls, though he
thinks Newfoundland may have been the scene of Vinland. This is also
the belief of J. R. Forster in his _Geschichte der Entdeckungen im
Norden_ (Frankfurt, 1784).[620] M. C. Sprengel, in his _Geschichte
der Europäer in Nordamerika_ (Leipzig, 1782), thinks they went as
far south as Carolina. Pontoppidan’s _History of Norway_ was mainly
followed by Dr. Jeremy Belknap in his _American Biography_ (Boston,
1794), who recognizes “circumstances to confirm and none to disprove
the relations.” In 1793, Muñoz, in his _Historia del Nuevo Mundo_, put
Vinland in Greenland. In 1796 there was a brief account in Fritsch’s
_Disputatio historico-geographica in qua quæritur utrum veteres
Americam noverint necne_. H. Stenström published at Lund, in 1801, a
short dissertation, _De America Norvegis ante tempora Columbi adita_.
Boucher de la Richarderie, in his _Bibliothèque Universelle des
Voyages_ (Paris, 1808), gives a short account, and cites some of the
authorities. Some of the earlier American histories of this century,
like Williamson’s _North Carolina_, took advantage of the recitals
of Torfæus and Mallet. Ebenezer Henderson’s _Residence in Iceland_
(1814-15)[621] presented the evidence anew. Barrow, in his _Voyages
to the Arctic Regions_ (London, 1818), places Vinland in Labrador or
Newfoundland; but J. W. Moulton, in his _History of the State of New
York_ (N. Y., 1824), brings that State within the region supposed to
have been visited.

A writer more likely to cause a determinate opinion in the public
mind came in Washington Irving, who in his _Columbus_ (London, 1828)
dismissed the accounts as untrustworthy; though later, under the
influence of Wheaton and Rafn, he was inclined to consider them of
possible importance; and finally in his condensed edition he thinks
the facts “established to the conviction of most minds.”[622] Hugh
Murray, in his _Discoveries and Travels in North America_ (London,
1829), regards the sagas as an authority; but he doubts the assigning
of Vinland to America. In 1830, W. D. Cooley, in his _History of
Maritime and Inland Discovery_,[623] thought it impossible to shake the
authenticity of the sagas.

While Henry Wheaton was the minister of the United States at
Copenhagen, and having access to the collections of that city, he
prepared his _History of the Northmen_, which was published in London
and Philadelphia in 1831.[624] The high character of the man gave
unusual force to his opinions, and his epitome of the sagas in his
second chapter contributed much to increase the interest in the
Northmen story. He was the first who much impressed the New England
antiquaries with the view that Vinland should be looked for in New
England; and a French version by Paul Guillot, issued in Paris in 1844,
is stated to have been “revue et augmentée par l’auteur, avec cartes,
inscriptions, et alphabet runique.”[625] The opinions of Wheaton,
however, had no effect upon the leading historian of the United States,
nor have any subsequent developments caused any change in the opinion
of Bancroft, first advanced in 1834, in the opening volume of his
_United States_, where he dismissed the sagas as “mythological in
form and obscure in meaning; ancient yet not contemporary.” He adds
that “the intrepid mariners who colonized Greenland could easily have
extended their voyage to Labrador; but no clear historical evidence
establishes the natural probability that they accomplished the
passage.”[626] All this is omitted by Bancroft in his last revised
edition; but a paragraph in his original third volume (1840), to the
intent that, though “Scandinavians may have reached the shores of
Labrador, the soil of the United States has not one vestige of their
presence,” is allowed to remain,[627] and is true now as when first
written.

The chief apostle of the Norseman belief, however, is Carl Christian
Rafn, whose work was accomplished under the auspices of the Royal
Society of Northern Antiquaries at Copenhagen.[628]

Rafn was born in 1795, and died at Copenhagen in 1864.[629] At the
University, as well as later as an officer of its library, he had bent
his attention to the early Norse manuscripts and literature,[630]
so that in 1825 he was the natural founder of the Royal Society of
Northern Antiquaries; and much of the value of its long series of
publications is due to his active and unflagging interest.[631] The
summit of his American interest, however, was reached in the great
folio _Antiquitates Americanæ_,[632] in which he for the first time
put the mass of original Norse documents before the student, and with
a larger accumulation of proofs than had ever been adduced before, he
commented on the narratives and came to conclusions respecting traces
of their occupancy to which few will adhere to-day.

The effect of Rafn’s volume, however, was marked, and we see it in the
numerous presentations of the subject which followed; and every writer
since has been greatly indebted to him.

Alexander von Humboldt in his _Examen Critique_ (Paris, 1837) gave a
synopsis of the sagas, and believed the scene of the discoveries to
be between Newfoundland and New York; and in his _Cosmos_ (1844) he
reiterated his views, holding to “the undoubted first discovery by the
Northmen as far south as 41° 30’.”[633]

[Illustration: NORSE AMERICA.

Opposite is a section of Rafn’s map in the _Antiquitates Americanæ_,
giving his identification of the Norse localities. This and the other
map by Rafn is reproduced in his _Cabinet d’Antiquités Américaines_
(Copenhagen, 1858). The map in the atlas of St. Martin’s _Hist. de la
Géographie_ does not track them below Newfoundland. The map in J. T.
Smith’s _Northmen in New England_ (Boston, 1839) shows eleven voyages
to America from Scandinavia, A.D. 861-1285. Cf. map in Wilhelmi’s
_Island_, etc. (Heidelberg, 1842).]

Two books which for a while were the popular treatises on the subject
were the immediate outcome of Rafn’s book. The first of these was _The
Northmen in New England_, giving the stories in the form of a dialogue,
by Joshua Toulmin Smith (Boston, 1839), which in a second edition
(London, 1842) was called _The Discovery of America by the Northmen in
the Tenth Century_.

The other book was largely an English version of parts of Rafn’s book,
translating the chief sagas, and reproducing the maps: Nathaniel Ludlow
Beamish’s _Discovery of America by the Northmen in the Tenth Century_
(London, 1841).[634] Two German books owed almost as much to Rafn,
those of K. Wilhelmi[635] and K. H. Hermes.[636] Prescott, at this time
publishing the third volume of his _Mexico_ (1843), accords to Rafn
the credit of taking the matter out of the category of doubt, but he
hesitates to accept the Dane’s identifications of localities; but R. H.
Major, in considering the question in the introduction to his _Select
letters of Columbus_ (1847), finds little hesitation in accepting the
views of Rafn, and thinks “no room is left for disputing the main fact
of discovery.”

When Hildreth, in 1849, published his _United States_, he ranged
himself, with his distrusts, by the side of Bancroft but J. Elliot
Cabot, in making a capital summary of the evidence in the _Mass.
Quarterly Review_ (vol. ii.), accords with the believers, but places
the locality visited about Labrador and Newfoundland. Haven in his
_Archæology of the United States_ (Washington, 1856) regards the
discovery as well attested, and that the region was most likely that
of Narragansett Bay. C. W. Elliott in his _New England History_ (N.
Y., 1857) holds the story to be “in some degree mythical.” Palfrey
in his _Hist. of New England_ (Boston, 1858) goes no farther than to
consider the Norse voyage as in “nowise unlikely,” and Oscar F. Peschel
in his _Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_ (Stuttgart, 1858)
is on the affirmative side. Paul K. Sinding goes over the story with
assent in his _History of Scandinavia_,—a book not much changed in his
_Scandinavian Races_ (N. Y., 1878).[637] Eugène Beauvois did little
more than translate from Rafn in his _Découvertes des Scandinaves en
Amérique,—fragments de Sagas Islandaises traduits pour la première fois
en français_ (Paris, 1859)—an extract from the _Revue Orientale et
Américaine_ (vol. ii.).[638]

Professor Daniel Wilson, of Toronto, has discussed the subject at
different times, and with these conclusions: “With all reasonable
doubts as to the accuracy of details, there is the strongest
probability in favor of the authenticity of the American Vinland....
The data are the mere vague allusions of a traveller’s tale, and it is
indeed the most unsatisfactory feature of the sagas that the later the
voyages the more confused and inconsistent their narratives become in
every point of detail.”[639]

Dr. B. F. De Costa’s first book on the subject was his _Pre-Columbian
Discovery of America by the Northmen, illustrated by Translations from
the Icelandic Sagas, edited with notes and a general introduction_
(Albany, 1868). It is a convenient gathering of the essential parts
of the sagas; but the introduction rather opposes than disproves
some of the “feeble paragraphs, pointed with a sneer,” which he
charges upon leading opponents of the faith. Professor J. L. Diman,
in the _North American Review_ (July, 1869), made De Costa’s book
the occasion of an essay setting forth the grounds of a disbelief
in the historical value of the sagas. De Costa replied in _Notes on
a Review_, etc. (Charlestown, 1869). In the same year, Dr. Kohl,
following the identifications of Rafn, rehearsed the narratives in his
_Discovery of Maine_ (Portland, 1869), and tracked Karlsefne through
the gulf of Maine. De Costa took issue with him on this latter point
in his Northmen in Maine (Albany, 1870).[640] In the introduction
to his _Sailing Directions of Henry Hudson_, De Costa argues that
these mariners’ guides are the same used by the Northmen, and in his
_Columbus and the Geographers of the North_ (Hartford, 1872,—cf. _Amer.
Church Review_, xxiv. 418) he recapitulates the sagas once more with
reference to the knowledge which he supposes Columbus to have had of
them. Paul Gaffarel, in his _Etudes sur les rapports de l’Amérique
et de l’ancien Continent avant Colomb_ (Paris, 1869), entered more
particularly into the evidence of the commerce of Vinland and its
relations to Europe.

Gabriel Gravier, another French author, was rather too credulous in
his _Découverte de l’Amérique par les normands au X^e Siècle_ (Paris,
1874), when he assumed with as much confidence as Rafn ever did
everything that the most ardent advocate had sought to prove.[641]

There were two American writers soon to follow, hardly less
intemperate. These were Aaron Goodrich, in _A History of the Character
and Achievements of the so-called Christopher Columbus_ (N. Y., 1874),
who took the full complement of Rafn’s belief with no hesitancy;
and Rasmus B. Anderson in his _America not discovered by Columbus_
(Chicago, 1874; improved, 1877; again with Watson’s bibliography,
1883),[642] in which even the Skeleton in Armor is made to play a part.
Excluding such vagaries, the book is not without use as displaying the
excessive views entertained in some quarters on the subject. The author
is, we believe, a Scandinavian, and shows the tendency of his race to a
facility rather than felicity in accepting evidence on this subject.

The narratives were first detailed among our leading general histories
when the _Popular History of the United States_ of Bryant and Gay
appeared in 1876. The claims were presented decidedly, and in the main
in the directions indicated by Rafn; but the wildest pretensions of
that antiquary were considerately dismissed.

During the last score years the subject has been often made prominent
by travellers like Kneeland[643] and Hayes,[644] who have recapitulated
the evidence; by lecturers like Charles Kingsley;[645] by monographists
like Moosmüller;[646] by the minor historians like Higginson,[647] who
has none of the fervor of the inspired identifiers of localities, and
Weise,[648] who is inclined to believe the sea-rovers did not even pass
Davis’s Straits; and by contributors to the successive sessions of the
Congrès des Américanistes[649] and to other learned societies.[650]

The question was brought to a practical issue in Massachusetts by a
proposition raised—at first in Wisconsin—by the well-known musician Ole
Bull, to erect in Boston a statue to Leif Ericson.[651] The project,
though ultimately carried out, was long delayed, and was discouraged
by members of the Massachusetts Historical Society on the ground that
no satisfactory evidence existed to show that any spot in New England
had been reached by the Northmen.[652] The sense of the society was
finally expressed in the report of their committee, Henry W. Haynes
and Abner C. Goodell, Jr., in language which seems to be the result of
the best historical criticism; for it is not a question of the fact of
discovery, but to decide how far we can place reliance on the details
of the sagas. There is likely to remain a difference of opinion on
this point. The committee say: “There is the same sort of reason for
believing in the existence of Leif Ericson that there is for believing
in the existence of Agamemnon,—they are both traditions accepted by
later writers; but there is no more reason for regarding as true the
details related about his discoveries than there is for accepting as
historic truth the narratives contained in the Homeric poems. It is
antecedently probable that the Northmen discovered America in the
early part of the eleventh century; and this discovery is confirmed
by the same sort of historical tradition, not strong enough to be
called evidence, upon which our belief in many of the accepted facts of
history rests.”[653]

In running down the history of the literature of the subject, the
present aim has been simply to pick out such contributions as have
been in some way significant, and reference must be made to the
bibliographies for a more perfect record.[654]

Irrespective of the natural probability of the Northmen visits to
the American main, other evidence has been often adduced to support
the sagas. This proof has been linguistic, ethnological, physical,
geographical, and monumental.

Nothing could be slenderer than the alleged correspondences of
languages, and we can see in Horsford’s _Discovery of America by
Northmen_ to what a fanciful extent a confident enthusiasm can carry
it.[655]

The ethnological traces are only less shadowy. Hugo Grotius[656]
contended that the people of Central America were of Scandinavian
descent. Brasseur found remnants of Norse civilization in the same
region.[657] Viollet le Duc[658] discovers great resemblances in the
northern religious ceremonials to those described in the _Popul Vuh_. A
general resemblance did not escape the notice of Humboldt. Gravier[659]
is certain that the Aztec civilization is Norse.[660] Chas. Godfrey
Leland claims that the old Norse spirit pervades the myths and legends
of the Algonkins, and that it is impossible not to admit that there
must have been at one time “extensive intercourse between the Northmen
and the Algonkins;” and in proof he points out resemblances between
the Eddas and the Algonkin mythology.[661] It is even stated that the
Micmacs have a tradition of a people called Chenooks, who in ships
visited their coast in the tenth century.

The physical and geographical evidences are held to exist in the
correspondences of the coast line to the descriptions of the sagas,
including the phenomena of the tides[662] and the length of the summer
day.[663] Laing and others, who make no question of the main fact,
readily recognize the too great generality and contradictions of the
descriptions to be relied upon.[664]

George Bancroft, in showing his distrust, has said that the advocates
of identification can no farther agree than to place Vinland anywhere
from Greenland to Africa.[665]

[Illustration:

A MAP OF VINLAND from accounts contained in Old Northern M.S.S. by
CHARLES C. RAFN

NOTE.—The above map is a fac-simile of one of C. C. Rafn’s maps. Cf.
the maps in Smith, Beamish, Gravier, Slafter, Preble’s _Amer. Flag_,
etc. ]

The earliest to go so far as to establish to a certainty[666]
the sites of the sagas was Rafn, who placed them on the coast of
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, wherein nearly all those have followed
him who have thought it worth while to be thus particular as to
headland and bay.

[Illustration: DIGHTON ROCK.[667]]

In applying the saga names they have, however, by no means agreed,
for Krossanes is with some Point Alderton, at the entrance of Boston
Harbor, and with others the Gurnet Head; the island where honey dew
was found is Nantucket with Rafn, and with De Costa an insular region,
Nauset, now under water near the elbow of Cape Cod;[668] the Vinland
of Rafn is in Narragansett Bay, that of Dr. A. C. Hamlin is at Merry
Meeting Bay on the coast of Maine,[669] and that of Horsford is
north of Cape Cod,[670]—not to mention other disagreements of other
disputants.

We get something more tangible, if not more decisive, when we come
to the monumental evidences. DeWitt Clinton and Samuel L. Mitchell
found little difficulty at one time in making many people believe
that the earthworks of Onondaga were Scandinavian. A pretended runic
inscription on a stone said to have been found in the Grave Creek mound
was sedulously ascribed to the Northmen.[671] What some have called a
runic inscription exists on a rock near Yarmouth in Nova Scotia, which
is interpreted “Hako’s son addressed the men,” and is supposed to
commemorate the expedition of Thorfinn in A.D. 1007.[672] A rock on the
little islet of Menana, close to Monhegan, on the coast of Maine, and
usually referred to as the Monhegan Rock, bears certain weather marks,
and there have been those to call them runes.[673] A similar claim is
made for a rock in the Merrimac Valley.[674] Rafn describes such rocks
as situated in Tiverton and Portsmouth Grove, R. I., but the markings
were Indian, and when Dr. S. A. Green visited the region in 1868 some
of them had disappeared.[675]

[Illustration: INSCRIPTION ON DIGHTON ROCK.

NOTE.—The opposite plate is reduced from one in the _Antiq.
Americanæ_. They show the difficulty, even before later weathering, of
different persons in discerning the same things on the rock, and in
discriminating between fissures and incisions. Col. Garrick Mallery
(_4th Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_, p. 250) asserts that the inscription
has been “so manipulated that it is difficult now to determine the
original details.” The drawings represented are enumerated in the text.
Later ones are numerous. Rafn also gives that of Dr. Baylies and Mr.
Gooding in 1790, and that made for the Rhode Island Hist. Society in
1830. The last has perhaps been more commonly copied than the others.
Photographs of late years are common; but almost invariably the
photographer has chalked what he deems to be the design,—in this they
do not agree, of course,—in order to make his picture clearer. I think
Schoolcraft in making his daguerreotype was the first to do this. The
most careful drawing made of late years is that by Professor Seager of
the Naval Academy, under the direction of Commodore Blake; and there is
in the Cabinet of the American Antiquarian Society a MS. essay on the
rock, written at Blake’s request by Chaplain Chas. R. Hale of the U. S.
Navy. Haven disputes Blake’s statement that a change in the river’s bed
more nearly submerges the rock at high tide than was formerly the case.
Cf. _Am. Antiq. Soc._ Proc., Oct., 1864, p. 41, where a history of the
rock is given; and in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 93.]

The most famous of all these alleged memorials[676] is the Dighton
Rock, lying in the tide on the side of Taunton River, in the town
of Berkeley, in Massachusetts.[677] Dr. De Costa thinks it possible
that the central portion may be runic. This part is what has been
interpreted to mean that Thorfinn with 151 men took possession of the
country, and it is said to be this portion of the inscription which
modern Indians discard when giving their interpretations.[678] That it
is the work of the Indian of historic times seems now to be the opinion
common to the best trained archæologists.[679]

Rafn was also the first to proclaim the stone tower now standing
at Newport, R. I., as a work of the Northmen; but the recent
antiquaries without any exception worth considering, believe that the
investigations have shown that it was erected by Governor Arnold of
Rhode Island as a windmill, sometime between 1670 and 1680; and Palfrey
in his _New England_ is thought to have put this view beyond doubt in
showing the close correspondence in design of the tower to a mill at
Chesterton, in England.[680]

Certain hearthstones which were discovered over twenty-five years
ago under a peat bed on Cape Cod were held at the time to be a
Norse relic.[681] In 1831 there was exhumed in Fall River, Mass.,
a skeleton, which had with it what seemed to be an ornamental belt
made of metal tubes, formed by rolling fragments of flat brass and an
oblong plate of the same metal,—not of bronze, as is usually said,—with
some arrow-heads, cut evidently from the same material. The other
concomitants of the burial indicated an Indian of the days since the
English contact. The skeleton attracted notice in this country by being
connected with the Norsemen in Longfellow’s ballad, _The Skeleton in
Armor_, and Dr. Webb sent such an account of it to the Royal Society of
Northern Antiquaries that it was looked upon as another and distinct
proof of the identification of Vinland. Later antiquaries have
dismissed all beliefs of that nature.[682]

There is not a single item of all the evidence thus advanced from
time to time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the
presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of Davis’
Straits. Arguments of this kind have been abandoned except by a few
enthusiastic advocates.

* * * * *

That the Northmen voyaging to Vinland encountered natives, and that
they were called Skraelings, may be taken as a sufficiently broad
statement in the sagas to be classed with those concomitants of the
voyages which it is reasonable to accept. Sir William Dawson (_Fossil
Men_, 49) finds it easy to believe that these natives were our red
Indians; and Gallatin saw no reason to dissociate the Eskimos with
other American tribes.[683] That they were Eskimos seems to be the more
commonly accepted view.[684]

That the climate of the Atlantic coast of the United States and the
British provinces was such as was favorable to the present Arctic
dwellers is held to be shown by such evidences as tusks of the walrus
found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Rude implements found in
the interglacial Jersey drift have been held by C. C. Abbott to have
been associated with a people of the Eskimo stock, and some have noted
that palæolithic implements found in Pennsylvania closely resemble the
work of the modern Eskimos (_Amer. Antiquarian_, i. 10).[685] Dall
remarks upon implements of Innuit origin being found four hundred
miles south of the present range of the Eskimos of the northwest coast
(_Contributions to Amer. Ethnology_, i. p. 98). Charlevoix says that
Eskimos were occasionally seen in Newfoundland in the beginning of the
last century; and ethnologists recognize to-day the same stock in the
Eskimos of Labrador and Greenland.

[Illustration: HINRIK RINK.

After a likeness given by Nordenskjöld in his _Exped. till Grönland_,
p. 121.]

The best authority on the Eskimos is generally held to be Hinrich
Rink, and he contends that they formerly occupied the interior of
the continent, and have been pressed north and across Behring’s
Straits.[686] W. H. Dall holds similar views.[687] C. R. Markham,
who dates their first appearance in Greenland in 1349, contends, on
the other hand, that they came from the west (Siberia) along the
polar regions (Wrangell Land), and drove out the Norse settlers in
Greenland.[688] The most active of the later students of the Eskimos
is Dr. Franz Boas, now of New York, who has discussed their tribal
boundaries.[689]

=F.= THE LOST GREENLAND COLONIES.—After intercourse with the colonies
in Greenland ceased, and definite tradition in Iceland had died out,
and when the question of the re-discovery should arise, it was natural
that attention should first be turned to that coast of Greenland which
lay opposite Iceland as the likelier sites of the lost colonies, and
in this way we find all the settlements placed in the maps of the
sixteenth century. The Archbishop Erik Walkendorf, of Lund, in the
early part of that century had failed to persuade the Danish government
to send an expedition. King Frederick II was induced, however, to
send one in 1568; but it accomplished nothing; and again in 1579 he
put another in command of an Englishman, Jacob Allday, but the ice
prevented his landing. A Danish navigator was more successful in 1581;
but the coast opposite Iceland yielded as yet no traces of the Norse
settlers. Frobisher’s discovery of the west coast seems to have failed
of recognition among the Danes; but they with the rest of Europe did
not escape noting the importance of the explorations of John Davis in
1585-86, through the straits which bear his name. It now became the
belief that the west settlement must be beyond Cape Farewell. In 1605,
Christian IV of Denmark sent a new expedition under Godske Lindenow;
but there was a Scotchman in command of one of the three ships, and
Jacob Hall, who had probably served under Davis, went as the fleet
pilot. He guided the vessels through Davis’s Straits. But it was rather
the purpose of Lindenow to find a northwest passage than to discover a
lost colony; and such was mainly the object which impelled him again in
1606, and inspired Karsten Rikardsen in 1607. Now and for some years to
come we have the records of voyages made by the whalers to this region,
and we read their narratives in Purchas and in such collections of
voyages as those of Harris and Churchill.[690] They yield us, however,
little or no help in the problem we are discussing. In 1670 and 1671
Christian V sent expeditions with the express purpose of discovering
the lost colonies; but Otto Axelsen, who commanded, never returned from
his second voyage, and we have no account of his first.

The mission of the priest Hans Egede gave the first real glimmer
of light.[691] He was the earliest to describe the ruins and relics
observable on the west coast, but he continued to regard the east
settlements as belonging to the east coast, and so placed them on the
map. Anderson (Hamburg, 1746) went so far as to place on his map the
cathedral of Gardar in a fixed location on the east coast, and his map
was variously copied in the following years.

In 1786 an expedition left Copenhagen to explore the east coast for
traces of the colonies, but the ice prevented the approach to the
coast, and after attempts in that year and in 1787 the effort was
abandoned. Heinrich Peter von Eggers, in his _Om Grönlands österbygds
sande Beliggenhed_ (1792), and _Ueber die wahre Lage des alten
Ostgrönlands_ (Kiel, 1794), a German translation, first advanced the
opinion that the eastern colony as well as the western must have
been on the west coast, and his views were generally accepted; but
Wormskjöld in the _Skandinavisk Litteraturselskab’s Skrifter_, vol. x.
(Copenhagen, 1814), still adhered to the earlier opinions, and Saabye
still believed it possible to reach the east coast.

[Illustration: REDUCED FAC-SIMILE.

[Harvard College Library copy.]]

Some years later (1828-31) W. A. Graah made, by order of the king
of Denmark, a thorough examination of the east coast, and in his
_Undersögelses Reise til Ostkysten af Grönland_ (Copenhagen, 1832)[692]
he was generally thought to establish the great improbability of any
traces of a colony ever existing on that coast. Of late years Graah’s
conclusions have been questioned, for there have been some sites of
buildings discovered on the east side.[693] The Reverend J. Brodbeck,
a missionary, described some in _The Moravian Quarterly_, July and
Aug., 1882. Nordenskjöld has held that when the east coast is explored
from 65° to 69°, there is a chance of discovering the site of an east
colony.[694]

R. H. Major, in a paper (_Journal Roy. Geog. Soc._, 1873, p. 184) on
the site of the lost colony, questioned Graah’s conclusions, and gave
a sketch map, in which he placed its site near Cape Farewell; and he
based his geographical data largely upon the chorography of Greenland
and the sailing directions of Ivan Bardsen, who was probably an
Icelander living in Greenland some time in the fifteenth century.[695]

=G.= MADOC AND THE WELSH.—Respecting the legends of Madoc, there are
reports, which Humboldt (_Cosmos_, Bohn, ii. 610) failed to verify, of
Welsh bards rehearsing the story before 1492,[696] and of statements
in the early Welsh annals. The original printed source is in Humfrey
Lloyd’s _History of Cambria, now called Wales, written in the British
language_ [by Caradoc] _about 200 years past_ (London, 1584).[697]
The book contained corrections and additions by David Powell, and
it was in these that the passages of importance were found, and the
supposition was that the land visited lay near the Gulf of Mexico.
Richard Hakluyt, in his _Principall Navigations_, took the story from
Powell, and connected the discovery with Mexico in his edition of 1589,
and with the West Indies in that of 1600 (iii. p. 1),—and there was not
an entire absence of the suspicion that it was worth while to establish
some sort of a British claim to antedate the Spanish one established
through Columbus.[698]

The linguistic evidences were not brought into prominence till after
one Morgan Jones had fallen among the Tuscaroras[699] in 1660, and
found, as he asserted, that they could understand his Welsh. He wrote
a statement of his experience in 1685-6, which was not printed till
1740.[700]

During the eighteenth century we find Campanius in his _Nye Swerige_
(1702) repeating the story; Torfæus (_Hist. Vinlandiæ_, 1705) not
rejecting it; Carte (_England_, 1747) thinking it probable; while
Campbell (_Admirals_, 1742), Lyttleton (_Henry the Second_, 1767), and
Robertson (_America_, 1777) thought there was no ground, at least, for
connecting the story with America.

It was reported that in 1764 a man, Griffeth, was taken by the Shawnees
to a tribe of Indians who spoke Welsh.[701] In 1768, Charles Beatty
published his _Journal of a two months’ Tour in America_ (London), in
which he repeated information of Indians speaking Welsh in Pennsylvania
and beyond the Mississippi, and of the finding of a Welsh Bible among
them.

In 1772-73, David Jones wandered among the tribes west of the Ohio,
and in 1774, at Burlington, published his _Journal of two visits_, in
which he enumerates the correspondence of words which he found in their
tongues with his native Welsh.[702]

Without noting other casual mentions, some of which will be found
in Paul Barron Watson’s bibliography (in Anderson’s _America not
discovered by Columbus_, p. 142), it is enough to say that towards
the end of the century the papers of John Williams[703] and George
Burder[704] gave more special examination to the subject than had been
applied before.

[Illustration: A BRITISH SHIP.

After a cut in _The Mirror of Literature_, etc. (London, 1823), vol. i.
p. 177, showing a vessel then recently exhumed in Kent, and supposed to
be of the time of Edward I, or the thirteenth century. The vessel was
sixty-four feet long.]

The renewed interest in the matter seems to have prompted Southey to
the writing of his poem _Madoc_, though he refrained from publishing it
for some years. If one may judge from his introductory note, Southey
held to the historical basis of the narrative. Meanwhile, reports were
published of this and the other tribes being found speaking Welsh.[705]
In 1816, Henry Kerr printed at Elizabethtown, New Jersey, his _Travels
through the Western interior of the United States, 1808-16, with some
account of a tribe whose customs are similar to those of the ancient
Welsh_. In 1824, Yates and Moulton (_State of New York_) went over the
ground rather fully, but without conviction. Hugh Murray (_Travels
in North America_, London, 1829) believes the Welsh went to Spain.
In 1834, the different sides of the case were discussed by Farcy and
Warden in Dupaix’s _Antiquités Méxicaines_. Some years later the
publication of George Catlin[706] probably gave more conviction than
had been before felt,[707] arising from his statements of positive
linguistic correspondences in the language of the so-called White[708]
Mandans[709] on the Missouri River, the similarity of their boats to
the old Welsh coracles, and other parallelisms of custom. He believed
that Madoc landed at Florida, or perhaps passed up the Mississippi
River. His conclusions were a reinforcement of those reached by
Williams.[710] The opinion reached by Major in his edition of
_Columbus’ Letters_ (London, 1847) that the Welsh discovery was quite
possible, while it was by no means probable, is with little doubt the
view most generally accepted to-day; while the most that can be made
out of the claim is presented with the latest survey in B. F. Bowen’s
_America discovered by the Welsh in 1170_ A.D. (Philad., 1876). He
gathers up, as helping his proposition, such widely scattered evidences
as the Lake Superior copper mines and the Newport tower, both of which
he appropriates; and while following the discoverers from New England
south and west, he does not hesitate to point out the resemblance of
the Ohio Valley mounds[711] to those depicted in Pennant’s _Tour of
Wales_; and he even is at no loss for proofs among the relics of the
Aztecs.[712]

=H.= THE ZENI AND THEIR MAP.—Something has been said elsewhere (Vol.
III. p. 100) of the influence of the Zeni narrative and its map, in
confusing Frobisher in his voyages. The map was reproduced in the
Ptolemy of 1561, with an account of the adventures of the brothers, but
it was so far altered as to dissever Greenland from Norway, of which
the Zeni map had made it but an extension.[713]

The story got further currency in Ramusio (1574, vol. ii.), Ortelius
(1575), Hakluyt (1600, vol. iii.), Megiser’s _Septentrio Novantiquus_
(1613), Purchas (1625), Pontanus’ _Rerum Danicarum_ (1631), Luke
Fox’s _North-West Fox_ (1633), and in De Laet’s Notæ (1644), who,
as well as Hornius, _De Originibus Americanis_ (1644), thinks the
story suspicious. It was repeated by Montanus in 1671, and by Capel,
_Vorstellungen des Norden_, in 1676. Some of the features of the map
had likewise become pretty constant in the attendant cartographical
records. But from the close of the seventeenth century for about a
hundred years, the story was for the most part ignored, and it was not
till 1784 that the interest in it was revived by the publications of
Forster[714] and Buache,[715] who each expressed their belief in the
story.

A more important inquiry in behalf of the narrative took place at
Venice in 1808, when Cardinal Zurla republished the map in an essay,
and marked out the track of the Zeni on a modern chart.[716]

In 1810, Malte-Brun accorded his belief in the verity of the narrative,
and was inclined to believe that the Latin books found in Estotiland
were carried there by colonists from Greenland.[717] A reactionary view
was taken by Biddle in his _Sebastian Cabot_, in 1831, who believed
the publication of 1558 a fraud; but the most effective denial of its
authenticity came a few years later in sundry essays by Zahrtmann.[718]

[Illustration: RICHARD H. MAJOR.

[After a photograph kindly furnished by himself at the editor’s
request.—ED.]]

The story got a strong advocate, after nearly forty years of
comparative rest, when R. H. Major, of the map department of the
British Museum, gave it an English dress and annexed a commentary, all
of which was published by the Hakluyt Society in 1873. In this critic’s
view, the good parts of the map are of the fourteenth century, gathered
on the spot, while the false parts arose from the misapprehensions of
the young Zeno, who put together the book of 1558.[719] The method of
this later Zeno was in the same year (1873) held by Professor Konrad
Maurer to be hardly removed from a fraudulent compilation of other
existing material. There has been a marked display of learning, of late
years, in some of the discussions.

[Illustration: BARON NORDENSKJÖLD.

[From a recent photograph. There is another engraved likeness in the
second volume of his _Vega_.]]

Cornelio Desimoni, the archivist of Genoa, has printed two elaborate
papers.[720] The Danish archivist Frederik Krarup published (1878) a
sceptical paper in the _Geografisk Tidsskrift_ (ii. 145).[721] The most
exhaustive examination, however, has come from a practical navigator,
the Baron A. E. Nordenskjöld, who in working up the results of his own
Arctic explorations was easily led into the intricacies of the Zeno
controversy. The results which he reaches are that the Zeni narratives
are substantially true; that there was no published material in 1558
which could have furnished so nearly an accurate account of the actual
condition of those northern waters; that the map which Zahrtmann saw in
the University library at Copenhagen, and which he represented to be an
original from which the young Zeno of 1558 made his pretended original,
was in reality nothing but the Donis map in the Ptolemy of 1482, while
the Zeno map is much more like the map of the north made by Claudius
Clavis in 1427, which was discovered by Nordenskjöld in a codex of
Ptolemy at Nancy.[722]

* * * * *

Since Nordenskjöld advanced his views there have been two
other examinations: the one by Professor Japetus Steenstrup of
Copenhagen,[723] and the other by the secretary of the Danish
Geographical Society, Professor Ed. Erslef, who offered some new
illustrations in his _Nye Oplysninger om Broedrene Zenis Rejser_
(Copenhagen, 1885).[724]

Among those who accept the narratives there is no general agreement
in identifying the principal geographical points of the Zeno map. The
main dispute is upon Frislanda, the island where the Zeni were wrecked.
That it was Iceland has been maintained by Admiral Irminger,[725] and
Steenstrup (who finds, however, the text not to agree with the map),
while the map accompanying the _Studi biografici e bibliografici sulla
storia della geografia in Italia_ (Rome, 1882) traces the route of the
Zeni from Iceland to Greenland, under 70° of latitude.

On the other hand, Major has contended for the Faröe islands, arguing
that while the engraved Zeno map shows a single large island, it
might have been an archipelago in the original, with outlines run
together by the obscurities of its dilapidation, and that the Faröes by
their preserved names and by their position correspond best with the
Frislanda of the Zeni.[726] Major’s views have been adopted by most
later writers, perhaps, and a similar identification had earlier been
made by Lelewel,[727] Kohl,[728] and others.

The identification of Estotiland involves the question if the returned
fisherman of the narrative ever reached America. It is not uncommon
for even believers in the story to deny that Estotiland and Drogeo
were America. That they were parts of the New World was, however, the
apparent belief of Mercator and of many of the cartographers following
the publication of 1558, and of such speculators as Hugo Grotius, but
there was little common consent in their exact position.[729]

=I.= ALLEGED JEWISH MIGRATION.—The identification of the native
Americans with the stock of the lost tribes of Israel very soon
became a favorite theory with the early Spanish priests settled in
America. Las Casas and Duran adopted it, while Torquemada and Acosta
rejected it. André Thevet, of mendacious memory, did not help the
theory by espousing it. It was approved in J. F. Lumnius’s _De extremo
Dei Judicio et Indorum vocatione, libri iii._ (Venice and Antwerp,
1569);[730] and a century later the belief attracted new attention
in the _Origen de los Americanos de Manasseh Ben Israel_, published
at Amsterdam in 1650.[731] It was in the same year (1650) that the
question received the first public discussion in English in Thomas
Thorowgood’s _Jewes in America, or, Probabilities that the Americans
are of that Race. With the removall of some contrary reasonings, and
earnest desires for effectuall endeavours to make them Christian_
(London, 1650).[732] Thorowgood was answered by Sir Hamon L’Estrange
in _Americans no Iewes, or Improbabilities that the Americans are of
that race_ (London, 1652). The views of Thorowgood found sympathy
with the Apostle Eliot of Massachusetts; and when Thorowgood replied
to L’Estrange he joined with it an essay by Eliot, and the joint work
was entitled _Iewes in America, or probabilities that those Indians
are Judaical, made more probable by some additionals to the former
conjectures: an accurate discourse is premised of Mr. John Eliot (who
preached the gospel to the natives in their own language) touching
their origination, and his Vindication of the planters_ (London,
1660). What seems to have been a sort of supplement, covering,
however, in part, the same ground, appeared as _Vindiciæ Judæcorum,
or a true account of the Jews, being more accurately illustrated than
heretofore_, which includes what is called “The learned conjectures of
Rev. Mr. John Eliot” (32 pp.). Some of the leading New England divines,
like Mayhew and Mather,[733] espoused the cause with similar faith.
Roger Williams also was of the same opinion. William Penn is said to
have held like views. The belief may be said to have been general,
and had not died out in New England when Samuel Sewall, in 1697,
published his _Phænomena quædam Apocalyptica ad aspectum Novi Orbis
Configurata_.[734]

After the middle of the last century we begin to find new signs of
the belief. Charles Beatty, in his _Journal of a two months’ tour
with a view of promoting religion among the frontier inhabitants of
Pennsylvania_ (Lond., 1768), finds traces of the lost tribes among the
Delawares, and repeats a story of the Indians long ago selling the
same sacred book to the whites with which the missionaries in the end
aimed to make them acquainted. Gerard de Brahm and Richard Peters,
both familiar with the Southern Indians, found grounds for accepting
the belief. The most elaborate statement drawn from this region is
that of James Adair, who for forty years had been a trader among the
Southern Indians.[735] Jonathan Edwards in 1788 pointed out in the
Hebrew some analogies to the native speech.[736] Charles Crawford in
1799 undertook the proof.[737] In 1816 Elias Boudinot, a man eminent
in his day, contributed further arguments.[738] Ethan Smith based his
advocacy largely on the linguistic elements.[739] A few years later
an Englishman, Israel Worsley, worked over the material gathered by
Boudinot and Smith, and added something.[740] A prominent American
Jew, M. M. Noah, published in 1837 an address on the subject which
hardly added to the weight of testimony.[741] J. B. Finlay, a mulatto
missionary among the Wyandots, was satisfied with the Hebrew traces
which he observed in that tribe.[742] Geo. Catlin, working also among
the Western Indians, while he could not go to the length of believing
in the lost tribes, was struck with the many analogies which he
saw.[743] The most elaborate of all expositions of the belief was made
by Lord Kingsborough in his _Mexican Antiquities_ (1830-48).[744] Since
this book there has been no pressing of the question with any claims to
consideration.[745]

=J.= POSSIBLE EARLY AFRICAN MIGRATIONS.—These may have been by
adventure or by helpless drifting, with or without the Canaries as a
halting-place. The primitive people of the Canaries, the Guanches, are
studied in Sabin Berthelot’s _Antiquités Canariennes_ (Paris, 1879)
and A. F. de Fontpertuis’ _L’archipel des Canaries, et ses populations
primitives_, also in the _Revue de Géographie_, June, 1882, not to
mention earlier histories of the Canary Islands (see Vol. II. p. 36).
Retzius of Stockholm traces resemblances in the skulls of the Guanches
and the Caribs (_Smithsonian Rept._, 1859, p. 266). Le Plongeon finds
the sandals of the statue Chac-mool, discovered by him in Yucatan, to
resemble those of the Guanches (Salisbury’s _Le Plongeon in Yucatan_,
57).

The African and even Egyptian origin of the Caribs has had some
special advocates.[746] Peter Martyr, and Grotius following him,
contended for the people of Yucatan being Ethiopian Christians. Stories
of blackamoors being found by the early Spaniards are not without
corroboration.[747] The correspondence of the African and South
American flora has been brought into requisition as confirmatory.[748]

* * * * *

THE CARTOGRAPHY OF GREENLAND.

The oldest map yet discovered to show any part of Greenland, and
consequently of America,[749] is one found by Baron Nordenskjöld
attached to a Ptolemy Codex in the Stadtbibliothek at Nancy. He
presented a colored fac-simile of it in 1883 at the Copenhagen Congrès
des Américanistes, in his little brochure _Trois Cartes_. It was also
used in illustration of his paper on the Zeni Voyages, published
both in Swedish and German. It will be seen by the fac-simile given
herewith, and marked with the author’s name, Claudius Clavus, that
“Gronlandia Provincia” is an extension of a great arctic region, so
as to lie over against the Scandinavian peninsula of Europe, with
“Islandia,” or Iceland, midway between the two lands. Up to the time
of this discovery by Nordenskjöld, the map generally recognized as the
oldest to show Greenland is a Genovese portolano, preserved in the
Pitti Palace at Florence, about which there is some doubt as to its
date, which is said to be 1417 by Santarem (_Hist. de la Cartog._,
iii., p. xix), but Lelewel (_Epilogue_, p. 167) is held to be trustier
in giving it as 1447.[750] It shows how little influence the Norse
stories of their Greenland colonization exerted at this time on the
cartography of the north, that few of the map-makers deemed it worth
while to break the usual terminal circle of the world by including
anything west or beyond Iceland. It was, further, not easy to convince
them that Greenland, when they gave it, lay in the direction which
the Sagas indicated. The map of Fra Mauro, for instance, in 1459 cuts
off a part of Iceland by its incorrigible terminal circle, as will
be seen in a bit of it given herewith, the reader remembering as he
looks at it that the bottom of the segment is to the north.[751] We
again owe to Nordenskjöld the discovery of another map of the north,
_Tabula Regionum Septentrionalium_, which he found in a Codex of
Ptolemy in Warsaw a few years since, and which he places about 1467.
The accompanying partial sketch is reproduced from a fac-simile
kindly furnished by the discoverer. The peninsula of “Gronlandia,”
with its indicated glaciers, is placed with tolerable accuracy as the
western extremity of an arctic region, which to the north of Europe
is separated from the Scandinavian peninsula by a channel from the
“Mare Gotticum” (Baltic Sea), which sweeps above Norway into the
“Mare Congelatum.” The confused notions arising from an attempt by
the compiler of the map to harmonize different drafts is shown by
his drawing a second Greenland (“Engronelant”) to his “Norbegia,” or
Norway, and placing just under it the “Thile”[752] of the ancients,
which he makes a different island from “Islandia,” placed in proper
relations to his larger Greenland.

[Illustration: CLAUDIUS CLAVUS, 1427.]

A few years later, or perhaps about the same time, and before 1471,
the earliest engraved map which shows Greenland is that of Nicolas
Donis, in the Ulm edition of Ptolemy in 1482. It will be seen from the
little sketch which is annexed that the same doubling of Greenland is
adhered to.[753] With the usual perversion put upon the Norse stories,
Iceland is made to lie due west of Greenland, though not shown in the
present sketch.

At a date not much later, say 1486, it is supposed the Laon globe,
dated in 1493, was actually made, or at least it is shown that in some
parts the knowledge was rather of the earlier date, and here we have
“Grolandia,” a small island off the Norway coast.[754]

[Illustration: CLAUDIUS CLAVUS, 1427.]

We have in 1489-90 a type of configuration, which later became
prevalent. It is taken from an _Insularium illustratum Henrici Martelli
Germani_, a manuscript preserved in the British Museum, and shows, as
seen by the annexed extract, a long narrow peninsula, running southwest
from the northern verge of Europe. A sketch of the whole map is given
elsewhere.[755]

This seems to have been the prevailing notion of what and where
Greenland was at the time of Columbus’ voyage, and it could have
carried no significance to his mind that the explorations of the Norse
had found the Asiatic main, which he started to discover. How far this
notion was departed from by Behaim in his globe of 1492 depends upon
the interpretation to be given to a group of islands, northwest of
Iceland and northeast of Asia, upon the larger of which he writes among
its mountains, “Hi man weise Volker.”[756]

As this sketch of the cartographical development goes on, it will be
seen how slow the map-makers were to perceive the real significance
of the Norse discoveries, and how reluctant they were to connect them
with the discoveries that followed in the train of Columbus, though
occasionally there is one who is possessed with a sort of prevision.
The Cantino map of 1502[757] does not settle the question, for a point
lying northeast of the Portuguese discoveries in the Newfoundland
region only seems to be the southern extremity of Greenland. What was
apparently a working Portuguese chart of 1503 grasps pretty clearly the
relations of Greenland to Labrador.[758]

[Illustration: FRA MAURO, 1459.]

Lelewel (pl. 43), in a map made to show the Portuguese views at
this time,[759] which he represents by combining and reconciling the
Ptolemy maps of 1511 and 1513, still places the “Gronland” peninsula
in the northwest of Europe, and if his deductions are correct, the
Portuguese had as yet reached no clear conception that the Labrador
coasts upon which they fished bore any close propinquity to those
which the Norse had colonized. Ruysch, in 1508, made a bold stroke by
putting “Gruenlant” down as a peninsula of Northeastern Asia, thus
trying to reconcile the discoveries of Columbus with the northern
sagas.[760] This view was far from acceptable. Sylvanus, in the Ptolemy
of 1511, made “Engroneland” a small protuberance on the north shore
of Scandinavia, and east of Iceland, evidently choosing between the
two theories instead of accepting both, as was common, in ignorance of
their complemental relations.[761] Waldseemüller, in the Ptolemy of
1513, in his “Orbis typus universalis,” reverted to and adopted the
delineation of Henricus Martellus in 1490.[762]

[Illustration: TABULA REGIONUM SEPTENTRIONALIUM, 1467.]

[Illustration: DONIS, 1482.]

In 1520, Apian, in the map in Camer’s _Solinus_, took the view of
Sylvanus, while still another representation was given by Laurentius
Frisius in 1522, in an edition of Ptolemy,[763] in which “Gronland”
becomes a large island on the Norway coast, in one map called “Orbis
typus Universalis,” while in another map, “Tabula nova Norbegiæ et
Gottiæ,” the “Engronelant” peninsula is a broad region, stretching
from Northwestern Europe.[764]

[Illustration: HENRICUS MARTELLUS, 1489-90.]

This Ptolemy was again issued in 1525, repeating these two methods of
showing Greenland already given, and adding a third,[765] that of the
long narrow European peninsula, already familiar in earlier maps—the
variety of choice indicating the prevalent cartographical indecision on
the point.

[Illustration: OLAUS MAGNUS, 1539.

NOTE.—This fac-simile accompanies a paper appearing in the
_Videnskabsselskabs Forhandinger_ (1886, no. 15) _and separately as
Die ächte karte des Olaus Magnus vom jahre 1539, nach dem exemplar der
Münchener Staatsbibliothek_ (Christiania, 1886). In this Dr. Brenner
traces the history of the great map of Archbishop Olaus Magnus,
pointing out how Nordenskjöld is in error in supposing the map of
1567, which that scholar gives, was but a reproduction of the original
edition of 1539, which was not known to modern students till Brenner
found it in the library at Munich, in March, 1886, and which proves to
be twelve times larger than that of 1567. Brenner adds the long Latin
address, “Olaus Gothus benigno lectori salutem,” with annotations. The
map is entitled “Carta Marina et descriptio septentrionalium errarum ac
mirabilium rerum in eis contentarum diligentissime elaborata, Anno Dni,
1539.” Brenner institutes a close comparison between it and the Zeno
chart.]

Kohl, in his collection of maps,[766] copies from what he calls the
Atlas of Frisius, 1525, still another map which apparently shows the
southern extremity of Greenland, with “Terra Laboratoris,” an island
just west of it, and southwest of that a bit of coast marked “Terra
Nova Conterati,” which may pass for Newfoundland and the discoveries of
Cortereal.

[Illustration: OLAUS MAGNUS, 1555.

This map, here reproduced on a somewhat smaller scale, is called:
_Regnorum Aquilonarum descriptio, hujus Operis subiectum_.]

Thorne, the Englishman, in the map which he sent from Seville in
1527,[767] seems to conform to the view which made Greenland a European
peninsula, which may also have been the opinion of Orontius Finæus in
1531.[768] A novel feature attaches to an Atlas, of about this date,
preserved at Turin, in which an elongated Greenland is made to stretch
northerly.[769] In 1532 we have the map in Ziegler’s _Schondia_, which
more nearly resembles the earliest map of all, that of Claudius Clavus,
than any other.[770] The 1538 cordiform map of Mercator makes it a
peninsula of an arctic region connected with Scandinavia.[771] This
map is known to me only through a fac-simile of the copy given in the
_Geografia_ of Lafreri, published at Rome about 1560, with which I am
favored by Nordenskjöld in advance of its publication in his _Atlas_.

[Illustration: FROM OLAUS MAGNUS’ HISTORIA, 1567.]

The great _Historia_ of Olaus Magnus, as for a long time the leading
authority on the northern geography, as well as on the Scandinavian
chronicles, gives us some distinct rendering of this northern
geographical problem. It was only recently that his earliest map of
1539 has been brought to light, and a section of it is here reproduced
from a much reduced fac-simile kindly sent to the editor by Dr. Oscar
Brenner of the university at Munich.[A] Nordenskjöld, in giving a full
fac-simile of the Olaus Magnus map of 1567,[772] of which a fragment
is herewith also given in fac-simile, says that it embodies the views
of the northern geographers in separating Greenland from Europe,
which was in opposition to those of the geographers of the south of
Europe, who united Greenland to Scandinavia. Sebastian Münster in his
1540 edition of Ptolemy introduced a new confusion. He preserved the
European elongated peninsula, but called it “Islandia,” while to what
stands for Iceland is given the old classical name of Thyle.[773] This
confusion is repeated in his map of 1545,[774] where he makes the coast
of “Islandia” continuous with Baccalaos. This continuity of coast line
seemed now to become a common heritage of some of the map-makers,[775]
though in the Ulpius globe of 1542 “Groestlandia,” so far as it is
shown, stands separate from either continent,[776] but is connected
with Europe according to the early theory in the _Isolario_ of Bordone
in 1547.

[Illustration: BORDONE’S SCANDINAVIA, 1547.

Reproduced from the fac-simile given in Nordenskjöld’s _Studien_
(Leipzig, 1885).]

We have run down the main feature of the northern cartography, up
to the time of the publication of the Zeno map in 1558. The chief
argument for its authenticity is that there had been nothing drawn and
published up to that time which could have conduced, without other aid,
to so accurate an outline of Greenland as it gives. In an age when
drafts of maps freely circulated over Europe, from cartographer to
cartographer, in manuscript, it does not seem necessary that the search
for prototypes or prototypic features should be confined to those which
had been engraved.

[Illustration: ZENO MAP. (_Reduced_.)

The original measures 12 × 15½ inches. Fac-similes of the original size
or reduced, or other reproductions, will be found in Nordenskjöld’s
_Trois Cartes_, and in his _Studien_; Malte Brun’s _Annales des
Voyages_; Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_ (ii. 169); _Carter-Brown Catalogue_
(i. 211); Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, 97; Ruge’s _Geschichte des
Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, p. 27; Bancroft’s _Central America_,
i. 81; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S_., i. 84; Howley’s _Ecclesiast. Hist.
Newfoundland_, p. 45; Erizzo’s _Le Scoperte Artiche_ (Venice,
1855),—not to name others.]

With these allowances the map does not seem to be very exceptional
in any feature. It is connected with northwestern Europe in just the
manner appertaining to several of the earlier maps. Its shape is no
great improvement on the map of 1467, found at Warsaw. There was
then no such constancy in the placing of mid-sea islands in maps, to
interdict the random location of other islands at the cartographer’s
will, without disturbing what at that day would have been deemed
geographical probabilities, and there was all the necessary warranty
in existing maps for the most wilfully depicted archipelago. The early
Portuguese charts, not to name others, gave sufficient warrant for land
where Estotiland and Drogeo appear.

[Illustration: THE PTOLEMY ALTERATION (1561, etc.) OF THE ZENO MAP.]

Mention has already been made of the changes in this map, which the
editors of the Ptolemy of 1561 made in severing Greenland from Europe,
when they reëngraved it.[777] The same edition contained a map of
“Schonlandia,” in which it seems to be doubtful if the land which
stands for Greenland does, or does not, connect with the Scandinavian
main.[778] That Greenland was an island seems now to have become the
prevalent opinion, and it was enforced by the maps of Mercator (1569
and 1587), Ortelius (1570, 1575), and Gallæus (1585), which placed
it lying mainly east and west between the Scandinavian north and the
Labrador coast, which it was now the fashion to call Estotiland. In its
shape it closely resembled the Zeni outline. Another feature of these
maps was the placing of another but smaller island west of “Groenlant,”
which was called “Grocland,” and which seems to be simply a
reduplication of the larger island by some geographical confusion,[779]
which once started was easily seized upon to help fill out the arctic
spaces.[780]

[Illustration: SEPTENTRIONALES REGIONES.

From _Theatri orbis Terrarum Enchiridion, per Phillipum Gallæum, et per
Hugonem Favolium_ (Antwerp, 1585).]

It was just at this time (1570) that the oldest maps which display the
geographical notions of the saga men were drawn, though not brought to
light for many years. We note two such of this time, and one of a date
near forty years later. One marked “Jonas, Gudmundi filius, delineavit,
1570,” is given as are the two others by Torfæus in his _Gronlandia
Antiqua_. They all seem to recognize a passage to the Arctic seas
between Norway and Greenland, the northern parts of which last are
called “Risaland,” or “Riseland,” and Jonas places “Oster Bygd” and
“Wester Bygd” on the opposite sides of a squarish peninsula. Beyond
what must be Davis’ Straits is “America,” and further south “Terra
Florida” and “Albania.”

If this description is compared with the key of Stephanius’ map,
next to be mentioned, while we remember that both represent the views
prevailing in the north in 1570, it is hard to resist the conclusion
that Vinland was north even of Davis’ Straits, or at least held to be
so at that time.

The second map, that of Stephanius, is reproduced herewith, dating back
to the same period (1570); but the third, by Gudbrandus Torlacius, was
made in 1606, and is sketched in Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_ (p. 109).
It gives better shape to “Gronlandia” than in either of the others.

[Illustration: SIGURD STEPHANIUS, 1570.

Reproduced from the _Saga Time_ of J. Fulford Vicary (London, 1887),
after the map as given in the publication of the geographical society
at Copenhagen, 1885-86, and it is supposed to have been drafted upon
the narrative of the sagas. Key:

“_A._ This is where the English have come and has a name for
barrenness, either from sun or cold.

_B._ This is near where Vineland lies, which from its abundance of
useful things, or from the land’s fruitfulness, is called Good. Our
countrymen (Icelanders) have thought that to the south it ends with the
wild sea and that a sound or fjord separates it from America.

_C._ This land is called Rüseland or land of the giants, as they have
horns and are called Skrickfinna (Fins that frighten).

_D._ This is more to the east, and the people are called Klofinna (Fins
with claws) on account of their large nails.

_E._ This is Jotunheimer, or the home of the misshapen giants.

_F._ Here is thought to be a fjord, or sound, leading to Russia.

_G._ A rocky land often referred to in histories.

_H._ What island that is I do not know, unless it be the island that a
Venetian found, and the Germans call Friesland.”

It will be observed under the _B_ of the Key, the Norse of 1570 did not
identify the Vinland of 1000 with the America of later discoveries.

This map is much the same, but differs somewhat in detail, from the one
called of Stephanius, as produced in Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, p.
107, professedly after a copy given in Torfæus’ _Gronlandia Antiqua_
(1706). Torfæus quotes Theodorus Torlacius, the Icelandic historian,
as saying that Stephanius appears to have drawn his map from ancient
Icelandic records. The other maps given by Torfæus are: by Bishop
Gudbrand Thorlakssen (1606); by Jonas Gudmund (1640); by Theodor
Thorlakssen (1666), and by Torfæus himself. Cf. other copies of the map
of Stephanius in Malte-Brun’s _Annales des Voyages, Weise’s Discoveries
of America_, p. 22; _Geog. Tidskrift_, viii. 123, and in Horsford’s
_Disc. of America by Northmen_, p. 37.]

It is not necessary to follow the course of the Greenland cartography
farther with any minuteness. As the sixteenth century ended we have
leading maps by Hakluyt in 1587 and 1599 (see Vol. III. 42), and De
Bry in 1596 (Vol. IV. 99), and Wytfliet in 1597, all of which give
Davis’s Straits with more or less precision. Barentz’s map of 1598
became the exemplar of the circumpolar chart in Pontanus’ _Rerum et
Urbis Amstelodamensium Historia_ of 1611.[781] The chart of Luke Fox,
in 1635, marked progress[782] better than that of La Peyrère (1647),
though his map was better known.[783] Even as late as 1727, Hermann
Moll could not identify his “Greenland” with “Groenland.” In 1741,
we have the map of Hans Egede in his “Grönland,” repeated in late
editions, and the old delineation of the east coast after Torfæus was
still retained in the 1788 map of Paul Egede.

[Illustration: KORT _over_ GRÖNLAND _Den östre Süde efter Torfæus
Den vestre Süde aflagt og forbedret i Sammenligning med de senere
Efterretninger af Paul Egede_

NOTE.—The annexed map is a reduced fac-simile of the map in the
_Efterretninger om Grönland uddragne af en Journal holden fra 1771
til 1788_, by Paul Egede (Copenhagen, 1789). Paul Egede, son of Hans,
was born in 1708, and remained in Greenland till 1740. He was made
Bishop of Greenland in 1770, and died in 1789. The above book gives
a portrait. There is another fac-simile of the map in Nordenskjöld’s
_Exped. till Grönland_, p. 234.]

In the map of 1653, made by De la Martinière, who was of the Danish
expedition to the north, Greenland was made to connect with Northern
Asia by way of the North pole.[784] Nordenskjöld calls him the
Münchhausen of the northeast voyagers; and by his own passage in the
“Vega,” along the northern verge of Europe, from one ocean to the
other, the Swedish navigator has of recent years proved for the first
time that Greenland has no such connection. It yet remains to be proved
that there is no connection to the north with at least the group of
islands that are the arctic outlyers of the American continent.

[Illustration: GREENLAND.

Extracted from the “Carte de Grœnland” in Isaac de la Peyrère’s
_Relation du Groenland_ (Paris, 1647). Cf. Winsor’s _Kohl Maps_, no.
122.]

CHAPTER III.

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

BY JUSTIN WINSOR.

THE traditions of the migrations of the Chichimecs, Colhuas, and
Nahuas,” says Max Müller,[785] “are no better than the Greek traditions
about Pelasgians, Æolians, and Ionians, and it would be a mere waste of
time to construct out of such elements a systematic history, only to be
destroyed again, sooner or later, by some Niebuhr, Grote, or Lewis.”

“It is yet too early,” says Bandelier,[786] “to establish a definite
chronology, running farther back from the Conquest than two
centuries,[787] and even within that period but very few dates have
been satisfactorily fixed.”

Such are the conditions of the story which it is the purpose of this
chapter to tell.

We have, to begin with, as in other history, the recognition of
a race of giants, convenient to hang legends on, and accounted on
all hands to have been occupants of the country in the dimmest
past, so that there is nothing back of them. Who they were, whence
they came, and what stands for their descendants after we get down
to what in this pre-Spanish history we rather presumptuously call
historic ground, is far from clear. If we had the easy faith of the
native historian Ixtlilxochitl, we should believe that these gigantic
Quinames, or Quinametin, were for the most part swallowed up in a great
convulsion of nature, and it was those who escaped which the Olmecs
and Tlascalans encountered in entering the country.[788] If all this
means anything, which may well be doubted, it is as likely as not
that these giants were the followers of a demi-god, Votan,[789] who
came from over-sea to America,[790] found it peopled, established a
government in Xibalba,—if such a place ever existed,—with the germs
of Maya if not of other civilizations, whence, by migrations during
succeeding times, the Votanites spread north and occupied the Mexican
plateau, where they became degenerate, doubtless, if they deserved
the extinction which we are told was in store for them. But they
had an alleged chronicler for their early days, the writer of the
Book of Votan, written either by the hero himself or by one of his
descendants,—eight or nine generations in the range of authorship
making little difference apparently. That this narrative was known to
Francisco Nuñez de la Vega[791] would seem to imply that somebody at
that time had turned it into readable script out of the unreadable
hieroglyphics, while the disguises of the Spanish tongue, perhaps, as
Bancroft[792] suggests, may have saved it from the iconoclastic zeal of
the priests. When, later, Ramon de Ordoñez had the document,—perhaps
the identical manuscript,—it consisted of a few folios of quarto
paper, and was written in Roman script in the Tzendal tongue, and was
inspected by Cabrera, who tells us something of its purport in his
_Teatro critico Americano_, while Ramon himself was at the same time
using it in his _Historia del Cielo y de la Tierra_. It was from a
later copy of this last essay, the first copy being unknown, that the
Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg got his knowledge of what Ramon had derived
from the Votan narrative, and which Brasseur has given us in several
of his books.[793] That there was a primitive empire—Votanic, if you
please—seems to some minds confirmed by other evidences than the story
of Votan; and out of this empire—to adopt a European nomenclature—have
come, as such believers say, after its downfall somewhere near the
Christian era, and by divergence, the great stocks of people called
Maya, Quiché, and Nahua, inhabiting later, and respectively, Yucatan,
Guatemala, and Mexico. This is the view, if we accept the theory which
Bancroft has prominently advocated, that the migrations of the Nahuas
were from the south northward,[794] and that this was the period of the
divergence, eighteen centuries ago or more, of the great civilizing
stocks of Mexico and of Central America.[795] We fail to find so early
a contact of these two races, if, on the other hand, we accept the
old theory that the migrations which established the Toltec and Aztec
powers were from the north southward,[796] through three several lines,
as is sometimes held, one on each side of the Rocky Mountains, with a
third following the coast. In this way such advocates trace the course
of the Olmecs, who encountered the giants, and later of the Toltecs.

That the Votanic peoples or some other ancient tribes were then a
distinct source of civilization, and that Palenqué may even be Xibalba,
or the Nachan, which Votan founded, is a belief that some archæologists
find the evidence of in certain radical differences in the Maya tongues
and in the Maya ruins.[797]

In the Quiché traditions, as preserved in the _Popul Vuh_, and in
the _Annals of the Cakchiquels_, we likewise go back into mistiness
and into the inevitable myths which give the modern comparative
mythologists so much comfort and enlightenment; but Bancroft[798] and
the rest get from all this nebulousness, as was gotten from the Maya
traditions, that there was a great power at Xibalba,[799]—if in Central
America anywhere that place may have been,—which was overcome[800]
when from Tulan[801] went out migrating chiefs, who founded the
Quiché-Cakchiquel peoples of Guatemala, while others, the Yaqui,—very
likely only traders,—went to Mexico, and still others went to Yucatan,
thus accounting for the subsequent great centres of aboriginal power—if
we accept this view.

As respects the traditions of the more northern races, there is the
same choice of belief and alternative demonstration. The Olmecs, the
earliest Nahua corners, are sometimes spoken of as sailing from Florida
and landing on the coast at what is now Pánuco, whence they travelled
to Guatemala,[802] and finally settled in Tamoanchan, and offered their
sacrifices farther north at Teotihuacan.[803] This is very likely the
Votan legend suited to the more northern region, and if so, it serves
to show, unless we discard the whole theory, how the Votanic people had
scattered. The other principal source of our suppositions—for we can
hardly call it knowledge—of these times is the _Codex Chimalpòpoca_,
of which there is elsewhere an account,[804] and from it we can derive
much the same impressions, if we are disposed to sustain a preconceived
notion.

The periods and succession of the races whose annals make up the
history of what we now call Mexico, prior to the coming of the
Spaniards, are confused and debatable. Whether under the name of
Chichimecs we are to understand a distinct people, or a varied and
conglomerate mass of people, which, in a generic way, we might call
barbarians, is a question open to discussion.[805] There is no lack
of names[806] to be applied to the tribes and bands which, according
to all accounts, occupied the Mexican territory previous to the sixth
century. Some of them were very likely Nahua forerunners[807] of the
subsequent great influx of that race, like the Olmecs and Xicalancas,
and may have been the people, “from the direction of Florida,” of
whom mention has been made. Others, as some say, were eddies of those
populous waves which, coming by the north from Asia, overflowed the
Rocky Mountains, and became the builders of mounds and the later
peoples of the Mississippi Valley,[808] passed down the trend of the
Rocky Mountains, and built cliff-houses and pueblos, or streamed into
the table-land of Mexico. This is all conjecture, perhaps delusion,
but may be as good a supposition as any, if we agree to the northern
theory, as Nadaillac[809] does, but not so tenable, if, with the
contrary Bancroft,[810] we hold rather that they came from the south.
We can turn from one to the other of these theorists and agree with
both, as they cite their evidences. On the whole, a double compliance
is better than dogmatism. It is one thing to lose one’s way in this
labyrinth of belief, and another to lose one’s head.

It was the Olmecs who found the Quinames, or giants, near Puebla and
Cholula, and in the end overcame them. The Olmecs built, according
to one story, the great pyramid of Cholula,[811] and it was they who
received the great Quetzalcoatl from across the sea, a white-bearded
man, as the legends went, who was benign enough, in the stories told
of him, to make the later Spaniards think, when they heard them, that
he was no other than the Christian St. Thomas on his missions. When
the Spaniards finally induced the inheritors of the Olmecs’ power to
worship Quetzalcoatl as a beneficent god, his temple soon topped the
mound at Cholula.[812] We have seen that the great Nahua occupation
of the Mexican plateau, at a period somewhere from the fourth to
the seventh century,[813] was preceded by some scattered tribal
organizations of the same stock, which had at an early date mingled
with the primitive peoples of this region. We have seen that there is
a diversity of opinion as to the country from which they came, whether
from the north or south. A consideration of this question involves the
whole question of the migration of races in these pre-Columbian days,
since it is the coming and going of peoples that form the basis of all
its history.

In the study of these migrations, we find no more unanimity of
interpretation than in other questions of these early times.[814]
The Nahua peoples (Toltecs, Aztecs, Mexicans, or what you will),
according to the prevalent views of the early Spanish writers, came
by successive influxes from the north or northwest, and from a remote
place called Tollan, Tula, Tlapallan, Huehue-Tlapallan, as respects the
Toltec group,[815] and called Aztlan as respects the Aztec or Mexican.
When, by settlement after settlement, each migratory people pushed
farther south, they finally reached Central Mexico. This sequence of
immigration seems to be agreed upon, but as to where their cradle
was and as to what direction their line of progress took, there is
a diversity of opinion as widely separated as the north is from the
south. The northern position and the southern direction is all but
universally accepted among the early Spanish writers[816] and their
followers,[817] while it is claimed by others that the traditions as
preserved point to the south as the starting-point. Cabrera took this
view. Brasseur sought to reconcile conflicting tradition and Spanish
statement by carrying the line of migration from the south with a
northerly sweep, so that in the end Anahuac would be entered from the
north, with which theory Bancroft[818] is inclined to agree. Aztlan, as
well as Huehue-Tlapallan, by those who support the northern theory, has
been placed anywhere from the California peninsula[819] within a radius
that sweeps through Wisconsin and strikes the Atlantic at Florida.[820]

The advocates of the southern starting-point of these migrations have
been comparatively few and of recent prominence; chief among them are
Squier and Bancroft.[821]

* * * * *

With the appearance of a people, which, for want of a better
designation, are usually termed Toltecs, on the Mexican table-land in
the sixth century or thereabouts,[822] we begin the early history of
Mexico, so far as we can make any deductions from the semi-mythical
records and traditions which the Spaniards or the later aborigines
have preserved for us. This story of the Nahua occupation of Anáhuac
is one of strife and shifting vassalage, with rivalries and uprisings
of neighboring and kindred tribes, going on for centuries. While the
more advanced portion of the Nahuas in Anáhuac were making progress
in the arts, that division of the same stock which was living beyond
such influence, and without the bounds of Anáhuac, were looked upon
rather as barbarians than as brothers, and acquired the name which had
become a general one for such rougher natures, Chichimec. It is this
Chichimec people under some name or other who are always starting up
and overturning something. At one time they unite with the Colhuas and
found Colhuacan, and nearly subjugate the lake region. Then the Toltec
tarriers at Huehue-Tlapallan come boldly to the neighborhood of the
Chichimecs and found Tollan; and thus they turn a wandering community
into what, for want of a better name, is called a monarchy. They
strengthened its government by an alliance with the Chichimecs,[823]
and placed their seat of power at Colhuacan.

Then we read of a power springing up at Tezcuco, and of various
other events, which happened or did not happen, according as you
believe this or the other chronicle. The run of many of the stories
of course produces the inevitable and beautiful daughter, and the
bold princess, who control many an event. Then there is a league
of Colhuacan, Otompan, and Tollan. Suddenly appears the great king
Quetzalcoatl,—though it may be we confound him with the divinity of
that name; and with him, to perplex matters, comes his sworn enemy
Huemac. Quetzalcoatl’s devoted labors to make his people give up human
sacrifice arrayed the priesthood against him, until at last he fell
before the intrigues that made Huemac succeed in Tollan, and that drove
his luckless rival to Cholula, where he reigned anew. Huemac followed
him and drove him farther; but in doing so he gave his enemies in
Tollan a chance to put another on the throne.

Then came a season of peace and development, when Tollan grew splendid.
Colhuacan flourished in political power, and Teotihuacan[824] and
Cholula were the religious shrines of the people. But at last the end
was near.

The closing century of the Toltec power was a frightful one for
broil, pestilence, and famine among the people, amours and revenge
in the great chieftain’s household, revolt among the vassals; with
sorcery rampant and the gods angry; with volcanoes belching, summers
like a furnace, and winters like the pole; with the dreaded omen of
a rabbit, horned like a deer, confronting the ruler, while rebel
forces threatened the capital. There was also civil strife within the
gates, phallic worship and debauchery,—all preceding an inundation of
Chichimecan hordes. Thus the power that had flourished for several
hundred years fell,—seemingly in the latter half of the eleventh
century.[825] The remnant that was left of the desolated people went
hither and thither, till the fragments were absorbed in the conquerors,
or migrated to distant regions south.[826]

Whether the term Toltec signified a nation, or only denoted a dynasty,
is a question for the archæologists to determine. The general opinion
heretofore has been that they were a distinct race, of the Nahua stock,
however, and that they came from the north. The story which has been
thus far told of their history is the narrative of Ixtlilxochitl, and
is repeated by Veytia, Clavigero, Prescott, Brasseur de Bourbourg,
Orozco y Berra, Nadaillac, and the later compilers. Sahagún seems to
have been the first to make a distinct use of the name Toltec, and
Charency in his paper on _Xibalba_ finds evidence that the Toltecs
constituted two different migrations, the one of a race that was
straight-headed, which came from the northwest, and the other of a
flat-headed people, which came from Florida.

Brinton, on the contrary, finds no warrant either for this dual
migration, or indeed for considering the Toltecs to be other than a
section of the same race, that we know later as Aztecs or Mexicans.
This sweeping denial of their ethnical independence had been
forestalled by Gallatin;[827] but no one before Brinton had made it a
distinct issue, though some writers before and since have verged on his
views.[828] Others, like Charnay, have answered Brinton’s arguments,
and defended the older views.[829] Bandelier’s views connect them with
the Maya rather than with the Nahua stock,[830] if, as he thinks may
be the case, they were the people who landed at Pánuco and settled at
Tamoanchan, the Votanites, as they are sometimes called. He traces back
to Herrera and Torquemada the identification for the first time of the
Toltecs with these people.[831] Bandelier’s conclusions, however, are
that “all we can gather about them with safety is, that they were a
sedentary Indian stock, which at some remote period settled in Central
Mexico,” and that “nothing certain is known of their language.”[832]

The desolation of Anáhuac as the Toltecs fell invited a foreign
occupation, and a remote people called Chichimecs[833]—not to
be confounded with the primitive barbarians which are often so
called—poured down upon the country. Just how long after the Toltec
downfall this happened, is in dispute;[834] but within a few years
evidently, perhaps within not many months, came the rush of millions,
if we may believe the big stories of the migration. They surged by the
ruined capital of the Toltecs, came to the lake, founded Xoloc and
Tenayocan, and encountered, as they spread over the country, what were
left of the Toltecs, who secured peace by becoming vassals. Not quite
so humble were the Colhuas of Colhuacan,—not to be confounded with the
Acolhuas,—who were the most powerful section of the Toltecs yet left,
and the Chichimecs set about crushing them, and succeeded in making
them also vassals.[835] The Chichimec monarchs, if that term does not
misrepresent them, soon formed alliances with the Tepanecs, the Otomis,
and the Acolhuas, who had been prominent in the overthrow of the
Toltecs, and all the invaders profited by the higher organizations and
arts which these tribes had preserved and now imparted. The Chichimecs
also sought to increase the stability of their power by marriages with
the noble Toltecs still remaining. But all was not peace. There were
rebellions from time to time to be put down; and a new people, whose
future they did not then apprehend, had come in among them and settled
at Chapultepec. These were the Aztecs, or Mexicans, a part of the great
Nahua immigration, but as a tribe they had dallied behind the others on
the way, but were now come, and the last to come.[836]

Tezcuco soon grew into prominence as a vassal power,[837] and upon
the capital city many embellishments were bestowed, so that the great
lord of the Chichimecs preferred it to his own Tenayocan, which
gave opportunity for rebellious plots to be formed in his proper
capital; and here at Tezcuco the next succeeding ruler preferred to
reign, and here he became isolated by the uprising of rebellious
nobles. The ensuing war was not simply of side against side, but
counter-revolutions led to a confusion of tumults, and petty chieftains
set themselves up against others here and there. The result was that
Quinantzin, who had lost the general headship of the country, recovered
it, and finally consolidated his power to a degree surpassing all his
predecessors.

[Illustration: CLAVIGERO’S MEXICO.[838] (Ed. of 1780, vol. iii.)]

[Illustration: CLAVIGERO’S MAP. (Ed. of 1580, vol. i.)

Clavigero speaks of his map “per servire all storia antica del
Messico.” A map of the Aztec dominion just before the Conquest is given
in Ranking (London, 1827). See note in Vol. II. p. 358.]

Meanwhile the Aztecs at Chapultepec, growing arrogant, provoked
their neighbors, and were repressed by those who were more powerful.
But they abided their time. They were good fighters, and the Colhua
ruler courted them to assist him in his maraudings, and thus they were
becoming accustomed to warfare and to conquest, and were giving favors
to be repaid. This intercourse, whether of association or rivalry, of
the Colhuas and Mexicans (Aztecs), was continued through succeeding
periods, with a confusion of dates and events which it is hard to make
clear. There was mutual distrust and confidence alternately, and it
all ended in the Aztecs settling on an island in the lake, where later
they founded Tenochtitlan, or Mexico.[839] Here they developed those
bloody rites of sacrifice which had already disgusted their allies and
neighbors.

[Illustration: THE LAKE OF MEXICO.

A map which did service in different forms in various books about
Mexico and its aboriginal localities in the early part of the
eighteenth century. It is here taken from the _Voyages de Francois
Coreal_ (Amsterdam, 1722).]

Meanwhile the powers at Colhuacan and Azcapuzalco flourished and
repressed uprisings, and out of all the strife Tezozomoc came into
prominence with his Tepanecs, and amid it all the Aztecs, siding here
and there, gained territory. With all this occurring in different parts
of his dominions, the Chichimec potentate grew stronger and stronger,
and while by his countenance the old Toltec influences more and more
predominated. And so it was a flourishing government, with little to
mar its prospects but the ambition of Tezozomoc, the Tepanec chieftain,
and the rising power of the Aztecs, who had now become divided into
Mexicans and Tlatelulcas. The famous ruler of the Chichimecs, Techotl,
died in A.D. 1357, and the young Ixtlilxochitl took his power with
all its emblems. The people of Tenochtitlan, or their rulers, were
adepts in practising those arts of diplomacy by which an ambitious
nation places itself beside its superiors to secure a sort of reflected
consequence. Thus they pursued matrimonial alliances and other acts of
prudence. Both Tenochtitlan and its neighbor Tlatelulco grew apace,
while skilled artisans and commercial industries helped to raise them
in importance.

The young Ixtlilxochitl at Tezcuco was not so fortunate, and it
soon looked as if the Tepanec prince, Tezozomoc, was only waiting an
opportunity to rebel. It was also pretty clear that he would have the
aid of Mexico and Tlatelulco, and that he would succeed in securing the
sympathy of many wavering vassals or allies. The plans of the Tepanec
chieftain at last ripened, and he invaded the Tezcucan territory in
1415. In the war which followed, Ixtlilxochitl reversed the tide and
invaded the Tepanec territory, besieging and capturing its capital,
Azcapuzalco.[840] The conqueror lost by his clemency what he had gained
by arms, and it was not long before he was in turn shut up in his own
capital. He did not succeed in defending it, and was at last killed.
So Tezozomoc reached his vantage of ambition, and was now in his old
age the lord paramount of the country. He tried to harmonize the varied
elements of his people; but the Mexicans had not fared in the general
successes as they had hoped for, and were only openly content. The
death of Tezozomoc prepared the way for one of his sons, Maxtla, to
seize the command, and the vassal lords soon found that the spirit
which had murdered a brother had aims that threatened wider desolation.
The Mexicans were the particular object of Maxtla’s oppressive spirit,
and by the choice of Itzcoatl for their ruler, who had been for many
years the Mexican war-chief, that people defied the lord of all, and
in this they were joined by the Tlatelulcas under Quauhtlatohuatzin,
and by lesser allies. Under this combination of his enemies Maxtla’s
capital fell, the usurper was sacrificed, and the honors of the victory
were shared by Itzcoatl, Nezahualcoyotl (the Acolhuan prince whose
imperial rights Maxtla had usurped), and Montezuma, the first of the
name,—all who had in their several capacities led the army of three
or four hundred thousand allies, if we may believe the figures, to
their successes, which occurred apparently somewhere between 1425 and
1430. The political result was a tripartite confederacy in Anáhuac,
consisting of Acolhua, Mexico, and Tlacopan. In the division of spoils,
the latter was to have one fifth, and the others two fifths each, the
Acolhuan prince presiding in their councils as senior.[841]

The next hundred years is a record of the increasing power of
this confederacy, with a constant tendency to give Mexico a larger
influence.[842] The two capitals, Tenochtitlan and Tezcuco, looking at
each other across the lake, were uninterruptedly growing in splendor,
or in what the historians call by that word,[843] with all the adjuncts
of public works,—causeways, canals, aqueducts, temples, palaces and
gardens, and other evidences of wealth, which perhaps these modern
terms only approximately represent. Tezcuco was taken possession of by
Nezahualcoyotl as his ancient inheritance, and his confederate Itzcoatl
placed the crown on his head. Together they made war north and south.
Xochimilco, on the lake next south of Mexico, yielded; and the people
of Chalco, which was on the most southern of the string of lakes,
revolted and were suppressed more than once, as opportunities offered.
The confederates crossed the ridge that formed the southern bound of
the Mexican valley and sacked Quauhnahuac. The Mexican ruler had in
all this gained a certain ascendency in the valley coalition, when he
died in 1440, and his nephew, Montezuma the soldier, and first of the
name,[844] succeeded him. This prince soon had on his hands another war
with Chalco, and with the aid of his confederates he finally humbled
its presumptuous people. So, with or without pretence, the wars and
conquests went on, if for no other reasons, to obtain prisoners for
sacrifice.[845] They were diversified at times, particularly in 1449,
by contests with the powers of nature, when the rising waters of the
lake threatened to drown their cities, and when, one evil being cured,
others in the shape of famine and plague succeeded.

Sometimes in the wars the confederates over-calculated their own
prowess, as when Atonaltzin of Tilantongo sent them reeling back, only,
however, to make better preparations and to succeed at last. In another
war to the southeast they captured, as the accounts say, over six
thousand victims for the stone of sacrifice.

The first Montezuma died in 1469, and the choice for succession fell
on his grandson, the commander of the Mexican army, Axayacatl, who at
once followed the usual custom of raiding the country to the south
to get the thousands of prisoners whose sacrifice should grace his
coronation. Nezahualcoyotl, the other principal allied chieftain,
survived his associate but two years, dying in 1472, leaving among
his hundred children but one legitimate son, Nezahualpilli, a minor,
who succeeded. This gave the new Mexican ruler the opportunity to
increase his power. He made Tlatelulco tributary, and a Mexican
governor took the place there of an independent sovereign. He annexed
the Matlaltzinca provinces on the west. So Axayacatl, dying in 1481,
bequeathed an enlarged kingdom to his brother and successor, Tizoc,
who has not left so warlike a record. According to some authorities,
however, he is to be credited with the completion of the great Mexican
temple of Huitzilopochtli. This did not save him from assassination,
and his brother Ahuitzotl in 1486 succeeded, and to him fell the lot
of dedicating that great temple. He conducted fresh wars vigorously
enough to be able within a year, if we may believe the native records,
to secure sixty or seventy thousand captives for the sacrificial
stone, so essential a part of all such dedicatory exercises. It would
be tedious to enumerate all the succeeding conquests, though varied
by some defeats, like that which they experienced in the Tehuantepec
region. Some differences grew up, too, between the Mexican chieftain
and Nezahualpilli, notwithstanding or because of the virtues of the
latter, among which doubtless, according to the prevailing standard, we
must count his taking at once three Mexican princesses for wives, and
his keeping a harem of over two thousand women, if we may believe his
descendant, the historian Ixtlilxochitl. His justice as an arbitrary
monarch is mentioned as exemplary, and his putting to death a guilty
son is recounted as proof of it.

Ahuitzotl had not as many virtues, or perhaps he had not a descendant
to record them so effectively; but when he died in 1503, what there was
heroic in his nature was commemorated in his likeness sculptured with
others of his line on the cliff of Chapultepec.[846] To him succeeded
that Montezuma, son of Axayacatl, with whom later this ancient history
vanishes. When he came to power, the Aztec name was never significant
of more lordly power, though the confederates had already had some
reminders that conquest near home was easier than conquest far away.
The policy of the last Aztec ruler was far from popular, and while
he propitiated the higher ranks, he estranged the people. The hopes
of the disaffected within and without Anáhuac were now centred in
the Tlascalans, whose territory lay easterly towards the Gulf of
Mexico, and who had thus far not felt the burden of Aztec oppression.
Notwithstanding that their natural allies, the Cholulans, turned
against the Tlascalans, the Aztec armies never succeeded in humbling
them, as they did the Mistecs and the occupants of the region towards
the Pacific. Eclipses, earthquakes, and famine soon succeeded one
another, and the forebodings grew numerous. Hardly anything happened
but the omens of disaster[847] were seen in it, and superstition
began to do its work of enervation, while a breach between Montezuma
and the Tezcucan chief was a bad augury. In this condition of things
the Mexican king tried to buoy his hopes by further conquests; but
widespread as these invasions were, Michoacan to the west, and Tlascala
to the east, always kept their independence. The Zapotecs in Oajaca
had at one time succumbed, but this was before the days of the last
Montezuma.

His rival across the lake at Tezcuco was more oppressed with the tales
of the soothsayers than Montezuma was, and seems to have become inert
before what he thought an impending doom some time before he died, or,
as his people believed, before he had been translated to the ancient
Amaquemecan, the cradle of his race. This was in 1515. His son Cacama
was chosen to succeed; but a younger brother, Ixtlilxochitl, believed
that the choice was instigated by Montezuma for ulterior gain, and so
began a revolt in the outlying provinces, in which he received the aid
of Tlascala. The appearance of the Spaniards on the coasts of Yucatan
and Tabasco, of which exaggerated reports reached the Mexican capital,
paralyzed Montezuma, so that the northern revolt succeeded, and Cacama
and Ixtlilxochitl came to an understanding, which left the Mexicans
without much exterior support. Montezuma was in this crippled condition
when his lookouts on the coast sent him word that the dreaded Spaniards
had appeared, and he could recognize their wonderful power in the
pictured records which the messenger bore to him.[848] This portent
was the visit in 1518 of Juan de Grijalva to the spot where Vera Cruz
now stands; and after the Spaniard sailed away, there were months of
anxiety before word again reached the capital, in 1519, of another
arrival of the white-winged vessels, and this was the coming of Cortés,
who was not long in discovering that the path of his conquest was made
clear by the current belief that he was the returned Quetzalcoatl,[849]
and by his quick perception of the opportunity which presented itself
of combining and leading the enemies of Montezuma.[850]

* * * * *

Among what are usually reckoned the civilized nations of middle
America, there are two considerable centres of a dim history that have
little relation with the story which has been thus far followed. One
of these is that of the people of what we now call Guatemala, and the
other that of Yucatan. The political society which existed in Guatemala
had nothing of the known duration assigned to the more northern people,
at least not in essential data; but we know of it simply as a very
meagre and perplexing chronology running for the most part back two
or three centuries only. Whether the beginnings of what we suppose we
know of these people have anything to do with any Toltec migration
southward is what archæologists dispute about, and the philologists
seem to have the best of the argument in the proof that the tongue of
these southern peoples is more like Maya than Nahua. It is claimed that
the architectural remains of Guatemala indicate a departure from the
Maya stock and some alliance with a foreign stock; and that this alien
influence was Nahuan seems probable enough when we consider certain
similarities in myth and tradition of the Nahuas and the Quichés. But
we have not much even of tradition and myth of the early days, except
what we my read in the _Popul Vuh_, where we may make out of it what
we can, or even what we please,[851] with some mysterious connection
with Votan and Xibalba. Among the mythical traditions of this mythical
period, there are the inevitable migration stories, beginning with
the Quichés and ending with the coming of the Cakchiquels, but no one
knows to a surety when. The new-comers found Maya-speaking people, and
called them mem or memes (stutterers), because they spoke the Maya so
differently from themselves.

It was in the twelfth or thirteenth century that we get the first
traces of any historical kind of the Quichés and of their rivals the
Cakchiquels. Of their early rulers we have the customary diversities
and inconsistencies in what purports to be their story, and it is
difficult to say whether this or the other or some other tribe
revolted, conquered, or were beaten, as we read the annals of this
constant warfare. We meet something tangible, however, when we learn
that Montezuma sent a messenger, who informed the Quichés of the
presence of the Spaniards in his capital, which set them astir to be
prepared in their turn.

[Illustration: MAP IN BRASSEUR’S POPUL VUH.]

It is in the beginning of the sixteenth century that we encounter the
rivalries of three prominent peoples in this Guatemala country, and
these were the Quichés, the Cakchiquels, and the Zutigils; and of these
the Quichés, with their main seat at Utatlan, were the most powerful,
though not so much so but the Cakchiquels could get the best of them at
times in the wager of war; as they did also finally when the Spaniard
Alvarado appeared, with whom the Cakchiquels entered into an alliance
that brought the Quichés into sore straits.

* * * * *

A more important nationality attracts us in the Mayas of Yucatan.
There can be nothing but vague surmise as to what were the primitive
inhabitants of this region; but it seems to be tolerably clear that
a certain homogeneousness pervaded the people, speaking one tongue,
which the Spaniards found in possession. Whether these had come from
the northern regions, and were migrated Toltecs, as some believe, is
open to discussion.[852] It has often been contended that they were
originally of the Nahua and Toltec blood; but later writers, like
Bancroft,[853] have denied it. Brinton discards the Toltec element
entirely.

What by a license one may call history begins back with the
semi-mythical Zamná, to whom all good things are ascribed—the
introduction of the Maya institutions and of the Maya
hieroglyphics.[854] Whether Zamná had any connection, shadowy or real,
with the great Votanic demi-god, and with the establishment of the
Xibalban empire, if it may be so called, is a thing to be asserted or
denied, as one inclines to separate or unite the traditions of Yucatan
with those of the Tzendal, Quiché, and Toltec. Ramon de Ordonez, in a
spirit of vagary, tells us that Mayapan, the great city of the early
Mayas, was but one of the group of centres, with Palenqué, Tulan, and
Copan for the rest, as is believed, which made up the Votanic empire.
Perhaps it was. If we accept Brinton’s view, it certainly was not. Then
Torquemada and Landa tell us that Cukulcan, a great captain and a god,
was but another Quetzalcoatl, or Gucumatz. Perhaps he was. Possibly
also he was the bringer of Nahua influence to Mayapan, away back in a
period corresponding to the early centuries of the Christian era. It
is easy to say, in all this confusion, this is proved and that is not.
The historian, accustomed to deal with palpable evidence, feels much
inclined to leave all views in abeyance.

The Cocomes of Yucatan history were Cukulcan’s descendants or
followers, and had a prosperous history, as we are told; and there came
to live among them the Totul Xius, by some considered a Maya people,
who like the Quichés had been subjected to Nahua influences, and who
implanted in the monuments and institutions of Yucatan those traces of
Nahua character which the archæologists discover.[855] The Totul Xius
are placed in Uxmal in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries,
where they flourished along with the Cocomes, and it is to them that
it is claimed many of the ruins which now interest us in Yucatan can
be traced, though some of them perhaps go back to Zamná and to the
Xibalban period, or at least it would be hard to prove otherwise.

When at last the Cocome chieftains began to oppress their subjects, the
Totul Xius gave them shelter, and finally assisted them in a revolt,
which succeeded and made Uxmal the supreme city, and Mayapan became a
ruin, or at least was much neglected. The dynasty of the Totul Xius
then flourished, but was in its turn overthrown, and a period of
factions and revolutions followed, during which Mayapan was wholly
obliterated, and the Totul Xius settled in Mani, where the Spaniards
found them when they invaded Yucatan to make an easy conquest of a
divided people.[856]

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

FROM the conquerors of New Spain we fail to get any systematic
portrayal of the character and history of the subjugated people;
but nevertheless we are not without some help in such studies from
the letters of Cortes,[857] the accounts of the so-called anonymous
conqueror,[858] and from what Stephens[859] calls “the hurried and
imperfect observations of an unlettered soldier,” Bernal Diaz.[860]

[Illustration: MS. OF BERNAL DIAZ.

Fac-simile of the beginning of Capitulo LXXIV. of his _Historia
Verdadera_, following a plate in the fourth volume of J. M. de
Heredia’s French translation (Paris, 1877).]

We cannot neglect for this ancient period the more general writers
on New Spain, some of whom lived near enough to the Conquest to
reflect current opinions upon the aboriginal life as it existed in
the years next succeeding the fall of Mexico. Such are Peter Martyr,
Grynæus, Münster, and Ramusio. More in the nature of chronicles is
the _Historia General_ of Oviedo (1535, etc.).[861] The _Historia
General_ of Gomara became generally known soon after the middle of the
sixteenth century.[862] The _Rapport_, written about 1560, by Alonzo
de Zurita, throws light on the Aztec laws and institutions.[863]
Benzoni about this time traversed the country, observing the Indian
customs.[864] We find other descriptions of the aboriginal customs by
the missionary Didacus Valades, in his _Rhetorica Christiana_, of which
the fourth part relates to Mexico.[865] Brasseur says that Valades
was well informed and appreciative of the people which he so kindly
depicted.[866] By the beginning of the seventeenth century we find in
Herrera’s _Historia_ the most comprehensive of the historical surveys,
in which he summarizes the earlier writers, if not always exactly.[867]
Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 387) says of the ancient history
of Mexico that “it appears as if the twelfth century was the limit
of definite tradition. What lies beyond it is vague and uncertain,
remnants of tradition being intermingled with legends and mythological
fancies.” He cites some of the leading writers as mainly starting in
their stories respectively as follows: Brasseur, B. C. 955; Clavigero,
A.D. 596; Veytia, A.D. 697; Ixtlilxochitl, A.D. 503. Bandelier views
all these dates as too mythical for historical investigations, and
finds no earlier fixed date than the founding of Tenochtitlan (Mexico)
in A.D. 1325. “What lies beyond the twelfth century can occasionally
be rendered of value for ethnological purposes, but it admits of no
definite historical use.” Bancroft (v. 360) speaks of the sources
of disagreement in the final century of the native annals, from
the constant tendency of such writers as Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc,
Chimalpain, and Camargo, to laud their own people and defame their
rivals.

* * * * *

In the latter part of the sixteenth century the viceroy of Mexico, Don
Martin Enriquez, set on foot some measures to gather the relics and
traditions of the native Mexicans. Under this incentive it fell to
Juan de Tobar, a Jesuit, and to Diego Duran, a Dominican, to be early
associated with the resuscitation of the ancient history of the country.

To Father Tobar (or Tovar) we owe what is known as the _Codex Ramirez_,
which in the edition of the _Crónica Mexicana_[868] by Hernando de
Alvarado Tezozomoc, issued in Mexico (1878), with annotations by Orozco
y Berra, is called a _Relacion del origen de los Indios que habitan
esta nueva España segun sus historias_ (José M. Vigil, editor). It
is an important source of our knowledge of the ancient history of
Mexico, as authoritatively interpreted by the Aztec priests, from their
picture-writings, at the bidding of Ramirez de Fuenleal, Bishop of
Cuenca. This ecclesiastic carried the document with him to Spain, where
in Madrid it is still preserved. It was used by Herrera. Chavero and
Brinton recognize its representative value.[869]

To Father Duran we are indebted for an equally ardent advocacy of the
rights of the natives in his _Historia de las Indias de Nueva-España
y islas de Tierra-Firme_ (1579-81), which was edited in part (1867),
as stated elsewhere[870] by José F. Ramirez, and after an interval
completed (1880) by Prof. Gumesindo Mendoza, of the Museo Nacional,—the
perfected work making two volumes of text and an atlas of plates. Both
from Tobar and from Duran some of the contemporary writers gathered
largely their material.[871]

[Illustration: SAHAGUN.

After a lithograph in Cumplido’s Mexican edition of Prescott’s
_Mexico_.]

We come to a different kind of record when we deal with the Roman
script of the early phonetic rendering of the native tongues. It has
been pointed out that we have perhaps the earliest of such renderings
in a single sentence in a publication made at Antwerp in 1534, where
a Franciscan, Pedro de Gante,[872] under date of June 21, 1529, tells
the story of his arriving in America in 1523, and his spending the
interval in Mexico and Tezcuco, acquiring a knowledge of the natives
and enough of their language to close his epistle with a sentence of it
as a sample.[873] But no chance effort of this kind was enough. It took
systematic endeavors on the part of the priests to settle grammatical
principles and determine phonetic values, and the measure of their
success was seen in the speedy way in which the interpretation of the
old idiograms was forgotten. Mr. Brevoort has pointed out how much the
progress of what may be called native literature, which is to-day so
helpful to us in filling the picture of their ancient life, is due to
the labors in this process of linguistic transfer of Motolinfa,[874]
Alonzo de Molina,[875] Andrés de Olmos,[876] and, above all, of the
ablest student of the ancient tongues in his day, as Mendieta calls
Father Sahagún,[877] who, dying in 1590 at ninety, had spent a good
part of a long life so that we of this generation might profit by his
records.[878]

Coming later into the field than Duran, Acosta, and Sahagún, and
profiting from the labors of his predecessors, we find in the
_Monarchia Indiana_ of Torquemada[879] the most comprehensive treatment
of the ancient history given to us by any of the early Spanish writers.
The book, however, is a provoking one, from the want of plan, its
chronological confusion, and the general lack of a critical spirit[880]
pervading it.

It is usually held that the earliest amassment of native records for
historical purposes, after the Conquest, was that made by Ixtlilxochitl
of the archives of his Tezcucan line, which he used in his writings in
a way that has not satisfied some later investigators. Charnay says
that in his own studies he follows Veytia by preference; but Prescott
finds beneath the high colors of the pictures of Ixtlilxochitl not a
little to be commended. Bandelier,[881] on the other hand, expresses
a distrust when he says of Ixtlilxochitl that “he is always a very
suspicious authority, not because he is more confused than any other
Indian writer, but because he wrote for an interested object, and
with a view of sustaining tribal claims in the eyes of the Spanish
government.”[882]

Among the manuscripts which seem to have belonged to Ixtlilxochitl
was the one known in our day under the designation given to it by
Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Codex Chimalpopoca_,[883] in honor of Faustino
Chimalpopoca, a learned professor of Aztec, who assisted Brasseur in
translating it. The anonymous author had set to himself the task of
converting into the written native tongue a rendering of the ancient
hieroglyphics, constituting, as Brasseur says, a complete and regular
history of Mexico and Colhuacan. He describes it in his _Lettres à M.
le duc de Valmy_ (_lettre seconde_)—the first part (in Mexican) being a
history of the Chichimecas; the second (in Spanish), by another hand,
elucidating the antiquities—as the most rare and most precious of all
the manuscripts which escaped destruction, elucidating what was obscure
in Gomara and Torquemada.

Brasseur based upon this MS. his account of the Toltec period in
his _Nations Civilisées du Mexique_ (i. p. lxxviii), treating as an
historical document what in later years, amid his vagaries, he assumed
to be but the record of geological changes.[884] A similar use was
made by him of another MS., sometimes called a Memorial de Colhuacan,
and which he named the _Codex Gondra_ after the director of the Museo
Nacional in Mexico.[885]

Brasseur says, in the _Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne_, that the
_Chimalpopoca MS._ is dated in 1558, but in his _Hist. Nat. Civ._, i.
p. lxxix, he says that it was written in 1563 and 1579, by a writer
of Quauhtitlan, and not by Ixtlilxochitl, as was thought by Pichardo,
who with Gama possessed copies later owned by Aubin. The copy used
by Brasseur was, as he says, made from the MS. in the Boturini
collection,[886] where it was called _Historia de los Reynos de
Colhuacan y México_,[887] and it is supposed to be the original, now
preserved in the Museo Nacional de México. It is not all legible, and
that institution has published only the better preserved and earlier
parts of it, though Aubin’s copies are said to contain the full text.
This edition, which is called _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, is accompanied
by two Spanish versions, the early one made for Brasseur, and a new one
executed by Mendoza and Solis, and it is begun in the _Anales del Museo
Nacional_ for 1879 (vol. i.).[888]

The next after Ixtlilxochitl to become conspicuous as a collector,
was Sigüenza y Gongora (b. 1645), and it was while he was the chief
keeper of such records[889] that the Italian traveller Giovanni
Francesco Gemelli Carreri examined them, and made some record of
them.[890] A more important student inspected the collection, which
was later gathered in the College of San Pedro and San Pablo, and
this was Clavigero,[891] who manifested a particular interest in the
picture-writing of the Mexicans,[892] and has given us a useful account
of the antecedent historians.[893]

[Illustration: CLAVIGERO.

After a lithograph in Cumplido’s Mexican edition of Prescott’s
_Mexico_, vol. iii.]

The best known efforts at collecting material for the ante-Spanish
history of Mexico were made by Boturini,[894] who had come over to
New Spain in 1736, on some agency for a descendant of Montezuma, the
Countess de Santibañez. Here he became interested in the antiquities
of the country, and spent eight years roving about the country
picking up manuscripts and pictures, and seeking in vain for some one
to explain their hieroglyphics. Some action on his part incurring
the displeasure of the public authorities, he was arrested, his
collection[895] taken from him, and he was sent to Spain. On the
voyage an English cruiser captured the vessel in which he was, and
he thus lost whatever he chanced to have with him.[896] What he left
behind remained in the possession of the government, and became the
spoil of damp, revolutionists, and curiosity-seekers. Once again in
Spain, Boturini sought redress of the Council of the Indies, and was
sustained by it in his petition; but neither he nor his heirs succeeded
in recovering his collection. He also prepared a book setting forth
how he proposed, by the aid of these old manuscripts and pictures,
to resuscitate the forgotten history of the Mexicans. The book[897]
is a jumble of notions; but appended to it was what gives it its
chief value, a “Catálogo del Museo histórico Indiano,” which tells us
what the collection was. While it was thus denied to its collector,
Mariano Veytia,[898] who had sympathized with Boturini in Madrid, had
possession, for a while at least, of a part of it, and made use of
it in his _Historia Antigua de Méjico_, but it is denied, as usually
stated, that the authorities upon his death (1778) prevented the
publication of his book. The student was deprived of Veytia’s results
till his MS. was ably edited, with notes and an appendix, by C. F.
Ortega (Mexico, 1836).[899] Another, who was connected at a later
day with the Boturini collection, and who was a more accurate writer
than Veytia, was Antonio de Leon y Gama, born in Mexico in 1735. His
_Descripcion histórica y Cronológica de las Dos Piedras_ (Mexico,
1832)[900] was occasioned by the finding, in 1790, of the great
Mexican Calendar Stone and other sculptures in the Square of Mexico.
This work brought to bear Gama’s great learning to the interpretation
of these relics, and to an exposition of the astronomy and mythology
of the ancient Mexicans, in a way that secured the commendation of
Humboldt.[901]

[Illustration: LORENZO BOTURINI.

After a lithograph in Cumplido’s Mexican edition of Prescott’s
_Mexico_. There is an etched portrait in the _Archives de la Soc.
Américaine de France, nouvelle série_, i., which is accompanied by an
essay on this “Père de l’Américanisme,” and “les sources aux quelles il
a puisé son précis d’histoire Américaine,” by Léon Cahun.]

During these years of uncertainty respecting the Boturini collection,
a certain hold upon it seems to have been shared successively by
Pichardo and Sanchez, by which in the end some part came to the Museo
Nacional, in Mexico.[902] It was also the subject of lawsuits, which
finally resulted in the dispersion of what was left by public auction,
at a time when Humboldt was passing through Mexico, and some of its
treasures were secured by him and placed in the Berlin Museum. Others
passed hither and thither (a few to Kingsborough), but not in a way
to obscure their paths, so that when, in 1830, Aubin was sent to
Mexico by the French government, he was able to secure a considerable
portion of them, as the result of searches during the next ten years.
It was with the purpose, some years later, of assisting in the
elucidation and publication of Aubin’s collection that the Société
Américaine de France was established. The collection of historical
records, as Aubin held it, was described, in 1881, by himself,[903]
when he divided his Mexican picture-writings into two classes,—those
which had belonged to Boturini, and those which had not.[904] Aubin
at the same time described his collection of the Spanish MSS. of
Ixtlilxochitl,[905] while he congratulated himself that he had secured
the old picture-writings upon which that native writer depended in the
early part of his _Historia Chichimeca_. These Spanish MSS. bear the
signature and annotations of Veytia.

[Illustration: FRONTISPIECE OF BOTURINI’S IDEA.]

We have another description of the Aubin collection by Brasseur de
Bourbourg.[906]

If we allow the first place among native writers, using the Spanish
tongue, to Ixtlilxochitl, we find several others of considerable
service: Diego Muñoz Camargo, a Tlaxcallan Mestizo, wrote (1585) a
_Historia de Tlaxcallan_.[907] Tezozomoc’s _Crónica Mexicana_ is
probably best known through Ternaux’s version,[908] and there is an
Italian abridgment in F. C. Marmocchi’s _Raccolta di Viaggi_ (vol.
x.). The catalogue of Boturini discloses a MS. by a Cacique of
Quiahuiztlan, Juan Ventura Zapata y Mendoza, which brings the _Crónica
de la muy noble y real Ciudad de Tlaxcallan_ from the earliest times
down to 1689; but it is not now known. Torquemada and others cite
two native Tezcucan writers,—Juan Bautista Pomar, whose _Relacion de
las Antigüedades de los Indios_[909] treats of the manners of his
ancestors, and Antonio Pimentel, whose _Relaciones_ are well known. The
MS. _Crónica Mexicana_ of Anton Muñon Chimalpain (b. 1579), tracing
the annals from the eleventh century, is or was among the Aubin
MSS.[910] There was collected before 1536, under the orders of Bishop
Zumárraga, a number of aboriginal tales and traditions, which under the
title of _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas_ was printed by
Icazbalceta, who owns the MS., in the _Anales del Museo Nacional_ (ii.
no. 2).[911]

[Illustration: ICAZBALCETA.

[After a photograph kindly furnished by himself at the editor’s
request.—ED.]]

As regards Yucatan, Brasseur[912] speaks of the scantiness of the
historical material, and Brinton[913] does not know a single case where
a Maya author has written in the Spanish tongue, as the Aztecs did,
under Spanish influence. We owe more to Dr. Daniel Garrison Brinton
than to any one else for the elucidation of the native records, and he
had had the advantage of the collection of Yucatan MSS. formed by Dr.
C. H. Berendt,[914] which, after that gentleman’s death, passed into
Brinton’s hands.

[Illustration: PROFESSOR DANIEL G. BRINTON.]

After the destruction of the ancient records by Landa, considerable
efforts were made throughout Yucatan, in a sort of reactionary spirit,
to recall the lingering recollections of what these manuscripts
contained. The grouping of such recovered material became known as
Chilan Balam.[915] It is from local collections of this kind that
Brinton selected the narratives which he has published as _The Maya
Chronicles_, being the first volume of his _Library of Aboriginal
American Literature_. The original texts[916] are accompanied by an
English translation. One of the books, the Chilan Balam of Mani,
had been earlier printed by Stephens, in his _Yucatan_.[917] The
only early Spanish chronicle is Bishop Landa’s _Relation des choses
de Yucatan_,[918] which follows not an original, but a copy of the
bishop’s text, written, as Brasseur thinks, thirty years after Landa’s
death, or about 1610, and which Brasseur first brought to the world’s
attention when he published his edition, with both Spanish and French
texts, at Paris, in 1864. The MS. seems to have been incomplete, and
was perhaps inaccurately copied at the time. At this date (1864)
Brasseur had become an enthusiast for his theory of the personification
of the forces of nature in the old recitals, and there was some
distrust how far his zeal had affected his text; and moreover he
had not published the entire text, but had omitted about one sixth.
Brasseur’s method of editing became apparent when, in 1884, at Madrid,
Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgado published literally the whole Spanish
text, as an appendix to the Spanish translation of Rosny’s essay on the
hieratic writing. The Spanish editor pointed out some but not all the
differences between his text and Brasseur’s,—a scrutiny which Brinton
has perfected in his _Critical Remarks on the Editions of Landa’s
Writings_ (Philad., 1887).[919] Landa gives extracts from a work by
Bernardo Lizana, relating to Yucatan, of which it is difficult to get
other information.[920] The earliest published historical narrative was
Cogolludo’s _Historia de Yucathan_ (Madrid, 1688).[921] Stephens, in
his study of the subject, speaks of it as “voluminous, confused, and
ill-digested,” and says “it might almost be called a history of the
Franciscan friars, to which order Cogolludo belonged.”[922]

* * * * *

The native sources of the aboriginal history of Guatemala, and
of what is sometimes called the Quiché-Cakchiquel Empire, are
not abundant,[923] but the most important are the _Popul Vuh_, a
traditional book of the Quichés, and the _Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan_.

The _Popul Vuh_ was discovered in the library of the university at
Guatemala, probably not far from 1700,[924] by Francisco Ximenez, a
missionary in a mountain village of the country. Ximenez did not find
the original Quiché book, but a copy of it, made after it was lost,
and later than the Conquest, which we may infer was reproduced from
memory to replace the lost text, and in this way it may have received
some admixture of Christian thought.[925] It was this sort of a text
that Ximenez turned into Spanish; and this version, with the copy of
the Quiché, which Ximenez also made, is what has come down to us.
Karl Scherzer, a German traveller[926] in the country, found Ximenez’
work, which had seemingly passed into the university library on the
suppression of the monasteries, and which, as he supposes, had not been
printed because of some disagreeable things in it about the Spanish
treatment of the natives. Scherzer edited the MS., which was published
as _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de Esta Provincia de
Guatemala_[927] (Vienna, 1857).

Brasseur, who had seen the Ximenez MSS. in 1855, considered the Spanish
version untrustworthy, and so with the aid of some natives he gave it
a French rendering, and republished it a few years later as _Popol
Vuh_. _Le Livre sacré et les Mythes de l’antiquité américaine, avec
les livres héroïques et historiques des Quichés. Ouvrage original
des indigènes de Guatémala, texte Quiché et trad. française en
regard, accompagnée de notes philologiques et d’un commentaire sur la
mythologie et les migrations des peuples anciens de l’Amérique, etc.,
composé sur des documents originaux et inédits_ (Paris, 1861).

Brasseur’s introduction bears the special title: _Dissertation sur les
mythes de l’antiquité Américaine sur la probabilité des Communications
existant anciennement d’un Continent à l’autre, et sur les migrations
des peuples indigènes de l’Amérique_,—in which he took occasion to
elucidate his theory of cataclysms and Atlantis. He speaks of his
annotations as the results of his observations among the Quichés and
of his prolonged studies. He calls the _Popul Vuh_ rather a national
than a sacred book,[928] and thinks it the original in some part of
the “Livre divin des Toltèques,” the Teo-Amoxtli.[929] Brinton avers
that neither Ximenez nor Brasseur has adequately translated the Quiché
text,[930] and sees no reason to think that the matter has been in any
way influenced by the Spanish contact, emanating indeed long before
that event; and he has based some studies upon it.[931] In this opinion
Bandelier is at variance, at least as regards the first portion, for
he believes it to have been _written_ after the Conquest and under
Christian influences.[932] Brasseur in some of his other writings has
further discussed the matter.[933]

The _Memorial of Tecpan-Atitlan_, to use Brasseur’s title, is an
incomplete MS.,[934] found in 1844 by Juan Gavarrete in rearranging
the MSS. of the convent of San Francisco, of Guatemala, and it was
by Gavarrete that a Spanish version of Brasseur’s rendering was
printed in 1873 in the _Boletin de la Sociedad económica de Guatemala_
(nos. 29-43). This translation by Brasseur, made in 1856, was never
printed by him, but, passing into Pinart’s hands with Brasseur’s
collections,[935] it was entrusted by that collector to Dr. Brinton,
who selected the parts of interest (46 out of 96 pp.), and included it
as vol. vi. in his _Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, under
the title of _The annals of the Cakchiquels_. _The original text, with
a translation, notes, and introduction_ (Philadelphia, 1885).

Brinton disagrees with Brasseur in placing the date of its beginning
towards the opening of the eleventh century, and puts it rather at
about A.D. 1380. Brasseur says he received the original from Gavarrete,
and it would seem to have been a copy made between 1620 and 1650,
though it bears internal evidence of having been written by one who was
of adult age at the time of the Conquest.

Brinton’s introduction discusses the ethnological position of the
Cakchiquels, who he thinks had been separated from the Mayas for a long
period.

The next in importance of the Guatemalan books is the work of
Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman, _Historia de Guatemala, ó
Recordación florida escrita el siglo xvii., que publica por primera vez
con notas é ilustraciones F. Zaragoza_ (Madrid, 1882-83), being vols. 1
and 2 of the _Biblioteca de los americanistas_. The original MS., dated
1690, is in the archives of the city of Guatemala. Owing to a tendency
of the author to laud the natives, modern historians have looked with
some suspicion on his authority, and have pointed out inconsistencies
and suspected errors.[936] Of a later writer, Ramon de Ordoñez
(died about 1840), we have only the rough draught of a _Historia
de la creation del Cielo y de la tierra, conforme al sistema de la
gentilidad Americana_, which is of importance for traditions.[937] This
manuscript, preserved in the Museo Nacional in Mexico, is all that now
exists, representing the perfected work. Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._,
113) had a copy of this draught (made in 1848-49). The original fair
copy was sent to Madrid for the press, and it is suspected that the
Council for the Indies suppressed it in 1805. Ramon cites a manuscript
_Hist. de la Prov. de San Vicente de Chiappas y Goathemala_, which is
perhaps the same as the _Crónica de la Prov. de Chiapas y Guatemala_,
of which the seventh book is in the Museo Nacional (_Am. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, n. s., i. 97; Brasseur, _Bib. Mex.-Guat._, 157).

The work of Antonio de Remesal is sometimes cited as _Historia general
de las Indias occidentales, y particular de la gobernacion de Chiapas y
Guatemala_, and sometimes as _Historia de la Provincia de San Vicente
de Chyapa y Guatemala_ (Madrid, 1619, 1620).[938]

* * * * *

Bandelier (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, i. 95) has indicated the
leading sources of the history of Chiapas, so closely associated
with Guatemala. To round the study of the aboriginal period of this
Pacific region, we may find something in Alvarado’s letters on the
Conquest;[939] in Las Casas for the interior parts, and in Alonso de
Zurita’s _Relacion_, 1560,[940] as respects the Quiché tribes, which
is the source of much in Herrera.[941] For Oajaca (Oaxaca, Guaxaca)
the special source is Francisco de Burgoa’s _Geográfica descripcion de
la parte septentrional del Polo Artico de la América_, etc. (México,
1674), in two quarto volumes,—or at least it is generally so regarded.
Bandelier, who traces the works on Oajaca (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
n. s., i. 115), says there is a book of a modern writer, Juan B.
Carriedo, which follows Burgoa largely. Brasseur (_Bib. Mex.-Guat._,
p. 33) speaks of Burgoa as the only source which remains of the native
history of Oajaca. He says it is a very rare book, even in Mexico. He
largely depends upon its full details in some parts of his _Nations
Civilisées_ (iii. livre 9). Alonso de la Rea’s _Crónica de Mechoacan_
(Mexico, 1648) and Basalenque’s _Crónica de San Augustin de Mechoacan_
(Mexico, 1673) are books which Brinton complains he could find in no
library in the United States.

We trace the aboriginal condition of Nicaragua in Peter Martyr, Oviedo,
Torquemada, and Ixtlilxochitl.[942]

* * * * *

The earliest general account of all these ancient peoples which we
have in English is in the _History of America_, by William Robertson,
who describes the condition of Mexico at the time of the Conquest,
and epitomizes the early Spanish accounts of the natives. Prescott
and Helps followed in his steps, with new facilities. Albert Gallatin
brought the powers of a vigorous intellect to bear, though but
cursorily, upon the subject, in his “Notes on the semi-civilized
nations of Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America,” in the _Amer.
Ethnological Society’s Transactions_ (N. Y., 1845, vol. i.), and
he was about the first to recognize the dangerous pitfalls of the
pseudo-historical narratives of these peoples. The _Native Races_[943]
of H. H. Bancroft was the first very general sifting and massing in
English of the great confusion of material upon their condition,
myths, languages, antiquities, and history.[944] The archæological
remains are treated by Stephens for Yucatan and Central America, by
Dr. Le Plongeon[945] for Yucatan, by Ephraim G. Squier for Nicaragua
and Central America in general,[946] by Adolphe F. A. Bandelier in his
communications to the Peabody Museum and to the Archæological Institute
of America,[947] and by Professor Daniel G. Brinton in his editing of
ancient records[948] and in his mythological and linguistic studies,
referred to elsewhere. To these may be added, as completing the English
references, various records of personal observations.[949]

[Illustration: BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG.

Follows an etching published in the _Annuaire de la Société Américaine
de France_, 1875. He died at Nice, Jan. 8, 1874, aged 59 years.]

During the American Civil War, when there were hopes of some
permanence for French influence in Mexico, the French government
made some organized efforts to further the study of the antiquities
of the country, and the results were published in the _Archives
de la Commission Scientifique du Méxique_ (Paris, 1864-69, in 3
vols.).[950] The Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, who took a conspicuous
part in this labor, has probably done more than any other Frenchman
to bring into order the studies upon these ancient races, and in some
directions he is our ultimate source. Unfortunately his character as
an archæological expounder did not improve as he went on, and he grew
to be the expositor of some wild notions that have proved acceptable
to few. He tells us that he first had his attention turned to American
archæology by the report, which had a short run in European circles,
of the discovery of a Macedonian helmet and weapons in Brazil in
1832, and by a review of Rio’s report on Palenqué, which he read in
the _Journal des Savants_. Upon coming to America, fresh from his
studies in Rome, he was made professor of history in the seminary at
Quebec in 1845-46, writing at that time a _Histoire du Canada_, of
little value. Later, in Boston, he perfected his English and read
Prescott. Then we find him at Rome poring over the _Codex Vaticanus_,
and studying the _Codex Borgianus_ in the library of the Propaganda.
In 1848 he returned to the United States, and, embarking at New
Orleans for Mexico, he found himself on shipboard in the company of
the new French minister, whom he accompanied, on landing, to the city
of Mexico, being made almoner to the legation. This official station
gave him some advantage in beginning his researches, in which Rafael
Isidro Gondra, the director of the Museo, with the curators of the
vice-regal archives, and José Maria Andrade, the librarian of the
university, assisted him. Later he gave himself to the study of the
Nahua tongue, under the guidance of Faustino Chimalpopoca Galicia, a
descendant of a brother of Montezuma, then a professor in the college
of San Gregorio. In 1851 he was ready to print at Mexico, in French and
Spanish, his _Lettres pour servir d’introduction à l’histoire primitive
des anciennes nations civilisées du Méxique_, addressed (October, 1850)
to the Duc de Valmy, in which he sketched the progress of his studies
up to that time. He speaks of it as “le premier fruit de mes travaux
d’archéologie et d’histoire méxicaines.”[951] It was this brochure
which introduced him to the attention of Squier and Aubin, and from
the latter, during his residence in Paris (1851-54), he received great
assistance. Pressed in his circumstances, he was obliged at this time
to eke out his living by popular writing, which helped also to enable
him to publish his successive works.[952] To complete his Central
American studies, he went again to America in 1854, and in Washington
he saw for the first time the texts of Las Casas and Duran, in the
collection of Peter Force, who had got copies from Madrid. He has
given us[953] an account of his successful search for old manuscripts
in Central America. Finally, as the result of all these studies, he
published his most important work,—_Histoire des nations civilisées
du Méxique et de l’Amérique centrale durant les siècles antérieurs
à C. Colomb, écrite sur des docs. origin. et entièrement inédits,
puisés aux anciennes archives des indigènes_ (Paris, 1857-58).[954]
This was the first orderly and extensive effort to combine out of all
available material, native and Spanish, a divisionary and consecutive
history of ante-Columbian times in these regions, to which he added
from the native sources a new account of the conquest by the Spaniards.
His purpose to separate the historic from the mythical may incite
criticism, but his views are the result of more labor and more
knowledge than any one before him had brought to the subject.[955]
In his later publications there is less reason to be satisfied with
his results, and Brinton[956] even thinks that “he had a weakness to
throw designedly considerable obscurity about his authorities and the
sources of his knowledge.” His fellow-students almost invariably yield
praise to his successful research and to his great learning, surpassing
perhaps that of any of them, but they are one and all chary of adopting
his later theories.[957] These were expressed at length in his _Quatre
lettres sur le Mexique_. _Exposition du système hiéroglyphique
mexicain. La fin de l’âge de pierre. Époque glaciaire temporaire.
Commencement de l’âge de bronze. Origines de la civilisation et des
religions de l’antiquité. D’après le Teo-Amoxtli_ [etc.] (Paris,
1868), wherein he accounted as mere symbolism what he had earlier
elucidated as historical records, and connected the recital of the
_Codex Chimalpopoca_ with the story of Atlantis, making that lost
land the original seat of all old-world and new-world civilization,
and finding in that sacred history of Colhuacan and Mexico the secret
evidence of a mighty cataclysm that sunk the continent from Honduras
(subsequently with Yucatan elevated) to perhaps the Canaries.[958] Two
years later, in his elucidation of the _MS. Troano_ (1869-70), this
same theory governed all his study. Brasseur was quite aware of the
loss of estimation which followed upon his erratic change of opinion,
as the introduction to his _Bibl. Mex.-Guatémalienne_ shows. No other
French writer, however, has so associated his name with the history of
these early peoples.[959]

In Mexico itself the earliest general narrative was not cast in the
usual historical form, but in the guise of a dialogue, held night
after night, between a Spaniard and an Indian, the ancient history
of the country was recounted. The author, Joseph Joaquin Granados y
Galvez, published it in 1778, as _Tardes Américanas: gobierno gentil
y católico: breve y particular noticia de toda la historia Indiana:
sucesos, casos notables, y cosas ignoradas, desde la entrada de la
Gran nacion Tulteca á esta tierra de Anahuac, hasta los presentes
tiempos_.[960]

The most comprehensive grouping of historical material is in
the _Diccionario Universal de historia y de Geografía_ (Mexico,
1853-56),[961] of which Manuel Orozco y Berra was one of the chief
collaborators. This last author has in two other works added very much
to our knowledge of the racial and ancient history of the indigenous
peoples. These are his _Geografía de las lenguas y Carta Etnográfica
de México_ (Mexico, 1864),[962] and his _Historia antigua y de la
Conquista de México_ (Mexico, 1880, in four volumes).[963] Perhaps the
most important of all the Mexican publications is Manuel Larrainzar’s
_Estudios sobre la historia de América, sus ruinas y antigüedades,
comparadas con lo más notable del otro Continente_ (Mexico, 1875-1878,
in five volumes).

In German the most important of recent books is Hermann Strebel’s
_Alt-Mexico_ (Hamburg, 1885); but Waitz’s _Amerikaner_ (1864, vol. ii.)
has a section on the Mexicans. Adolph Bastian’s “Zur Geschichte des
Alten Mexico” is contained in the second volume of his _Culturländer
des Alten America_ (Berlin, 1878), in which he considers the subject of
Quetzalcoatl, the religious ceremonial, administrative and social life,
as well as the different stocks of the native tribes.

NOTES.

I. THE AUTHORITIES ON THE SO-CALLED CIVILIZATION OF ANCIENT MEXICO AND
ADJACENT LANDS, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH AUTHORITIES.

THE ancient so-called civilization which the Spaniards found in Mexico
and Central America is the subject of much controversy: in the first
place as regards its origin, whether indigenous, or allied to and
derived from the civilizations of the Old World; and in the second
place as regards its character, whether it was something more than
a kind of grotesque barbarism, or of a nature that makes even the
Spanish culture, which supplanted it, inferior in some respects by
comparison.[964] The first of these problems, as regards its origin, is
considered in another place. As respects the second, or its character,
it is proposed here to follow the history of opinions.

In a book published at Seville in 1519, Martin Fernandez d’Enciso’s
_Suma de geographia que trata de todas las partidas y provincias
del mundo: en especial de las Indias_,[965] the European reader
is supposed to have received the earliest hints of the degree of
civilization—if it be so termed—of which the succeeding Spanish writers
made so much. A brief sentence was thus the shadowy beginning of the
stories of grandeur and magnificence[966] which we find later in
Cortes, Bernal Diaz, Las Casas, Torquemada, Sahagún, Ramusio, Gomara,
Oviedo, Zurita, Tezozomoc, and Ixtlilxochitl, and which is repeated
often with accumulating effect in Acosta, Herrera, Lorenzana, Solis,
Clavigero, and their successors.[967] Bandelier[968] points out how
Robertson, in his views of Mexican civilization as in “the infancy of
civil life,”[969] really opened the view for the first time of the
exaggerated and uncritical estimates of the older writers, which Morgan
has carried in our day to the highest pitch, and, as it would seem,
without sufficient recognition of some of the contrary evidence.

It has usually been held that the creation among the Mexicans
about thirty years after the founding of Mexico of a chief-of-men
(Tlacatecuhtli) instituted a feudal monarchy. Bandelier,[970] speaking
of the application of feudal terms by the old writers to Mexican
institutions, says: “What in their first process of thinking was
merely a comparative, became very soon a positive terminology for the
purpose of describing institutions to which this foreign terminology
never was adapted.” He instances that the so-called “king” of these
early writers was a translation of the native term, which in fact
only meant “one of those who spoke;” that is, a prominent member of
the council.[971] Bandelier traces the beginning of the feudal ideas
as a graft upon the native systems, in the oldest document issued by
Europeans on Mexican soil, when Cortes (May 20, 1519) conferred land
on his allies, the chiefs of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco, and for the
first time made their offices hereditary. It is Bandelier’s opinion
that “the grantees had no conception of the true import of what they
accepted; neither did Cortes conceive the nature of their ideas.” This
was followed after the Spanish occupation of Mexico by the institution
of “repartimientos,” through which the natives became serfs of the soil
to the conquerors.[972]

The story about this unknown splendor of a strange civilization
fascinated the world nearly half a century ago in the kindly recital
of Prescott;[973] but it was observed that he quoted too often the
somewhat illusory and exaggerated statements of Ixtlilxochitl, and
was not a little attracted by the gorgeous pictures of Waldeck and
Dupaix. With such a charming depicter, the barbaric gorgeousness of
this ancient empire, as it became the fashion to call it, gathered
a new interest, which has never waned, and Morgan[974] is probably
correct in affirming that it “has called into existence a larger number
of works than were ever before written upon any people of the same
number and of the same importance.”[975] Even those who, like Tylor,
had gone to Mexico sceptics, had been forced to the conclusion that
Prescott’s pictures were substantially correct, and setting aside what
he felt to be the monstrous exaggerations of Solis, Gomara, and the
rest, he could not find the history much less trustworthy than European
history of the same period.[976] It has been told in another place[977]
how the derogatory view, as opposed to the views of Prescott, were
expressed by R. A. Wilson in his _New Conquest of Mexico_, in assuming
that all the conquerors said was baseless fabrication, the European
Montezuma becoming a petty Indian chief, and the great city of Mexico
a collection of hovels in an everglade,—the ruins of the country being
accounted for by supposing them the relics of an ancient Phœnician
civilization, which had been stamped out by the inroads of barbarians,
whose equally barbarious descendants the Spaniards were in turn to
overcome. It cannot be said that such iconoclastic opinions obtained
any marked acceptance; but it was apparent that the notion of the
exaggeration of the Spanish accounts was becoming sensibly fixed in the
world’s opinion. We see this reaction in a far less excessive way in
Daniel Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_ (i. 325, etc.), and he was struck,
among other things, with the utter obliteration of the architectural
traces of the conquered race in the city of Mexico itself.[978] When,
in 1875, Hubert H. Bancroft published the second volume of his _Native
Races_, he confessed “that much concerning the Aztec civilization had
been greatly exaggerated by the old Spanish writers, and for obvious
reasons;” but he contended that the stories of their magnificence
must in the main be accepted, because of the unanimity of witnesses,
notwithstanding their copying from one another, and because of the
evidence of the ruins.[979] He strikes his key-note in his chapter
on the “Government of the Nahua Nations,” in speaking of it as
“monarchical and nearly absolute;”[980] but it was perhaps in his
chapter on the “Palaces and Households of the Nahua Kings,” where he
fortifies his statement by numerous references, that he carried his
descriptions to the extent that allied his opinions to those who most
unhesitatingly accepted the old stories.[981]

The most serious arraignment of these long-accepted views was by Lewis
H. Morgan, who speaks of them as having “caught the imagination and
overcome the critical judgment of Prescott, ravaged the sprightly brain
of Brasseur de Bourbourg, and carried up in a whirlwind our author at
the Golden Gate.”[982]

Morgan’s studies had been primarily among the Iroquois, and by
analogy he had applied his reasoning to the aboriginal conditions
of Mexico and Central America, thus degrading their so-called
civilization to the level of the Indian tribal organization, as it was
understood in the North.[983] Morgan’s confidence in its deductions
was perfect, and he was not very gracious in alluding to the views
of his opponents. He looked upon “the fabric of Aztec romance as the
most deadly encumbrance upon American ethnology.”[984] The Spanish
chroniclers, as he contended, “inaugurated American aboriginal history
upon a misconception of Indian life, which has remained substantially
unquestioned till recently.”[985] He charges upon ignorance of the
structure and principles of Indian society, the perversion of all
the writers,[986] from Cortes to Bancroft, who, as he says, unable
to comprehend its peculiarities, invoked the imagination to supply
whatever was necessary to fill out the picture.[987] The actual
condition to which the Indians of Spanish America had reached was,
according to his schedule, the upper status of barbarism, between
which and the beginning of civilization he reckoned an entire ethnical
period. “In the art of government they had not been able to rise above
gentile institutions and establish political society. This fact,”
Morgan continues, “demonstrates the impossibility of privileged classes
and of potentates, under their institutions, with power to enforce the
labor of the people for the erection of palaces for their use, and
explains the absence of such structures.”[988]

This is the essence of the variance of the two schools of
interpretation of the Aztec and Maya life. The reader of Bancroft will
find, on the other hand, due recognition of an imperial system, with
its monarch and nobles and classes of slaves, and innumerable palaces,
of which we see to-day the ruins. The studies of Bandelier are appealed
to by Morgan as substantiating his view.[989] Mrs. Zelia Nuttall
(_Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci._, Aug., 1886) claims to be able to show
that the true interpretation of the Borgian and other codices points in
part at least to details of a communal life.

The special issues which for a test Morgan takes with Bancroft are in
regard to the character of the house in which Montezuma lived, and
of the dinner which is represented by Bernal Diaz and the rest as
the daily banquet of an imperial potentate. Morgan’s criticism is in
his _Houses and House Life of the American Aborigines_ (Washington,
1881).[990] The basis of this book had been intended for a fifth Part
of his _Ancient Society_, but was not used in that publication. He
printed the material, however, in papers on “Montezuma’s Dinner” (_No.
Am. Rev._, Ap. 1876), “Houses of the Moundbuilders” (_Ibid._, July,
1876), and “Study of the Houses and House Life of the Indian Tribes”
(_Archæol. Inst. of Amer. Publ._). These papers amalgamated now make
the work called _Houses and House Life_.[991]

Morgan argues that a communal mode of living accords with the usages
of aboriginal hospitality, as well as with their tenure of lands,[992]
and with the large buildings, which others call palaces, and he calls
joint tenement houses. He instances, as evidence of the size of such
houses, that at Cholula four hundred Spaniards and one thousand allied
Indians found lodging in such a house; and he points to Stephens’s
description of similar communal establishments which he found in our
day near Uxmal.[993] He holds that the inference of communal living
from such data as these is sufficient to warrant a belief in it,
although none of the early Spanish writers mention such communism as
existing; while they actually describe a communal feast in what is
known as Montezuma’s dinner;[994] and while the plans of the large
buildings now seen in ruins are exactly in accord with the demands of
separate families united in joint occupancy. In such groups, he holds,
there is usually one building devoted to the purpose of a Tecpan, or
official house of the tribe.[995] Under the pressure to labor, which
the Spaniards inflicted on their occupants, these communal dwellers
were driven, to escape such servitude, into the forest, and thus their
houses fell into decay. Morgan’s views attracted the adhesion of not
a few archæologists, like Bandelier and Dawson; but in Bancroft, as
contravening the spirit of his _Native Races_, they begat feelings
that substituted disdain for convincing arguments.[996] The less
passionate controversialists point out, with more effect, how hazardous
it is, in coming to conclusions on the quality of the Nahua, Maya,
or Quiché conditions of life, to ignore such evidences as those of
the hieroglyphics, the calendars, the architecture and carvings, the
literature and the industries, as evincing quite another kind, rather
than degree, of progress, from that of the northern Indians.[997]

II. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES UPON THE RUINS AND ARCHÆOLOGICAL REMAINS OF
MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

Elsewhere in this work some account is given of the comprehensive
treatment of American antiquities. It is the purpose of this note to
characterize such other descriptions as have been specially confined
to the antiquities of Mexico, Central America, and adjacent parts;
together with noting occasionally those more comprehensive works which
have sections on these regions. The earliest and most distinguished of
all such treatises are the writings of Alexander von Humboldt,[998] to
whom may be ascribed the paternity of what the French define as the
Science of Americanism, which, however, took more definite shape and
invited discipleship when the Société Américaine de France was formed,
and Aubin in his _Mémoire sur la peinture didactique et l’écriture
figurative des Anciens Méxicains_ furnished a standard of scholarship.
How new this science was may be deduced from the fact that Robertson,
the most distinguished authority on early American history, who wrote
in English, in the last part of the preceding century, had ventured to
say that in all New Spain there was not “a single monument or vestige
of any building more ancient than the Conquest.” After Humboldt,
the most famous of what may be called the pioneers of this art were
Kingsborough, Dupaix, and Waldeck, whose publications are sufficiently
described elsewhere. The most startling developments came from the
expeditions of Stephens and Catherwood, the former mingling both in his
_Central America_ and _Yucatan_ the charms of a personal narrative with
his archæological studies, while the draughtsman, beside furnishing
the sketches for Stephens’s book, embodied his drawings on a larger
scale in the publication which passes under his own name.[999] The
explorations of Charnay are those which have excited the most interest
of late years, though equally significant results have been produced by
such special explorers as Squier in Nicaragua, Le Plongeon in Yucatan,
and Bandelier in Mexico.

The labors of the French archæologist, which began in 1858, resulted
in the work _Cités et ruines Américaines: Mitla, Palenqué, Izamal,
Chichen-Itza, Uxmal, recueillies et photographiées par Désiré
Charnay, avec un Texte par M. Viollet le Duc_. (Paris, 1863.) Charnay
contributed to this joint publication, beside the photographs, a paper
called “Le Méxique, 1858-61,—souvenirs et impressions de Voyage.” The
Architect Viollet le Duc gives us in the same book an essay by an
active, well-equipped, and ingenious mind, but his speculations about
the origin of this Southern civilization and its remains are rather
curious than convincing.[1000]

[Illustration: THE PYRAMID OF CHOLULA.

After a drawing in Cumplido’s Spanish translation of Prescott’s
_Mexico_, vol. iii. (Mexico, 1846.)]

The public began to learn better what Charnay’s full and hearty
confidence in his own sweeping assertions was, when he again entered
the field in a series of papers on the ruins of Central America
which he contributed (1879-81) to the _North American Review_ (vols.
cxxxi.-cxxxiii.), and which for the most part reached the public
newly dressed in some of the papers contributed by L. P. Gratacap to
the American Antiquarian,[1001] and in a paper by F. A. Ober on “The
Ancient Cities of America,” in the _Amer. Geog. Soc. Bulletin_, Mar.,
1888. Charnay took moulds of various sculptures found among the ruins,
which were placed in the Trocadero Museum in Paris.[1002] What Charnay
communicated in English to the _No. Amer. Review_ appeared in better
shape in French in the _Tour du Monde_ (1886-87), and in a still
riper condition in his latest work, _Les anciens villes du Nouveau
Monde: voyages d’explorations au Méxique et dans l’Amérique Centrale_.
1857-1882. _Ouvrage contenant 214 gravures et 19 cartes ou plans._
(Paris, 1885.)[1003]

[Illustration: GREAT MOUND OF CHOLULA.

After a sketch in Bandelier’s _Archæological Tour_, p. 233, who also
gives a plan of the mound. The modern Church of Nuestra Señora de los
Remedios is on the summit, where there are no traces of aboriginal
works. A paved road leads to the top. A suburban road skirts its base,
and fields of maguey surround it. The circuit of the base is 3859 feet,
and the mound covers nearly twenty acres. Estimates of its height are
variously given from 165 to 208 feet, according as one or another base
line is chosen. It is built of adobe brick laid in clay, and it has
suffered from erosion, slides, and other effects of time. There are
some traces of steps up the side. Bandelier (pl. xv.) also gives a
fac-simile of an old map of Cholula. The earliest picture which we have
of the mound, evidently thought by the first Spaniards to be a natural
one, is in the arms of Cholula (1540). There are other modern cuts in
Carbajal-Espinosa’s _Mexico_ (i. 195); _Archæologia Americana_ (i. 12);
Brocklehurst’s _Mexico to-day_, 182. The degree of restoration which
draughtsmen allow to themselves, accounts in large measure for the
great diversity of appearance which the mound makes in the different
drawings of it. There is a professed restoration by Mothes in Armin’s
_Heutige Mexico_, 63, 68, 72. The engraving in Humboldt is really a
restoration (_Vues_, etc., pl. vii., or pl. viii. of the folio ed.).
Bandelier gives a slight sketch of a restoration (p. 246, pl. viii.).]

We proceed now to note geographically some of the principal ruins. In
the vicinity of Vera Cruz the pyramid of Papantla is the conspicuous
monument,[1004] but there is little else thereabouts needing particular
mention. Among the ruins of the central plateau of Mexico, the famous
pyramid of Cholula is best known. The time of its construction is a
matter about which archæologists are not agreed, though it is perhaps
to be connected with the earliest period of the Nahua power. Duran,
on the other hand, has told a story of its erection by the giants,
overcome by the Nahuas.[1005] Its purpose is equally debatable, whether
intended for a memorial, a refuge, a defence, or a spot of worship—very
likely the truth may be divided among them all.[1006] It is a similar
problem for divided opinion whether it was built by a great display of
human energy, in accordance with the tradition that the bricks which
composed its surface were passed from hand to hand by a line of men,
extending to the spot where they were made leagues away, or constructed
by a slower process of accretion, spread over successive generations,
which might not have required any marvellous array of workmen.[1007]
The fierce conflict which—as some hold—Cortés had with the natives
around the mound and on its slopes settled its fate; and the demolition
begun thereupon, and continued by the furious desolaters of the Church,
has been aided by the erosions of time and the hand of progress,
till the great monument has become a ragged and corroded hill, which
might to the casual observer stand for the natural base, given by
the Creator, to the modern chapel that now crowns its summit; but if
Bandelier’s view (p. 249) is correct, that none of the conquerors
mention it, then the conflict which is recorded took place, not here,
but on the vanished mound of Quetzalcoatl, which in Bandelier’s opinion
was a different structure from this more famous mound, while other
writers pronounce it the shrine itself of Quetzalcoatl.[1008]

[Illustration: MEXICAN CALENDAR STONE.

After a cut in _Harper’s Magazine_. An enlarged engraving of the
central head is given on the title-page of the present volume. A
photographic reproduction, as the “Stone of the Sun,” is given in
Bandelier’s _Archæological Tour_, p. 54, where he summarizes the
history of it, with references, including a paper by Alfredo Chavero,
in the _Anales del Museo nacional de México_, and another, with a cut,
by P. J. J. Valentini, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1878, and
in _The Nation_, Aug. 8 and Sept. 19, 1878. Chavero’s explanation is
translated in Brocklehurst’s _Mexico to-day_, p. 186. The stone is
dated in a year corresponding to A.D. 1479, and it was early described
in Duran’s _Historia de las Indias_, and in Tezozomoc’s _Crónica
mexicana_. Tylor (_Anahuac_, 238) says that of the drawings made before
the days of photography, that in Carlos Nebel’s _Viaje pintoresco y
Arqueológico sobre la República Mejicana_, 1829-1834 (Paris, 1839),
is the best, while the engravings given by Humboldt (pl. xxiii.)
and others are more or less erroneous. Cf. other cuts in Carbajal’s
_México_, i. 528; Bustamante’s _Mañanas de la Alameda_ (Mexico,
1835-36); Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, 408, 451, with references;
Bancroft’s _Native Races_, ii. 520; iv. 506; Stevens’s _Flint Chips_,
309.

Various calendar disks are figured in Clavigero (Casena, 1780); a
colored calendar on agave paper is reproduced in the _Archives de la
Commission Scientifique du Méxique_, iii. 120. (Quaritch held the
original document in Aug., 1888, at £25, which had belonged to M.
Boban.)

For elucidations of the Mexican astronomical and calendar system see
Acosta, vi. cap. 2; Granados y Galvez’s _Tardes Americanas_ (1778);
Humboldt’s essay in connection with pl. xxiii. of his _Atlas_;
Prescott’s _Mexico_, i. 117; Bollaert in _Memoirs read before
the Anthropol. Soc. of London_, i. 210; E. G. Squier’s _Some new
discoveries respecting the dates on the great calendar stone of the
ancient Mexicans, with observations on the Mexican cycle of fifty-two
years_, in the _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 2d ser., March,
1849, pp. 153-157; Abbé J. Pipart’s _Astronomie, Chronologie et rites
des Méxicaines_ in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (n. ser.
i.); Brasseur’s _Nat. Civ._, iii. livre ii.; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_,
ii. ch. 16; Short, ch. 9, with ref., p. 445; Cyrus Thomas in Powell’s
_Rept. Ethn. Bureau_, iii. 7. Cf. Brinton’s _Abor. Amer. Authors_, p.
38; Brasseur’s “Chronologie historique des Méxicaines” in the _Actes de
la Soc. d’Ethnographie_ (1872), vol. vi.; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_,
i. 355, for the Toltecs as the source of astronomical ideas, with which
compare Bancroft, v. 192; the _Bulletin de la Soc. royale Belge de
Géog._, Sept., Oct., 1886; and Bandelier in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._,
ii. 572, for a comparison of calendars.

Wilson in his _Prehistoric Man_ (i. 246) says: “By the unaided results
of native science, the dwellers on the Mexican plateau had effected
an adjustment of civil to solar time so nearly correct that when the
Spaniards landed on their coast, their own reckoning, according to the
unreformed Julian calendar, was really eleven days in error, compared
with that of the barbarian nation whose civilization they so speedily
effaced.”

See what Wilson (_Prehistoric Man_, i. 333) says of the native
veneration for this calendar stone, when it was exhumed. Mrs. Nuttall
(_Proc. Am. Asso. Adv. Sci._, Aug., 1886) claims to be able to show
that this monolith is really a stone which stood in the Mexican
market-place, and was used in regulating the stated market-days.]

We have reference to a Cholula mound in some of the earliest writers.
Bernal Diaz counted the steps on its side.[1009] Motolinía saw it
within ten years of the Conquest, when it was overgrown and much
ruined. Sahagún says it was built for defensive purposes. Rojas, in
his _Relacion de Cholula_, 1581, calls it a fortress, and says the
Spaniards levelled its convex top to plant there a cross, where later,
in 1594, they built a chapel. Torquemada, following Motolinía and the
later Mendieta, says it was never finished, and was decayed in his
time, though he traced the different levels. Its interest as a relic
thus dates almost from the beginnings of the modern history of the
region. Boturini mentions its four terraces. Clavigero, in 1744, rode
up its sides on horseback, impelled by curiosity, and found it hard
work even then to look upon it as other than a natural hill.[1010] The
earliest of the critical accounts of it, however, is Humboldt’s, made
from examinations in 1803, when much more than now of its original
construction was observable, and his account is the one from which most
travellers have drawn,—the result of close scrutiny in his text and of
considerable license in his plate, in which he aimed at something like
a restoration.[1011] The latest critical examination is in Bandelier’s
“Studies about Cholula and its vicinity,” making part iii. of his
_Archæological Tour in Mexico in 1881_.[1012]

What are called the finest ruins in Mexico are those of Xochicalco,
seventy-five miles southwest of the capital, consisting of a mound of
five terraces supported by masonry, with a walled area on the summit.
Of late years a cornfield surrounds what is left of the pyramidal
structure, which was its crowning edifice, and which up to the middle
of the last century had five receding stories, though only one now
appears. It owes its destruction to the needs which the proprietors
of the neighboring sugar-works have had for its stones. The earliest
account of the ruins appeared in the “Descripcion (1791) de los
antiqüedades de Xochicalco” of José Antonio Alzate y Ramirez, in the
_Gacetas de Literatura_ (Mexico, 1790-94, in 3 vols.; reprinted Puebla,
1831, in 4 vols.), accompanied by plates, which were again used in
Pietro Marquez’s _Due Antichi Monumenti de Architettura Messicana_
(Roma, 1804),[1013] with an Italian version of Alzate, from which the
French translation in Dupaix was made. Alzate furnished the basis of
the account in Humboldt’s _Vues_ (i. 129; pl. ix. of folio ed.), and
Waldeck (_Voyage pitt._, 69) regrets that Humboldt adopted so inexact
a description as that of Alzate. From Nebel (_Viage pintoresco_) we
get our best graphic representations, for Tylor (_Anahuac_) says that
Casteñeda’s drawings, accompanying Dupaix, are very incorrect. Bancroft
says that one, at least, of these drawings in Kingsborough bears not
the slightest resemblance to the one given in Dupaix. In 1835 there
were explorations made under orders of the Mexican government, which
were published in the _Revista Mexicana_ (i. 539,—reprinted in the
_Diccionario Universal_, x. 938). Other accounts, more or less helpful,
are given by Latrobe, Mayer,[1014] and in Isador Löwenstern’s _Le
Méxique_ (Paris, 1843).[1015]

[Illustration: COURT IN THE MEXICO MUSEUM.

NOTE.—The opposite view of the court of the Museum is from Charnay, p.
57. He says: “The Museum cannot be called rich, in so far that there
is nothing remarkable in what the visitor is allowed to see.” The
vases, which had so much deceived Charnay, earlier, as to cause him to
make casts of them for the Paris Museum, he at a later day pronounced
forgeries; and he says that they, with many others which are seen in
public and private museums, were manufactured at Tlatiloco, a Mexican
suburb, between 1820 and 1828. See Holmes on the trade in Mexican
spurious relics in _Science_, 1886.

The reclining statue in the foreground is balanced by one similar to
it at an opposite part of the court-yard. One is the Chac-mool, as Le
Plongeon called it, unearthed by him at Chichen-Itza, and appropriated
by the Mexican government; the other was discovered at Tlaxcala.

The round stone in the centre is the sacrificial stone dug up in the
great square in Mexico, of which an enlarged view is given on another
page.

The museum is described in Bancroft, iv. 554; in Mayer’s _Mexico as it
was_, etc., and his _Mexico, Aztec, etc._; Fossey’s _Mexique_.

On Le Plongeon’s discovery of the Chac-mool see _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, Apr., 1877; Oct., 1878, and new series, i. 280; Nadaillac, Eng.
tr., 346; Short, 400; Le Plongeon’s _Sacred Mysteries_, 88, and his
paper in the _Amer. Geog. Soc. Journal_, ix. 142 (1877). Hamy calls
it the Toltec god Tlaloc, the rain-god; and Charnay agrees with him,
giving (pp. 366-7) cuts of his and of the one found at Tlaxcala.]

The ancient Anahuac corresponds mainly to the valley of Mexico
city.[1016] Bancroft (iv. 497) shows in a summary way the extent of
our knowledge of the scant archæological remains within this central
area.[1017]

In the city of Mexico not a single relic of the architecture of the
earlier peoples remains,[1018] though a few movable sculptured objects
are preserved.[1019]

* * * * *

[Illustration: OLD MEXICAN BRIDGE NEAR TEZCUCO.

After a sketch in Tylor’s _Anahuac_, who thinks it the original _Puente
de las Bergantinas_, where Cortes had his brigantines launched. The
span is about 20 feet, and this Tylor thinks “an immense span for such
a construction.” Cf. H. H. Bancroft, _Native Races_, iv. 479, 528.
Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Reports_, ii. 696) doubts its antiquity.]

Tezcuco, on the other side of the lake from Mexico, affords some
traces of the ante-Conquest architecture, but has revealed no
such interesting movable relics as have been found in the capital
city.[1020] Twenty-five miles north of Mexico are the ruins of
Teotihuacan, which have been abundantly described by early writers and
modern explorers. Bancroft (iv. 530) makes up his summary mainly from
a Mexican official account, Ramon Almaraz’s _Memoria de los trabajos
ejecutados por la comision cientifica de Pachuca_ (Mexico, 1865),
adding what was needed to fill out details from Clavigero, Humboldt,
and the later writers.[1021]

Bancroft (iv. ch. 10), in describing what is known of the remains in
the northern parts of Mexico, gives a summary of what has been written
regarding the most famous of these ruins, Quemada in Zacatecas.[1022]

[Illustration: THE INDIO TRISTE.

After a photograph in Bandelier’s _Archæological Tour_, p. 68. He
thinks it was intended to be a bearer of a torch, and has no symbolical
meaning.]

Bancroft (iv. ch. 7) has given a separate chapter to the antiquities
of Oajaca (Oaxaca) and Guerrero, as the most southern of what he
terms the Nahua people, including and lying westerly of the Isthmus
of Tehuantepec, and he speaks of it as a region but little known
to travellers, except as they pass through a part of it lying on
the commercial route from Acapulco to the capital city of Mexico.
Bancroft’s summary, with his references, must suffice for the inquirer
for all except the principal group of ruins in this region, that of
Mitla (or Lyó-Baa), of which a full recapitulation of authorities
may be made, most of which are also to be referred to for the lesser
ruins, though, as Bancroft points out, the information respecting Monte
Alban and Zachila is far from satisfactory. Of Monte Alban, Dupaix and
Charnay are the most important witnesses, and the latter says that
he considers Monte Alban “one of the most precious remains, and very
surely the most ancient of the American civilizations.”[1023] On Dupaix
alone we must depend for what we know of Zachila.

It is, however, of Mitla (sometime Miquitlan, Mictlan) that more
considerable mention must be made, and its ruins, about thirty miles
southerly from Mexico, have been oftenest visited, as they deserve to
be; and we have to regret that Stephens never took them within the
range of his observations. Their demolition had begun during a century
or two previous to the Spanish Conquest, and was not complete even
then. Nature is gloomy, and even repulsive in its desolation about the
ruins;[1024] but a small village still exists among them. The place is
mentioned by Duran[1025] as inhabited about 1450; Motolinía describes
it as still lived in,[1026] and in 1565-74 it had a gobernador of its
own. Burgoa speaks of it in 1644.[1027]

[Illustration: GENERAL PLAN OF MITLA. After Bandelier’s sketch
(_Archæological Tour_, p. 276). KEY:

A, the ruins on the highest ground, with a church and curacy built
into the walls.
B, C, E, are ruins outside the village.
D is within the modern village.
F is beyond the river.]

The earliest of the modern explorers were Luis Martin, a Mexican
architect, and Colonel de la Laguna, who examined the ruins in
1802; and it was from Martin and his drawings that Humboldt drew
the information with which, in 1810, he first engaged the attention
of the general public upon Mitla, in his _Vues des Cordillères_.
Dupaix’s visit was in 1806. The architect Eduard L. Mühlenpfordt,
in his _Versuch einer getreuen Schilderung der Republik Mejico_
(Hannover, 1844, in 2 vols.), says that he made plans and drawings in
1830,[1028] which, passing into the hands of Juan B. Carriedo, were
used by him to illustrate a paper, “Los palacios antiguos de Mitla,”
in the _Ilustracion Mexicana_ (vol. ii.), in which he set forth the
condition of the ruins in 1852. Meanwhile, in 1837, some drawings had
been made, which were twenty years later reproduced in the ninth volume
of the _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, as Brantz Mayer’s
_Observations on Mexican history and archæology, with a special notice
of Zapotec, remains as delineated in Mr. J. G. Sawkins’s drawings of
Mitla, etc._ (Washington, 1857). Bancroft points out (iv. 406) that
the inaccuracies and impossibilities of Sawkins’ drawings are such
as to lead to the conclusion that he pretended to explorations which
he never made, and probably drafted his views from some indefinite
information; and that Mayer was deceived, having no more precise
statements than Humboldt’s by which to test the drawings. Matthieu
Fossey visited the ruins in 1838; but his account in his _Le Méxique_
(Paris, 1857) is found by Bancroft to be mainly a borrowed one. G. F.
von Tempsky’s _Mitla, a narrative of incidents and personal adventure
on a journey in Mexico, Guatemala and Salvador, 1853-1855, edited by
J. S. Bell_ (London, 1858), deceives us by the title into supposing
that considerable attention is given in the book to Mitla, but we
find him spending but a part of a day there in February, 1854 (p.
250). The book is not prized; Bandelier calls it of small scientific
value, and Bancroft says his plates must have been made up from other
sources than his own observations.[1029] Charnay, here, as well as
elsewhere, made for us some important photographs in 1859.[1030] This
kind of illustration received new accessions of value when Emilio
Herbrüger issued a series of thirty-four fine plates as _Album de
Vistas fotográficas de las Antiguas Ruinas de los palacios de Mitla_
(Oaxaca, 1874). In 1864, J. W. von Müller, in his _Reisen in den
Vereinigten Staaten, Canada und Mexico_ (Leipzig, in 3 vols.), included
an account of a visit.[1031] The most careful examination made since
Bancroft summarized existing knowledge is that of Bandelier in his
_Archæological Tour in Mexico in 1881_ (Boston, 1885), published as
no. ii. of the American series of the _Papers of the Archæological
Institute of America_, which is illustrated with heliotypes and sketch
plans of the ruins and architectural details in all their geometrical
symmetry. Bancroft (iv. 392, etc.) could only give a plan of the ruins
based on the sketches of Mühlenpfordt as published by Carriedo, but the
student will find a more careful one[1032] in Bandelier, who also gives
detailed ones of the several buildings (pl. xvii., xviii.)

* * * * *

[Illustration: SACRIFICIAL STONE.

After a photograph in Bandelier’s _Archæological Tour_, p. 67. See on
another page, cut of the court-yard of the Museum, where this stone is
preserved. Cf. Humboldt, pl. xxi.; Bandelier in _Amer. Antiq_., 1878;
Bancroft, iv. 509; Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 311. There is a discussion
of the stone in Orozco y Berra’s _El Cuauhxicalli de Tizoc_, in the
_Anales del Museo Nacional_, i. no. 1; ii. no. 1. On the sacrificial
stone of San Juan Teotihuacan, see paper by Amos W. Butler in the
_Amer. Antiq_., vii. 148. A cut in Clavigero (ii.) shows how the stone
was used in sacrifices; the engraving has been often copied. In Mrs.
Nuttall’s view this stone simply records the periodical tribute days
(_Am. Ass. Adv. Sci. Proc._, Aug. 1886).]

There is no part of Spanish America richer in architectural remains
than the northern section of Yucatan, and Bancroft (iv. ch. 5) has
occasion to enumerate and to describe with more or less fullness
between fifty and sixty independent groups of ruins.[1033] Stephens
explored forty-four of these abandoned towns, and such was the native
ignorance that of only a few of them could anything be learned
in Merida. And yet that this country was the land of a peculiar
architecture was known to the earliest explorers. Francisco Hernandez
de Cordova in 1517, Juan de Grijalva in 1518, Cortés himself in 1519,
and Francisco de Montejo in 1527 observed the ruins in Cozumel, an
island off the northwest coast of the peninsula, and at other points of
the shore.[1034] It is only, however, within the present century that
we have had any critical notices. Rio heard reports of them merely.
Lorenzo de Zavala saw only Uxmal, as his account given in Dupaix shows.
The earliest detailed descriptions were those of Waldeck in his _Voyage
pittoresque et achéologique dans la province d’Yucatan_ (Paris, 1838,
folio, with steel plates and lithographs), but he also saw little more
than the ruins of Uxmal, in the expedition in which he had received
pecuniary support from Lord Kingsborough.[1035] It is to John L.
Stephens and his accompanying draughtsman, Frederic Catherwood, that
we owe by far the most essential part of our knowledge of the Yucatan
remains. He had begun a survey of Uxmal in 1840, but had made little
progress when the illness of his artist broke up his plans. Accordingly
he gave the world but partial results in his _Incidents of Travel in
Central America_. Not satisfied with his imperfect examination, he
returned to Yucatan in 1841, and in 1843 published at New York the
book which has become the main source of information for all compilers
ever since, his _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_ (N. Y., 1842; London,
1843; again, N. Y., 1856, 1858). It was in the early days of the
Daguerrean process, and Catherwood took with him a camera, from which
his excellent drawings derive some of their fidelity. They appeared in
his own _Views of Ancient Monuments in Central America_ (N. Y., 1844),
on a larger scale than in Stephens’s smaller pages.

[Illustration: WALDECK.

After an etching published in the _Annuaire de la Soc. Amer. de
France_. Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, October, 1875.]

Stephens’s earlier book had had an almost immediate success. The
reviewers were unanimous in commendation, as they might well be.[1036]
It has been asserted that it was in order to avail of this new
interest that a resident of New Orleans, Mr. B. M. Norman, hastened
to Yucatan, while Stephens was there a second time, and during the
winter of 1841-42 made the trip among the ruins, which is recorded in
his _Rambles in Yucatan, or Notes of Travel through the peninsula,
including a Visit to the Remarkable Ruins of Chi-chen, Kabah Zayi, and
Uxmal_ (New York, 1843).[1037]

The Daguerrean camera was also used by the Baron von Friederichsthal
in his studies at Uxmal and Chichen-Itza, and his exploration seems
to have taken place between the two visits of Stephens, as Bancroft
determines from a letter (April 21, 1841) written after the baron had
started on his return voyage to Europe.[1038] In Paris, in October,
1841, under the introduction of Humboldt, Friederichsthal addressed
the Academy, and his paper was printed in the _Nouvelles Annales
des Voyages_ (xcii. 297) as “Les Monuments de l’Yucatan.”[1039] The
camera was not, however, brought to the aid of the student with the
most satisfactory results till Charnay, in 1858, visited Izamal,
Chichen-Itza, and Uxmal. He gave a foretaste of his results in the
_Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog_. (1861, vol. ii. 364), and in 1863
gave not very extended descriptions, relying mostly on his _Atlas_
of photographs in his _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, a part of which
volume consists of the architectural speculations of Viollet le Duc.
Beside the farther studies of Charnay in his _Anciens Villes du Nouveau
Monde_ (Paris, 1885), there have been recent explorations in Yucatan
by Dr. Augustus Le Plongeon and his wife, mainly at Chichen-Itza,
in which for a while he had the aid and countenance of Mr. Stephen
Salisbury, Jr.,[1040] of Worcester, Mass. Le Plongeon’s results are
decidedly novel and helpful, but they were expressed with more license
of explication than satisfied the committee of that society, when his
papers were referred to them for publication, and than has proved
acceptable to other examiners.[1041] Nearly all other descriptions of
the Yucatan ruins have been derived substantially from these chief
authorities.[1042]

[Illustration: DÉSIRÉ CHARNAY.

Reproduced from an engraving in the
London edition, 1887, of the English translation of his _Ancient Cities
of the New World_.]

The principal ruins of Yucatan are those of Uxmal and Chichen-Itza,
and references to the literature of each will suffice. Those at
Uxmal are in some respects distinct in character from the remains of
Honduras and of Chiapas. There are no idols as at Copan. There are no
extensive stucco-work and no tablets as at Palenqué. The general type
is Cyclopean masonry, faced with dressed stones. The Casa de Monjas,
or nunnery (so called), is often considered the most remarkable ruin
in Central America; and no architectural feature of any of them has
been the subject of more inquiry than the protuberant ornaments in the
cornices, which are usually called elephants’ trunks.[1043] It has been
contended that the place was inhabited in the days of Cortes.[1044]

[Illustration: FROM CHARNAY.

Also in the _Bull. Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, 1882 (p. 542). The best
large (36 × 28 in.) topographical and historical map of Yucatan,
showing the site of ruins, is that of Huebbe and Azuar, 1878. The
_Plano de Yucatan_, of Santiago Nigra de San Martin, also showing the
ruins, 1848, is reduced in Stephen Salisbury’s _Mayas_ (Worcester,
1877), or in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1876, and April,
1877. V. A. Malte-Brun’s map, likewise marking the ruins, is in
Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Palenqué_ (1866). There are maps in C. G.
Fancourt’s _Hist. Yucatan_ (London, 1854); Dupaix’s _Antiquités
Méxicaines_; Waldeck’s _Voyage dans la Yucatan_ (his MS. map was used
by Malte-Brun). Cf. the map of Yucatan and Chiapas, in Brasseur and
Waldeck’s _Monuments Anciens du Méxique_ (1866). Perhaps the most
convenient map to use in the study of Maya antiquities is that in
Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. Cf. Crescentio Carrillo’s “Geografía Maya”
in the _Anales del Museo nacional de México_, ii. 435.

The map in Stephens’s _Yucatan_, vol. i., shows his route among the
ruins, but does not pretend to be accurate for regions off his course.

The _Journal of the Royal Geog. Soc._, vol. xi., has a map showing the
ruins in Central America.

The best map to show at a glance the location of the ruins in the
larger field of Spanish America is in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv.]

The earliest printed account of Uxmal is in Cogolludo’s _Yucathan_
(Madrid, 1688), pp. 176, 193, 197; but it was well into this century
before others were written. Lorenzo de Zavala gave but an outline
account in his _Notice_, printed in Dupaix in 1834. Waldeck (_Voyage
Pitt._ 67, 93) spent eight days there in May, 1835, and Stephens gives
him the credit of being the earliest describer to attract attention.
Stephens’s first visit in 1840 was hasty (_Cent. Amer._, ii. 413), but
on his second visit (1842) he took with him Waldeck’s _Voyage_, and his
description and the drawings of Catherwood were made with the advantage
of having these earlier drawings to compare. Stephens (_Yucatan_,
i. 297) says that their plans and drawings differ materially from
Waldeck’s; but Bancroft, who compares the two, says that Stephens
exaggerated the differences, which are not material, except in a few
plates (Stephens’s _Yucatan_, i. 163; ii. 264—ch. 24, 25). About the
same time Norman and Friederichsthal made their visits. Bancroft
(iv. 150) refers to the lesser narratives of Carillo (1845), and
another, recorded in the _Registro Yucateco_ (i. 273, 361), with Carl
Bartholomæus Heller (April, 1847) in his _Reisen in Mexico_ (Leipzig,
1853). Charnay’s _Ruines_ (p. 362), and his _Anciens Villes_ (ch. 19,
20), record visits in 1858 and later. Brasseur reported upon Uxmal in
1865 in the _Archives de la Com. Scientifique du Méxique_ (ii. 234,
254), and he had already made mention of them in his _Hist. Nations
Civ._, ii. ch. 1.[1045]

[Illustration: RUINED TEMPLE AT UXMAL.

After a cut in Ruge’s _Gesch. des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, p. 357.]

The ruins of Chichen-Itza make part of the eastern group of the Yucatan
remains. As was not the case with some of the other principal ruins,
the city in its prime has a record in Maya tradition; it was known in
the days of the Conquest, and has not been lost sight of since,[1046]
though its ruins were not visited by explorers till well within the
present century, the first of whom, according to Stephens, was John
Burke, in 1838. Stephens had heard of them and mentioned them to
Friederichsthal, who was there in 1840 (_Nouv. Annales des Voyages_,
xcii. 300-306). Norman was there in February, 1842 (_Rambles_, 104),
and did not seem aware that any one had been there before him; and
Stephens himself, during the next month (_Yucatan_, ii. 282), made
the best record which we have. Charnay made his observations in 1858
(_Ruines_, 339,—cf. _Anciens Villes_, ch. 18), and gives us nine good
photographs. The latest discoverer is Le Plongeon, whose investigations
were signalized by the finding (1876) of the statue of Chackmool, and
by other notable researches (_Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1877;
October, 1878).[1047]

[Illustration: FROM CHICHEN-ITZA.

After a cut in Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_. There are two of these rings
in the walls of one of the buildings twenty or thirty feet from the
ground. They are four feet in diameter. Cf. Stephens’s _Yucatan_, ii.
304; Bancroft, iv. 230.]

[Illustration: FROM CHICHEN-ITZA.

A bas-relief, one of the best preserved at Chichen-Itza, after a sketch
in Charnay and Viollet-le-Duc’s _Cités et Ruines Américaines_ (Paris,
1863), p. 53, of which Viollet-le-Duc says: “Le profil du guerrier se
rapproche sensiblement les types du Nord de l’Europe.”]

It seems hardly to admit of doubt that the cities—if that be their
proper designation—of Yucatan were the work of the Maya people,
whose descendants were found by the Spaniards in possession of the
peninsula, and that in some cases, like those of Uxmal and Toloom,
their sacred edifices did not cease to be used till some time after
the Spaniards had possessed the country. Such were the conclusions of
Stephens,[1048] the sanest mind that has spent its action upon these
remains; and he tells us that a deed of the region where Uxmal is
situated, which passed in 1673, mentions the daily religious rites
which the natives were then celebrating there, and speaks of the
swinging doors and cisterns then in use. The abandonment of one of the
buildings, at least, is brought down to within about two centuries,
and comparisons of Catherwood’s drawings with the descriptions of
more recent explorers, by showing a very marked deterioration within
a comparatively few years, enable us easily to understand how the
piercing roots of a rapidly growing vegetation can make a greater havoc
in a century than will occur in temperate climates. The preservation
of paint on the walls, and of wooden lintels in some places, also
induce a belief that no great time, such as would imply an extinct
race of builders, is necessary to account for the present condition
of the ruins, and we must always remember how the Spaniards used them
as quarries for building their neighboring towns. How long these
habitations and shrines stood in their perfection is a question
about which archæologists have had many and diverse estimates,
ranging from hundreds to thousands of years. There is nothing in the
ruins themselves to settle the question, beyond a study of their
construction. So far as the traditionary history of the Mayas can
determine, some of them may have been built between the third and the
tenth century.[1049]

* * * * *

We come now to Chiapas. The age of the ruins of Palenqué[1050] can
only be conjectured, and very indefinitely, though perhaps there
is not much risk in saying that they represent some of the oldest
architectural structures known in the New World, and were very likely
abandoned three or four centuries before the coming of the Spaniards.
Still, any confident statement is unwise. Perhaps there may be some
fitness in Brasseur’s belief that the stucco additions and roofs were
the work of a later people than those who laid the foundations.[1051]
Bancroft (iv. 289) has given the fullest account of the literature
describing these ruins. They seem to have been first found in 1750,
or a few years before. The report reaching Ramon de Ordoñez, then a
boy, was not forgotten by him, and prompted him to send his brother in
1773 to explore them. Among the manuscripts in the Brasseur Collection
(_Bib. Mex.-Guat._, p. 113; Pinart, no. 695) are a _Memoria relativa à
las ruinas... de Palenqué_, and _Notas de Chiapas y Palenqué_, which
are supposed to be the record of this exploration written by Ramon,
as copied from the original in the Museo Nacional, and which, in part
at least, constituted the report which Ramon made in 1784 to the
president of the Audiencia Real. Ramon’s view was that he had hit upon
the land of Ophir, and the country visited by the Phœnicians. This
same president now directed José Antonio Calderon to visit the ruins,
and we have his “Informe” translated in Brasseur’s _Palenqué_ (introd.
p. 5). From February to June of 1785, Antonio Benasconi, the royal
architect of Guatemala, inspected the ruins under similar orders. His
report, as well as the preceding one, with the accompanying drawings,
were dispatched to Spain, where J. B. Muñoz made a summary of them for
the king. I do not find any of them have been printed. The result of
the royal interest in the matter was, that Antonio del Rio was next
commissioned to make a more thorough survey, which he accomplished
(May-June, 1787) with the aid of a band of natives to fell the trees
and fire the rubbish. He broke through the walls in a reckless way,
that added greatly to the devastation of years. Rio’s report, dated
at Palenqué June 24, 1787, was published first in 1855, in the
_Diccionario Univ. de Geog._, viii. 528.[1052] Meanwhile, beside the
copy of the manuscript sent to Spain, other manuscripts were kept in
Guatemala and Mexico; and one of these falling into the hands of a Dr.
M’Quy, was taken to England and translated under the title _Description
of the Ruins of an Ancient City discovered near Palenque in Guatemala,
Spanish America, translated from the Original MS. Report of Capt.
Don A. Del Rio; followed by Teatro Critico Americano, or a Critical
Investigation and Research into the History of the Americans, by Doctor
Felix Cabrera_ (London, 1822).[1053]

[Illustration: A RESTORATION BY VIOLLET-LE-DUC.

From _Histoire de l’Habitation Humaine, par Viollet-le-Duc_ (Paris,
1875). There is a restoration of the Palenqué palace—so called—in
Armin’s _Das heutige Mexico_ (copied in Short, 342, and Bancroft, iv.
323).]

The results of the explorations of Dupaix, made early in the present
century by order of Carlos IV. of Spain, long remained unpublished. His
report and the drawings of Castañeda lay uncared for in the Mexican
archives during the period of the Revolution. Latour Allard, of Paris,
obtained copies of some of the drawings, and from these Kingsborough
got copies, which he engraved for his _Mexican Antiquities_, in which
Dupaix’s report was also printed in Spanish and English (vols. iv.,
v., vi.). It is not quite certain whether the originals or copies
were delivered (1828) by the Mexican authorities to Baradère, who
a few years later secured their publication with additional matter
as _Antiquités méxicaines_. _Relation des trois expéditions du
capitaine Dupaix, ordonnées en 1805, 1806 et 1807, pour la recherche
des antiquités du pays, notamment celles de Mitla et de Palenque;
accompagnée des dessins de Castañeda, et d’une carte du pays exploré;
suivie d’un parallèle de ces monuments avec ceux de l’Égypte, de
l’Indostan, et du reste de l’ancien monde par Alexandre Lenoir; d’une
dissertation sur l’origine de l’ancienne population des deux Amériques
par [D. B.] Warden; avec un discours préliminaire par. M. Charles
Farcy, et des notes explicatives, et autres documents par MM. Baradère,
de St. Priest [etc.]._ (Paris 1834, texte et atlas.)[1054] The plates
of this edition are superior to those in Kingsborough and in Rio; and
are indeed improved in the engraving over Castañeda’s drawings. The
book as a whole is one of the most important on Palenqué which we have.
The investigations were made on his third expedition (1807-8). A tablet
taken from the ruins by him is in the Museo Nacional, and a cast of it
is figured in the _Numis. and Antiq. Soc. of Philad. Proc._, Dec. 4,
1884.

During the twenty-five years next following Dupaix, we find two
correspondents of the French and English Geographical Societies
supplying their publications with occasional accounts of their
observations among the ruins. One of them, Dr. F. Corroy,[1055] was
then living at Tabasco; the other, Col. Juan Gallindo,[1056] was
resident in the country as an administrative officer.

[Illustration: SCULPTURES, TEMPLE OF THE CROSS, PALENQUÉ.

These slabs, six feet high, were taken from Palenqué, and when Stephens
saw them they were in private hands at San Domingo, near by, but later
they were placed in the church front in the same town, and here Charnay
took impressions of them, from which they were engraved in _The Ancient
Cities_, etc., p. 217, and copied thence in the above cuts. This same
type of head is considered by Rosny the Aztec head of Palenqué (_Doc.
écrits de la Antiq. Amer._, 73), and as belonging to the superior
classes. In order to secure the convex curve of the nose and forehead
an ornament was sometimes added, as shown in a head of the second
tablet at Palenqué, and in the photograph of a bas-relief, preserved
in the Museo Archeologico at Madrid, given by Rosny (vol. 3), and
hypothetically called by him a statue of Cuculkan. This ornament is not
infrequently seen in other images of this region.

Bandelier (_Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 126), speaking of the tablet of
the Cross of Palenqué, says: “These tablets and figures show in dress
such a striking analogy of what we know of the military accoutrements
of the Mexicans, that it is a strong approach to identity.”]

Fréderic de Waldeck, the artist who some years before had familiarized
himself with the character of the ruins in the preparation of the
engravings for Rio’s work, was employed in 1832-34. He was now
considerably over sixty years of age, and under the pay of a committee,
which had raised a subscription, in which the Mexican government
shared. He made the most thorough examination of Palenqué which has
yet been made. Waldeck was a skilful artist, and his drawings are
exquisite; but he was not free from a tendency to improve or restore,
where the conditions gave a hint, and so as we have them in the final
publication they have not been accepted as wholly trustworthy. He made
more than 200 drawings, and either the originals or copies—Stephens
says “copies,” the originals being confiscated—were taken to Europe.
Waldeck announced his book in Paris, and the public had already had a
taste of his not very sober views in some communications which he had
sent in Aug. and Nov., 1832, to the Société de Géographie de Paris.
Long years of delay followed, and Waldeck had lived to be over ninety,
when the French government bought his collection[1057] (in 1860), and
made preparations for its publication. Out of the 188 drawings thus
secured, 56 were selected and were admirably engraved, and only that
portion of Waldeck’s text was preserved which was purely descriptive,
and not all of that. Selection was made of Brasseur de Bourbourg,
who at that time had never visited the ruins,[1058] to furnish
some introductory matter. This he prepared in an _Avant-propos_,
recapitulating the progress of such studies; and this was followed
by an _Introduction aux Ruines de Palenqué_, narrating the course of
explorations up to that time; a section also published separately
as _Recherches sur les Ruines de Palenqué et sur les origines de
la civilisation du Méxique_ (Paris, 1886), and finally Waldeck’s
own _Description des Ruines_, followed by the plates, most of which
relate to Palenqué. Thus composed, a large volume was published under
the general title of _Monuments anciens du Méxique_. _Palenqué et
autres ruines de l’ancienne civilisation du Méxique. Collection de
vues [etc.], cartes et plans dessinés d’après nature et relevés par
M. de Waldeck. Texte rédigé par M. Brasseur de Bourbourg._ (Paris,
1864-1866.)[1059] While Waldeck’s results were still unpublished the
ruins of Palenqué were brought most effectively to the attention of the
English reader in the _Travels in Central America_ (vol. ii. ch. 17) of
Stephens, which was illustrated by the drawings of Catherwood,[1060]
since famous. These better cover the field, and are more exact than
those of Dupaix.

[Illustration: PLAN OF COPAN (RUINS AND VILLAGE).

From _The Stone Sculptures of Copán and Quiriguá_ (N. Y., 1883) of Meye
and Schmidt.]

Bancroft refers to an anonymous account in the _Registro Yucateco_ (i.
318). One of the most intelligent of the later travellers is Arthur
Morelet, who privately printed his _Voyage dans l’Amérique Central,
Cuba et le Yucatan_, which includes an account of a fortnight’s stay
at Palenqué. His results would be difficult of access except that
Mrs. M. F. Squier, with an introduction by E. G. Squier, published a
translation of that part of it relating to the main land as _Travels
in Central America, including accounts of regions unexplored since the
Conquest_ (N. Y., 1871).[1061]

Désiré Charnay was the first to bring photography to the aid of the
student when he visited Palenqué in 1858, and his plates forming the
folio atlas accompanying his _Cités et Ruines Américaines_ (1863), pp.
72, 411, are, as Bancroft (iv. 293) points out, of interest to enable
us to test the drawings of preceding delineators, and to show how time
had acted on the ruins since the visit of Stephens. His later results
are recorded in his _Les anciennes villes du Nouveau Monde_ (Paris,
1885).[1062]

[Illustration: YUCATAN TYPES.

Given by Rosny, _Doc. Écrits de la Antiq. Amér._, p. 73, as types
of the short-headed race which preceded the Aztec occupation. They
are from sculptures at Copan. Cf. Stephens’s _Cent. America_, i. 139;
Bancroft, iv. 101.]

[Illustration: PLAN OF THE RUINS OF QUIRIGUA.

From Meye and Schmidt’s _Stone Sculptures of Copán and Quiriguá_ (N.
Y., 1883).]

There have been only two statues found at Palenqué, in connection
with the T emple of the Cross,[1063] but the considerable number of
carved figures discovered at Copan,[1064] as well as the general
impression that these latter ruins are the oldest on the American
continent,[1065] have made in some respects these most celebrated of
the Honduras remains more interesting than those of Chiapas. It is now
generally agreed that the ruins of Copan[1066] do not represent the
town called Copan, assaulted and captured by Hernando de Choves in
1530, though the identity of names has induced some writers to claim
that these ruins were inhabited when the Spaniards came.[1067] The
earliest account of them which we have is that in Palacio’s letter
to Felipe II., written (1576) hardly more than a generation after
the Conquest, and showing that the ruins then were much in the same
condition as later described.[1068] The next account is that of Fuentes
y Guzman’s _Historia de Guatemala_ (1689), now accessible in the Madrid
edition of 1882; but for a long time only known in the citation in
Juarros’ _Guatemala_ (p. 56), and through those who had copied from
Juarros.[1069] His account is brief, speaks of Castilian costumes,
and is otherwise so enigmatical that Brasseur calls it mendacious.
Colonel Galindo, in visiting the ruins in 1836, confounded them with
the Copan of the Conquest.[1070] The ruins also came Under the scrutiny
of Stephens in 1839, and they were described by him, and drawn by
Catherwood, for the first time with any fullness and care, in their
respective works.[1071]

* * * * *

Always associated with Copan, and perhaps even older, if the lower
relief of the carvings can bear that interpretation, are the ruins
near the village of Quiriguá, in Guatemala, and known by that name.
Catherwood first brought them into notice;[1072] but the visit of
Karl Scherzer in 1854 produced the most extensive account of them
which we have, in his _Ein Besuch bei den Ruinen von Quiriguá_ (Wien,
1855).[1073]

* * * * *

The principal explorers of Nicaragua have been Ephraim George Squier,
in his _Nicaragua_,[1074] and Frederick Boyle, in his _Ride across
a Continent_ (Lond. 1868),[1075] and their results, as well as the
scattered data of others,[1076] are best epitomized in Bancroft
(iv. ch. 2), who gives other references to second-hand descriptions
(p. 29). Since Bancroft’s survey there have been a few important
contributions.[1077]

III. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON THE PICTURE-WRITING OF THE NAHUAS AND
MAYAS.

IN considering the methods of record and communication used by these
peoples, we must keep in mind the two distinct systems of the Aztecs
and the Mayas;[1078] and further, particularly as regards the former,
we must not forget that some of these writings were made after the
Conquest, and were influenced in some degree by Spanish associations.
Of this last class were land titles and catechisms, for the native
system obtained for some time as a useful method with the conquerors
for recording the transmission of lands and helping the instruction by
the priests.[1079]

[Illustration: FAC-SIMILE OF A PART OF LANDA’S MS.

After a fac-simile in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, nouv.
ser._, ii. 34. (Cf. pl. xix. of Rosny’s _Essai sur le déchiffrement_,
etc.) It is a copy, not the original, of Landa’s text, but a nearly
contemporary one (made thirty years after Landa’s death), and the only
one known.]

It is usual in tracing the development of a hieroglyphic system to
advance from a purely figurative one—in which pictures of objects are
used—through a symbolic phase; in which such pictures are interpreted
conventionally instead of realistically. It was to this last stage
that the Aztecs had advanced; but they mingled the two methods, and
apparently varied in the order of reading, whether by lines or columns,
forwards, upwards, or backwards. The difficulty of understanding them
is further increased by the same object holding different meanings
in different connections, and still more by the personal element, or
writer’s style, as we should call it, which was impressed on his choice
of objects and emblems.[1080] This rendered interpretation by no means
easy to the aborigines themselves, and we have statements that when
native documents were referred to them it required sometimes long
consultations to reach a common understanding.[1081] The additional
step by which objects stand for sounds, the Aztecs seem not to have
taken, except in the names of persons and places, in which they
understood the modern child’s art of the rebus, where such symbol
more or less clearly stands for a syllable, and the representation
was usually of conventionalized forms, somewhat like the art of the
European herald. Thus the Aztec system was what Daniel Wilson[1082]
calls “the pictorial suggestion of associated ideas.”[1083] The
phonetic scale, if not comprehended in the Aztec system, made an
essential part of the Maya hieroglyphics, and this was the great
distinctive feature of the latter, as we learn from the early
descriptions,[1084] and from the alphabet which Landa has preserved
for us. It is not only in the codices or books of the Mayas that their
writing is preserved to us, but in the inscriptions of their carved
architectural remains.[1085]

[Illustration

NOTE—This representation of Yucatan hieroglyphics is a reduction of
pl. i. in Léon de Rosny’s _Essai sur le déchiffrement de l’écriture
hiératique de l’Amérique Centrale_, Paris, 1876. Cf. Bancroft, iv. 92;
Short, 405.]

When the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg found, in 1863, in the library
of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid, the MS. of Landa’s
_Relacion_, and discovered in it what purported to be a key to the
Maya alphabet, there were hopes that the interpretation of the
Maya books and inscriptions was not far off. Twenty-five years,
however, has not seen the progress that was wished for; and if we
may believe Valentini, the alphabet of Landa is a pure fabrication
of the bishop himself;[1086] and even some of those who account it
genuine, like Le Plongeon, hold that it is inadequate in dealing
with the older Maya inscriptions.[1087] Cyrus Thomas speaks of this
alphabet as simply an attempt of the bishop to pick out of compound
characters their simple elements on the supposition that something
like phonetic representations would be the result.[1088] Landa’s own
description[1089] of the alphabet accompanying his graphic key[1090] is
very unsatisfactory, not to say incomprehensible. Brasseur has tried
to render it in French, and Bancroft in English; but it remains a
difficult problem to interpret it intelligibly.

Brasseur very soon set himself the task of interpreting the Troano
manuscript by the aid of this key, and he soon had the opportunity
of giving his interpretation to the public when the Emperor Napoleon
III. ordered that codex to be printed in the sumptuous manner of the
imperial press.[1091] The efforts of Brasseur met with hardly a sign of
approval. Léon de Rosny criticised him,[1092] and Dr. Brinton found in
his results nothing to commend.[1093]

No one has approached the question of interpreting these Maya writings
with more careful scrutiny than Léon de Rosny, who first attracted
attention with his comparative study, _Les écritures figuratives et
hiéroglyphiques des différens peuples anciens et moderns_ (Paris,
1860; again, 1870, augmentée). From 1869 to 1871 he published at
Paris four parts of _Archives paléographiques de l’Orient et de
l’Amérique, publiées avec des notices historiques et philologiques_,
in which he included several studies of the native writings, and gave
a bibliography (pp. 101-115) of American paleography up to that time.
His _L’interprétation des anciens textes Mayas_ made part of the first
volume of the _Archives de la Soc. Américaine de France_ (new series).
His chief work, making the second volume of the same, is his _Essai
sur le déchiffrement de l’écriture hiératique de l’Amérique Central_
(Paris, 1876), and it is the most thorough examination of the problem
yet made.[1094] The last part (4th) was published in 1878, and a
Spanish translation appeared in 1881.

[Illustration: PALENQUÉ HIEROGLYPHICS.

After a cut in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. p. 63. It is also given
in Bancroft (iv. 355), and others. It is from the Tablet of the Cross.]

Wm. Bollaert, who had paid some attention to the paleography of
America,[1095] was one of the earliest in England to examine Brasseur’s
work on Landa, which he did in a memoir read before the Anthropological
Society,[1096] and later in an “Examination of the Central American
hieroglyphs by the recently discovered Maya alphabet.”[1097]
Brinton[1098] calls his conclusions fanciful, and Le Plongeon claims
that the inscription in Stephens, which Bollaert worked upon, is
inaccurately given, and that Bollaert’s results were nonsense.[1099]
Hyacinthe de Charency’s efforts have hardly been more successful,
though he attempted the use of Landa’s alphabet with something like
scientific care. He examined a small part of the inscription of the
Palenqué tablet of the Cross in his _Essai de déchiffrement d’un
fragment d’inscription palenquéene_.[1100]

Dr. Brinton translated Charency’s results, and, adding Landa’s
alphabet, published his _Ancient phonetic alphabet of Yucatan_ (N. Y.,
1870), a small tract.[1101] His continued studies were manifest in the
introduction on “The graphic system and the ancient records of the
Mayas” to Cyrus Thomas’s _Manuscript Troano_.[1102] In this paper Dr.
Brinton traces the history of the attempts which have thus far been
made in solving this perplexing problem.[1103] The latest application
of the scientific spirit is that of the astronomer E. S. Holden, who
sought to eliminate the probabilities of recurrent signs by the usual
mathematical methods of resolving systems of modern cipher.[1104]

* * * * *

There are few examples of the aboriginal ideographic writings left
to us. Their fewness is usually charged to the destruction which was
publicly made of them under the domination of the Church in the years
following the Conquest.[1105] The alleged agents in this demolition
were Bishop Landa, in 1562, at Mani, in Yucatan,[1106] and Bishop
Zumárraga at Tlatelalco, or, as some say, at Tezcuco, in Mexico.[1107]
Peter Martyr[1108] has told us something of the records as he saw
them, and we know also from him, and from their subsequent discovery
in European collections, that some examples of them were early taken
to the Old World. We have further knowledge of them from Las Casas
and from Landa himself.[1109] There have been efforts made of late
years by Icazbalceta and Canon Carrillo to mitigate the severity of
judgment, particularly as respects Zumárraga.[1110] The first, and
indeed the only attempt that has been made to bring together for mutual
illustration all that was known of these manuscripts which escaped
the fire,[1111] was in the great work of the Viscount Kingsborough
(b. 1795, d. 1837). It was while, as Edward King, he was a student
at Oxford that this nobleman’s passion for Mexican antiquities was
first roused by seeing an original Aztec pictograph, described by
Purchas (_Pilgrimes_, vol. iii.), and preserved in the Bodleian. In the
studies to which this led he was assisted by some special scholars,
including Obadiah Rich, who searched for him in Spain in 1830 and
1832, and who after Kingsborough’s death obtained a large part of the
manuscript collections which that nobleman had amassed (_Catalogue of
the Sale_, Dublin, 1842). Many of the Kingsborough manuscripts passed
into the collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps (_Catalogue_, no. 404),
but the correspondence pertaining to Kingsborough’s life-work seems
to have disappeared. Phillipps had been one of the main encouragers
of Kingsborough in his undertaking.[1112] Kingsborough, who had spent
£30,000 on his undertaking, had a business dispute with the merchants
who furnished the printing-paper, and he was by them thrown into jail
as a debtor, and died in confinement.[1113]

[Illustration: LÉON DE ROSNY.

After a photogravure in _Les Documents écrits de l’antiquité
Américaine_ (Paris, 1882). Cf. cut in _Mém. de la Soc. d’Ethnographie_
(1887), xiii. p. 71.]

Kingsborough’s great work, the most sumptuous yet bestowed upon
Mexican archæology, was published between 1830 and 1848, there being
an interval of seventeen years between the seventh and eighth volumes.
The original intention seems to have embraced ten volumes, for the
final section of the ninth volume is signatured as for a tenth.[1114]
The work is called: _Antiquities of Mexico; comprising facsimiles of
Ancient Mexican Paintings and Hieroglyphics, preserved in the Royal
Libraries of Paris, Berlin, and Dresden; in the Imperial Library of
Vienna; in the Vatican Library; in the Borgian Museum at Rome; in
the Library of the Institute of Bologna; and in the Bodleian Library
at Oxford; together with the Monuments of New Spain, by M. Dupaix;
illustrated by many valuable inedited MSS_. With the theory maintained
by Kingsborough throughout the work, that the Jews were the first
colonizers of the country, we have nothing to do here; but as the
earliest and as yet the largest repository of hieroglyphic material,
the book needs to be examined. The compiler states where he found his
MSS., but he gives nothing of their history, though something more
is now known of their descent. Peter Martyr speaks of the number of
Mexican MSS. which had in his day been taken to Spain, and Prescott
remarks it as strange that not a single one given by Kingsborough
was found in that country. There are, however, some to be seen there
now.[1115] Comparisons which have been made of Kingsborough’s plates
show that they are not inexact; but they almost necessarily lack the
validity that the modern photographic processes give to facsimiles.

[Illustration: FAC-SIMILE OF PLATE XXV OF THE DRESDEN CODEX.

From Cyrus Thomas’s _Manuscript Troano_.]

Kingsborough’s first volume opens with a fac-simile of what is
usually called the _Codex Mendoza_, preserved in the Bodleian. It is,
however, a contemporary copy on European paper of an original now lost,
which was sent by the Viceroy Mendoza to Charles V. Another copy made
part of the Boturini collection, and from this Lorenzana[1116] engraved
that portion of it which consists of tribute-rolls. The story told
of the fate of the original is, that on its passage to Europe it was
captured by a French cruiser and taken to Paris, where it was bought
by the chaplain of the English embassy, the antiquary Purchas, who
has engraved it.[1117] It was then lost sight of, and if Prescott’s
inference is correct it was not the original, but the Bodleian copy,
which came into Purchas’ hands.[1118]

Beside the tribute-rolls,[1119] which make one part of it, the MS.
covers the civil history of the Mexicans, with a third part on the
discipline and economy of the people, which renders it of so much
importance in an archæological sense.[1120] The second reproduction
in Kingsborough’s first volume is what he calls the _Codex
Telleriano-Remensis_, preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris,
and formerly owned by M. Le Tellier.[1121] The rest of this initial
volume is made up of facsimiles of Mexican hieroglyphics and paintings,
from the Boturini and Selden collections, which last is in the Bodleian.

The second Kingsborough volume opens with a reproduction of the _Codex
Vaticanus_ (the explanation[1122] is in volume vi.), which is in the
library of the Vatican, and it is known to have been copied in Mexico
by Pedro de los Rios in 1566. It is partly historical and partly
mythological.[1123] The rest of this volume is made up of facsimiles of
other manuscripts,—one given to the Bodleian by Archbishop Laud, others
at Bologna,[1124] Vienna,[1125] and Berlin.

The third volume reproduces one belonging to the Borgian Museum at
Rome, written on skin, and thought to be a ritual and astrological
almanac. This is accompanied by a commentary by Frabega.[1126]
Kingsborough gives but a single Maya MS., and this is in his third
volume, and stands with him as an Aztec production. This is the
_Dresden Codex_, not very exactly rendered, which is preserved in the
royal library in that city, for which it was bought by Götz,[1127] at
Vienna, in 1739. Prescott (i. 107) seemed to recognize its difference
from the Aztec MSS., without knowing precisely how to class it.[1128]
Brasseur de Bourbourg calls it a religious and astrological ritual. It
is in two sections, and it is not certain that they belong together.
In 1880 it was reproduced at Dresden by polychromatic photography
(Chromo-Lichtdruck), as the process is called, under the editing of
Dr. E. Förstemann, who in an introduction describes it as composed of
thirty-nine oblong sheets folded together like a fan. They are made of
the bark of a tree, and covered with varnish. Thirty-five have drawings
and hieroglyphics on both sides; the other four on one side only. It is
now preserved between glass to prevent handling, and both sides can be
examined. Some progress has been made, it is professed, in deciphering
its meaning, and it is supposed to contain “records of a mythic,
historic, and ritualistic character.”[1129]

Another script in Kingsborough, perhaps a Tezcucan MS., though having
some Maya affinities, is the _Fejérvary Codex_, then preserved in
Hungary, and lately owned by Mayer, of Liverpool.[1130]

Three other Maya manuscripts have been brought to light since
Kingsborough’s day, to say nothing of three others said to be in
private hands, and not described.[1131] Of these, the _Codex Troano_
has been the subject of much study. It is the property of a Madrid
gentleman, Don Juan Tro y Ortolano, and the title given to the
manuscript has been somewhat fantastically formed from his name by the
Abbé Etienne Charles Brasseur de Bourbourg, who was instrumental in its
recognition about 1865 or 1866, and who edited a sumptuous two-volume
folio edition with chromo-lithographic plates.[1132]

[Illustration: CODEX CORTESIANUS.

From a fac-simile in the _Archives de la Société Américaine de France,
nouv. ser._, ii. 30.]

[Illustration: CODEX PEREZIANUS.

One of the leaves of a MS. No. 2, in the Bibliothèque Nationale,
Paris, following the fac-simile (pl. 124) in Léon de Rosny’s _Archives
paléographiques_ (Paris, 1869).]

While Léon de Rosny was preparing his _Essai sur le déchiffrement
de l’Ecriture hiératique_ (1876), a Maya manuscript was offered to
the Bibliothèque Impériale in Paris and declined, because the price
demanded was too high. Photographic copies of two of its leaves had
been submitted, and one of these is given by Rosny in the _Essai_ (pl.
xi.). The Spanish government finally bought the MS., which, because
it was supposed to have once belonged to Cortes, is now known as the
_Codex Cortesianus_. Rosny afterwards saw it and studied it in the
Museo Archeológico at Madrid, as he makes known in his _Doc. Ecrits
de la Antiq. Amér._, p. 79, where he points out the complementary
character of one of its leaves with another of the MS. Troano, showing
them to belong together, and gives photographs of the two (pl. v. vi.),
as well as of other leaves (pl. 8 and 9). The part of this codex of a
calendar character (Tableau des Bacab) is reproduced from Rosny’s plate
by Cyrus Thomas[1133] in an essay in the _Third Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology_, together with an attempted restoration of the plate, which
is obscure in parts. Finally a small edition (85 copies) of the entire
MS. was published at Paris in 1883.[1134]

The last of the Maya MSS. recently brought to light is sometimes cited
as the _Codex Perezianus_, because the paper in which it was wrapped,
when recognized in 1859 by Rosny,[1135] bore the name “Perez”; and
sometimes designated as Codex Mexicanus, or Manuscrit Yucatèque No. 2,
of the National Library at Paris. It was a few years later published
as _Manuscrit dit Méxicain No. 2 de la Bibliothèque Impériale,
photographié par ordre de S. E. M. Duruy, ministre de l’instruction
publique_ (Paris, 1864, in folio, 50 copies). The original is a
fragment of eleven leaves, and Brasseur[1136] speaks of it as the most
beautiful of all the MSS. in execution, but the one which has suffered
the most from time and usage.[1137]

[Illustration

NOTE.—This Yucatan bas-relief follows a photograph by Rosny (1880),
reproduced in the _Mém. de la Soc. d’Ethnographie_, no. 3 (Paris,
1882).]

CHAPTER IV.

THE INCA CIVILIZATION IN PERU.

BY CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, C. B.

THE civilization of the Incas of Peru is the most important, because it
is the highest, phase in the development of progress among the American
races. It represents the combined efforts, during long periods, of
several peoples who eventually became welded into one nation. The
especial interest attaching to the study of this civilization consists
in the fact that it was self-developed, and that, so far as can be
ascertained, it received no aid and no impulse from foreign contact.

It is necessary, however, to bear in mind that the empire of the Incas,
in its final development, was formed of several nations which had,
during long periods, worked out their destinies apart from each other;
and that one, at least, appears to have been entirely distinct from
the Incas in race and language.[1138] These facts must be carefully
borne in mind in pursuing inquiries relating to the history of Inca
civilization. It is also essential that the nature and value of the
evidence on which conclusions must be based should be understood and
carefully weighed. This evidence is of several kinds. Besides the
testimony of Spanish writers who witnessed the conquest of Peru, or
who lived a generation afterwards, there is the evidence derived from
a study of the characteristics of descendants of the Inca people, of
their languages and literature, and of their architectural and other
remains. These various kinds of evidence must be compared, their
respective values must be considered, and thus alone, in our time, can
the nearest approximation to the truth be reached.

[Illustration: MAP IN BRASSEUR’S POPUL VUH.]

The testimony of writers in the sixteenth century, who had the
advantage of being able to see the workings of Inca institutions, to
examine the outcome of their civilization in all its branches, and
to converse with the Incas themselves respecting the history and the
traditions of their people, is the most important evidence. Much of
this testimony has been preserved, but unfortunately a great deal is
lost. The sack of Cadiz by the Earl of Essex, in 1595, was the occasion
of the loss of Blas Valera’s priceless work.[1139] Other valuable
writings have been left in manuscript, and have been mislaid through
neglect and carelessness. Authors are mentioned, or even quoted, whose
books have disappeared. The contemplation of the fallen Inca empire
excited the curiosity and interest of a great number of intelligent men
among the Spanish conquerors. Many wrote narratives of what they saw
and heard. A few studied the language and traditions of the people with
close attention. And these authors were not confined to the clerical
and legal professions; they included several of the soldier-conquerors
themselves.[1140]

[Illustration: EARLY SPANISH MAP OF PERU.

[From the Paris (1774) edition of Zarate. The development of Peruvian
cartography under the Spanish explorations is traced in a note in Vol.
II. p. 509; but the best map for the student is a map of the empire of
the Incas, showing all except the provinces of Quito and Chili, with
the routes of the successive Inca conquerors marked on it, given in the
_Journal of the Roy. Geog. Soc._ (1872), vol. xlii. p. 513, compiled by
Mr. Trelawny Saunders to illustrate Mr. Markham’s paper of the previous
year, on the empire of the Incas. The map was republished by the
Hakluyt Society in 1880. The map of Wiener in his _Pérou et Bolivie_ is
also a good one. Cf. Squier’s map in his _Peru_.—ED.]]

The nature of the country and climate was a potent agent in forming
the character of the people, and in enabling them to make advances in
civilization. In the dense forests of the Amazonian valleys, in the
boundless prairies and savannas, we only meet with wandering tribes
of hunters and fishers. It is on the lofty plateaux of the Andes,
where extensive tracts of land are adapted for tillage, or in the
comparatively temperate valleys of the western coast, that we find
nations advanced in civilization.[1141]

The region comprised in the empire of the Incas during its greatest
extension is bounded on the east by the forest-covered Amazonian
plains, on the west by the Pacific Ocean, and its length along the
line of the Cordilleras was upwards of 1,500 miles, from 2° N. to 20°
S. This vast tract comprises every temperature and every variety of
physical feature. The inhabitants of the plains and valleys of the
Andes enjoyed a temperate and generally bracing climate, and their
energies were called forth by the physical difficulties which had to be
overcome through their skill and hardihood. Such a region was suited
for the gradual development of a vigorous race, capable of reaching
to a high state of culture. The different valleys and plateaux are
separated by lofty mountain chains or by profound gorges, so that the
inhabitants would, in the earliest period of their history, make their
own slow progress in comparative isolation, and would have little
intercommunication. When at last they were brought together as one
people, and thus combined their efforts in forming one system, it is
likely that such a union would have a tendency to be of long duration,
owing to the great difficulties which must have been overcome in its
creation. On the other hand, if, in course of time, disintegration once
began, it might last long, and great efforts would be required to build
up another united empire. The evidence seems to point to the recurrence
of these processes more than once, in the course of ages, and to their
commencement in a very remote antiquity.

One strong piece of evidence pointing to the great length of time
during which the Inca nations had been a settled and partially
civilized race, is to be found in the plants that had been brought
under cultivation, and in the animals that had been domesticated. Maize
is unknown in a wild state,[1142] and many centuries must have elapsed
before the Peruvians could have produced numerous cultivated varieties,
and have brought the plant to such a high state of perfection. The
peculiar edible roots, called _oca_ and _aracacha_, also exist only
as cultivated plants. There is no wild variety of the _chirimoya_,
and the Peruvian species of the cotton plant is known only under
cultivation.[1143] The potato is found wild in Chile, and probably
in Peru, as a very insignificant tuber. But the Peruvians, after
cultivating it for centuries, increased its size and produced a great
number of edible varieties.[1144] Another proof of the great antiquity
of Peruvian civilization is to be found in the llama and alpaca, which
are domesticated animals, with individuals varying in color: the one
a beast of burden yielding coarse wool, and the other bearing a thick
fleece of the softest silken fibres. Their prototypes are the wild
huanaco and vicuña, of uniform color, and untameable. Many centuries
must have elapsed before the wild creatures of the Andean solitudes,
with the habits of chamois, could have been converted into the Peruvian
sheep which cannot exist apart from men.[1145]

[Illustration: LLAMAS.

[One of the cuts which did service in the Antwerp edition of Cieza de
Leon. Cf. Bollaert on the llama, alpaca, huanaco, and vicuña species in
the _Sporting Review_, Feb., 1863; the cuts in Squier, pp. 246, 250;
Dr. Van Tschudi, in the _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1885.—ED.]]

These considerations point to so vast a period during which the
existing race had dwelt in the Peruvian Andes, that any speculation
respecting its origin would necessarily be futile in the present state
of our knowledge.[1146] The weight of tradition indicates the south as
the quarter whence the people came whose descendants built the edifices
at Tiahuanacu.

The most ancient remains of a primitive people in the Peruvian Andes
consist of rude _cromlechs_, or burial-places, which are met with in
various localities. Don Modesto Basadre has described some by the
roadside, in the descent from Umabamba to Charasani, in Bolivia. These
cromlechs are formed of four great slabs of slate, each slab being
about five feet high, four or five in width, and more than an inch
thick. The four slabs are perfectly shaped and worked so as to fit into
each other at the corners. A fifth slab is placed over them, and over
the whole a pyramid of clay and rough stones is piled. These cromlechs
are the early memorials of a race which was succeeded by the people who
constructed the cyclopean edifices of the Andean plateaux.

[Illustration: DETAILS AT TIAHUANACU.

KEY:—
A, Lid or cover of some aperture, of stone, with two handles neatly
undercut.
B, A window of trachyte, of careful workmanship, in one piece.
C, Block of masonry with carving.
D, E, Two views of a corner-piece to some stone conduit, carefully
ornamented with projecting lines.
F, G, H, I, Other pieces of cut masonry lying about. ]

For there is reason to believe that a powerful empire had existed
in Peru centuries before the rise of the Inca dynasty. Cyclopean
ruins, quite foreign to the genius of Inca architecture, point to this
conclusion. The wide area over which they are found is an indication
that the government which caused them to be built ruled over an
extensive empire, while their cyclopean character is a proof that their
projectors had an almost unlimited supply of labor. Religious myths
and dynastic traditions throw some doubtful light on that remote past,
which has left its silent memorials in the huge stones of Tiahuanacu,
Sacsahuaman, and Ollantay, and in the altar of Concacha.

[Illustration: CARVINGS AT TIAHUANACU.

KEY:—
A, Portion of the ornament which runs along the base of the rows of
figures on the monolithic doorway.
B, Prostrate idol lying on its face near the ruins; about 9 feet long.]

[Illustration: BAS-RELIEFS AT TIAHUANACU.

KEY:—
A, A winged human figure with the crowned head of a condor, from the
central row on the monolithic doorway.
B, A winged human figure with human head crowned, from the upper row on
the monolithic doorway.

[There are well-executed cuts of these sculptures in Ruge’s _Geschichte
des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, pp. 430, 431. Cf. Squier’s _Peru_, p.
292.—ED.]]

The most interesting ruins in Peru are those of the palace or temple
near the village of Tiahuanacu,[1147] on the southern side of Lake
Titicaca. They are 12,930 feet above the level of the sea, and 130
above that of the lake, which is about twelve miles off.

[Illustration: FRAGMENTS AT TIAHUANACU.

Various curiously carved stones found scattered about the ruins.]

[Illustration: REVERSE OF THE DOORWAY AT TIAHUANACU.

[Cf. view in Squier’s _Peru_, p. 289, with other particulars of the
ruins, p. 276, etc.—ED.]]

They consist of a quadrangular space, entered by the famous monolithic
doorway, and surrounded by large stones standing on end; and of a hill
or mound encircled by remains of a wall, consisting of enormous blocks
of stone. The whole covers an area about 400 yards long by 350 broad.
There is a lesser temple, about a quarter of a mile distant, containing
stones 36 feet long by 7, and 26 by 16, with recesses in them which
have been compared to seats of judgment. The weight of the two great
stones has been estimated at from 140 to 200 tons each, and the
distance of the quarries whence they could have been brought is from 15
to 40 miles.

[Illustration: IMAGE AT TIAHUANACU.

[This is an enlarged drawing of the bas-relief shown in the picture of
the broken doorway (p. 218). Cf. the cuts in the article on the ruins
of Tiahuanacu in the _Revue d’Architecture des Travaux publics_, vol.
xxiv.; in Ch. Wiener’s _L’Empire des Incas_, pl. iii.; in D’Orbigny’s
Atlas to his _L’Homme Américain_; and in Squier’s _Peru_, p. 291.—ED.]]

The monolithic portal is one block of hard trachytic rock, now deeply
sunk in the ground. Its height above ground is 7 ft. 2 in., width 13
ft. 5 in., thickness 1 ft. 6 in., and the opening is 4 ft. 6 in. by
2 ft. 9 in. The outer side is ornamented by accurately cut niches
and rectangular mouldings. The whole of the inner side, from a line
level with the upper lintel of the doorway to the top, is a mass of
sculpture, which speaks to us, in difficult riddles, alas! of the
customs and art-culture, of the beliefs and traditions, of an ancient
and lost civilization.

[Illustration: BROKEN MONOLITH DOORWAY AT TIAHUANACU.

[An enlarged drawing of the image over the arch is given in another
cut. This same ruin is well represented in Ruge’s _Gesch. des
Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_; and not so well in Wiener’s _Pérou et
Bolivie_, p. 419. Cf. Squier’s _Peru_, p. 288.—ED.]]

In the centre there is a figure carved in high relief, in an oblong
compartment, 2 ft. 2 in. long by 1 ft. 6 in.[1148] Squier describes
this figure as angularly but boldly cut. The head is surrounded by
rays, each terminating in a circle or the head of an animal. The breast
is adorned with two serpents united by a square band. Another band,
divided into ornamented compartments, passes round the neck, and the
ends are brought down to the girdle, from which hang six human heads.
Human heads also hang from the elbows, and the hands clasp sceptres
which terminate in the heads of condors. The legs are cut off near the
girdle, and below there are a series of frieze-like ornaments, each
ending with a condor’s head. On either side of this central sculpture
there are three tiers of figures, 16 in each tier, or 48 in all, each
in a kneeling posture, and facing towards the large central figure.
Each figure is in a square, the sides of which measure eight inches.
All are winged, and hold sceptres ending in condors’ heads; but while
those in the upper and lower tiers have crowned human heads, those in
the central tier have the heads of condors. There is a profusion of
ornament on all these figures, consisting of heads of birds and fishes.
An ornamental frieze runs along the base of the lowest tier of figures,
consisting of an elaborate pattern of angular lines ending in condors’
heads, with larger human heads surrounded by rays, in the intervals of
the pattern. Cieza de Leon and Alcobasa[1149] mention that, besides
this sculpture over the doorway, there were richly carved statues at
Tiahuanacu, which have since been destroyed, and many cylindrical
pillars with capitals. The head of one statue, with a peculiar
head-dress, which is 3 ft. 6 in. long, still lies by the roadside.

[Illustration: TIAHUANACU RESTORED.

After a drawing given in _The Temple of the Andes_ by Richard Inwards
(London, 1884).]

The masonry of the ruins is admirably worked, according to the
testimony of all visitors. Squier says: “The stone itself is a dark and
exceedingly hard trachyte. It is faced with a precision that no skill
can excel. Its lines are perfectly drawn, and its right angles turned
with an accuracy that the most careful geometer could not surpass. I do
not believe there exists a better piece of stone-cutting, the material
considered, on this or the other continent.”

It is desirable to describe these ruins, and especially the sculpture
over the monolithic doorway, with some minuteness, because, with the
probable exception of the cromlechs, they are the most ancient, and,
without any exception, the most interesting that have been met with in
Peru. There is nothing elsewhere that at all resembles the sculpture on
the monolithic doorway at Tiahuanacu.[1150] The central figure, with
rows of kneeling worshippers on either side, all covered with symbolic
designs, represents, it may be conjectured, either the sovereign and
his vassals, or, more probably, the Deity, with representatives of all
the nations bowing down before him. The sculpture and the most ancient
traditions should throw light upon each other.

Further north there are other examples of prehistoric cyclopean
remains. Such is the great wall, with its “stone of 12 corners,”
in the Calle del Triunfo at Cuzco. Such is the famous fortress of
Cuzco, on the Sacsahuaman Hill. Such, too, are portions of the ruins
at Ollantay-tampu. Still farther north there are cyclopean ruins at
Concacha, at Huiñaque, and at Huaraz.

[Illustration: RUINS OF SACSAHUAMAN.

[After a cut in Ruge’s _Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_.
Markham has elsewhere described these ruins,—_Cieza de Leon_, 259, 324;
2d part, 160; _Royal Commentaries of the Incas_, ii., with a plan,
reproduced in Vol. II. p. 521, and another plan of Cuzco, showing the
position of the fortress in its relations to the city. There are plans
and views in Squier’s _Peru_, ch. 23.—ED.]]

Tiahuanacu is interesting because it is possible that the elaborate
character of its symbolic sculpture may throw glimmerings of light on
remote history; but Sacsahuaman, the fortress overlooking the city of
Cuzco, is, without comparison, the grandest monument of an ancient
civilization in the New World. Like the Pyramids and the Coliseum,
it is imperishable. It consists of a fortified work 600 yards in
length, built of gigantic stones, in three lines, forming walls
supporting terraces and parapets arranged in salient and retiring
angles. This work defends the only assailable side of a position which
is impregnable, owing to the steepness of the ascent in all other
directions. The outer wall averages a height of 26 feet. Then there is
a terrace 16 yards across, whence the second wall rises to 18 feet.
The second terrace is six yards across, and the third wall averages a
height of 12 feet. The total height of the fortification is 56 feet.
The stones are of blue limestone, of enormous size and irregular in
shape, but fitted into each other with rare precision. One of the
stones is 27 feet high by 14, and stones 15 feet high by 12 are common
throughout the work.

At Ollantay-tampu the ruins are of various styles, but the later works
are raised on ancient cyclopean foundations.[1151] There are six
porphyry slabs 12 feet high by 6 or 7; stone beams 15 and 20 feet long;
stairs and recesses hewn out of the solid rock. Here, as at Tiahuanacu,
there were, according to Cieza de Leon,[1152] men and animals carved on
the stones, but they have disappeared. The same style of architecture,
though only in fragments, is met with further north.

East of the river Apurimac, and not far from the town of Abancay, there
are three groups of ancient monuments in a deep valley surrounded by
lofty spurs of the Andes. There is a great cyclopean wall, a series of
seats or thrones of various forms hewn out of the solid stone, and a
huge block carved on five sides, called the _Rumi-huasi_. The northern
face of this monolith is cut into the form of a staircase; on the east
there are two enormous seats separated by thick partitions, and on
the south there is a sort of lookout place, with a seat. Collecting
channels traverse the block, and join trenches or grooves leading to
two deep excavations on the western side. On this western side there
is also a series of steps, apparently for the fall of a cascade of
water connected with the sacrificial rites. Molina gives a curious
account of the water sacrifices of the Incas.[1153] The _Rumi-huasi_
seems to have been the centre of a great sanctuary, and to have been
used as an altar. Its surface is carved with animals amidst a labyrinth
of cavities and partition ridges. Its length is 20 feet by 14 broad,
and 12 feet high. Here we have, no doubt, a sacrificial altar of the
ancient people, on which the blood of animals and libations of _chicha_
flowed in torrents.[1154]

Spanish writers received statements from the Indians that one or other
of these cyclopean ruins was built by some particular Inca. Garcilasso
de la Vega even names the architects of the Cuzco fortress. But it is
clear from the evidence of the most careful investigators, such as
Cieza de Leon, that there was no real knowledge of their origin, and
that memory of the builders was either quite lost, or preserved in
vague, uncertain traditions.

The most ancient myth points to the region of Lake Titicaca as the
scene of the creative operations of a Deity, or miracle-working
Lord.[1155] This Deity is said to have created the sun, moon, and
stars, or to have caused them to rise out of Lake Titicaca. He also
created men of stone at Tiahuanacu, or of clay; making them pass
under the earth, and appear again out of caves, tree-trunks, rocks,
or fountains in the different provinces which were to be peopled by
their descendants. But this seems to be a later attempt to reconcile
the ancient Titicaca myth with the local worship of natural objects
as ancestors or founders of their race, among the numerous subjugated
tribes; as well as to account for the colossal statues of unknown
origin at Tiahuanacu. There are variations of the story, but there is
general concurrence in the main points: that the Deity created the
heavenly bodies and the human race, and that the ancient people, or
their rulers, were called _Pirua_. Tradition also seems to point to
regions south of the lake as the quarter whence the first settlers came
who worked out the earliest civilization.[1156] We may, in accordance
with all the indications that are left to us, connect the great god
_Illa Ticsi_ with the central figure of the Tiahuanacu sculpture,
and the kneeling worshippers with the rulers of all the nations and
tribes which had been subjugated by the _Hatun-runa_,[1157]—the great
men who had Pirua for their king, and who originally came from the
distant south. The Piruas governed a vast empire, erected imperishable
cyclopean edifices, and developed a complicated civilization, which
is dimly indicated to us by the numerous symbolical sculptures on the
monolith. They also, in a long course of years, brought wild plants
under cultivation, and domesticated the animals of the lofty Andean
plateau. But it is remarkable that the shores of Lake Titicaca, which
are almost treeless, and where corn will not ripen, should have been
chosen as the centre of this most ancient civilization. Yet the ruins
of Tiahuanacu conclusively establish the fact that the capital of the
Piruas was on the loftiest site ever selected for the seat of a great
empire.

The Amautas, or learned men of the later Inca period, preserved the
names of sovereigns of the Pirua dynasty, commencing with Pirua Manco,
and continuing for sixty-five generations. Lopez conjectures that
there was a change of dynasty after the eighteenth Pirua king, because
hitherto Montesinos, who has recorded the list, had always called each
successor son and heir, but after the eighteenth only heir. Hence he
thinks that a new dynasty of Amautas, or kings of the learned caste,
succeeded the Piruas. The only deeds recorded of this long line of
kings are their success in repelling invasions and their alterations of
the calendar. At length there appears to have been a general disruption
of the empire: Cuzco was nearly deserted, rebel leaders rose up in all
directions, the various tribes became independent, and the chief who
claimed to be the representative of the old dynasties was reduced to a
small territory to the south of Cuzco, in the valley of the Vilcamayu,
and was called “King of Tampu Tocco.” This state of disintegration is
said to have continued for twenty-eight generations, at the end of
which time a new empire began to be consolidated under the Incas, which
inherited the civilization and traditions of the ancient dynasties, and
succeeded to their power and dominion.

It was long believed that the lists of kings of the earlier dynasties
rested solely on the authority of Montesinos, and they consequently
received little credit. But recent research has brought to light
the work of another writer, who studied before Montesinos, and who
incidentally refers to two of the sovereigns in his lists.[1158] This
furnishes independent evidence that the catalogues of early kings had
been preserved orally or by means of _quipus_, and that they were in
existence when the Spaniards conquered Peru; thus giving weight to the
testimony of Montesinos.

The second myth of the Peruvians refers to the origin of the Incas,
who derived their descent from the kings of Tampu Tocco, and had their
original home at Paccari-tampu, in the valley of the Vilcamayu, south
of Cuzco. It is, therefore, an ancestral myth. It is related that
four brothers, with their four sisters, issued forth from apertures
(_Tocco_) in a cave at Paccari-tampu, a name which means “the abode
of dawn.” The brothers were called Ayar Manco, Ayar Cachi, Ayar Uchu,
and Ayar Sauca, names to which the Incas, in the time of Garcilasso
de la Vega, gave a fanciful meaning.[1159] One of the brothers showed
extraordinary prowess in hurling a stone from a sling. The others
became jealous, and, persuading Ayar Auca, the expert slingsman, to
return into the cave, they blocked the entrance with rocks. Ayar
Uchu was converted into a stone idol, on the summit of a hill near
Cuzco, called Huanacauri. Manco then advanced to Cuzco with his
youngest brother, and found that the place was occupied by a chief
named Alcaviza and his people. Here Manco established the seat of his
government, and the Alcaviza tribe appears to have submitted to him,
and to have lived side by side with the Incas for some generations. The
Huanacauri hill was considered the most sacred place in Peru; while
the _Tampu-tocco_, or cave at Paccari-tampu, was, through the piety of
descendants, faced with a masonry wall, having three windows lined with
plates of gold.

There is a third myth which seems to connect the ancient tradition
of Titicaca with the ancestral myth of the Incas. It is said that
long after the creation by the Deity, a great and beneficent being
appeared at Tiahuanacu, who divided the world among four kings: Manco
Ccapac, Colla, Tocay[1160] or Tocapo,[1161] and Pinahua.[1162] The
names Tuapaca, Arnauan,[1163] Tonapa,[1164] and Tarapaca occur in
connection with this being, while some authorities tell us that his
name was unknown. Betanzos says that he went from Titicaca to Cuzco,
where he set up a chief named Alcaviza, and that he advanced through
the country until he disappeared over the sea at Puerto Viejo. It is
also related that the people of Canas attacked him, but were converted
by a miracle, and that they built a great temple, with an image, at
Cacha, in honor of this being, or of his god Illa Ticsi Uira-cocha.
This temple now forms a ruin which in its structure and arrangement is
unique in Peru, and therefore deserves special attention.

The ruins of the temple of Cacha are in the valley of the Vilcamayu,
south of Cuzco. They were described by Garcilasso de la Vega, and
have been visited and carefully examined by Squier. The main temple
was 330 feet long by 87 broad, with wrought-stone walls and a steep
pitched roof. A high wall extended longitudinally through the centre
of the structure, consisting of a wrought-stone foundation, 8 feet
high and 5½ feet thick on the level of the ground, supporting an adobe
superstructure, the whole being 40 feet high. This wall was pierced
by 12 lofty doorways, 14 feet high. But midway there are sockets for
the reception of beams, showing the existence of a second story, as
described by Garcilasso. Between the transverse and outer walls there
were two series of pillars, 12 on each side, built like the transverse
wall, with 8 feet of wrought stone, and completed to a height of 22
feet with adobes. These pillars appear to have supported the second
floor, where, according to Garcilasso, there was a shrine containing
the statue of Uira-cocha. At right angles to the temple, Squier
discovered the remains of a series of supplemental edifices surrounding
courts, and built upon a terrace 260 yards long.

The peculiarities of the temple of Cacha consist in the use of rows
of columns to support a second floor, and in the great height of the
walls. In these respects it is unique, and if similar edifices ever
existed, they appear to have been destroyed previous to the rise of
the Inca empire. The Cacha temple belongs neither to the cyclopean
period of the Piruas nor to the Inca style of architecture. Connected
with the strange myth of the wandering prophet of Viracocha, it stands
by itself, as one of those unsolved problems which await future
investigation. The statue in the shrine on the upper story is described
by Cieza de Leon, who saw it.

Both the Titicaca and the Cacha myths have, in later times, been
connected and more or less amalgamated with the ancestral myth of the
Incas. Thus Garcilasso de la Vega makes Manco Ccapac come direct from
Titicaca; while Molina refers to him as one of the beings created
there, who went down through the earth and came up at Paccari-tampu.
Salcamayhua makes the being Tonapa, of the Cacha myth, arrive at Apu
Tampu, or Paccari-tampu, and leave a sacred sceptre there, called
_tupac yauri_, for Manco Ccapac. These are later interpolations, made
with the object of connecting the family myth of the Incas with more
ancient traditions. The wise men of the Inca system, through the care
of Spanish writers of the time of the conquest, have handed down these
three traditions and the catalogue of kings. The Titicaca myth tells us
of the Deity worshipped by the builders of Tiahuanacu, and the story of
the creation. The Cacha myth has reference to some great reformer of
very ancient times. The Paccari-tampu myth records the origin of the
Inca dynasty. Although they are overlaid with fables and miraculous
occurrences, the main facts touching the original home of Manco Ccapac
and his march to Cuzco are probably historical.

The catalogue of kings given by Montesinos, allowing an average of
twenty years for each, would place the commencement of the Pirua
dynasty in about 470 B.C.; in the days when the Greeks, under Cimon,
were defeating the Persians, and nearly a century after the death of
Sakya Muni in India. This early empire flourished for about 1,200
years, and the disruption took place in 830 A.D., in the days of King
Egbert. The disintegration continued for 500 years, and the rise of the
Incas under Manco was probably coeval with the days of St. Louis and
Henry III of England.[1165] By that time the country had been broken
up into separate tribes for 500 years, and the work of reunion, so
splendidly achieved by the Incas, was most arduous. At the same time,
the ancient civilization of the Piruas was partially inherited by the
various peoples whose ancestors composed their empire; so that the Inca
civilization was a revival rather than a creation.

The various tribes and nations of the Andes, separated from each other
by uninhabited wildernesses and lofty mountain chains, were clearly of
the same origin, speaking dialects of the same language. Since the fall
of the Piruas they had led an independent existence. Some had formed
powerful confederations, others were isolated in their valleys. But it
was only through much hard fighting and by consummate statesmanship
that the one small Inca lineage established, in a period of less than
three centuries, imperial dominion over the rest. It will be well, in
this place, to take a brief survey of the different nations which were
to form the empire of the Incas, and of their territories.

The central Andean region, which was the home of the imperial race
of Incas, extends from the water-parting between the sources of the
Ucayali and the basin of Lake Titicaca to the river Apurimac. It
includes wild mountain fastnesses, wide expanses of upland, grassy
slopes, lofty valleys such as that in which the city of Cuzco is built,
and fertile ravines, with the most lovely scenery. The inhabitants
composed four tribes: that of the Incas in the valley of the Vilcamayu,
of the Quichuas in the secluded ravines of the Apurimac tributaries,
and those of the Canas and Cauchis in the mountains bordering on the
Titicaca basin. These people average a height of 5 ft. 4 in., and are
strongly built. The nose is invariably aquiline, the mouth rather
large; the eyes black or deep brown, bright, and generally deep set,
with long fine lashes. The hair is abundant and long, fine, and of
a deep black-brown. The men have no beards. The skin is very smooth
and soft, and of a light coppery-brown color, the neck thick, and the
shoulders broad, with great depth of chest. The legs are well formed,
feet and hands very small. The Incas have the build and physique of
mountaineers.

To the south of this cradle of the Inca race extended the region of
the Collas[1166] and allied tribes, including the whole basin of
Lake Titicaca, which is 12,000 feet above the level of the sea. The
Collas dwelt in stone huts, tended their flocks of llamas, and raised
crops of ocas, quinoas, and potatoes. They were divided into several
tribes, and were engaged in constant feuds, their arms being slings
and _ayllos_, or bolas. The Collas are remarkable for great length of
body compared with the thigh and leg, and they are the only people
whose thighs are shorter than their legs. Their build fits them for
excellence in mountain climbing and pedestrianism, and for the exercise
of extraordinary endurance.[1167] The homes of the Collas were around
the seat of ancient civilization at Tiahuanacu.

A remarkable race, apart from the Incas and Collas, of darker
complexion and more savage habits, dwelt and still dwell among the
vast beds of reeds in the southwestern angle of Lake Titicaca. They
are called Urus, and are probably descendants of an aboriginal people
who occupied the Titicaca basin before the arrival of the Hatun-runas
from the south. The Urus spoke a distinct language, called _Puquina_,
specimens of which have been preserved by Bishop Oré.[1168] The
ancestors of the Urus may have been the cromlech builders, driven
into the fastnesses of the lake when their country was occupied by
the more powerful invaders, who erected the imperishable monuments at
Tiahuanacu. These Urus are now lake-dwellers. Their homes consist of
large canoes, made of the tough reeds which cover the shallow parts of
the lake, and they live on fish, and on quinua and potatoes, which they
obtain by barter.

North of Cuzco there were several allied tribes, resembling the Incas
in physique and language, in a similar stage of civilization, and their
rivals in power. Beyond the Apurimac, and inhabiting the valleys of the
Andes thence to the Mantaro, was the important nation of the Chancas;
and still further north and west, in the valley of the Xauxa, was the
Huanca nation. Agricultural people and shepherds, forming _ayllus_, or
tribes of the Chancas and Huancas, occupied the ravines of the maritime
cordillera, and extended their settlements into several valleys of
the seacoast, between the Rimac and Nasca. These coast people of Inca
race, known as Chinchas, held their own against an entirely different
nation, of distinct origin and language, who occupied the northern
coast valleys from the Rimac to Payta, and also the great valley of
Huarca (the modern Cañete), where they had Chincha enemies both to
the north and south of them. These people were called _Yuncas_ by
their Inca conquerors. Their own name was Chimu, and the language
spoken by them was called _Mochica_. But this question relating to
the early inhabitants of the coast valleys of Peru, their origin and
civilization, is the most difficult in ancient Peruvian history, and
will require separate consideration.[1169]

[Illustration: INCA MANCO CCAPAC.

[After a cut in Marcoy’s _South America_, i. 210 (also in _Tour du
Monde_, 1863, p. 261), purporting to be drawn from a copy of the
taffeta roll containing the pedigree of the Incas, which, in evidence
of their claims, was sent by their descendants to the Spanish king
in 1603. This genealogical record contained the likenesses of the
successive Incas and their wives, and the original is said to have
disappeared. Mr. Markham supposes this roll to have been the original
of the portraits given in Herrera (see cut on p. 267 of the present
volume); but they are not the same, if Marcoy’s cuts are trustworthy.
A set of likenesses appeared in Ulloa’s _Relacion Histórica_ (Madrid,
1748), iv. 604; and these were the originals of the series copied
in the _Gentleman’s Mag._, 1751-1752, and thence are copied those
in Ranking. These do not correspond with those given by Marcoy. See
_post_, Vol. II., for a note on different series of portraits, and in
the same volume, pp. 515, 516, are portraits of Atahualpa. A portrait
of Manco Inca, killed 1546, is given in A. de Beauchamp’s _Histoire de
la Conquête du Pérou_ (Paris, 1808).—ED.]]

North of the Huanca nation, along the basin of the Marañon, there were
tribes which were known to the Incas by their head-dresses. These were
the Conchucus, Huamachucus, and Huacrachucus.[1170] Still further
north, in the region of the equator, was the powerful nation of Quitus.

All these nations of the Peruvian Andes appear to have once formed part
of the mighty prehistoric empire of the Pirhuas, and to have retained
much of the civilization of their ancestors during the subsequent
centuries of separate existence and isolation. This probably accounts
for the ease with which the Incas established their system of religion
and government throughout their new empire, after the conquests were
completed. The subjugated nations spoke dialects of the same language,
and inherited many of the usages and ideas of their conquerors. For
the same reason they were pretty equally matched as foes, and the
Incas secured the mastery only by dint of desperate fighting and great
political sagacity. But finally they did establish their superiority,
and founded a second great empire in Peru.

The history of the rise and progress of Inca power, as recorded by
native historians in their _quipus_, and retailed to us by Spanish
writers, is, on the whole, coherent and intelligible. Many blunders
were inevitable in conveying the information from the mouths of natives
to the Spanish inquirers, who understood the language imperfectly, and
whose objects often were to reach foregone conclusions. But certain
broad historical facts are brought out by a comparison of the different
authorities, the succession of the last ten sovereigns is determined
by a nearly complete consensus of evidence, and we can now relate the
general features of the rise of Inca ascendency in Peru with a certain
amount of confidence.

[Illustration: INCA YUPANQUI.

[After a cut in Marcoy, i. 214.—ED.]]

The Inca people were divided into small _ayllus_, or lineages,
when Manco Ccapac advanced down the valley of the Vilcamayu, from
Paccari-tampu, and forced the _ayllu_ of Alcaviza and the _ayllu_ of
Antasayac to submit to his sway. He formed the nucleus of his power
at Cuzco, the land of these conquered _ayllus_, and from this point
his descendants slowly extended their dominion. The chiefs of the
surrounding _ayllus_, called _Sinchi_ (literally, “strong”), either
submitted willingly to the Incas, or were subjugated. Sinchi Rocca, the
son, and Lloque Yupanqui, the grandson, of Manco, filled up a swamp on
the site of the present cathedral of Cuzco, planned out the city,[1171]
and their reigns were mainly occupied in consolidating the small
kingdom founded by their predecessor. Mayta Ccapac, the fourth Inca,
was also occupied in consolidating his power round Cuzco; but his son,
Ccapac Yupanqui, subdued the Quichuas to the westward, and extended his
sway as far as the pass of Vilcañota, overlooking the Collao, or basin
of Lake Titicaca. Inca Rocca, the next sovereign, made few conquests,
devoting his attention to the foundation of schools, the organization
of festivals and administrative government, and to the construction
of public works. His son, named Yahuar-huaccac, appears to have been
unfortunate. One authority says that he was surprised and killed, and
all agree that his reign was disastrous. For seven generations the
power and the admirable internal polity of the Incarial government
had been gradually organized and consolidated within a limited area.
The succeeding sovereigns were great conquerors, and their empire
was rapidly extended to the vast area which it had reached when the
Spaniards first appeared on the scene.

[Illustration: CUZCO.

[One of the cuts which did service in the Antwerp editions of Cieza de
Leon. There are various views in Squier’s _Peru_, pp. 427-445.—ED.]]

The son of Yahuar-huaccac assumed the name of the Deity, and called
himself Uira-cocha.[1172] Intervening in a war between the two
principal chiefs of the Collas, named Cari and Zapaña, Uira-cocha
defeated them in detail, and annexed the whole basin of Lake Titicaca
to his dominions. He also conquered the lovely valley of Yucay, on the
lower course of the Vilcamayu, whither he retired to end his days. The
eldest son of Uira-cocha, named Urco, was incompetent or unworthy, and
was either obliged to abdicate[1173] in favor of his brother Yupanqui,
the favorite hero of Inca history, or was slain.[1174] It was a moment
when the rising empire needed the services of her ablest sons. She
was about to engage in a death-struggle with a neighbor as powerful
and as civilized as herself. The kingdom of the Chancas, commencing
on the banks of the Apurimac, extended far to the east and north,
including many of the richest valleys of the Andes. Their warlike king,
Uscavilca, had already subdued the Quichuas, who dwelt in the upper
valleys of the Apurimac tributaries to the southward, and was advancing
on Cuzco, when Yupanqui pushed aside the imbecile Urco, and seized
the helm. The fate of the Incas was hanging on a thread. The story is
one of thrilling interest as told in the pages of Betanzos, but all
authorities dwell more or less on this famous Chanca war. The decisive
battle was fought outside the Huaca-puncu, the sacred gate of Cuzco.
The result was long doubtful. Suddenly, as the shades of evening were
closing over the Yahuar-pampa,—“the field of blood,”—a fresh army fell
upon the right flank of the Chanca host, and the Incas won a great
victory. So unexpected was this onslaught that the very stones on the
mountain sides were believed to have been turned into men. It was the
armed array of the insurgent Quichuas who had come by forced marches
to the help of their old masters. The memory of this great struggle
was fresh in men’s minds when the Spaniards arrived, and as the new
conquerors passed over the battlefield, on their way to Cuzco, they saw
the stuffed skins of the vanquished Chancas set up as memorials by the
roadside.

[Illustration: WARRIORS OF THE INCA PERIOD.

[After a cut given by Ruge, and showing figures from an old Peruvian
painting.—ED.]]

The subjugation of the Chancas, with their allies the Huancas, led to a
vast extension of the Inca empire, which now reached to the shores of
the Pacific; and the last years of Yupanqui were passed in the conquest
of the alien coast nation, ruled over by a sovereign known as the
Chimu. Thus the reign of the Inca Yupanqui marks a great epoch. He beat
down all rivals, and converted the Cuzco kingdom into a vast empire. He
received the name of Pachacutec, or “he who changes the world,” a name
which, according to Montesinos, had on eight previous occasions been
conferred upon sovereigns of the more ancient dynasties.

Tupac Inca Yupanqui, the son and successor of Pachacutec, completed
the subjugation of the coast valleys, extended his conquests beyond
Quito on the north and to Chile as far as the river Maule in the south,
besides penetrating far into the eastern forests.

Huayna Ccapac, the son of Tupac Inca Yupanqui, completed and
consolidated the conquests of his father. He traversed the valleys of
the coast, penetrated to the southern limit of Chile, and fought a
memorable battle on the banks of the “lake of blood” (Yahuar-cocha),
near the northern frontier of Quito. After a long reign,[1175] the last
years of which were passed in Quito, Huayna Ccapac died in November,
1525. His eldest legitimate son, named Huascar, succeeded him at Cuzco.
But Atahualpa, his father’s favorite, was at Quito with the most
experienced generals. Haughty messages passed between the brothers,
which were followed by war. Huascar’s armies were defeated in detail,
and eventually the generals of Atahualpa took the legitimate Inca
prisoner, entered Cuzco, and massacred the family and adherents of
Huascar.[1176] The successful aspirant to the throne was on his way to
Cuzco, in the wake of his generals, when he encountered Pizarro and the
Spanish invaders at Caxamarca. This war of succession would not, it is
probable, have led to any revolutionary change in the general policy of
the empire. Atahualpa would have established his power and continued to
rule, just as his ancestor Pachacutec did, after the dethronement of
his brother Urco.[1177]

The succession of the Incas from Manco Ccapac to Atahualpa was
evidently well known to the Amautas, or learned men of the empire,
and was recorded in their _quipus_ with precision, together with
less certain materials respecting the more ancient dynasties. Many
blunders were committed by the Spanish inquirers in putting down the
historical information received from the Amautas, but on the whole
there is general concurrence among them.[1178] Practically the Spanish
authorities agree, and it is clear that the native annalists possessed
a single record, while the apparent discrepancies are due to blunders
of the Spanish transcribers. The twelve Incas from Manco Ccapac to
Huascar may be received as historical personages whose deeds were had
in memory at the time of the Spanish invasion, and were narrated to
those among the conquerors who sought for information from the Amautas.

The religion of the Incas consisted in the worship of the supreme
being of the earlier dynasties, the Illa Ticsi Uira-cocha of the
Pirhuas. This simple faith was overlaid by a vast mass of superstition,
represented by the cult of ancestors and the cult of natural objects.
To this was superadded the belief in the ideals or souls of all
animated things, which ruled and guided them, and to which men
might pray for help. The exact nature of this belief in ideals, as
it presented itself to the people themselves, is not at all clear.
It prevailed among the uneducated. Probably it was the idea to
which dreams give rise,—the idea of a double nature, of a tangible
and a phantom being, the latter mysterious and powerful, and to be
propitiated. The belief in this double being was extended to all
animated nature, for even the crops had their spiritual doubles, which
it was necessary to worship and propitiate.

But the religion of the Incas and of learned men, or Amautas, was a
worship of the Supreme Cause of all things, the ancient God of the
Titicaca myth, combined with veneration for the sun[1179] as the
ancestor of the reigning dynasty, for the other heavenly bodies, and
for the _malqui_, or remains of their forefathers. This feeling of
veneration for the sun, closely connected with the beneficent work of
the venerated object as displayed in the course of the seasons, led to
the growth of an elaborate ritual and to the celebration of periodical
festivals.

The weight of evidence is decisively in the direction of a belief on
the part of the Incas that a Supreme Being existed, which the sun must
obey, as well as all other parts of the universe. This subordination
of the sun to the Creator of all things was inculcated by successive
Incas. Molina says, “They did not know the sun as their Creator, but
as created by the Creator.” Salcamayhua tells us how the Inca Mayta
Ccapac taught that the sun and moon were made for the service of men,
and that the chief of the Collas, addressing the Inca Uira-cocha,
exclaimed, “Thou, O powerful lord of Cuzco, dost worship the teacher of
the universe, while I, the chief of the Collas, worship the Sun.” The
evidence on the subject of the religion of the Incas, collected by the
Viceroy Toledo, showed that they worshipped the Creator of all things,
though they also venerated the sun; and Montesinos mentions an edict
of the Inca Pachacutec, promulgated with the object of enforcing the
worship of the Supreme God above all other deities. The speech of Tupac
Inca Yupanqui, showing that the sun was not God, but was obeying laws
ordained by God, is recorded by Acosta, Blas Valera, and Balboa, and
was evidently deeply impressed on the minds of their Inca informers.
This Inca compared the sun to a tethered beast, which always makes the
same round; or to a dart, which goes where it is sent, and not where
it wishes. The prayers from the Inca ritual, given by Molina, are
addressed to the god Ticsi Uira-cocha; the Sun, Moon, and Thunder being
occasionally invoked in conjunction with the principal deity.

The worship of this creating God, the Dweller in Space, the Teacher
and Ruler of the Universe, was, then, the religion of the Incas which
had been inherited from their distant ancestry of the cyclopean age.
Around this primitive cult had grown up a supplemental worship of
creatures created by the Deity, such as the heavenly bodies, and of
objects supposed to represent the first ancestors of _ayllus_, or
tribes, as well as of the prototypes of things on whom man’s welfare
depended, such as flocks and animals of the chase, fruit and corn.
It has been asserted that the Deity, the Uira-cocha himself, did not
generally receive worship, and that there was only one temple in
honor of God throughout the empire, at a place called Pachacamac, on
the coast. But this is clearly a mistake. The great temple at Cuzco,
with its gorgeous display of riches, was called the “Ccuri-cancha
Pacha-yachachicpa huasin,” which means “the place of gold, the abode
of the Teacher of the Universe.” An elliptical plate of gold was fixed
on the wall to represent the Deity, flanked on either side by metal
representations of his creatures, the Sun and Moon. The chief festival
in the middle of the year, called Ccapac Raymi, was instituted in
honor of the supreme Creator, and when, from time to time, his worship
began to be neglected by the people, who were apt to run after the
numerous local deities, it was again and again enforced by their more
enlightened rulers. There were Ccuri-canchas for the service of God, at
Vilca and in other centres of vice-regal rule, besides the grand fane
of Cuzco.[1180]

[Illustration: TEMPLE OF THE SUN.

[After a cut in Marcoy, i. p. 234, where it is said to be drawn from
existing remains and printed and manuscript authorities. The modern
structure of the convent of Santo Domingo, built in 1534, is at A,
which contains in its construction some remains of the walls of the
older edifice. B is a cloister. C, an outer court. D, fountains for
purification. E are streets leading to the great square of Cuzco. F,
the garden where golden flowers were once placed; now used as a kitchen
garden. G, the chapel dedicated to the moon. H, chapel dedicated to
Venus and the Milky Way. I, chapel dedicated to thunder and lightning.
J, chapel dedicated to the rainbow. K, council hall of the grand
pontiff and priests of the sun. L, the apartments of the priests and
servants. See the view of the temple from Montanus in Vol. II. p. 555,
and a modern view in Wiener’s. _Pérou et Bolivie_, p. 318. Other plans
and views are in Squier’s _Peru_, pp. 430-445.—ED.]]

Although the first and principal invocations were addressed to the
Creator, prayers were also offered up to the Sun and Moon, to the
Thunder, and to ancestors who were called upon to intercede with the
Deity.[1181] The latter worship formed a very distinctive feature
in the religious observances of nearly all the Incarial tribes. The
_Paccarina_, or forefather of the _ayllu_, or lineage, was often some
natural object converted into a _huaca_, or deity. The _Paccarina_ of
the Inca family was the Sun; with his sister and spouse, the Moon.
A vast hierarchy was set apart to conduct the ceremonies connected
with their worship, and hundreds of virgins, called _Aclla-cuna_,
were secluded and devoted to duties relating to the observances
in the Sun temples. Worship was also offered to the actual bodies
of the ancestors, called _malqui_, which were preserved with the
greatest care, in caves called _machay_. On solemn festivals each
_ayllu_ assembled with its _malqui_. The bodies of the Incas were all
preserved, clothed as when alive, and surrounded by their special
furniture and utensils. Three of these Inca mummies, with two mummies
of queens, were discovered by Polo de Ondegardo, then corregidor of
Cuzco, in 1559, and were sent by him to Lima for interment. Those who
saw them[1182] reported that they were so well preserved that they
appeared to be alive; that they were in a sitting posture; that the
eyes were made of gold, and that they were arrayed in the insignia
of their rank.[1183] The _Paccarina_, or founder of the family, and
the _malquis_, or mummies of ancestors, thus formed the objects of a
distinct belief and religion, based undoubtedly on the conviction that
every human being has a spiritual as well as a corporeal existence;
that the former is immortal, and that it is represented by the
_malqui_. The appearance of the departed in dreams and visions was not
an unreasonable ground for this belief, which certainly was the most
deeply rooted of all the religious ideas of the Peruvian people. The
_paccarina_, or ancestral deities, were innumerable. There was one or
more that received worship in every _tribe_, and was represented by a
rock, or some other natural object. Many were believed to be oracles.
Some, such as _Catequilla_, or _Apu-catequilla_,[1184] the oracle of
the Conchucu tribe, have been brought into undue prominence through
being mentioned by Spanish writers.

[Illustration: ZODIAC OF GOLD FOUND AT CUZCO.

[After a drawing by Mr. Markham of the plate itself, made at Lima in
1853. Mr. Markham’s drawing is reproduced in Bollaert’s _Antiquarian
Researches_, p. 146. The disk is 5-3/10 inches in diameter. The signs
in the outer ring are supposed to represent the months.—ED.]]

Religious ceremonials were closely connected with the daily life of
the people, and especially with the course of the seasons and the
succession of months, as they affected the operations of agriculture.
It was important to fix the equinoxes and solstices, and astronomical
knowledge was a part of the priestly office. There were names for
many of the stars; their motions were watched as well as those of the
sun and moon; and though a record of the extent of the astronomical
knowledge of the Incas has not been preserved, it is certain that they
watched the time of the solstices and equinoxes with great care, and
that they distinguished between the lunar and solar years. Pillars were
erected to determine the time of the solstices, eight on the east and
eight on the west side of Cuzco, in double rows, four and four, two low
between two higher ones, twenty feet apart. They were called _Sucanca_,
from _suca_, a ridge or furrow, the alternate light and shade between
the pillars appearing like furrows. A stone column in the centre of a
level platform, called _Inti-huatana_, was used to ascertain the time
of the equinoxes. A line was drawn across the platform from east to
west, and watch was kept to observe when the shadow of the pillar was
on this line from sunrise to sunset, and there was no shadow at noon.
The principal _Inti-huatana_ was in the square before the great temple
at Cuzco; but there are several others in different parts of Peru.
The most perfect of these observatories is at Pissac, in the valley
of Vilcamayu.[1185] There is another at Ollantay-tampu, a fourth near
Abancay, and a fifth at Sillustani in the Collao.

There is reason to believe that the Incas used a zodiac with twelve
signs, corresponding with the months of their solar year. The gold
plates which they wore on their breasts were stamped with features
representing the sun, surrounded by a border of what are probably
either zodiacal signs or signs for the months. Whether the ecliptic, or
_huatana_, was thus divided or not, it is certain that the sun’s motion
was observed with great care, and that the calendar was thus fixed with
some approach to accuracy.[1186] The year, or _Huata_, was divided into
twelve _Quilla_, or moon revolutions, and these were made to correspond
with the solar year by adding five days, which were divided among the
twelve months. A further correction was made every fourth year. Solar
observations were taken and recorded every month.

The year commenced on the 22d of June, with the winter solstice, and
there were four great festivals at the occurrence of the solstices and
equinoxes.[1187]

The celebrations of the solar year and of the seasons, in their
bearings on agriculture, were identical with the chief religious
observances. The Raymi, or festival of the winter solstice, in the
first month, when the granaries were filled after harvest, was
established in special honor of the Sun. Sacrifices of llamas and
lambs, and of the first-fruits of the earth, were offered up to the
images of the Supreme Being, of the Sun, and of Thunder, which were
placed in the open space in front of the great temple; as well as to
the _huaca_, or stone representing the brother of Manco Ccapac, on the
hill of Huanacauri. There was also a procession of the priests and
people as far as the pass of Vilcañota, leading into the basin of Lake
Titicaca, sacrifices being offered up at various spots on the road.
The sacrifices were accompanied by prayers, and concluded with songs,
called _huayllina_, and dancing. Then followed the ploughing month,
when it is said that the Inca himself opened the season by ploughing a
furrow with a golden plough in the field behind the Colcampata palace,
on the height above Cuzco.

The question here arises whether human sacrifices were offered up,
in the Inca ritual. This has been stated by Molina, Cieza de Leon,
Montesinos, Balboa, Ondegardo, and Acosta, and indignantly denied by
Garcilasso de la Vega. Cieza de Leon admits that there were occasional
human sacrifices, but adds that their numbers and the frequency
of such offerings have been grossly exaggerated by the Spaniards.
If the sacrifices had been offered under the idea of atonement or
expiation, it might well be expected that human sacrifices would be
included. Under such ideas, men offered up what they valued most, just
as Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son, as Jephthah dedicated
his daughter as a burnt-offering to Jehovah, and as the king of Moab
sacrificed his eldest son to Chemosh.[1188] But, except in the Situa,
when the idea was to efface sins by washing, the sacrifices of the
Incas were offerings of thanksgiving, not of expiation or atonement.
The mistake of the five writers who supposed that the Incas offered
human sacrifices was due to their ignorance of the language.[1189] The
perpetration of human sacrifice was opposed to the religious ideas of
the ancient Peruvians, and formed no part of their ceremonial worship.
Their ritual was almost exclusively devoted to thanksgiving and
rejoicings over the beneficence of their Deity. The notion of expiation
formed no part of their creed, while the destruction involved in such
a system was opposed to their economic and carefully regulated civil
polity.[1190]

The second great festival, called Situa, was celebrated at the vernal
equinox. This was the commencement of the rainy season, when sickness
prevailed, and the object of the ceremony was to pray to the Creator
to drive diseases and evils from the land. In the centre of the great
square of Cuzco a body of four hundred warriors was assembled, fully
armed for war. One hundred faced towards the Chincha-suyu road, one
hundred faced towards Anti-suyu, one hundred towards Colla-suyu, and
one hundred towards Cunti-suyu,—the four great divisions of the empire.
The Inca and the high-priest, with their attendants, then came from
the temple, and shouted, “Go forth all evils!” On the instant the
warriors ran at great speed towards the four quarters, shouting the
same sentence as they went, until they each came to another party,
which took up the cry, and the last parties reached the banks of great
rivers, the Apurimac or Vilcamayu, where they bathed and washed their
arms. The rivers were supposed to carry the evils away to the ocean.
As the warriors ran through the streets of Cuzco, all the people came
to their doors, shaking their clothes, and shouting, “Let the evils be
gone!” In the evening they all bathed; then they lighted great torches
of straw, called _pancurcu_, and, marching in procession out of the
city, they threw them into the rivers, believing that thus nocturnal
evils were banished. At night, each family partook of a supper
consisting of pudding made of coarsely ground maize, called _sancu_,
which was also smeared over their faces and the lintels of their
doorways, then washed off and thrown into the rivers with the cry, “May
we be free from sickness, and may no maladies enter our houses!” The
_huacas_ and _malquis_ were also bathed at the feast of Situa. In the
following days all the malquis were paraded, and there were sacrifices,
with feasting and dancing. A stone fountain, plated with gold, stood
in the great square of Cuzco, and the Inca, on this and other solemn
festivals, poured _chicha_ into it from a golden vase, which was
conducted by subterranean pipes to the temple.

The third great festival at the summer solstice, called _Huaracu_,
was the occasion on which the youths of the empire were admitted
to a rank equivalent to knighthood, after passing through a severe
ordeal. The Inca and his court were assembled in front of the temple.
Thither the youths were conducted by their relations, with heads
closely shorn, and attired in shirts of fine yellow wool edged with
black, and white mantles fastened round their necks by woollen cords
with red tassels. They made their reverences to the Inca, offered up
prayers, and each presented a llama for sacrifice.[1191] Proceeding
thence to the hill of Huanacauri, where the venerated _huaca_ to Ayar
Uchu was erected, they there received _huaras_, or breeches made of
aloe fibres, from the priest. This completed their manly attire, and
they returned home to prepare for the ordeal. A few days afterwards
they were assembled in the great square, received a spear, called
_yauri_, and _usutas_ or sandals, and were severely whipped to prove
their endurance. The young candidates were then sent forth to pass the
night in a desert about a league from Cuzco. Next day they had to run
a race. At the farther end of the course young girls were stationed,
called _ñusta-calli-sapa_,[1192] with jars of chicha, who cried, “Come
quickly, youths, for we are waiting!” but the course was a long one,
and many fell before they reached the goal. They also had to rival each
other in assaults and feats of arms. Finally their ears were bored, and
they received ear-pieces of gold and other marks of distinction from
the Inca. The last ceremony was that of bathing in the fountain called
Calli-puquio. About eight hundred youths annually passed through this
ordeal, and became adult warriors, at Cuzco, and similar ceremonies
were performed in all the provinces of the empire.

In the month following on the summer solstice, there was a curious
religious ceremony known as the water sacrifice. The cinders and ashes
of all the numerous sacrifices throughout the year were preserved.
Dams were constructed across the rivers which flow through Cuzco, in
order that the water might rush down with great force when they were
taken away. Prayers and sacrifices were offered up, and then a little
after sunset all the ashes were thrown into the rivers and the dams
were removed. Then the burnt-sacrifices were hurried down with the
stream, closely followed by crowds of people on either bank, with
blazing torches, as far as the bridge at Ollantay-tampu. There two bags
of coca were offered up by being hurled into the river, and thence
the sacrifices were allowed to flow onwards to the sea. This curious
ceremony seems to have been intended not only as a thank-offering
to the Deity, but as an acknowledgment of his omnipresence. As the
offerings flowed with the stream, they knew not whither, yet went to
Him, so his pervading spirit was everywhere, alike in parts unknown as
in the visible world of the Incas.

A sacred fire was kept alive throughout the year by the virgins of the
sun, and the ceremony of its annual renewal at the autumnal equinox was
the fourth great festival, called _Mosoc-nina_, or the “new fire.” Fire
was produced by collecting the sun’s rays on a burnished metal mirror,
and the ceremony was the occasion of prayers and sacrifices. The year
ended with the rejoicing of the harvest months, accompanied by songs,
dances, and other festivities.

Besides the periodical festivals, there were also religious observances
which entered into the life of each family. Every household had one or
more _lares_, called _Conopa_, representing maize, fruit, a llama, or
other object on which its welfare depended. The belief in divination
and soothsaying, the practice of fasting followed by confession, and
worship of the family malqui, all gave employment to the priesthood.

The complicated religious ceremonies connected with the periodical
festivals, the daily worship, and the requirements of private
families gave rise to the growth of a very numerous caste of priests
and diviners. The pope of this hierarchy, the chief pontiff, was
called _Uillac Umu_, words meaning “The head which gives counsel,”
he who repeats to the people the utterances of the Deity. He was the
most learned and virtuous of the priestly caste, always a member of
the reigning family, and next in rank to the Inca. The _Villcas_,
equivalent to the bishops of a Christian hierarchy, were the chief
priests in the provinces, and during the greatest extension of the
empire they numbered ten. The ordinary ministers of religion were
divided into sacrificers, worshippers and confessors, diviners, and
recluses.[1193] It was indeed inevitable that, with a complicated
ritual and a gorgeous ceremonial worship, a populous class of priests
and their assistants, of numerous grades and callings, should come into
existence.[1194]

* * * * *

But the intellectual movement and vigor of the Incas were not confined
to the priesthood. The Amautas or learned men, the poets and reciters
of history, the musical and dramatic composers, the Quipu-camayoc, or
recorders and accountants, were not necessarily, nor indeed generally,
of the priestly caste. It is probable that the Amautas, or men of
learning, formed a separate caste devoted to the cultivation of
literature and the extension of the language. Our knowledge of their
progress and of the character of their traditions and poetic culture is
very limited, owing to the destruction of records and the loss of oral
testimony. The language has been preserved, and that will tell us much;
but only a few literary compositions have been saved from the wreck of
the Inca empire. Quichua was the name given to the general language of
the Incas by Friar Domingo de San Tomas, the first Spaniard who studied
it grammatically, possibly owing to his having acquired it from people
belonging to the Quichua tribe. The name continued to be used, and
has been generally adopted.[1195] Garcilasso de la Vega speaks of a
separate court language of the Incas, but the eleven words he gives as
belonging to it are ordinary Quichua words, and I concur with Hervas
and William von Humboldt in the conclusion that this court language
of Garcilasso had no real existence.[1196] It is not mentioned by any
other authority.

[Illustration: THE QUIPUS.

[Following a sketch in Rivero and Tschudi, as reproduced by Helps.
It shows a quipu found in an ancient cemetery near Pachacamac. There
are other cuts in Wiener’s _Pérou et Bolivie_, p. 777; Tylor’s _Early
Hist. Mankind_, 156; Kingsborough’s _Mexico_, vol. iv.; Silvestre’s
_Universal Palæography_; and Léon de Rosny’s _Écritures figuratives_,
Paris, 180. Cf. Acosta, vi. cap. 8, and other early authorities
mentioned in Prescott (Kirk’s ed. i. 125); Markham’s _Cieza_, 291;
D. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. ch. 18; _Fourth Rept. Bureau of
Ethnology_ (Washington), p. 79; Bollaert’s description in _Memoirs
read before the Anthropological Society of London_, i. 188, and iii.
351; A. Bastian’s _Culturländer des alten America_, iii. 73; Brasseur
de Bourbourg’s _MS. Troano_, i. 18; Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 465; T.
P. Thompson’s “Knot Records of Peru” in _Westminster Review_, xi.
228; but in the separate print called _History of the Quipos, or
Peruvian Knot-records, as given by the early Spanish Historians, with a
Description of a supposed Specimen_, assigned to Al. Strong by Leclerc,
No. 2413. The description in Frezier’s _Voyage to the South Sea_ (1717)
is one of the earliest among Europeans. Leclerc, No. 2412, mentions a
_Letter a apologetica_ (Napoli, 1750), pertaining to the quipus, but
seems uncertain as to its value.—ED.]]

It was the custom for the Yaravecs or Bards to recite the deeds of
former Incas on public occasions, and these rhythmical narratives
were orally preserved and handed down by the learned men. Cieza de
Leon tells us that “by this plan, from the mouths of one generation
the succeeding one was taught, and they could relate what took place
five hundred years ago as if only ten years had passed. This was the
order that was taken to prevent the great events of the empire from
falling into oblivion.” These historical recitations and songs must
have formed the most important part of Inca literature. One specimen
of imaginative poetry has been preserved by Blas Valero, in which
the thunder, followed by rain, is likened to a brother breaking his
sister’s pitcher; just as in the Scandinavian mythology the legend
which is the original source of our nursery rhyme of Jack and Jill
employs the same imagery. Pastoral duties are embodied in some of
the later Quichuan dramatic literature, and numerous love songs and
_yaravies_, or elegies, have been handed down orally, or preserved in
old manuscripts. The dances were numerous and complicated, and the
Incas had many musical instruments.[1197] Dramatic representations,
both of a tragic and comic character, were performed before the
Inca court. The statement of Garcilasso de la Vega to this effect
is supported by the independent evidence of Cieza de Leon and of
Salcamayhua, and is placed beyond a doubt by the sentence of the judge,
Areche, in 1781, who prohibited the celebration of these dramas by the
Indians. Father Iteri also speaks of the “Quichua dramas transmitted to
this day (1790) by an unbroken tradition.” But only one such drama has
been handed down to our own time. It is entitled Ollantay, and records
an historical event of the time of Yupanqui Pachacutec. In its present
form, as regards division into scenes and stage directions, it shows
later Spanish manipulation. The question of its antiquity has been much
discussed; but the final result is that Quichua scholars believe most
of its dialogues and speeches and all the songs to be remnants of the
Inca period.

[Illustration: INCA SKULL.

[After the plate in the _Contrib. to N. Am. Ethnology_, vol. v.
(Powell’s survey, 1882), showing the trephined skull brought from Peru
by Squier, in the Army Med. Museum, Washington. Squier in his _Peru_,
p. 457, gives another cut, with comments of Broca and others in the
appendix. Cf. in the same volume a paper on “Prehistoric Trephining and
Cranial Amulets,” by R. Fletcher, and a paper on “Trephining in the
Neolithic Period,” in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,
Nov., 1887. Cf. on Peruvian skulls Rudolf Virchow, in the third volume
of the _Necropolis of Ancon_; T. J. Hutchinson in the _Journal of the
Anthropological Institute_, iii. 311; iv. 2; Busk and Davis in _Ibid._
iii. 86, 94; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. ch. 20; C. C. Blake, in
_Transactions Ethnolog. Soc._, n. s., ii. There are two collections
of Peruvian skulls in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Mass.,—one
presented by Squier, the other secured by the Haasler Expedition. (Cf.
_Reports_ VII. and IX. of the museum.) Wiener (_L’Empire des Incas_,
p. 81) cites a long list of writers on the artificial deforming of the
skull.—ED.]]

The system of record by the use of _quipus_, or knots, was primarily
a method of numeration and of keeping accounts. To cords of various
colors smaller lines were attached in the form of fringe, on which
there were knots in an almost infinite variety of combination. The
_Quipu-camayoc_, or accountant, could by this means keep records
under numerous heads, and preserve the accounts of the empire. The
_quipus_ represented a far better system of keeping accounts than the
exchequer tallies which were used in England for the same purpose
as late as the early part of the present century. But the question
of the extent to which historical events could be recorded by this
system of knots is a difficult one. We have the direct assertions
of Montesinos, Salcamayhua, the anonymous Jesuit, Blas Valera, and
others, that not only narratives, but songs, were preserved by means of
the _quipus_. Von Tschudi believed that by dint of the uninterrupted
studies of experts during several generations, the power of expression
became developed more and more, and that eventually the art of the
_Quipu-camayoc_ reached a high state of perfection. It may reasonably
be assumed that with some help from oral commentary, codes of laws,
historical events, and even poems were preserved in the _quipus_.
It was through this substitute for writing that Montesinos and the
anonymous Jesuit received their lists of ancient dynasties, and Blas
Valera distinctly says that the poem he has preserved was taken from
_quipus_. Still it must have been rather a system of mnemonics than of
complete record. Molina tells us that the events in the reigns of all
the Incas, as well as early traditions, were represented by paintings
on boards, in a temple near Cuzco, called _Poquen cancha_.

The diviners used certain incantations to cure the sick, but the
healing art among the Incas was really in the hands of learned men.
Those _Amautas_ who devoted themselves to the study of medicine had, as
Acosta bears testimony, a knowledge of the properties of many plants.
The febrifuge virtues of the precious _quinquina_ were, it is true,
unknown, or only locally known. But the _Amautas_ used plants with
tonic properties for curing fevers; and they were provided with these
and other drugs by an itinerant caste, called Calahuayas or Charisanis,
who went into the forests to procure them. The descendants of these
itinerant doctors still wander over South America, selling drugs.[1198]
The discovery of a skull in a cemetery at Yucay, which exhibits clear
evidence of a case of trepanning before death, proves the marvellous
advances made by the Incas in surgical science.

[Illustration: RUINS AT CHUCUITO.

[After a drawing in Squier’s _Primeval Monuments of Peru_, p. 17,
showing a wall of hewn stones, with an entrance. The enclosed rectangle
is 65 feet on each side,—“a type of an advanced class of megalithic
monuments by no means uncommon in the highlands of Peru.” Cf. Squier’s
_Peru_, p. 354.—ED.]]

The sovereign was the centre of all civilization and all knowledge.
All literary culture, all the religious ceremonial which had grown
up with the extension of the empire, had the Inca for their centre,
as well as all the military operations and all laws connected with
civil administration. Originally but the _Sinchi_, or chief of a small
_ayllu_, the greatness of successive Incas grew with the extension of
their power, until at last they were looked upon almost as deities by
their subjects. The greatest lords entered their presence in a stooping
position and with a small burden on their backs. The imperial family
rapidly increased. Each Inca left behind him numerous younger sons,
whose descendants formed an _ayllu_, so that the later sovereigns
were surrounded by a numerous following of their own kindred, from
among whom able public servants were selected. The sovereign was the
“_Sapallan Inca_,” the sole and sovereign lord, and with good reason he
was called _Huaccha-cuyac_, or friend of the poor.

Enormous wealth was sent to Cuzco as tribute from all parts of the
empire, for the service of the court and of the temples. The special
insignia of the sovereign were the _llautu_, or crimson fringe
round the forehead, the wing feathers (black and white) of the
alcamari, an Andean vulture, on the head, forming together the _suntu
paucar_ or sacred head-dress; the _huaman champi_, or mace, and the
_ccapac-yauri_, or sceptre. His dress consisted of shirts of cotton,
tunics of dyed cotton in patterns, with borders of small gold and
silver plates or feathers, and mantles of fine vicuña wool woven and
dyed. The Incas, as represented in the pictures at Cuzco,[1199] painted
soon after the conquest, wore golden breastplates suspended round their
necks, with the image of the sun stamped upon them;[1200] and the
_Ccoya_, or queen, wore a large golden _topu_, or pin, with figures
engraved on the head, which secured her _lliclla_, or mantle. All
the utensils of the palace were of gold; and so exclusively was that
precious metal used in the service of the court and the temple that
a garden outside the Ccuri-cancha was planted with models of leaves,
fruit, and stalks made of pure gold.[1201]

[Illustration: LAKE TITICACA.

[After a cut in Ruge’s _Gesch. des Zeital. der Entdeckungen_. Squier
explored the lake with Raimond in 1864-65, and bears testimony to the
general accuracy of the survey by J. B. Pentland, British consul in
Bolivia (1827-28 and 1837), published by the British admiralty; but
Squier points out some defects of his survey in his _Remarques sur la
Géog. du Pérou_, p. 14, and in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, iii. There
is another view in Wiener’s _Pérou et Bolivie_, p. 441. Cf. Markham’s
_Cieza de Leon_, 370; Marcoy’s Voyage; Baldwin’s _Ancient America_,
228; and Philippson’s _Gesch. des neu. Zeit._, i. 240. Squier in his
_Peru_ (pp. 308-370) gives various views, plans of the ruins, and a map
of the lake.—ED.]]

Two styles are discernible in Inca architecture. The earliest is
an imitation of the cyclopean works of their ancestors on a smaller
scale. The walls were built with polygonal-shaped stones with rough
surfaces, but the stones were much reduced in size. Rows of doorways
with slanting sides and monolithic lintels adorn the façades; while
recesses for _huacas_, shaped like the doorways, occur in the interior
walls. Part of the palace called the Collcampata, at the foot of the
Cuzco fortress, the buildings which were added to the cyclopean work at
Ollantay tampu, the older portion of the Ccuri-cancha temple at Cuzco,
the palaces at Chinchero and Rimac-tampu, are in this earlier style.
The later style is seen mainly at Cuzco, where the stones are laid in
regular courses. No one has described this superb masonry better than
Squier.[1202] No cement or mortar of any kind was used, the edifices
depending entirely on the accuracy of their stone-fitting for their
stability. The palaces and temples were built round a court-yard,
and a hall of vast dimensions, large enough for ceremonies on an
extensive scale, was included in the plan of most of the edifices.
These halls were 200 paces long by 50 to 60 broad. The dimensions of
the Ccuri-cancha temple were 296 feet by 52, and the southwest end
was apsidal. Serpents are carved in relief on some of the stones and
lintels of the Cuzco palaces. Hence the palace of Huayna Ccapac is
called Amaru-cancha.[1203] At Hatun-colla, near Lake Titicaca, there
are two sandstone pillars, probably of Inca origin, which are very
richly carved. They are covered with figures of serpents, lizards,
and frogs, and with elaborate geometrical patterns. The height of the
walls of the Cuzco edifices was from 35 to 40 feet, and the roofs were
thatched. One specimen of the admirable thatching of the Incas is still
preserved at Azangaro.

[Illustration: LAKE TITICACA.

[One of the cuts which did service in the Antwerp editions of Cieza de
Leon.—ED.]]

There are many ruins throughout Peru both in the earlier and later
styles; some of them, such as those at Vilcashuaman and Huanuco el
viejo, being of great interest. The Inca palace on the island in Lake
Titicaca is a rectangular two-storied edifice, with numerous rooms
having ceilings formed of flat overlapping stones, laid with great
regularity. With its esplanade, beautiful terraced gardens, baths,
and fountains, this Titicaca palace must have been intended for the
enjoyment of beautiful scenery in comparative seclusion, like the now
destroyed palace at Yucay, in the valley of the Vilcamayu.

An example of the improvement of architecture after Inca subjugation is
shown in the curious burial-places, or _chulpas_, of the Collao, in the
basin of Lake Titicaca. The earliest, as seen at Acora near the lake,
closely resemble the rude cromlechs of Brittany. Next, roughly built
square towers are met with, with vaults inside. Lastly, the _chulpas_
at Sillustani are well-built circular towers, about 40 feet high and
16 feet in diameter at the base, widening as they rise. A cornice
runs round each tower, about three fourths of the distance from the
base to the summit. The stones are admirably cut and fitted in nearly
even courses, like the walls at Cuzco. The interior circular vaults,
which contained the bodies, were arched with overlapping stones, and a
similar dome formed the roof of the towers.

[Illustration: MAP OF TITICACA, WITH WIENER’S ROUTE.]

The architectural excellence reached by the Incas, their advances in
the other arts and in literature, and the imperial magnificence of
their court and religious worship, imply the existence of an orderly
and well-regulated administrative system. An examination of their
social polity will not disappoint even high expectations. The Inca,
though despotic in theory, was bound by the complicated code of rules
and customs which had gradually developed itself during the reigns of
his ancestors. In his own extensive family, composed of Auqui[1204]
and Atauchi,[1205] Palla[1206] and Ñusta,[1207] to the number of many
hundreds,[1208] and in the Curacas[1209] and Apu-curacas[1210] of the
conquered tribes, he had a host of able public servants to govern
provinces, enter the priesthood, or command armies.

[Illustration: PRIMEVAL TOMB, ACORA.

[After a sketch in Squier’s _Primeval Monuments of Peru_, Salem, 1870.
He considers it an example of some of the oldest of human monuments,
and is inclined to believe these chulpas, or burial monuments, to have
been built by the ancestors of the Peruvians of the conquest in their
earliest development.—ED.]]

[Illustration: RUINS AT QUELLENATA.

[Reduced from a sketch in Squier’s _Primeval Monuments of Peru_, p. 7.
They are situated in Bolivia, northeast of Lake Titicaca, and the cut
shows a hill-fortress (pucura) and the round, flaring-top burial towers
(chulpas). Cf. cut in Wiener’s _Pérou et Bolivie_, p. 538.—ED.]]

The empire was marked out into four great divisions, corresponding
with the four cardinal points of a compass placed at Cuzco. To the
north was Chinchaysuyu, to the east Anti-suyu, to the west Cunti-suyu,
and to the south Colla-suyu.

[Illustration: RUINS AT ESCOMA, BOLIVIA.

[After a cut in Squier’s _Primeval Monuments of Peru_, p. 9,—a square
two-storied burial tower (chulpa) with hill-fortress (pucura) in the
distance, situated east of Lake Titicaca. Cf. Squier’s _Peru_, p.
373.—ED.]]

[Illustration: SILLUSTANI, PERU.

[Sun-circles (Inti-huatana, where the sun is tied up), after a cut in
Squier’s _Primeval Monuments of Peru_, p. 15. The nearer circle is 90
feet; the farther, which has a grooved outlying platform, is 150 feet
in diameter. Cf. plan and views in Squier’s _Peru_, ch. 20.—ED.]]

The whole empire was called Ttahuantin-suyu, or the four united
provinces. Each great province was governed by an Inca viceroy, whose
title was _Ccapac_, or _Tucuyricoc_.[1211] The latter word means “He
who sees all.” Garcilasso describes the office as merely that of an
inspector, whose duty it was to visit the province and report. Under
the viceroy were the native _Curacas_, who governed the _ayllus_, or
lineages. Each _ayllu_ was divided into sections of ten families, under
an officer called _Chunca_ (10) _camayu_. Ten of these came under a
_Pachaca_ (100) _camayu_. Ten _Pachacas_ formed a _Huaranca_ (1,000)
_camayu_, and the _Hunu_ (10,000) _camayu_ ruled over ten _Huarancas_.
The _Chunca_ of ten families was the unit of government, and each
_Chunca_ formed a complete community.[1212]

[Illustration: RUINS OF AN INCARIAL VILLAGE.

[Situated on the road from Milo to Huancayo. Reduced from an ink
drawing given by Wiener in his _L’Empire des Incas_, pl. v.—ED.]]

The cultivable land belonged to the people in their _ayllus_, each
_Chunca_ being allotted a sufficient area to support its ten _Purics_
and their dependants.[1213] The produce was divided between the
government (_Inca_), the priesthood (_Huaca_), and the cultivators or
poor (_Huaccha_), but not in equal shares.[1214] In some parts the
three shares were kept apart in cultivation, but as a rule the produce
was divided at harvest time. The flocks of llamas were divided into
_Ccapac-llama_, belonging to the state, and _Huaccha-llama_, owned by
the people. Thus the land belonged to the _ayllu_, or tribe, and each
_puric_, or able-bodied man, had a right to his share of the crop,
provided that he had been present at the sowing. All those who were
absent must have been employed in the service of the Inca or Huaca, and
subsisted on the government or priestly share. Shepherds and mechanics
were also dependent on those shares. Officers called _Runay-pachaca_
annually revised the allotments, made the census, prepared statistics
for the _Quipu-camayoc_, and sent reports to the _Tucuyricoc_. The
_Llacta-camayoc_, or village overseer, announced the turns for
irrigation and the fields to be cultivated when the shares were grown
apart. These daily notices were usually given from a tower or terrace.
There were also judges or examiners, called _Taripasac_,[1215] who
investigated serious offences and settled disputes. Punishments for
crimes were severe, and inexorably inflicted. It was also the duty of
these officers, when a particular _ayllu_ suffered any calamity through
wars or natural causes, to allot contingents from surrounding _ayllus_
to assist the neighbor in distress. There were similar arrangements
when the completion or repair of any public work was urgent. The most
cruel tax on the people consisted in the selection of the _Aclla-cuna_,
or chosen maidens for the service of the Inca, and the church, or
_Huaca_. This was done once a year by an ecclesiastical dignitary
called the _Apu-Panaca_,[1216] or, according to one authority, the
_Hatun-uilca_,[1217] who was deputy of the high-priest. Service under
the Inca in all other capacities was eagerly sought for.

The industry and skill of the Peruvian husbandmen can scarcely
alone account for the perfection to which they brought the science
of agriculture. The administrative system of the Incas must share
the credit. Not a spot of cultivable land was neglected. Towns and
villages were built on rocky ground. Even their dead were buried in
waste places. Dry wastes were irrigated, and terraces were constructed,
sometimes a hundred deep, up the sides of the mountains. The most
beautiful example of this terrace cultivation may still be seen in the
“Andeneria,” or hanging gardens of the valley of Vilcamayu, near Cuzco.
There the terraces, commencing with broad fields at the edge of the
level ground, rise to a height of 1,500 feet, narrowing as they rise,
until the loftiest terraces against the perpendicular mountain side are
not more than two feet wide, just room for three or four rows of maize.
An irrigation canal, starting high up some narrow ravine at the snow
level, is carried along the mountain side and through the terraces,
flowing down from one to another.

Irrigation on a larger scale was employed not only on the desert coast,
but to water the pastures and arable lands in the mountains, where
there is rain for several months in the year. The channels were often
of considerable size and great length. Mr. Squier says that he has
followed them for days together, winding amidst the projections of
hills, here sustained by high masonry walls, there cut into the living
rock, and in some places conducted in tunnels through sharp spurs of an
obstructing mountain. An officer knew the space of time necessary for
irrigating each _tupu_, and each cultivator received a flow of water in
accordance with the requirements of his land. The manuring of crops was
also carefully attended to.[1218]

The result of all this intelligent labor was fully commensurate with
the thought and skill expended. The Incas produced the finest potato
crops the world has ever seen. The white maize of Cuzco has never
been approached in size or in yield. Coca, now so highly prized, is
a product peculiar to Inca agriculture, and its cultivation required
extreme care, especially in the picking and drying processes. Ajï, or
Chile pepper, furnished a new condiment to the Old World. Peruvian
cotton is excelled only by Sea Island and Egyptian in length of fibre,
and for strength and length of fibre combined is without an equal.
Quinua, oca, aracacha, and several fruits are also peculiar to Peruvian
agriculture.[1219]

The vast flocks of llamas[1220] and alpacas supplied meat for
the people, dried _charqui_ for soldiers and travellers, and wool
for weaving cloth of every degree of fineness. The alpacas, whose
unrivalled wool is now in such large demand, may almost be said to have
been the creation of the Inca shepherds. They can only be reared by
the bestowal on them of the most constant and devoted care. The wild
_huanacus_ and _vicuñas_ were also sources of food and wool supply.
No man was allowed to kill any wild animal in Peru, but there were
periodical hunts, called _chacu_, in the different provinces, which
were ordered by the Inca. On these occasions a wide area was surrounded
by thousands of people, who gradually closed in towards the centre.
They advanced, shouting and starting the game before them, and closed
in, forming in several ranks until a great bag was secured. The females
were released, with a few of the best and finest males. The rest were
then shorn and also released, a certain proportion being killed for the
sake of their flesh. The _huanacu_ wool was divided among the people
of the district, while the silky fleeces of the _vicuña_ were reserved
for the Inca. The _Quipu-camayoc_ kept a careful record of the number
caught, shorn, and killed.

[Illustration: FROM HELPS.

[Cf. Humboldt’s account in _Views of Nature_, English transl., 393-95,
407-9, 412. Marcoy says the usual descriptions of the ancient roads are
exaggerations (vol. i. 206).—ED.]]

The means of communication in so mountainous a country were an
important department in the administration of the Incas. Excellent
roads for foot passengers radiated from Cuzco to the remotest portions
of the empire. The Inca roads were level and well paved, and continued
for hundreds of leagues. Rocks were broken up and levelled when it
was necessary, ravines were filled, and excavations were made in
mountain sides. Velasco measured the width of the Inca roads, and found
them to be from six to seven yards, sufficiently wide when only foot
passengers used them. Gomara gives them a breadth of twenty-five feet,
and says that they were paved with smooth stones. These measurements
were confirmed by Humboldt as regards the roads in the Andes. The
road along the coast was forty feet wide, according to Zarate. The
Inca himself travelled in a litter, borne by mountaineers from the
districts of Soras and Lucanas. _Corpa-huasi_, or rest-houses, were
erected at intervals, and the government messengers, or _chasquis_, ran
with wonderful celerity from one of these stations to another, where
he delivered his message, or _quipu_, to the next runner. Thus news
was brought to the central government from all parts of The empire
with extraordinary rapidity, and the Inca ate fresh fish at Cuzco
which had been caught in the Pacific, three hundred miles away, on the
previous day. Store-houses, with arms, clothing, and provisions for the
soldiers, were also built at intervals along the roads, so that an army
could be concentrated at any point without previous preparation.

Closely connected with the facilities for communication, which were so
admirably established by the Incas, was the system of moving colonies
from one part of the empire to another. The evils of minute subdivision
were thus avoided, political objects were often secured, and the
comfort of the people was increased by the exchange of products. The
colonists were called _mitimaes_. For example, the people of the
Collao, round Lake Titicaca, lived in a region where corn would not
ripen, and if confined to the products of their native land they must
have subsisted solely on potatoes, quinua, and llama flesh. But the
Incas established colonies from their villages in the coast valleys
of Tacna and Moquegua, and in the forests to the eastward. There was
constant intercourse, and while the mother country supplied _chuñus_ or
preserved potatoes, _charqui_ or dried meat, and wool to the colonists,
there came back in return, corn and fruits and cotton cloth from the
coast, and the beloved coca from the forests.

Military colonies were also established on the frontiers, and the
armies of the Incas, in their marches and extensive travels, promoted
the circulation of knowledge, while this service also gave employment
to the surplus agricultural population. Soldiers were brought from all
parts of the empire, and each tribe or _ayllu_ was distinguished by its
arms, but more especially by its head-dress. The Inca wore the crimson
_llautu_, or fringe; the _Apu_, or general, wore a yellow _llautu_. One
tribe wore a puma’s head; the Cañaris were adorned with the feathers
of macaws, the Huacrachucus with the horns of deer, the Pocras and
Huamanchucus with a falcon’s wing feathers. The arms of the Incas and
Chancas consisted of a copper axe, called _champi_; a lance pointed
with bronze, called _chuqui_; and a pole with a bronze or stone head
in the shape of a six-pointed star, used as a club, called _macana_.
The Collas and Quichuas came with slings and _bolas_, the _Antis_ with
bows and arrows. Defensive armor consisted of a _hualcanca_ or shield,
the _umachucu_ or head-dress, and sometimes a breastplate. The perfect
order prevailing in civil life was part of the same system which
enforced strict discipline in the army; and ultimately the Inca troops
were irresistible against any enemy that could bring an opposing force
into the field. Only when the Incas fought against each other, as in
the last civil war, could the result be long doubtful.

[Illustration: PERUVIAN METAL WORKERS.

[Reproduction of a cut in Benzoni’s _Historia del Mondo Nuovo_
(1565). Cf. D. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 9, on the Peruvian
metal-workers.—ED.]]

[Illustration: PERUVIAN POTTERY.

[The tripod in this group is from Panama, the others are Peruvian. This
cut follows an engraving in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 41. There
are numerous cuts in Wiener, p. 589, etc. Cf. Stevens’s _Flint Chips_,
p. 271.—ED.]]

[Illustration: PERUVIAN DRINKING VESSEL.

[After a cut in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 45; showing a cup of
the Beckford collection. “There is an individuality in the head, at
once suggestive of portraiture.”—ED.]]

The artificers engaged in the numerous arts and on public works
subsisted on the government share of the produce. The artists who
fashioned the stones of the Sillustani towers or of the Cuzco temple
with scientific accuracy before they were fixed in their places, were
wholly devoted to their art. Food and clothing had to be provided for
them, and for the miners, weavers, and potters. Gold was obtained by
the Incas in immense quantities by washing the sands of the rivers
which flowed through the forest-covered province of Caravaya. Silver
was extracted from the ore by means of blasting-furnaces called
_huayra_; for, although quicksilver was known and used as a coloring
material, its properties for refining silver do not appear to have
been discovered. Copper was abundant in the Collao and in Charcas, and
tin was found in the hills on the east side of Lake Titicaca, which
enabled the Peruvians to use bronze very extensively.[1221] Lead was
also known to them. Skilful workers in metals fashioned the vases and
other utensils for the use of the Inca and of the temples, forged the
arms of the soldiers and the implements of husbandry, and stamped or
chased the ceremonial breastplates, _topus_, girdles, and chains. The
bronze and copper warlike instruments, which were star-shaped and used
as clubs, fixed at the ends of staves, were cast in moulds. One of
these club-heads, now in the Cambridge collection, has six rays, broad
and flat, and terminating in rounded points. Each ray represents a
human head, the face on one surface and the hair and back of the head
on the other. This specimen was undoubtedly cast in a mould. “It is,”
says Professor Putnam, “a good illustration of the knowledge which
the ancient Peruvians had of the methods of working metals and of the
difficult art of casting copper.”[1222]

[Illustration: UNFINISHED CLOTH FOUND AT PACHACAMAC.

[After a cut in Wiener, _Pérou et Bolivie_, p. 65.—ED.]]

Spinning, weaving, and dyeing were arts which were sources of
employment to a great number of people, owing to the quantity and
variety of the fabrics for which there was a demand. There were rich
dresses interwoven with gold or made of gold thread; fine woollen
mantles, or tunics, ornamented with borders of small square gold and
silver plates; colored cotton cloths worked in complicated patterns;
and fabrics of aloe fibre and sheeps’ sinews for breeches. Coarser
cloths of llama wool were also made in vast quantities. But the potters
art was perhaps the one which exercised the inventive faculties of the
Peruvian artist to the greatest extent. The silver and gold utensils,
with the exception of a very few cups and vases, have nearly all been
melted down. But specimens of pottery, found buried with the dead in
great profusion, are abundant. They are to be seen in every museum, and
at Berlin and Madrid the collections are very large.[1223] Varied as
are the forms to be found in the pottery of the Incas, and elegant as
are many of the designs, it must be acknowledged that they are inferior
in these respects to the specimens of the plastic art of the Chimu and
other people of the Peruvian coast. The Incas, however, displayed a
considerable play of fancy in their designs. Many of the vases were
moulded into forms to represent animals, fruit, and corn, and were used
as _conopas_, or household gods. Others took the shape of human heads
or feet, or were made double or quadruple, with a single neck branching
from below. Some were for interment with the _malquis_, others for
household use.[1224] Professor Wilson, who carefully examined several
collections of ancient Peruvian pottery, formed a high opinion of their
merit. “Some of the specimens,” he wrote, “are purposely grotesque,
and by no means devoid of true comic fancy; while, in the greater
number, the endless variety of combinations of animate and inanimate
forms, ingeniously rendered subservient to the requirements of utility,
exhibit fertility of thought in the designer, and a lively perceptive
faculty in those for whom he wrought.”[1225]

There is a great deal more to learn respecting this marvellous
Inca civilization. Recent publications have, within the last few
years, thrown fresh and unexpected light upon it. There may be more
information still undiscovered or inedited. As yet we can understand
the wonderful story only imperfectly, and see it by doubtful lights.
Respecting some questions, even of the first importance, we are still
able only to make guesses and weigh probabilities. Yet, though there
is much that is uncertain as regards historical and other points, we
have before us the clear general outlines of a very extraordinary
picture. In no other part of America had civilization attained to such
a height among indigenous races. In no other part of the world has the
administration of a purely socialistic government been attempted. The
Incas not only made the attempt, but succeeded.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE student of Inca civilization will first seek for information
from those Spanish writers who lived during or immediately after
the Spanish conquest. They were able to converse with natives who
actually flourished before the disruption of the Inca empire, and who
saw the working of the Inca system before the destruction and ruin
had well commenced. He will next turn to those laborious inquirers
and commentators who, although not living so near the time, were
able to collect traditions and other information from natives who
had carefully preserved all that had been handed down by their
fathers.[1226] These two classes include the writers of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. The authors who have occupied themselves
with the Quichua language and the literature of the Incas have produced
works a knowledge of which is essential to an adequate study of the
subject.[1227] Lastly, a consideration of the publications of modern
travellers and scholars, who throw light on the writings of early
chroniclers, or describe the present appearance of ancient remains,
will show the existing position of a survey still far from complete,
and the interest and charm of which invite further investigation and
research.

Foremost in the first class of writers on Peru is Pedro de Cieza de
Leon. A general account of his works will be found elsewhere,[1228]
and the present notice will therefore be confined to an estimate of
the labors of this author, so far as they relate to Inca history and
civilization. Cieza de Leon conceived the desire to write an account
of the strange things that were to be seen in the New World, at an
early period of his service as a soldier. “Neither fatigue,” he tells
us, “nor the ruggedness of the country, nor the mountains and rivers,
nor intolerable hunger and suffering, have ever been sufficient to
obstruct my two duties, namely, writing and following my flag and my
captain without fault.” He finished the First Part of his chronicle
in September, 1550, when he was thirty-two years of age. It is mainly
a geographical description of the country, containing many pieces of
information, such as the account of the Inca roads and bridges, which
are of great value. But it is to the Second Part that we owe much of
our knowledge of Inca civilization. From incidental notices we learn
how diligently young Cieza de Leon studied the history and government
of the Incas, after he had written his picturesque description of the
country in his First Part. He often asked the Indians what they knew of
their condition before the Incas became their lords. He inquired into
the traditions of the people from the chiefs of the villages. In 1550
he went to Cuzco with the express purpose of collecting information,
and conferred diligently with one of the surviving descendants of the
Inca Huayna Ccapac. Cieza de Leon’s plan, for the second part of his
work, was first to review the system of government of the Incas, and
then to narrate the events of the reign of each sovereign. He spared
no pains to obtain the best and most authentic information, and his
sympathy with the conquered people, and generous appreciation of their
many good and noble qualities, give a special charm to his narrative.
He bears striking evidence to the historical faculty possessed by the
learned men at the court of the Incas. After saying that on the death
of a sovereign the chroniclers related the events of his reign to his
successor, he adds: “They could well do this, for there were among
them some men with good memories, sound judgments, and subtle genius,
and full of reasoning power, as we can bear witness who have heard
them even in these our days.” Cieza de Leon is certainly one of the
most important authorities on Inca history and civilization, whether
we consider his peculiar advantages, his diligence and ability, or his
character as a conscientious historian.

Juan José de Betanzos, like Cieza de Leon, was one of the soldiers of
the conquest. He married a daughter of Atahualpa, and became a citizen
at Cuzco, where he devoted his time to the study of Quichua. He was
appointed official interpreter to the Audience and to successive
viceroys, and he wrote a _Doctrina_ and two vocabularies which are
now lost. In 1558 he was appointed by the viceroy Marquis of Cañete,
to treat with the Inca Sayri Tupac,[1229] who had taken refuge in the
fastness of Vilcabamba; and by the Governor Lope Garcia de Castro, to
conduct a similar negotiation with Titu Cusi Yupanqui, the brother
of Sayri Tupac. He was successful in both missions. He wrote his
most valuable work, the _Suma y Narracion de los Incas_, which was
finished in the year 1551, by order of the Viceroy Don Antonio de
Mendoza, but its publication was prevented by the death of the viceroy.
It remained in manuscript, and its existence was first made known
by the Dominican monk Gregorio Garcia in 1607, whose own work will
be referred to presently. Garcia said that the history of Betanzos
relating to the origin, descent, succession, and wars of the Incas was
in his possession, and had been of great use to him. Leon Pinelo and
Antonio also gave brief notices of the manuscript, but it is only twice
cited by Prescott. The great historian probably obtained a copy of a
manuscript in the Escurial, through Obadiah Rich. This manuscript is
bound up with the second part of Cieza de Leon. It is not, however,
the whole work which Garcia appears to have possessed, but only the
first eighteen chapters, and the last incomplete. Such as it is, it was
edited and printed for the _Biblioteca Hispano-Ultramarina_, by Don
Márcos Jiménez de la Espada, in 1880.[1230]

The work of Betanzos differs from that of Cieza de Leon, because
while the latter displays a diligence and discretion in collecting
information which give it great weight as an authority, the former
is imbued with the very spirit of the natives. The narrative of the
preparation of young Yupanqui for the death-struggle with the Chancas
is life-like in its picturesque vigor. Betanzos has portrayed native
feeling and character as no other Spaniard has, or probably could have
done. Married to an Inca princess, and intimately conversant with the
language, this most scholarly of the conquerors is only second to Cieza
de Leon as an authority. The date of his death is unknown.

Betanzos and Cieza de Leon, with Pedro Pizarro, are the writers among
the conquerors whose works have been preserved. But these three
martial scholars by no means stand alone among their comrades as
authors. Several other companions of Pizarro wrote narratives, which
unfortunately have been lost.[1231] It is indeed surprising that the
desire to record some account of the native civilization they had
discovered should have been so prevalent among the conquerors. The fact
scarcely justifies the term “rude soldiery,” which is so often applied
to the discoverers of Peru.

The works of the soldier conquerors are certainly not less valuable
than those of the lawyers and priests who followed on their heels. Yet
these latter treat the subject from somewhat different points of view,
and thus furnish supplemental information. The works of four lawyers
of the era of the conquest have been preserved, and those of another
are lost. Of these, the writings of the Licentiate Polo de Ondegardo
are undoubtedly the most important. This learned jurist accompanied
the president, La Gasca, in his campaign against Gonzalo Pizarro,
having arrived in Peru a few years previously, and he subsequently
occupied the post of corregidor at Cuzco. Serving under the Viceroy
Don Francisco de Toledo, he was constantly consulted by that acute but
narrow-minded statesman. His duties thus led Polo de Ondegardo to make
diligent researches into the laws and administration of the Incas, with
a view to the adoption of all that was applicable to the new régime.
But his knowledge of the language was limited, and it is necessary to
receive many of his statements with caution. His two _Relaciones_,
the first dedicated to the Viceroy Marques de Cañete (1561), and the
second finished in 1570,[1232] are in the form of answers to questions
on financial revenue and other administrative points. They include
information respecting the social customs, religious rites, and laws of
the Incas. These _Relaciones_ are still in manuscript. Another report
by Polo de Ondegardo exists in the National Library at Madrid,[1233]
and has been translated into English for the Hakluyt Society.[1234] In
this treatise the learned corregidor describes the principles on which
the Inca conquests were made, the division and tenures of land, the
system of tribute, the regulations for preserving game and for forest
conservancy, and the administrative details. Here and there he points
out a way in which the legislation of the Incas might be imitated and
utilized by their conquerors.[1235]

Agustin de Zarate, though a lawyer by profession, had been employed for
some years in the financial department of the Spanish government before
he went out to Peru with the Viceroy Blasco Nuñez to examine into the
accounts of the colony. On his return to Spain he was entrusted with
a similar mission in Flanders. His _Provincìa del Peru_ was first
published at Antwerp in 1555.[1236] Unacquainted with the native
languages, and ignorant of the true significance of much that he was
told, Zarate was yet a shrewd observer, and his evidence is valuable as
regards what came under his own immediate observation. He gives one of
the best descriptions of the Inca roads.

The _Relacion_ of Fernando de Santillan is a work which may be classed
with the reports of Polo de Ondegardo, and its author had equal
advantages in collecting information. Going out to Peru as one of
the judges of the Audiencia in 1550,[1237] Santillan was for a short
time at the head of the government, after the death of the Viceroy
Mendoza, and he took the field to suppress the rebellion of Giron. He
afterwards served in Chile and at Quito, where he was commissioned to
establish the court of justice. Returning to Spain, he took orders,
and was appointed Bishop of the La Plata, but died at Lima, on his
way to his distant see, in 1576. The _Relacion_ of Santillan remained
in manuscript, in the library of the Escurial, until it was edited by
Don Márcos Jiménez de la Espada in 1879. This report appears to have
been prepared in obedience to a decree desiring the judges of Lima to
examine aged and learned Indians regarding the administrative system of
the Incas. The report of Santillan is mainly devoted to a discussion of
the laws and customs relating to the collection of tribute. He bears
testimony to the excellence of the Inca government, and to the wretched
condition to which the country had since been reduced by Spanish
misrule.

The work of the Licentiate Juan de Matienzo, a contemporary of
Ondegardo, entitled _Gobierno de el Peru_, is still in manuscript. Like
Santillan and Ondegardo, Matienzo discusses the ancient institutions
with a view to the organization of the best possible system under
Spanish rule.[1238]

Melchor Bravo de Saravia, another judge of the Royal Audience at Lima,
and a contemporary of Santillan, is said to have written a work on the
antiquities of Peru; but it is either lost or has not yet been placed
within reach of the student. It is referred to by Velasco. Cieza de
Leon mentions, at the end of his Second Part, that his own work had
been perused by the learned judges Hernando de Santillan and Bravo de
Saravia.

While the lawyers turned their attention chiefly to the civil
administration of the conquered people, the priests naturally studied
the religious beliefs and languages of the various tribes, and
collected their historical traditions. The best and most accomplished
of these sacerdotal authors appears to have been Blas Valera, judging
from the fragments of his writings which have escaped destruction. He
was a native of Peru, born at Chachapoyas in 1551, where his father,
Luis Valera,[1239] one of the early conquerors, had settled. Young Blas
was received into the Company of Jesus at Lima when only seventeen
years of age, and, as he was of Inca race on the mother’s side, he
soon became useful at the College in Cuzco from his proficiency in the
native languages. He did missionary work in the surrounding villages,
and acquired a profound knowledge of the history and institutions of
the Incas. Eventually he completed a work on the subject in Latin,
and was sent to Spain by his Jesuit superiors with a view to its
publication. Unfortunately the greater part of his manuscript was burnt
at the sack of Cadiz by the Earl of Essex in 1596, and Blas Valera
himself died shortly afterwards. The fragments that were rescued fell
into the hands of Garcilasso de la Vega, who translated them into
Spanish, and printed them in his _Commentaries_. It is to Blas Valera
that we owe the preservation of two specimens of Inca poetry and an
estimate of Inca chronology. He has also recorded the traditional
sayings of several Inca sovereigns, and among his fragments there are
very interesting chapters on the religion, the laws and ordinances, and
the language of the Incas, and on the vegetable products and medicinal
drugs of Peru. These fragments are evidence that Blas Valera was an
elegant scholar, a keen observer, and thoroughly master of his subject.
They enhance the feeling of regret at the irreparable loss that we have
sustained by the destruction of the rest of his work.

Next to Blas Valera, the most important authority on Inca civilization,
among the Spanish priests who were in Peru during the sixteenth
century, is undoubtedly Christoval de Molina. He was chaplain to the
hospital for natives at Cuzco, and his work was written between 1570
and 1584, the period embraced by the episcopate of Dr. Sebastian de
Artaun, to whom it is dedicated. Molina gives minute and detailed
accounts of the ceremonies performed at all the religious festivals
throughout the year, with the prayers used by the priests on each
occasion. Out of the fourteen prayers preserved by Molina, four are
addressed to the Supreme Being, two to the sun, the rest to these
and other deities combined. His mastery of the Quichua language, his
intimacy with the native chiefs and learned men, and his long residence
at Cuzco give Molina a very high place as an authority on Inca
civilization. His work has remained in manuscript,[1240] but it has
been translated into English and printed for the Hakluyt Society.[1241]

Molina, in his dedicatory address to Bishop Artaun, mentions a
previous narrative which he had submitted, on the origin, history, and
government of the Incas. Fortunately this account was preserved by
Miguel Cavello Balboa, an author who wrote at Quito between 1576 and
1586. Balboa, a soldier who had taken orders late in life, went out
to America in 1566, and settled at Quito, where he devoted himself to
the preparation and writing of a work which he entitled _Miscellanea
Austral_. It is in three parts; but only the third, comprising about
half the work, relates to Peru. Balboa tells us that his authority for
the early Inca traditions and history was the learned Christoval de
Molina, and this gives special value to Balboa’s work. Moreover, Balboa
is the only authority who gives any account of the origin of the coast
people, and he also supplies a detailed narrative of the war between
Huascar and Atahualpa. The portion relating to Peru was translated into
French and published by Ternaux Compans in 1840.[1242]

The Jesuits who arrived in Peru during the latter part of the
sixteenth century were devoted to missionary labors, and gave an
impetus to the study of the native languages and history. Among the
most learned was José de Acosta, who sailed for Peru in 1570. At the
early age of thirty-five, Acosta was chosen to be Provincial of the
Jesuits in Peru, and his duties required him to travel over every part
of the country. His great learning, which is displayed in his various
theological works, qualified him for the task of writing his _Natural
and Moral History of the Indies_, the value of which is increased
by the author’s personal acquaintance with the countries and their
inhabitants. Acosta went home in the Spanish fleet of 1587, and his
first care, on his return to Spain, was to make arrangements for the
publication of his manuscripts. The results of his South American
researches first saw the light at Salamanca, in Latin, in 1588 and
1589. The complete work in Spanish, _Historia Natural y Moral de las
Indias_, was published at Seville in 1590. Its success was never
doubtful.[1243] In his latter years Acosta presided over the Jesuits’
College at Salamanca, where he died in his sixtieth year, on February
15, 1600.[1244] In spite of the learning and diligence of Acosta and of
the great popularity of his work, it cannot be considered one of the
most valuable contributions towards a knowledge of Inca civilization.
The information it contains is often inaccurate, the details are
less complete than in most of the other works written soon after the
conquest,[1245] and a want of knowledge of the language is frequently
made apparent. The best chapters are those devoted to the animal and
vegetable products of Peru; and Feyjoo calls Acosta the Pliny of the
New World.[1246]

The Licentiate Fernando Montesinos, a native of Osuna, was one of the
most diligent of all those who in early times made researches into the
history and traditions of the Incas. Montesinos went out in the fleet
which took the Viceroy Count of Chinchon to Peru, arriving early in
the year 1629. Having landed at Payta, Montesinos travelled southwards
towards the capital until he reached the city of Truxillo. At that
time Dr. Carlos Marcelino Corni was Bishop of Truxillo.[1247] Hearing
of the virtue and learning of Montesinos, Dr. Corni begged that he
might be allowed to stop at Truxillo, and take charge of the Jesuits’
College which the good bishop had established there. Montesinos
remained at Truxillo until the death of Bishop Corni, in October,
1629,[1248] and then proceeded to Potosi, where he gave his attention
to improvements in the methods of extracting silver. He wrote a book
on the subject, which was printed at Lima, and also compiled a code
of ordinances for mines with a view to lessening disputes, which was
officially approved. Returning to the capital, he lived for several
years at Lima as chaplain of one of the smaller churches, and devoted
all his energies to the preparation of a history of Peru. Making Lima
his headquarters, the indefatigable student undertook excursions into
all parts of the country, wherever he heard of learned natives to be
consulted, of historical documents to be copied, or of information to
be found. He travelled over 1,500 leagues, from Quito to Potosi. In
1639 he was employed to write an account of the famous Auto de Fé which
was celebrated at Lima in that year. His two great historical works
are entitled _Memorias Antiguas Historiales del Peru_, and _Anales ó
Memorias Nuevas del Peru_.[1249] From Lima Montesinos proceeded to
Quito as “Visitador General,” with very full powers conferred by the
bishop.

The work of Montesinos remained in manuscript until it was translated
into French by M. Ternaux Compans in 1840, with the title _Mémoires
Historiques sur l’ancien Pérou_. In 1882 the Spanish text was very
ably edited by Don Márcos Jiménez de la Espada.[1250] Montesinos gives
the history of several dynasties which preceded the rise of the Incas,
enumerating upwards of a hundred sovereigns. He professes to have
acquired a knowledge of the ancient records through the interpretations
of the _quipus_, communicated to him by learned natives. It was long
supposed that the accounts of these earlier sovereigns received no
corroboration from any other authority. This furnished legitimate
grounds for discrediting Montesinos. But a narrative, as old or older
than that of the licentiate, has recently been brought to light, in
which at least two of the ancient sovereigns in the lists of Montesinos
are incidentally referred to. This circumstance alters the aspect
of the question, and places the _Memorias Antiquas del Peru_ in a
higher position as an authority; for it proves that the very ancient
traditions which Montesinos professed to have received from the natives
had previously been communicated to one other independent inquirer at
least.

This independent inquirer is an author whose valuable work has
recently been edited by Don Márcos Jiménez de la Espada.[1251] His
narrative is anonymous, but internal evidence establishes the fact
that he was a Jesuit, and probably one of the first who arrived in
Peru in 1568, although he appears to have written his work many years
afterwards. The anonymous Jesuit supplies information respecting
works on Peruvian civilization which are lost to us. He describes the
temples, the orders of the priesthood, the sacrifices and religious
ceremonies, explaining the origin of the erroneous statement that human
sacrifices were offered up. He also gives the code of criminal law and
the customs which prevailed in civil life, and concludes his work with
a short treatise on the conversion of the Indians.

The efforts of the viceroys and archbishops of Lima during the early
part of the seventeenth century to extirpate idolatry, particularly
in the province of Lima, led to the preparation of reports by the
priests who were entrusted with the duty of extirpation, which
contain much curious information. These were the Fathers Hernando
de Avendaño, Francisco de Avila, Luis de Teruel, and Pablo José de
Arriaga. Avendaño, in addition to his sermons in Quichua, wrote an
account of the idolatries of the Indians,—_Relacion de las Idolatrias
de los Indios_,—which is still in manuscript. Avila was employed in
the province of Huarochiri, and in 1608 he wrote a report on the idols
and superstitions of the people, including some exceedingly curious
religious legends. He appears to have written down the original
evidence from the mouths of the Indians in Quichua, intending to
translate it into Spanish. But he seems to have completed only six
chapters in Spanish; or perhaps the translation is by another hand.
There are still thirty-one chapters in Quichua awaiting the labors
of some learned Peruvian scholar. Rising Quichua students, of whom
there are not a few in Peru, could undertake no more useful work.
This important report of Avila is comprised in a manuscript volume
in the National Library at Madrid, and the six Spanish chapters have
been translated and printed for the Hakluyt Society.[1252] Teruel was
the friend and companion of Avila. He also wrote a treatise on native
idolatries,[1253] and another against idolatry,[1254] in which he
discusses the origin of the coast people. Arriaga wrote a still more
valuable work on the extirpation of idolatry, which was printed at Lima
in 1621, and which relates the religious beliefs and practices of the
people in minute detail.[1255]

Antiquarian treasures of great value are buried in the works of
ecclesiastics, the principal objects of which are the record of the
deeds of one or other of the religious fraternities. The most important
of these is the _Coronica Moralizada del orden de San Augustin en el
Peru; del Padre Antonio de la Calancha_ (1638-1653),[1256] which is
a precious storehouse of details respecting the manners and customs
of the Indians and the topography of the country. Calancha also gives
the most accurate Inca calendar. Of less value is the chronicle of the
Franciscans, by Diego de Cordova y Salinas, published at Madrid in 1643.

A work, the title of which gives even less promise of containing
profitable information, is the history of the miraculous image of a
virgin at Copacabana, by Fray Alonso Ramos Gavilan. Yet it throws
unexpected light on the movements of the _mitimaes_, or Inca colonists;
it gives fresh details respecting the consecrated virgins, the
sacrifices, and the deities worshipped in the Collao, and supplies
another version of the Inca calendar.[1257]

The work on the origin of the Indians of the New World, by Fray
Gregorio Garcia,[1258] who travelled extensively in the Spanish
colonies, is valuable, and to Garcia we owe the first notice of the
priceless narrative of Betanzos. His separate work on the Incas is lost
to us.[1259] Friar Martin de Múrua, a native of Guernica, in Biscay,
was an ecclesiastic of some eminence in Peru. He wrote a general
history of the Incas, which was copied by Dr. Muñoz for his collection,
and Leon Pinelo says that the manuscript was illustrated with colored
drawings of insignia and dresses, and portraits of the Incas.[1260]

The principal writers on Inca civilization in the century immediately
succeeding the conquest, of the three different professions,—soldiers,
lawyers, and priests,—have now been passed in review. Attention must
next be given to the native writers who followed in the wake of Blas
Valera. First among these is the Inca Garcilasso de la Vega, an author
whose name is probably better known to the general reader than that
of any other who has written on the same subject. Among the Spanish
conquerors who arrived in Peru in 1534 was Garcilasso de la Vega, a
cavalier of very noble lineage,[1261] who settled at Cuzco, and was
married to an Inca princess named Chimpa Ocllo, niece of the Inca
Huayna Ccapac. Their son, the future historian, was born at Cuzco in
1539, and his earliest recollections were connected with the stirring
events of the civil war between Gonzalo Pizarro and the president La
Gasca, in 1548. His mother died soon afterwards, probably in 1550,
and his father married again. The boy was much in the society of his
mother’s kindred, and he often heard them talk over the times of the
Incas, and repeat their historical traditions. Nor was his education
neglected; for the good Canon Juan de Cuellar read Latin with the
half-caste sons of the citizens of Cuzco for nearly two years, amidst
all the turmoil of the civil wars. As he grew up, he was employed by
his father to visit his estates, and he travelled over most parts of
Peru. The elder Garcilasso de la Vega died in 1560, and the young
orphan resolved to seek his fortune in the land of his fathers. On his
arrival in Spain he received patronage and kindness from his paternal
relatives, became a captain in the army of Philip II, and when he
retired, late in life, he took up his abode in lodgings at Cordova,
and devoted himself to literary pursuits. His first production was a
translation from the Italian of “The Dialogues of Love,” and in 1591
he completed his narrative of the expedition of Hernando de Soto to
Florida.[1262]

[Illustration: HOUSE IN CUZCO IN WHICH GARCILASSO WAS BORN.

[After a cut in Marcoy, i. 219. Cf. Squier’s _Peru_, p. 449.—ED.]]

As years rolled on, the Inca began to think more and more of the land
of his birth. The memory of his boyish days, of the long evening chats
with his Inca relations, came back to him in his old age. He was as
proud of his maternal descent from the mighty potentates of Peru as
of the old Castilian connection on his father’s side. It would seem
that the appearance of several books on the subject of his native land
finally induced him to undertake a work in which, while recording
its own reminiscences and the information he might collect, he could
also comment on the statements of other authors. Hence the title of
_Commentaries_ which he gave to his work. Besides the fragments of the
writings of Blas Valera, which enrich the pages of Garcilasso, the
Inca quotes from Acosta, from Gomara, from Zarate, and from the First
Part of Cieza de Leon.[1263] He was fortunate in getting possession of
the chapters of Blas Valera rescued from the sack of Cadiz. He also
wrote to all his surviving schoolfellows for assistance, and received
many traditions and detailed replies on other subjects from them. Thus
Alcobasa forwarded an account of the ruins at Tiahuanacu, and another
friend sent him the measurements of the great fortress at Cuzco.

The Inca Garcilasso de la Vega is, without doubt, the first authority
on the civilization of his ancestors; but it is necessary to consider
his qualifications and the exact value of his evidence. He had lived
in Peru until his twentieth year; Quichua was his native language,
and he had constantly heard the traditions of the Incas related and
discussed by his mother’s relations. But when he began to write he had
been separated from these associations for upwards of thirty years.
He received materials from Peru, enabling him to compose a connected
historical narrative, which is not, however, very reliable. The true
value of his work is derived from his own reminiscences, aroused by
reading the books which are the subjects of his Commentary, and from
his correspondence with friends in Peru. His memory was excellent, as
is often proved when he corrects the mistakes of Acosta and others
with diffidence, and is invariably right. He was not credulous, having
regard to the age in which he lived; nor was he inclined to give the
rein to his imagination. More than once we find him rejecting the
fanciful etymologies of the authors whose works he criticises. His
narratives of the battles and conquests of the early Incas often become
tedious, and of this he is himself aware. He therefore intersperses
them with more interesting chapters on the religious ceremonies, the
domestic habits and customs, of the people, and on their advances in
poetry, astronomy, music, medicine, and the arts. He often inserts
an anecdote from the storehouse of his memory, or some personal
reminiscence called forth by the subject on which he happens to be
writing. His statements frequently receive undesigned corroboration
from authors whose works he never saw. Thus his curious account of the
water sacrifices, not mentioned by any other published authority, is
verified by the full description of the same rite in the manuscript
of Molina. On the other hand, the long absence of the Inca from his
native country entailed upon him grave disadvantages. His boyish
recollections, though deeply interesting, could not, from the nature of
the case, provide him with critical knowledge. Hence the mistakes in
his work are serious and of frequent occurrence. Dr. Villar has pointed
out his total misconception of the Supreme Being of the Peruvians, and
of the significance of the word “Uira-cocha.”[1264] But, with all its
shortcomings,[1265] the work of the Inca Garcilasso de la Vega must
ever be the main source of our knowledge, and without his pious labors
the story of the Incas would lose more than half its interest.

The first part of his _Commentarios Reales_, which alone concerns the
present subject, was published at Lisbon in 1607.[1266] The author died
at Cordova at the age of seventy-six, and was buried in the cathedral
in 1616. He lived just long enough to accomplish his most cherished
wish, and to complete the work at which he had steadily and lovingly
labored for so many years.

Another Indian author wrote an account of the antiquities of Peru, at
a time when the grandchildren of those who witnessed the conquest by
the Spaniards were living. Unlike Garcilasso, this author never left
the land of his birth, but he was not of Inca lineage. Don Juan de
Santacruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua was a native of the Collao, and
descended from a family of local chiefs. His work is entitled _Relacion
de Antigüedades deste Reyno del Peru_. It long remained in manuscript
in the National Library at Madrid, until it was edited by Don Márcos
Jiménez de la Espada in 1879. It had previously been translated into
English and edited for the Hakluyt Society.[1267] Salcamayhua gives
the traditions of Inca history as they were handed down to the third
generation after the conquest. Intimately acquainted with the language,
and in a position to converse with the oldest recipients of native
lore, he is able to record much that is untold elsewhere, and to
confirm a great deal that is related by former authors. He has also
preserved two prayers in Quichua, attributed to Manco Ccapac, the first
Inca, and some others, which add to the number given by Molina. He also
corroborates the important statement of Molina, that the great gold
plate in the temple at Cuzco was intended to represent the Supreme
Being, and not the sun. Salcamayhua is certainly a valuable addition to
the authorities on Peruvian history.

[Illustration

NOTE.—The title-page of the fifth decade Herrera, showing the
Inca portraits, is given above. Cf. the plate in Stevens’s English
translation of Herrera, vol. iv., London, 1740, 2d edition.—ED.]

While so many soldiers and priests and lawyers did their best to
preserve a knowledge of Inca civilization, the Spanish government
itself was not idle. The kings of Spain and their official advisers
showed an anxiety to prevent the destruction of monuments and to
collect historical and topographical information which is worthy of
all praise. In 1585, orders were given to all the local authorities
in Spanish America to transmit such information, and a circular,
containing a series of interrogatories, was issued for their guidance.
The result of this measure was, that a great number of _Relaciones
descriptivas_ were received in Spain, and stored up in the archives of
the Indies. Herrera had these reports before him when he was writing
his history, but it is certain that he did not make use of half
the material they contain.[1268] Another very curious and valuable
source of information consists of the reports on the origin of Inca
sovereignty, which were prepared by order of the Viceroy Don Francisco
de Toledo, and forwarded to the council of the Indies. They consist
of twenty documents, forming a large volume, and preceded by an
introductory letter. The viceroy’s object was to establish the fact
that the Incas had originally been usurpers, in forcibly acquiring
authority over the different provinces of the empire, and dispossessing
the native chiefs. His inference was, that, as usurpers, they were
rightfully dethroned by the Spaniards. He failed to see that such an
argument was equally fatal to a Spanish claim, based on anything but
the sword. Nevertheless, the traditions collected with this object,
not only from the Incas at Cuzco, but also from the chiefs of several
provinces, are very important and interesting.[1269]

The Viceroy Toledo also sent home four cloths on which the pedigree of
the Incas was represented. The figures of the successive sovereigns
were depicted, with medallions of their wives, and their respective
lineages. The events of each reign were recorded on the borders,
the traditions of Paccari-tampu, and of the creation by Uira-cocha,
occupying the first cloth. It is probable that the Inca portraits
given by Herrera were copied from those on the cloths sent home
by the viceroy. The head-dresses in Herrera are very like that of
the high-priest in the _Relacion_ of the anonymous Jesuit. A map
seems to have accompanied the pedigree, which was drawn under the
superintendence of the distinguished sailor and cosmographer, Don Pedro
Sarmiento de Gamboa.[1270]

Much curious information respecting the laws and customs of the
Incas and the beliefs of the people is to be found in ordinances and
decrees of the Spanish authorities, both civil and ecclesiastical.
These ordinances are contained in the _Ordenanzas del Peru_, of the
Licentiate Tomas de Ballesteros, in the _Politica Indiana_ of Juan de
Solorzano (Madrid, 1649),[1271] in the _Concilium Limense_ of Acosta,
and in the _Constituciones Synodales_ of Dr. Lobo Guerrero, Archbishop
of Lima, printed in that city in 1614, and again in 1754.

The kingdom of Quito received attention from several early writers,
but most of their manuscripts are lost to us. Quito was fortunate,
however, in finding a later historian to devote himself to the work
of chronicling the story of his native land. Juan de Velasco was a
native of Riobamba. He resided for forty years in the kingdom of Quito
as a Jesuit priest, he taught and preached in the native language of
the people, and he diligently studied all the works on the subject
that were accessible to him. He spent six years in travelling over
the country, twenty years in collecting books and manuscripts; and
when the Jesuits were banished he took refuge in Italy, where he wrote
his _Historia del Reino de Quito_. Velasco used several authorities
which are now lost. One of these was the _Conquista de la Provincia
del Quito_, by Fray Marco de Niza, a companion of Pizarro. Another was
the _Historia de las guerras civiles del Inca Atahualpa_, by Jacinto
Collahuaso. He also refers to the _Antigüedades del Peru_ by Bravo
de Saravia. As a native of Quito, Velasco is a strong partisan of
Atahualpa; and he is the only historian who gives an account of the
traditions respecting the early kings of Quito. The work was completed
in 1789, brought from Europe, and printed at Quito in 1844, and M.
Ternaux Compans brought out a French edition in 1840.[1272]

Recent authors have written introductory essays on Peruvian
civilization to precede the story of the Spanish conquest, have
described the ruins in various parts of the country after personal
inspection, or have devoted their labors to editing the early
authorities, or to bringing previously unknown manuscripts to light,
and thus widening and strengthening the foundation on which future
histories may be raised.

[Illustration: WILLIAM ROBERTSON.

[After a print in the _European Mag._ (1802), vol. xli.—ED.]]

Robertson’s excellent view of the story of the Incas in his _History
of America_[1273] was for many years the sole source of information on
the subject for the general English public; but since 1848 it has been
superseded by Prescott’s charming narrative contained in the opening
book of his _Conquest of Peru_.[1274] The knowledge of the present
generation on the subject of the Incas is derived almost entirely from
Prescott, and, so far as it goes, there can be no better authority. But
much has come to light since his time. Prescott’s narrative, occupying
159 pages, is founded on the works of Garcilasso de la Vega, who is
the authority most frequently cited by him, Cieza de Leon, Ondegardo,
and Acosta.[1275] Helps, in the chapter of his _Spanish Conquest_ on
Inca civilization, which covers forty-five pages, only cited two early
authorities not used by Prescott,[1276] and his sketch is much more
superficial than that of his predecessor.[1277]

The publication of the _Antigüedades Peruanas_ by Don Mariano Eduardo
de Rivero (the director of the National Museum at Lima) and Juan Diego
de Tschudi at Vienna, in 1851, marked an important turning-point in the
progress of investigation. One of the authors was himself a Peruvian,
and from that time some of the best educated natives of the country
have given their attention to its early history. The _Antigüedades_
for the first time gives due prominence to an estimate of the language
and literature of the Incas, and to descriptions of ruins throughout
Peru. The work is accompanied by a large atlas of engravings; but it
contains grave inaccuracies, and the map of Pachacamac is a serious
blemish to the work.[1278] The _Antigüedades_ were followed by the
_Annals of Cuzco_,[1279] and in 1860 the _Ancient History of Peru_,
by Don Sebastian Lorente, was published at Lima.[1280] In a series of
essays in the _Revista Peruana_,[1281] Lorente gave the results of many
years of further study of the subject, which appear to have been the
concluding labors of a useful life. When he died, in November, 1884,
Sebastian Lorente had been engaged for upwards of forty years in the
instruction of the Peruvian youth at Lima and in other useful labors.
A curious genealogical work on the Incarial family was published at
Paris in 1850, by Dr. Justo Sahuaraura Inca, a canon of the cathedral
of Cuzco, but it is of no historical value.[1282]

Several scholars, both in Europe and America, have published the
results of their studies relating to the problems of Inca history.
Ernest Desjardins has written on the state of Peru before the
Spanish conquest,[1283] J. G. Müller on the religious beliefs of the
people,[1284] and Waitz on Peruvian anthropology.[1285] The writings
of Dr. Brinton, of Philadelphia, also contain valuable reflections and
useful information respecting the mythology and native literature of
Peru.[1286] Mr. Bollaert had been interested in Peruvian researches
during the greater part of his lifetime (b. 1807; d. 1876), and had
visited several provinces of Peru, especially Tarapaca. He accumulated
many notes. His work, at first sight, appears to be merely a confused
mass of jottings, and certainly there is an absence of method and
arrangement; but closer examination will lead to the discovery of many
facts which are not to be met with elsewhere.[1287]

A critical study of early authorities and a knowledge of the Quichua
language are two essential qualifications for a writer on Inca
civilization. But it is almost equally important that he should have
access to intelligent and accurate descriptions of the remains of
ancient edifices and public works throughout Peru. For this he is
dependent on travellers, and it must be confessed that no descriptions
at all meeting the requirements were in existence before the opening of
the present century. Humboldt was the first traveller in South America
who pursued his antiquarian researches on a scientific basis. His works
are models for all future travellers. It is to Humboldt,[1288] and his
predecessors the Ulloas,[1289] that we owe graphic descriptions of Inca
ruins in the kingdom of Quito and in northern Peru as far as Caxamarca.
French travellers have contributed three works of importance to the
same department of research. M. Alcide D’Orbigny examined and described
the ruins of Tiahuanacu with great care.[1290] M. François de Castelnau
was the leader of a scientific expedition sent out by the French
government, and his work contains descriptions of ruins illustrated by
plates.[1291] The work of M. Wiener is more complete, and is intended
to be exhaustive. He was also employed by the French government on an
archæological and ethnographic mission to Peru, from 1875 to 1877, and
he has performed his task with diligence and ability, while no cost
seems to have been spared in the production of his work.[1292] The
maps and illustrations are numerous and well executed, and M. Wiener
visited nearly every part of Peru where archæological remains are to
be met with. There is only one fault to be found with the praiseworthy
and elaborate works of D’Orbigny and Wiener. The authors are too apt to
adopt theories on insufficient grounds, and to confuse their otherwise
admirable descriptions with imaginative speculations. An example of
this kind has been pointed out by the Peruvian scholar Dr. Villar,
with reference to M. Wiener’s erroneous ideas respecting _Culte de
l’eau ou de la pluie, et le dieu Quonn_.[1293] M. Wiener is the only
modern traveller who has visited and described the interesting ruins of
Vilcashuaman.

The present writer has published two books recording his travels in
Peru. In the first he described the fortress of Hervay, the ancient
irrigation channels at Nasca on the Peruvian coast, and the ruins at
and around Cuzco, including Ollantay-tampu.[1294] In the second there
are descriptions of the _chulpas_ at Sillustani in the Collao, and of
the Inca roof over the Sunturhuasi at Azangaro.[1295]

The work of E. G. Squier is, on the whole, the most valuable result
of antiquarian researches in Peru that has ever been presented to the
public.[1296] Mr. Squier had special qualifications for the task. He
had already been engaged on similar work in Nicaragua, and he was well
versed in the history of his subject. He visited nearly all the ruins
of importance in the country, constructed plans, and took numerous
photographs. Avoiding theoretical disquisitions, he gives most accurate
descriptions of the architectural remains, which are invaluable to the
student. His style is agreeable and interesting, while it inspires
confidence in the reader; and his admirable book is in all respects
thoroughly workmanlike.[1297]

[Illustration: CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM.

[After a photograph kindly furnished by himself at the editor’s
request.—ED.]]

Tiahuanacu is minutely described by D’Orbigny, Wiener, and Squier, and
the famous ruins have also been the objects of special attention from
other investigators. Mr. Helsby of Liverpool took careful photographs
of the monolithic doorway in 1857, which were engraved and published,
with a descriptive article by Mr. Bollaert.[1298] Don Modesto Basadre
has also written an account of the ruins, with measurements.[1299]
But the most complete monograph on Tiahuanacu is by Mr. Inwards, who
surveyed the ground, photographed all the ruins, made enlarged drawings
of the sculptures on the monolithic doorway, and even attempted an
ideal restoration of the palace. In the letter-press, Mr. Inwards
quotes from the only authorities who give any account of Tiahuanacu,
and on this particular point his monograph entitles him to be
considered as the highest modern authority.[1300]

Another special investigation of equal interest, and even greater
completeness, is represented by the superb work on the burial-ground
of Ancon, being the results of excavations made on the spot by Wilhelm
Reiss and Alphonso Stübel. The researches of these painstaking and
talented antiquaries have thrown a flood of light on the social habits
and daily life of the civilized people of the Peruvian coast.[1301]

The great work of Don Antonio Raimondi on Peru is still incomplete.
The learned Italian has already devoted thirty-eight years to the
study of the natural history of his adopted country, and the results
of his prolonged scientific labors are now gradually being given to
the public. The plan of this exhaustive monograph is a division into
six parts, devoted to the geography, geology, mineralogy, botany,
zoölogy, and ethnology of Peru. The geographical division will contain
a description of the principal ancient monuments and their ruins,
while the ethnology will include a treatise on the ancient races,
their origin and civilization. But as yet only three volumes have been
published. The first is entitled _Parte Preliminar_, describing the
plan of the work and the extent of the author’s travels throughout
the country. The second and third volumes comprise a history of the
progress of geographical discovery in Peru since the conquest by
Pizarro. The completion of this great work, undertaken under the
auspices of the government of Peru, has been long delayed.[1302]

The labors of explorers are supplemented by the editorial work of
scholars, who bring to light the precious relics of early authorities,
hitherto buried in scarcely accessible old volumes or in manuscript.
First in the ranks of these laborers in the cause of knowledge, as
regards ancient Peruvian history, stands the name of M. Ternaux
Compans. He has furnished to the student carefully edited French
editions of the narrative of Xeres, of the history of Peru by Balboa,
of the _Mémoires Historiques_ of Montesinos, and of the history of
Quito by Velasco.[1303]

The present writer has translated into English and edited the works
of Cieza de Leon, Garcilasso de la Vega, Molina, Salcamayhua, Avila,
Xeres, Andagoya, and one of the reports of Ondegardo, and has edited
the old translation of Acosta.

Dr. M. Gonzalez de la Rosa, an accomplished Peruvian scholar, brought
to light and edited, in 1879, the curious _Historia de Lima_ of Father
Bernabé Cobo. It was published in successive numbers of the _Revista
Peruana_, at Lima.

[Illustration: MÁRCOS JIMÉNEZ DE LA ESPADA.

[After a photograph, kindly furnished by himself, at the editor’s
request.—ED.]]

But in this department students are most indebted to the learned
Spanish editor, Don Márcos Jiménez de la Espada; for he has placed
within our reach the works of important authorities, which were
previously not only inaccessible, but unknown. He has edited the second
part of Cieza de Leon, the anonymous Jesuit, Montesinos, Santillana,
the reports to the Viceroy Toledo, the _Suma y Narracion_ of Betanzos,
and the _War of Quito_, by Cieza de Leon. Moreover, there is every
reason to hope that his career of literary usefulness is by no means
ended.

Although so much has been accomplished in the field of Peruvian
research, yet much remains to be done, both by explorers and in
the study. The Quichua chapters of the work of Avila, containing
curious myths and legends, remain untranslated and in manuscript.
A satisfactory text of the Ollantay drama, after collation of all
accessible manuscripts, has not yet been secured. Numerous precious
manuscripts have yet to be unearthed in Spain. Songs of the times of
the Incas exist in Peru, which should be collected and edited. There
are scientific excavations to be undertaken, and secluded districts to
be explored. The Yunca grammar of Carrera requires expert comparative
study, and comparison with the Eten dialect. Remnants of archaic
languages, such as the Puquina of the Urus, must be investigated. When
all this, and much more, has been added to existing means of knowledge,
the labors of pioneers will approach completion. Then the time will
have arrived for the preparation of a history of ancient Peruvian
civilization which will be worthy of the subject.[1304]

[Illustration: [Autograph: Clements R Markham]]

* * * * *

NOTES.

=I.= ANCIENT PEOPLE OF THE PERUVIAN COAST.—There was a civilized people
on the coast of Peru, but not occupying the whole coast, which was
distinctly different, both as regards race and language, from the Incas
and their cognate tribes. This coast nation was called _Chimu_, and
their language _Mochica_.[1305]

The numerous valleys on the Peruvian coast, separated by sandy deserts
of varying width, required only careful irrigation to render them
capable of sustaining a large population. The aboriginal inhabitants
were probably a diminutive race of fishermen. Driven southwards
by invaders, they eventually sought refuge in Arica and Tarapaca.
D’Orbigny described their descendants as a gentle, hospitable race
of fishermen, never exceeding five feet in height, with flat noses,
fishing in boats of inflated sealskins, and sleeping in huts of
sealskin on heaps of dried seaweed. They are called Changos. Bollaert
mentions that they buried their dead lengthways. Bodies found in this
unusual posture near Cañete form a slight link connecting the Changos
to the south with the early aboriginal race of the more northern
valleys.

The _Chimu_ people drove out the aborigines and occupied the valleys of
the coast from Payta nearly to Lima, forming distinct communities, each
under a chief more or less independent. The _Chimu_ himself ruled over
the five valleys of Parmunca, Hualli, Huanapu, Santa, and Chimu, where
the city of Truxillo now stands. The total difference of their language
from Quichua makes it clear that the Chimus did not come from the Andes
or from the Quito country. The only other alternative is that they
arrived from the sea. Balboa, indeed, gives a detailed account of the
statements made by the coast Indians of Lambayeque, at the time of the
conquest. They declared that a great fleet arrived on the coast some
generations earlier, commanded by a chief named Noymlap, who had with
him a green-stone idol, and that he founded a dynasty of chiefs.

The _Chimu_ and his subjects, let their origin be what it may, had
certainly made considerable advances in civilization. The vast palaces
of the Chimu near the seashore, with a surrounding city, and great
mounds or artificial hills, are astonishing even in their decay. The
principal hall of the palace was 100 feet long by 52. The walls are
covered with an intricate and very effective series of arabesques on
stucco, worked in relief. A neighboring hall, with walls stuccoed in
color, is entered by passages and skirted by openings leading to small
rooms seven feet square, which may have been used as dormitories.
A long corridor leads from the back of the arabesque hall to some
recesses where gold and silver vessels have been found. At a short
distance from this palace there is a sepulchral mound where many
relics have been discovered. The bodies were wrapped in cloths woven
in ornamental figures and patterns of different colors. On some of the
cloths plates of silver were sewn, and they were edged with borders
of feathers, the silver plates being occasionally cut in the shapes
of fishes and birds. Among the ruins of the city there are great
rectangular areas enclosed by massive walls, containing buildings,
courts, streets, and reservoirs for water.[1306] The largest is about
a mile south of the palace, and is 550 yards long by 400. The outer
wall is about 30 feet high and 10 feet thick at the base, with sides
inclining towards each other. Some of the interior walls are highly
ornamented in stuccoed patterns; and in one part there is an edifice
containing 45 chambers or cells, which is supposed to have been a
prison. The enclosure also contained a reservoir 450 feet long by 195,
and 60 feet deep.

The dry climate favored the adornment of outer walls by color, and
those of the Chimu palaces were covered with very tasteful sculptured
patterns. Figures of colored birds and animals are said to have been
painted on the walls of temples and palaces. Silver and gold ornaments
and utensils, mantles richly embroidered, robes of feathers, cotton
cloths of fine texture, and vases of an infinite variety of curious
designs, are found in the tombs.

Cieza de Leon gives us a momentary glimpse at the life of the Chimu
chiefs. Each ruler of a valley, he tells us, had a great house with
adobe pillars, and doorways hung with matting, built on extensive
terraces. He adds that the chiefs dressed in cotton shirts and long
mantles, and were fond of drinking-bouts, dancing and singing. The
walls of their houses were painted with bright colored patterns and
figures. Such places, rising out of the groves of fruit-trees, with the
Andes bounding the view in one direction and the ocean in the other,
must have been suitable abodes for joy and feasting. Around them were
the fertile valleys, peopled by industrious cultivators, and carefully
irrigated. Their irrigation works were indeed stupendous. “In the
valley of Nepeña the reservoir is three fourths of a mile long by more
than half a mile broad, and consists of a massive dam of stone 80 feet
thick at the base, carried across a gorge between two rocky hills.
It was supplied by two canals at different elevations; one starting
fourteen miles up the valley, and the other from springs five miles
distant.”[1307]

[Illustration: SECTION OF A MUMMY-CASE FROM ANCON.

[After a cut given by Ruge, following a plate in _The Necropolis of
Ancon_. Wiener (p. 44) gives a section of one of the Ancon tombs. See a
cut in Squier’s _Peru_, p. 73.—ED.]]

The custom prevalent among the Chimus of depositing with their dead
all objects of daily use, as well as ornaments and garments worn by
them during life, has enabled us to gain a further insight into the
social history of this interesting people. The researches of Reuss and
Stübel at the necropolis of Ancon, near Lima, have been most important.
Numerous garments, interwoven with work of a decorative character,
cloths of many colors and complicated patterns, implements used in
spinning and sewing, work-baskets of plaited grass, balls of thread,
fingerrings, wooden and clay toys, are found with the mummies. The
spindles are richly carved and painted, and attached to them are terra
cotta cylinders aglow with ornamental colorings which were used as
wheels. Fine earthenware vases of varied patterns, and wooden or clay
dishes, also occur.

Turning to the language of the coast people, we find that no Mochica
dictionary was ever made; but there is a grammar and a short list of
words by Carrera, and the Lord’s prayer in Mochica, by Bishop Oré. The
grammar was composed by a priest who had settled at Truxillo, near
the ruins of the Chimu palace, and who was a great-grandson of one of
the first Spanish conquerors. It was published at Lima in 1644. At
that time the Mochica language was spoken in the valleys of Truxillo,
Chicama, Chocope, Sana, Lambayeque, Chiclayo, Huacabamba, Olmos, and
Motupè. When the _Mercurio Peruano_[1308] was published in 1793, this
language is said to have entirely disappeared. Father Carrera tells us
that the Mochica was so very difficult that he was the only Spaniard
who had ever been able to learn it. The words bear no resemblance
whatever to Quichua. Mochica has three different declensions, Quichua
only one. Mochica has no transitive verbs, and no exclusive and
inclusive plurals, which are among the chief characteristics of
Quichua. The Mochica conjugations are formed in quite a different way
from those in the Quichua language. The Mochica system of numerals
appears to have been very complete. With the language, the people
have now almost if not entirely disappeared. Possibly the people of
Eten, south of Lambayeque, who still speak a peculiar language, may be
descendants of the Chimus.

[Illustration: MUMMY FROM A HUACA AT PISCO.

[After a cut in T. J. Hutchinson’s _Two Years in Peru_ (London, 1873),
vol. i. p. 113. The Peruvian mummies are almost invariably simply
desiccated. Only the royal personages were embalmed (Markham’s _Cieza
de Leon_, 226). Cf. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 135.—ED.]]

The Chimu dominion extended probably from Tumbez, in the extreme north
of the Peruvian coast, to Ancon, north of Lima. The Chimus also had
a strong colony in the valley of Huarcu, now called Cañete. But the
valleys of the Rimac, of Lurin, Chilca, and Mala, north of Cañete;
and those of Chincha, Yca, and Nasca, south of Cañete; were not Chimu
territory. The names of places in those valleys are all Quichua,
as well as the names of their chiefs, as recorded by Garcilasso de
la Vega and others. The inhabitants were, therefore, of Inca race,
probably colonists from the Huanca nation. Their superstitions as told
by Arriaga, and the curious mythological legends recorded by Avila as
being believed by the people of Huarochiri and the neighboring coast,
all point to an Inca origin. These Inca coast people are said to have
had a famous oracle near the present site of Lima, called “Rimac,” or
“He who speaks.” But more probably it was merely the name given to the
noisy river Rimac, babbling over its stones. It is true that there
was a temple on the coast with an oracle, the fame of which had been
widely spread. The idol called Pachacamac, or “The world-creator,”
was described by the first Spanish visitor, Miguel Estete, as being
made of wood and very dirty. The town was then half in ruins, for the
worship of this local deity was neglected after the conquest by the
Incas. These coast people of Inca race were as industrious as their
Chimu neighbors. In the Nasca valley there is a complete network of
underground watercourses for irrigation. At Yca “they removed the sand
from vast areas, until they reached the requisite moisture, then put in
guano from the islands, and thus formed sunken gardens of extraordinary
richness.”[1309] Similar methods were adopted in the valleys of Pisco
and Chilca.

When the Inca Pachacutec began to annex the coast valleys, he met
with slight opposition only from the people of Inca origin, who soon
submitted to his rule. But the Chimus struggled hard to retain their
independence. Those of the Huarcu (_Cañete_) valley made a desperate
and prolonged resistance. When at length they submitted, the Inca
built a fortress and palace on a rocky eminence overlooking the sea to
overawe them. The ruins now called Hervai are particularly interesting,
because they are the principal and most imposing example of Inca
architecture in which the building material is adobes and not stone.
The conquest of the valleys to the north of Lima and of the grand Chimu
himself was a still more difficult undertaking, necessitating more
than one hard-fought campaign. When it was completed, great numbers of
the best fighting-men among the Chimus were deported to the interior
as _mitimaes_. More than a century had elapsed since this conquest
when the Spaniards arrived, so that there was but slight chance of the
history of the Chimus being even partially preserved. Cieza de Leon and
Balboa alone supply us with notices of any value.[1310] The southern
valleys of the coast, Arequipa, Moquegua, and Tacna, were occupied by
_mitimaes_ or colonists from the Collao. The Incas gave the general
name of _yuncas_, or dwellers in the warm valleys, to all the people of
the coast.

Much mystery surrounds the history and origin of the _Chimu_ people.
That they were wholly separate and unconnected with the other races of
Peru seems almost certain. That they were far advanced in civilization
is clear. Difficulties surround any further prosecution of researches
concerning them. They have themselves disappeared from the face of the
earth. Their language has gone with them. But there are the magnificent
ruins of their palaces and temples. There are numerous tombs and
cemeteries which have never been scientifically examined. There is a
grammar and a small vocabulary of words calling for close comparative
examination. There are crania awaiting similar comparative study. There
is a possibility that further information may be gleaned from inedited
Spanish manuscripts. The subject is a most interesting one, and it is
by no means exhausted.

[Illustration: TAPESTRY FROM THE GRAVES OF ANCON.

[After a cut in Ruge’s _Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, p.
429, following the colored plate in _The Necropolis of Ancon_. Wiener
reproduces in black and white many of the Ancon specimens.—ED.]]

=II.= THE QUICHUA LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.—No real progress can be
made in the work of elucidating the ancient history of Peru, and in
unravelling the interesting but still unsolved questions relating to
the origin and development of Inca civilization, without a knowledge
of the native language. The subject has accordingly received the close
attention of laborious students from a very early period, and the
present essay would be incomplete without appending an enumeration of
the Quichua grammars and vocabularies, and of works relating to Inca
literature.

Fray Domingo de San Tomas, a Dominican monk, was the first author who
composed a grammar and vocabulary of the language of the Incas. He gave
it the name of Quichua, probably because he had studied with members of
that tribe, who were of pure Inca race, and whose territory lies to the
westward of Cuzco. The name has since been generally adopted for the
language of the Peruvian empire.[1311]

Diego de Torres Rubio was born in 1547, in a village near Toledo,
became a Jesuit at the age of nineteen, and went out to Peru in 1577.
He studied the native languages with great diligence, and composed
grammars and vocabularies. His grammar and vocabulary of Quichua first
appeared at Saville in 1603, and passed through four editions.[1312]
A long residence in Chuquisaca enabled him to acquire the Aymara
language, and in 1616 he published a short grammar and vocabulary of
Aymara. In 1627 he also published a grammar of the Guarani language.
Torres Rubio was rector of the college at Potosi for a short time, but
his principal labors were connected with missionary work at Chuquisaca.
He died in that city at the great age of ninety-one, on the 13th of
April, 1638. Juan de Figueredo, whose Chinchaysuyu vocabulary is bound
up with later editions of Torres Rubio, was born at Huancavelica in
1648, of Spanish parents, and after a long and useful missionary life
he died at Lima in 1724.

The most voluminous grammatical work on the language of the Incas
had for its author the Jesuit Diego Gonzales Holguin. This learned
missionary was the scion of a distinguished family in Estremadura,
and was befriended in his youth by his relation, Don Juan de Obando,
President of the Council of the Indies. After graduating at Alcalá
de Henares he became a member of the Society of Jesus in 1568, and
went out to Peru in 1581. He resided for several years in the Jesuit
college at Juli, near the banks of Lake Titicaca, where the fathers had
established a printing-press, and here he studied the Quichua language.
He was entrusted with important missions to Quito and Chili, and was
nominated interpreter by the Viceroy Toledo. His later years were
passed in Paraguay, and when he died at the age of sixty-six, in 1618,
he was rector of the college at Asuncion. His Quichua dictionary was
published at Lima in 1586, and a second edition appeared in 1607,[1313]
the same year in which the grammar first saw the light.[1314] The
Quichua grammar of Holguin is the most complete and elaborate that has
been written, and his dictionary is also the best in every respect.

While Holguin was studiously preparing these valuable works on the
Quichua language in the college at Juli, a colleague was laboring with
equal zeal and assiduity at the dialect spoken by the people of the
Collao, to which the Jesuits gave the name of Aymara. Ludovico Bertonio
was an Italian, a native of the marches of Ancona. Arriving in Peru in
1581, he resided at Juli for many years, studying the Aymara language,
until, attacked by gout, he was sent to Lima, where he died at the age
of seventy-three, in 1625. His Aymara grammar was first published at
Rome in 1603,[1315] but a very much improved second edition,[1316] and
a large dictionary of Aymara,[1317] were products of the Jesuit press
at Juli in 1612. Bertonio also wrote a catechism and a life of Christ
in Aymara, which were printed at Juli.

A vocabulary of Quichua by Fray Juan Martinez was printed at Lima in
1604, and another in 1614. Four Quichua grammars followed during the
seventeenth century. That of Alonso de Huerta was published at Lima in
1616; the grammar of the Franciscan Diego de Olmos appeared in 1633;
Don Juan Roxo Mexia y Ocon, a native of Cuzco, and professor of Quichua
at the University of Lima, published his grammar in 1648; and the
grammar of Estevan Sancho de Melgar saw the light in 1691.[1318] Leon
Pinelo also mentions a Quichua grammar by Juan de Vega. The anonymous
Jesuit refers to a Quichua dictionary by Melchior Fernandez, which is
lost to us.

In 1644 Don Fernando de la Carrera, the Cura of Reque, near Chiclayo,
published his grammar of the Yunca language, at Lima. This is the
language which was once spoken in the valleys of the Peruvian coast
by the civilized people whose ruler was the grand Chimu. Now the
language is extinct, or spoken only by a few Indians in the coast
village of Eten. The work of Carrera is therefore important, as, with
the exception of a specimen of the language preserved by Bishop Oré,
it is the only book in which the student can now obtain any linguistic
knowledge of the lost civilization. The Yunca grammar was reprinted in
numbers in the _Revista de Lima_ of 1880 and following years.[1319]

There was a professorial chair for the study of Quichua in the
University of San Márcos at Lima, and the language was cultivated,
during the two centuries after the conquest, as well by educated
natives as by many Spanish ecclesiastics. The sermons of Dr. Don
Fernando de Avendaño have already been referred to.[1320] Dr.
Lunarejo, of Cuzco, was another famous Quichuan preacher, and the
_Confesionarios_ and catechisms in the language were very numerous.
Bishop Louis Geronimo Oré, of Guamanga, in his ritualistic manual,
gives the Lord’s prayer and commandments, not only in Quichua and
Aymara, but also in the Puquina language spoken by the Urus on Lake
Titicaca, and in the Yunca language of the coast, which he calls
Mochica.[1321]

A very curious book was published at Lima in 1602, which, among other
things, treats of the Quichua language and of the derivations of names
of places. The author, Don Diego D’Avalos y Figueroa, appears to have
been a native of La Paz. He was possessed of sprightly wit, was well
read, and a close observer of nature. We gather from his _Miscelanea
Austral_[1322] the names of birds and animals, and of fishes in Lake
Titicaca, as well as the opinions of the author on the cause of the
absence of rain on the Peruvian coast, on the lacustrine system of the
Collao, and on other interesting points of physical geography.[1323]

In modern times the language of the Incas has received attention from
students of Peruvian history. The joint authors, Dr. Von Tschudi and
Don Mariano Eduardo de Rivero, in their work entitled _Antigüedades
Peruanas_, published at Vienna in 1851, devote a chapter to the
Quichua language. Two years afterwards Dr. Von Tschudi published a
Quichua grammar and dictionary, with the text of the Inca drama of
Ollantay, and other specimens of the language.[1324] The present
writer’s contributions towards a grammar and dictionary of Quichua
were published by Trübner in 1864, and a few years previously a more
complete and elaborate work had seen the light at Sucre, the capital of
Bolivia. This was the grammar and dictionary by Father Honorio Mossi,
of Potosi, a large volume containing thorough and excellent work.[1325]
Lastly a Quichua grammar by José Dionisio Anchorena was published at
Lima in 1874.[1326]

The curious publication of Don José Fernandez Nodal in 1874 is not so
much a grammar of the Quichua Language as a heterogeneous collection
of notes on all sorts of subjects, and can scarcely take a place among
serious works. The author was a native of Arequipa, of good family, but
he was carried away by enthusiasm and allowed his imagination to run
riot.[1327]

The gospel of St. Luke, with Aymara and Spanish in parallel columns,
was translated from the vulgate by Don Vicente Pazos-kanki, a graduate
of the University of Cuzco, and published in London in 1829;[1328] and
more recently a Quichua version of the gospel of St. John, translated
by Mr. Spilsbury, an English missionary, has appeared at Buenos
Ayres.[1329] These publications and others of the same kind have a
tendency to preserve the purity of the language, and are therefore
welcome to the student of Incarial history.

Quichua has been the subject of detailed comparative study by more
than one modern philologist of eminence. The discussion of the Quichua
roots by the learned Dr. Vicente Fidel Lopez is a most valuable
addition to the literature of the subject; while the historical section
of his work is a great aid to a critical consideration of Montesinos
and other early authorities. Whatever may be thought of his theoretical
opinions, and of the considerations by which he maintains them, there
can be no doubt that Dr. Lopez has rendered most important service to
all students of Peruvian history.[1330] The theoretical identification
of Quichuan roots with those of Turanian and Iberian languages, as it
has been elaborated by Mr. Ellis, is also not without its use, quite
apart from the truth or otherwise of any linguistic theory.[1331]

[Illustration: FROM TIMANÁ.

[After a cut in William Bollaert’s _Antiquarian Researches_, etc., p.
41, showing a stone figure from Timana in New Granada, an antiquity of
the Muiscas, found in a dense forest, with no tradition attached.—ED.]]

Editorial labors connected with the publication of the text and of
translations of the Inca drama of Ollantay have recently conduced, in
an eminent degree, to the scholarly study of Quichua, while they have
sensibly contributed to a better knowledge of the subject. Von Tschudi
was the first to publish the text of Ollantay, in the second part of
his _Kechua Sprache_, having given extracts from the drama in the
chapter on the Quichua language in the _Antigüedades Peruanas_. After
a long interval he brought out a revised text with a parallel German
translation,[1332] from his former manuscript, collated with another
bearing the date of La Paz, 1735.

The drama, in the exact form that it existed when represented before
the Incas, is of course lost to us. It was handed down by tradition
until it was arranged for representation, divided into scenes, and
supplied with stage directions in Spanish times. Several manuscripts
were preserved, which differ only slightly from each other; and they
were looked upon as very precious literary treasures by their owners.
The drama was first publicly brought to notice by Don Manuel Palacios,
in the _Museo Erudito_, a periodical published at Cuzco in 1837; but
it was not until 1853 that the text was printed by Von Tschudi. His
manuscript was copied from one preserved in the Dominican monastery at
Cuzco by one of the monks. The transcription was made between 1840 and
1845 for the artist Rugendas, of Munich, who gave it to Von Tschudi.
There was another old manuscript in the possession of Dr. Antonio
Valdez, the priest of Sicuani, who lived in the last century, and was
a friend of the unfortunate Tupac Amaru. Dr. Valdez died in 1816; and
copies of his manuscript were possessed by Dr. Pablo Justiniani, the
aged priest of Laris, a village in the heart of the eastern Andes, and
by Dr. Rosas, the priest of Chinchero. The present writer made a copy
of the Justiniani manuscript at Laris, which he collated with that of
Dr. Rosas. In 1871 he published the text of his copy, with an attempt
at a literal English translation.[1333] In 1868 Dr. Barranca published
a Spanish translation from the text of Von Tschudi, now called the
Dominican text.[1334] The Peruvian poet Constantino Carrasco afterwards
brought out a version of the drama of Ollantay in verse, paraphrased
from the translation of Barranca.[1335] The enthusiastic Peruvian
student, Dr. Nodal, printed a different Quichua text with a Spanish
translation, in parallel columns, in 1874.[1336]

There are other manuscripts, and a text has not yet been derived
from a scholarly collation of the whole of them. There is one in the
possession of Dr. Gonzalez de la Rosa, which belonged to Dr. Justo
Sahuaraura Inca, Archdeacon of Cuzco, and descendant of Paullu, the
younger son of Huayna Ccapac. In 1878 the Quichua scholar and native of
Cuzco, Don Gavino Pacheco Zegarra, published the text of Ollantay at
Paris, from a manuscript found among the books of his great-uncle, Don
Pedro Zegarra. He added a very free translation in French, and numerous
valuable notes. The work of Zegarra is by far the most important
that has appeared on this subject, for the accomplished Peruvian has
the great advantage of knowing Quichua from his earliest childhood.
With this advantage, not possessed by any previous writer, he unites
extensive learning and considerable critical sagacity.[1337]

The reasons for assigning an ancient date to this drama of Ollantay
are conclusive in the judgment of all Quichua scholars. On this point
there is a consensus of opinion. But General Mitre, the ex-President
of the Argentine Republic, published an essay in 1881, to prove that
Ollantay was of Spanish origin and was written in comparatively
modern times.[1338] The present writer replied to his arguments in
the introduction (p. xxix) to the English translation of the second
part of _Cieza de Leon_ (1883), and this reply was translated into
Spanish and published at Buenos Ayres in the same year, by Don Adolfo
F. Olivares, accompanied by a critical note from the pen of Dr. Vicente
Lopez.[1339] The latest publication on the subject of Ollantay consists
of a series of articles in the _Ateneo de Lima_, by Don E. Larrabure y
Unanue, the accomplished author of a history of the conquest of Peru,
not yet published. The general conclusion which has been arrived at
by Quichua scholars, after this thorough sifting of the question, is
that, although the division into scenes and the stage directions are
due to some Spanish hand, and although some few Hispanicisms may have
crept into some of the texts, owing to the carelessness or ignorance
of transcribers, yet that the drama of Ollantay, in all essential
points, is of Inca origin. Several old songs are imbedded in it, and
others have been preserved by Quichua scholars at Cuzco and Ayacucho,
and in the neighborhood of those cities. The editing of these remains
of Inca literature will, at some future time, throw further light
on the history of the past. There are several learned Peruvians who
devote themselves to Incarial studies, besides Señor Zegarra, who now
resides in Spain. Among them may be mentioned Dr. Villar of Cuzco, a
ripe scholar, who has recently published a closely reasoned essay on
the word _Uira-cocha_, Don Luis Carranza, and Don Martin A. Mujica, a
native of Huancavelica.

=III.= THE NEW GRANADA TRIBES.—The incipient civilization of the
Chibchas or Muiscas of New Granada was first made generally known by
Humboldt (_Vues des Cordillères_, octavo ed., ii. 220-67; _Views of
Nature_, Eng. trans., 425). Cf. also, E. Uricoechea’s _Memorias sobre
las Antigüedades néo-granadinas_ (Berlin, 1854); Bollaert; Rivero and
Von Tschudi; Nadaillac, 459; and Joseph Acosta’s _Compendio historico
del Descubrimiento de la Nueva Granada_ (Paris, 1848; with transl. in
Bollaert).

CHAPTER V.

THE RED INDIAN OF NORTH AMERICA IN CONTACT WITH THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH.

BY GEORGE E. ELLIS, D. D., LL. D.

_President of the Massachusetts Historical Society._

THE relations into which the first Europeans entered with the
aborigines in North America were very largely influenced, if not
wholly decided, by the relations which they found to exist among the
tribes on their arrival here. Those relations were fiercely hostile.
The new-comers in every instance and in every crisis found their
opportunity and their immunity in the feuds existing among tribes
already in conflict with each other. This state of things, while it
gave the whites enemies, also furnished them with allies. So far as the
whites could learn in their earliest inquiries, internecine strife had
been waging here among the natives from an indefinite past.

Starting, then, from this hostile relation between the native tribes of
the northerly parts of the continent, we may trace the development of
our subject through five periods:—

1. The first period, a very brief one, is marked by the presence
of a single European nationality here, the French, for whom, under
stringency of circumstance that he might be in friendly alliance with
one tribe, Champlain was compelled to espouse its existing feud with
other tribes.

2. The next period opens with the appearance and sharp rivalry here of
a second European nationality, the English, the hereditary foe of the
French, transferring hither their inherited animosities, amid which the
Indians were ground as between two mill-stones.

3. Upon the extinction of French dominion on the continent by the
English, the former red allies of the French, with secret prompting and
help from the dispossessed party, were stirred with fresh animosities
against the victors.

4. Yet again the open hostilities of contending Indian tribes were
largely turned to account, to their own harm, in their respective
alliances with the English colonies or with the mother-country in the
War of Independence.

5. The closing period is that which is still in progress as covering
the relations with them of the United States government. The old
hostilities between those tribes have been steadily of less account in
affecting their later fortunes; and our government has not found it
essential or expedient to aggravate its own severity against its Indian
subjects, or “wards,” by availing itself of the feuds between them.

The same antagonisms which had kept the Indian tribes in hostility
with each other prevented their effective alliance among themselves
against the whites, and also embarrassed the English and French
rivals, who sought to engage them on their respective sides. Many
attempts were made by master chiefs among the savages, from the first
intrusion of the Europeans, to organize combinations, or what we call
“conspiracies,” of formerly contending tribes against the common foe.
The first of them, formidable though limited in its consequences, was
made in Virginia in 1622. Only two of these schemes proved otherwise
than wholly abortive. That of King Philip in New England, in 1675, was
effective enough to show what havoc such a combination might work. That
of Pontiac, in 1763, was vastly more formidable, and was thwarted only
by a resistance which engaged at several widely severed points all the
warlike resources of the English. But the inherent difficulties, both
of combining the Indian tribes among themselves, and of engaging some
of them in alliance on either side with the French and the English
contestants, were vastly increased by the seeds of sharp dissension
sown among them through the rivalries in trade and temptations offered
in the fluctuating prices of peltries. Even the long-standing league of
the Five Nations was ruptured by the resolute English agent Johnson.
He succeeded so far as to secure a promise of neutrality from some of
them, and a promise of friendly help from one of them. There were some
in each of the tribes falling not one whit behind the sharpest of the
whites in skilled sagacity and calculation, who were swift to mark and
to interpret the changes in the balance of fortune, as one or the other
of the parties of their common enemies made a successful stroke for
ascendency.

The facilities for alliance with one or another native tribe against
its enemies made for the Europeans a vast difference in the results
of their warfare with the aborigines. One might venture positively to
assert that the occupancy of this continent by Europeans would have
been indefinitely deferred and delayed had all its native tribes, in
amity with each other, or willing for the occasion to arrest their
feuds, made a bold and united front to resist the first intrusion upon
their common domains. Certainly the full truth of this assertion might
be illustrated as applicable to many incidents and crises in the first
feeble and struggling fortunes of our original colonists in various
exposed and inhospitable places. In many cases absolute starvation was
averted only by the generous hospitality of the Indians. Taking into
view the circumstances under which, from the first, tentative efforts
were made for a permanent occupancy by the whites on our whole coast
from Nova Scotia to Florida, and along the lakes and great western
valleys, we must admit that their fortunes had more of peril than of
promise. While, of course, we must refer their success and security in
large measure to the forbearance, tolerance, and real kindliness of
the natives, yet it was well proved that as soon as the jealousy of
these natives was stirred at any threatened encroachment, only their
own feuds disabled them from any united opposition, and gave to one or
another tribe the alternative of fighting the white intruders or of an
alliance with them against their neighbor enemies. The whole series
of the successive encroachments of Europeans on this continent is a
continuous illustration of the successful turning to their own account
of the strife of Indians against Indians. And when two rival European
nationalities opened their two centuries of warfare for dominion on
this continent, each party at once availed itself of red allies ready
to renew or prolong their own previous hostilities.

The French Huguenots in Florida and the Spaniards who massacred
them had each of them allies among the tribes which were in mutual
hostility. Champlain was grievously perplexed by the pressure, to which
none the less he yielded, that if he would be in amity with the Hurons
he must espouse their deadly enmity with the Iroquois. Even the poor
remnants of the tribe with which the Pilgrims of Plymouth made their
treaty of peace, which lasted for fifty years, were the vanquished and
tributary representatives of a broken people. A sharp war and a more
deadly plague had made that colony a possibility.

And so it comes to pass that, if we attempt to define at any period
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the conflicts between
the savages and Europeans on this continent, we have to look for the
explanation of any special change in the relations of the Indian tribes
to the varying interests and collisions of the different foreign
nationalities in rivalry here. The hostilities between the French
and the English were chronic and continuous. Frenchman’s Bay, at Mt.
Desert, preserves the memorial of the first collision, when Argall,
from Virginia, broke up the attempted settlement of Saussaye.[1340]
As to the later developments of the antagonism, resulting in the
extinction of French possession here, we are to refer them in about
equal measure to two main causes,—the jealousy of the home governments,
and the keen rivalry of the respective colonists for the lucrative
spoils of the fur trade. The profit of traffic may be regarded as
furnishing the prompting for strife on this side of the water, while
the passion for territorial conquest engaged the intrigues and the
armies of foreign courts in the stakes of wilderness warfare.

In tracing the course of such warfare we must take into our view two
very effective agencies, which introduced important modifications
in the methods and results of that warfare. In its progress these
two agencies became more and more chargeable with very serious
consequences. The first of these is the change induced in the warfare
of the Indians by their possession of, leading steadily to a dependence
upon, the white man’s firearms and supplies. The second is the usage,
which the Indians soon learned to be profitable, of reserving their
white prisoners for ransom, instead of subjecting them to death or
torture.

When we read of some of the earliest so-called “deeds” by which the
English colonists obtained from the sachems wide spaces of territory
on the consideration of a few tools, hatchets, kettles, or yards of
cloth, we naturally regard the transaction as simply illustrating the
white man’s rapacity and cunning in tricking the simplicity of the
savage. But we may be sure that in many such cases the Indian secured
what was to him a full equivalent for that with which he parted. For,
as the whites soon learned by experience, the savages supposed that
in such transactions they were not alienating the absolute ownership
of their lands, but only covenanting for the right of joint occupancy
with the English. And then the coveted tools or implements obtained by
them represented a value and a use not measurable by any reach of wild
territory. A metal kettle, a spear, a knife, a hatchet, transformed
the whole life of a savage. A blanket was to him a whole wardrobe.
When he came to be the possessor of firearms and ammunition, having
before regarded himself the equal of the white man, he at once became
his superior. We shall see how the rivalry between the French and
the English for traffic with the Indians, the enterprise of traders
in pushing into the wilderness with pack-horses, the establishment
of trucking houses, the facility with which the natives could obtain
coveted goods from either party, and the occasional failure of
supplies in the contingencies of warfare, were on many occasions the
turning-points in the fights in the wilderness, and in the shifting of
savage partisanship from one side to the other, as the fickle allies
found their own interests at stake.

It was in 1609, when Champlain invaded the Iroquois country, on the
lake that bears his name, that the astounded savages first saw the
flash and marked the deadly effect of his arquebuse. But the shock soon
spent itself. The weapon was found to be a terrestrial one, made and
put to service by a man. The Dutch on the Hudson very soon supplied the
Mohawks with this effective instrument for prosecuting the fur trade.
The French began the general traffic with the Indians near the St.
Lawrence, in metal vessels, knives, hatchets, awls, cotton and woollen
goods, blankets, and that most coveted of all the white man’s stores,
the maddening “fire-water.” But farther north and west for full two
hundred years, from 1670 quite down to our own time, annual cargoes of
these commodities were imported through Hudson Bay by the chartered
company, and had been distributed by its agents among those who paid
for them in peltries, in such abundance that the savages became really
dependent upon them, and gradually conformed their habits to the use of
them. Of course, in their raids upon English outposts, the spoils of
war in the shape of such supplies added rapacity to their ferocity. It
was with a proud flourish that Indian warriors, enriched by the plunder
on the field of Braddock’s disastrous defeat, strutted before the walls
of Fort Duquesne, arrayed in the laced hats, sashes, uniform, and
gorgets of British officers.

When Céloron was sent, in 1749, by the governor of Canada, to take
possession of interior posts along the Alleghanies, he found at
each of the Indian villages, as at Logstown, a chief centre, from a
single to a dozen English traders, well supplied with goods for a
brisk peltry traffic. He required the chiefs, on the threat of the
loss of his favor, to expel them and to forbid their return. But the
Indians insisted that they needed the goods. Some of these traders
were worthless reprobates, mostly Scotch-Irish, from the frontiers of
Pennsylvania. When Christopher Gist was sent, the next year, by the
Ohio Land Company, to follow Céloron and to thwart his schemes, he
complained strongly of these demoralized and demoralizing traders. In
the evidence given before the British House of Commons on the several
occasions when the monopoly and the mode of business of the Hudson
Bay Company were under question, the extent to which the natives had
come to depend upon European supplies was very strongly brought into
notice. It was urged that some of the tribes had actually, by disuse,
lost their skill in their old weapons. It was even affirmed that in
some of the tribes multitudes had died by freezing and starvation,
because their recent supplies had failed them. This dependence of the
natives upon the resources of civilization, observable from the opening
of their intercourse with the whites, has been steadily strengthening
for two hundred years, till now it has become an absolute and heavy
exaction upon our national treasury.

* * * * *

The custom which soon came in, to soften the atrocities of Indian
warfare by the holding of white prisoners for ransom, was grafted upon
an earlier usage among the natives of adopting prisoners or captives.
There was a formal ceremonial in such cases, and after its performance
those who would otherwise have been victims were treated with all
kindness. The return of a war-party to its own village was attended
with widely different manifestations according to the fortune which
had befallen it. If it consisted only of a baffled and flying remnant
that had failed in its hazardous enterprise, its coming was announced,
and received by the old men, women, and youths in the village with
howls and lamentations. If, however, it had been successful, as
proved by rich plunder, reeking scalp-locks, and prisoners, some
runners were sent in advance to announce its approach. Then began a
series of orgies, in which the old squaws were the most demonstrative
and hideous. While the scalp-locks were displayed and counted, the
well-guarded prisoners were exultingly escorted by their captors,
the squaws gathering around them with taunts and petty tormentings.
The woful fate which was waiting these prisoners was foreshadowed in
prolonged rehearsals for its final horrors. One by one they were forced
to run the gauntlet from goal to goal, between lines of yelping fiends,
under blows and missiles, stones, sticks, and tomahawks, while efforts
were made to trip them in their course, that they might be pounded in
their helplessness when maddened with pain. Any exhibition of weakness
or dread did but intensify the malignant frenzy of their tormentors.
Those who lived through this ordeal, which was intended to be but a
preliminary in the barbaric entertainment, and to stop short of the
actual extinction of life, were afterwards, by deliberate preparations
made in full view of the prisoners, subjected to all the ingenuities
of rage and cruelty which untamed savage fiendishness could devise.
The hero who bore the trial without flinching, singing his song of
defiance, and in his turn mocking his tormentors because they failed to
break his spirit, was most likely to find mercy in a finishing stroke
dealt by a magnanimous foe.

Anything like an alleviation of these dread revenges of savage warfare
being unallowable, there was open one way of complete relief in the
usage of adoption, just referred to. This, however, was never available
to the prisoner from his own first motion or prompting. He was wholly
passive in the matter. It came solely from the inclination of any
one in the village, a warrior or a squaw who, having recently lost a
relative, or one whose service was necessary, might select a prisoner
from the group as desirable to supply a place that was vacant. There
would seem to have been a large liberty allowed in the exercise of this
privilege, especially for those who were mourning for a relative lost
in the encounter in which the prisoner was taken. Sometimes the merest
caprice might prompt the selection. Scarcely, except in the rare case
of some proud captive who would haughtily scorn to avail himself of a
seeming affinity with the tribe of a hated or abject enemy, would the
offered privilege of adoption be refused. For, in any case, an ultimate
escape from an enforced durance might be looked to. Of course those
who were thus adopted were mostly the young and vigorous. The little
children were not especially favored in the process,—except, as soon to
be noted, the children of the whites. The ceremonial for adoption was
traditional. Beginning generally with somewhat rough and intimidating
treatment, the captive was for a while left in suspense as to his fate.
When at length the intent of the arbiter of his life was made known to
him, the method pursued has been very frequently described to us in
detail by the whites who were the subjects of it.[1341] The candidate
was plunged and thoroughly soused in a stream to rinse out his white
blood; the hair of his head, saving the scalp-lock, was plucked out;
and after some mouthings and incantations, completing the initiation,
all winning blandishments, arts, and appliances were engaged to secure
the confidence of the adopted captive, and to draw from him some
responsive sign of affection. He was arrayed in the choicer articles of
forest finery, and nestled in the family lodge. The father, the squaw,
or the patron, in whatever relation, to whom he henceforward belonged,
spared no effort to engage and comfort him. Watchful eyes, of course,
jealously guarded any restless motions looking towards an escape. The
final aim was to secure a fully nationalized and acclimated new member
of a tribe, ready to share all its fortunes in peace and war.

Naturally there were differences in this whole process and its results,
as they concerned these attempted affiliations between the members of
Indian tribes and in the adoption of white captives.[1342]

In their early conflicts with the whites, the Indians generally
practised an indiscriminate slaughter. There were a few exceptions to
the rule in King Philip’s war.[1343] In the raids of the French, with
their Indian allies, upon the English settlements, prisoners taken on
either side came gradually to have the same status as in civilized
warfare, and to be held for exchange. This, however, would proceed
upon the supposition that both parties had prisoners. But before there
was anything like equality in this matter, the captives were for the
most part such as had been seized from among the whites in inroads
upon their settlements, not in the open field of warfare. A midnight
assault upon some frontier cabins, or upon the lodge of some lonely
settler, left the savages to choose between a complete massacre or upon
a selection of some of their victims for leading away with them to
their own haunts, if not too cumbersome or dangerous for the wilderness
journey. It soon came to be understood among the raiding parties of
Indians in alliance with the French in Canada that white captives had
a ransom value. Contributions were often gathered up in neighborhoods
that had been raided, and in the meeting-houses of New England on
Sundays, for redeeming such captives as were known to be in Canada.
And, curiously enough, Judge Sewall in his journal records appeals for
charity in the same form for the redemption of captives in the hands of
our own savages, and for the ransom of our seamen and traders who were
kept in durance by African corsairs.

In the raids of desolation on either side of the Alleghanies and
along the sources of the Susquehannah and the Ohio, from the outbreak
of the French and Indian war, down to and even after the crushing
of Pontiac’s conspiracy, while more than a thousand cabins of the
borderers were burned and their inmates mostly slaughtered, several
hundred captives were borne off by the Indians and distributed among
their villages. The ultimate fate of these captives always hung in
dread uncertainty. If a panic arose among the lodges in apprehension
of an onset from a war-party of the whites, the captives might be
massacred. But the force of circumstances and the urgency of interested
motives steadily made it an object for their captors to retain their
prisoners unharmed, and even to make captivity tolerable to them.
The alternative of death or life to them generally depended upon
whether they might escape or be released by an avenging party without
compensation, or could be held for redemption through a ransom. The
knowledge that the Indians retained such captives of course became a
very effective motive in inducing their relatives in the settlements
to gather parties of neighbors for following the victims into the
forest depths. Temporary truces also, when made by victorious parties
of the whites, were conditioned upon the surrender of all their
surviving countrymen who were supposed to be in duress. The savages
practised all their artifices and subterfuges in concealing some of
their prisoners, alleging that they had been carried deeper into the
country by new masters, or by positively denying all knowledge of their
whereabouts. But the persistency and threats of those who had learned
how to deal with these red diplomates, with a few resolute strokes
generally brought about their surrender. When Bouquet had secured
possession of Fort Duquesne with his army of 1,500 men, he stoutly
followed up his success beyond the Ohio to the Indian settlements
near the Muskingum, and with his sturdy pluck and strong force he
overawed the representatives of the neighboring tribes which he had
summoned to meet him. He insisted, as the first condition of a truce,
upon the delivery of all the white prisoners secluded among them, not
only without the payment of any ransom, but upon their being brought
in with a protecting escort and with means of sustenance. Of course
there was always ignorance or doubt as to the number of captives in any
particular place, and as to the hands into which any individual known
or supposed to be in durance might have fallen. The word of an Indian
on these points was worthless unless backed by other testimony. A
stimulating of the tongue into unguarded speech by a dram of rum might
in some cases serve the purpose of the rack or the thumb-screw in more
civilized cross-examinations. An uncertainty of course always hung over
the survival or the whereabouts of individuals or members of a family
whose bodies had not been found on the scene of an Indian frontier
raid. Bouquet was accompanied by friends and relatives of supposed
survivors held in captivity as the spoils of some massacre, and these
might be depended upon to circumvent the falsehoods and cunning of
the captors, and to insist upon their giving up their prizes. The
persistency and the plain evidence of resolved purpose manifested by
Bouquet finally compelled from the representatives of the tribes in
council a pledge to surrender all the prisoners in their hands, and
messengers were sent out to gather and bring them in, though with some
plausible excuses for delay, and the grudging return of only a part of
them. But those who were given up became the best witnesses as to the
deception practised by the cunning culprits in holding back others.
Only after repeated exposures of falsehood by those so grudgingly
surrendered, asserting of their own knowledge that there were others
held in durance, whom they might even know by name, was there brought
about a full deliverance, saving that, whether truly or falsely, in
the case of a few individuals demanded the excuse was alleged that
they belonged to some chief or tribe absent at a distance on a hunt,
and so not to be reached by a summons. Bouquet was also absolute in
his demand for all such white captives, young or old, as were alleged
to have been adopted or married among the tribes. His firmly insisting
upon this, and the compliance with it in many cases, led to some scenic
manifestations in the wilderness, of a highly dramatic character, full
of the matter of romance in their revelations of the working of human
nature under novel and strange conditions. Such manifestations often
attended similar scenes in the ransom or forced surrender of whites who
had been in captivity among the Indians. But in this special instance
of Bouquet’s resolute course with the Ohio tribes, numbers, variety,
picturesqueness in those manifestations, gave to the bringing in and
the reception of captives features and incidents which strongly engage
alike the sympathies and antipathies of human nature. Some of those
brought into Bouquet’s camp, who had once at least been whites, came
with full as much reluctance on their part as that which was felt by
those who gave them up. Indeed, several of them could be secured only
by being bound and guarded.

Approximation in all degrees to the manners and habits of Indian
life and to all the qualities of Indian nature had been realized by
Europeans from the first contact of the races on this continent. Of
course the instances were numerous and very decisive in which this
approximation was completed, and resulted in a substitution of all
the ways and habits of savagery for those of civilization. Many of
those who were forced back into Bouquet’s camp clung to their Indian
friends, and repelled all the manifestations of joy and affection of
their own nearest kin by blood. They positively refused to return to
the settlements. They had been won by preference to the fascinations
and license of a life in the wilderness. This preference was by no
means inexplicable, even for some full-grown men and women who had
been reared in the white settlements. Life in scattered cabins on the
frontiers had more points of resemblance than of difference in hard
conditions and privations, when compared with savage life in the woods.
Such society as these scattered cabins afforded was rude and rough, all
experiences were precarious, daily drudgery was severe, the solitary
homes were gloomy, and only exceptional cases of early domestic and
mental training alleviated the stern exigencies of the condition of the
first generation of the settlers. For women and children especially,
the outlook and the routine of life were dismal enough. As for the
men, the more they conformed themselves in many respects to the actual
habits and resources of the Indians in the training of their instincts,
in their garb, their food, their adaptation of themselves to the ways
and resources of nature, the easier was their lot. Many women, likewise
made captives by the savages, in some cases of mature age, and having
looked forward to the usual lot of marriage, found an Indian to be
preferable, or at all events tolerable, as a husband. Children who
preserved but a faint remembrance of home and parents very readily
adopted savage tastes, and testified by their shrieks and struggles
their unwillingness to part from their red friends. Specimens from
each of these classes were the most marked and demonstrative among
the groups brought in to Bouquet from Indian lodges, being in number
more than two hundred. Doubtless, however, the majority of them had
had enough of the experiences of savage life to make a return to the
settlements a welcome release. Such persons thenceforward constituted
a useful class as interpreters, mediators, and messengers between the
contending parties. Their knowledge of Indian character, superstitions,
limitations, weak and strong points, impulsive excitability,
stratagems, and adaptability to circumstance proved on many emergent
occasions of good account. Such of these returned captives as had had
the rudiments of an education, and were trustworthy as narrators, have
made valuable contributions to local history.

Among many such intelligent and trustworthy reporters was Col.
James Smith, captured on the borders of Pennsylvania in 1755, when
eighteen years of age, and kept in captivity five years. Another
was John McCullough, taken at about the same time and from the near
neighborhood, when eight years old. He was retained eight years,
and, being a quick-witted and observing youth, he kept his eyes and
ears open to all that he could learn. From such sources we derive
the most authentic information we possess of that transition period
in the condition and fortunes of many of our aboriginal tribes when
the intrusion of Europeans upon them with their tempting goods and
their rival schemes, which equally tended to dispossess them of their
heritage, introduced among them so many novel complications. Some of
the narratives of the whites, who, under the conditions just referred
to, lived for years and were assimilated with the Indians, present us
occasionally by no means unattractive pictures of the ordinary tenor of
life among them. In the brief intervals of peace, and in some favored
recesses where game abounded and the changing seasons brought round
festivals, plays, and scenes of jollity, there were even fascinations
to delight one of simple tastes, who could enjoy the aspects of nature,
share the easy tramp over mossy trails, content himself with the viands
of the wilderness, employ the long hours of laziness in easy handiwork,
delight in basking beneath the soft hazes of the Indian summer, or
listening to the traditional lore of the winter wigwam. The forests
very soon began to be the shelter and the roving haunts of a crew of
renegades and outlaws from the settlements, who assimilated at all
points with the savages, and often used what remained to them of the
knowledge and arts of civilization for ingenious purposes of mischief.
It has always proved a vastly more easy and rapid process for white men
to fall back into barbarism than for an Indian to conform himself to
civilization. Wild life brought out all reversionary tendencies, and
revived primitive qualities and instincts. It gave those who shared it
a full opportunity to become oblivious of all fastidious tastes and
of all the squeamishness of over-delicacy. The promiscuous contents
of the camp-kettle, with its deposits and incrustations from previous
banquets, were partaken of with a zestful appetite. The circumstances
of warfare in the woods quickened all the faculties of watchfulness,
made even the natural coward brave, imparted endurance, and multiplied
all the ingenuities of resource and stratagem. There is something that
surpasses the merely marvellous in the feats of sturdy and persevering
scouts, escaped captives, remnants of a butchery, messengers sent to
carry intelligence in supreme peril, and lonely wayfarers treading
the haunted forests, or creeping stealthily through ambushed defiles,
penetrating marshes, using the sky and their woodcraft for guidance,
fording or swimming choked or icy streams, climbing high tree-tops
for a wider survey from the closed woods and thickets, subsisting on
roots and berries and moss, and yielding to the exhaustion of nature
only when all perils were passed and the refuge was reached. Alike on
the march of armies and in the siege of some little forest stronghold
surrounded by yelping savages, it was necessary from time to time to
send out a single plucky hero to carry or to obtain intelligence. When
such a messenger was not designated by the commander, and the extremity
of the emergency left the dismal honor to a volunteer, such was never
found to be lacking. It confounds all calculations of the law of
chances to learn how, even in the majority of such dire enterprises as
are on record, fortune favored the brave. Narratives there are which
for ages to come will gather all the exciting elements of tragedy and
romance, and occasionally even of comedy, as, set down in the language
of the woods, without the constraints of art or grammar, they make us
for the moment companions of some imperilled man or woman who borrowed
of the bear, the deer, the fox, or the beaver, their several instincts
and stratagems for outwitting pursuit and clinging to dear life. Rare,
it may be, but still well authenticated, are cases of victims with a
strong tenacity of vitality, who, left as dead, mutilated and scalped,
reasserted themselves when the foe had gone, found their way back to
their homes, and, after such reconstruction as the art of the time
would allow, enjoyed a long life afterwards.

The conditions attending the entrance of European war-parties, with
their necessary supplies, into the depths of the wilderness were of the
most severe and exacting character. They involved equally the outlay of
toil and an exposure to perils requiring the most watchful vigilance.
Well-worn trails made by the natives, and always sufficiently travelled
to keep them open, had long been in use for such purposes as were
needed in primitive conditions. These were very narrow, necessitating
that progress should be made through them singly, in “Indian file.”
At portages or carrying-places, burdens were borne on the back from
one watercourse to another, round a rapid or across an elevation.
Some of these trails are even now traceable in the oldest settled
portions of the country, where the woods have never been wholly
cleared. Part of that which was availed of by the whites two hundred
and fifty years ago between Plymouth and Boston, and others in untilled
portions of the Old Colony, are clearly discernible. The thickets
and undergrowths came close to the borders of these trails, and the
overhanging branches of the trees were found a grievous annoyance when
the earliest traders with pack-horses traversed them. In a large part
of our present national domain and in Canada, it may safely be said
that nineteen twentieths of all movement from place to place was made
by the savages by the watercourses of lake and stream, and the same
was done by the Europeans till they brought into use horses first, and
then carts. These were first put to service by the traders from the
English settlements on the frontiers of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The
pack-horses, heavily laden, trained to their rough service for rocky
and marshy grounds, as well as for the thick and stifling depths of
the forest, and able to subsist on very poor forage, carried goods
most prized by the natives, and generally in inverse ratio to their
real worth. They returned to the settlements from the Indian villages
with a burden of precious furs, the traffickers mutually finding
their account in their respective shares in barter and profit. These
traders with their pack-horses were for a long time the pioneers of the
actual settlers. The methods and results of their traffic, trifling
as they may seem to be, had the two leading consequences of critical
importance: first, they made the Indians acquainted with and dependent
upon the white man’s goods, and then they provoked and embittered
the rival competition between the French and the English for the
considerable profits.

What we now call a military road was first undertaken on a serious
scale in the advance of the disastrous expedition of General
Braddock, in 1755, over the Alleghanies to the forks of the Ohio.
The incumbrances with which he burdened himself might wisely have
been greatly reduced in kind and in amount. But the exigencies of
the service in which he was engaged were but poorly apprehended by
him. As in the case of the even more disastrous campaign of General
Burgoyne, twenty-two years later, (1777) though his route was mainly
by water, the camp was lavishly supplied with appliances of luxury
and sensuality. Braddock’s way for his cattle, carts, and artillery
was slowly and poorly prepared by pioneers in advance, levelling
trees, stiffening marshy places, removing rocks and bushes, and then
leaving huge stumps in the devious track to rack the wagons and
torment the draught animals. It is not without surprise that we read
of the presence of domestic cattle far off in the extreme outposts
of single persevering settlers. But when, on the first extensive
military expeditions for building a fort on the shore of a lake, at
river forks, or to command a portage, we find mention of cannon and
heavy ammunition, we marvel at the perseverance involved in their
transportation. The casks of liquor, of French brandy and of New
England rum, which generally, without stint, formed a part of the
stores of each military enterprise, furnished in themselves a motive
spirit which facilitated their transport. Flour and bread could, with
many risks from stream and weather, be carried in sacks. But pork and
beef in pickle, the mainstay in garrisons which could not venture
out to hunt or fish, required to be packed in wood. After all the
persevering toil engaged in this transportation, the dire necessities
of warfare under these stern conditions often compelled the destruction
of the stores, every article of which had tasked the strained muscles
and sinews of the hard-worked campaigners. When it was found necessary
to evacuate a forest post, the stockade was set on fire, the magazine
was exploded, the cannon spiked, the powder thrown into the water, and
everything that could not be carried off in a hasty retreat was, if
possible, rendered useless as booty. As the French and English military
movements steadily extended over a wider territory and at more numerous
points, with increased forces, the waste and havoc caused by disasters
on either side involved an enormous destruction of the materials of
war. Vessels constructed with incredible labor on the lakes, anvils,
cordage, iron, and artillery having been gathered for their building
and arming by perilous ocean voyages and by transit through inner
waters and portages, and thousands of bateaux for Lakes Champlain and
George, now lie sunken in the depths, most of them destroyed by those
in whose service they were to be employed. The “Griffin,” the first
vessel on Lake Erie, built by La Salle in 1679, disappeared on her
second voyage, and lies beneath the waters still. After Braddock’s
defeat, when the fugitive remnant of his army had reached Dunbar’s
camp, a hundred and fifty wagons were burned, and fifty thousand pounds
of powder were emptied into a creek, after the incredible toil by which
they had been drawn over the mountains and morasses.

There were many occasions and many reasons which prompted the
Europeans to weigh the gain or loss which resulted to them from the
employment of Indian allies, who were always an incalculable element
in any enterprise. They could never be depended upon for constancy or
persistency. A bold stroke, followed, if successful, with butchery,
and a rush to the covert of the woods if a failure, was the sum of
their strategy. They had a quick eye in watching the turning fortunes
and the probable issue of a venture, and they acted accordingly. They
were wholly disinclined for any protracted siege operations. In the
weary months of the investment of Detroit, the only enterprise of
the sort engaged in by large bodies of savages acting in concert, we
find a single exceptional case of their uniform impatience of such
prolonged strategy. And even in that case there were intervals when the
imperilled and starving garrison had breathing-spells for recuperation.
Charges and counter-charges, pleas and criminations of every kind,
plausible, false, or sincere, are found in the journals and reports of
English and French officers, prompted by accusations and vindications
of either party, called out by the atrocities and butcheries wrought
by their savage allies in many of the conflicts of the French and
Indian war. In vain did the commanders of the white forces on either
side promise that their red allies should be restrained from plunder
and barbarity against the defeated party. It was an attempt to bridle
a storm. From the written opinions expressed by various civil and
military officials during all our Indian wars one might gather a list
of judgments, always emphatically worded, as to the qualities of the
red men as allies. Governor Dinwiddie, writing in May 28, 1756, to
General Abercrombie, on his arrival here to hold the chief command
till the coming of Lord Loudon, expresses himself thus: “I think we
have secured the Six Nations to the Northward to our Interest who, I
suppose, will join your Forces. They are a very awkward, dirty sett of
People, yet absolutely necessary to attack the Enemy’s Indians in their
way of fighting and scowering the Woods before an Army. I am perswaded
they will appear a despicable sett of People to his Lordship and you,
but they will expect to be taken particular Notice of, and now and then
some few Presents. I fear General Braddock despised them too much,
which probably was of Disservice to him, and I really think without
some of them any engagement in the Woods would prove fatal, and if
strongly attached to our Interest they are able in their way to do more
than three Times their Number. They are naturally inclined to Drink. It
will be a prudent Stepp to restrain them with Moderation, and by some
of your Subalterns to shew them Respect.”[1344] Baron Dieskau, in 1755,
had abundant reason for expressing himself about his savage auxiliaries
in this fashion: “They drive us crazy from morning to night. One needs
the patience of an angel to get on with these devils, and yet one must
always force himself to seem pleased with them.”[1345]

* * * * *

It would seem as if the native tribes, when Europeans first secured a
lodgment, were beguiled by a fancy which in most cases was very rudely
dispelled. This fancy was that the new-comers might abide here without
displacing them. The natives in giving deeds of lands, as has been
said, had apparently no idea that they had made an absolute surrender
of territory. They seem to have imagined that something like a joint
occupancy was possible, each of the parties being at liberty to follow
his own ways and interests without molesting the other. So the Indians
did not move off to a distance, but frequented their old haunts, hoping
to derive advantage from the neighborhood of the white man. King Philip
in 1675 discerned and acutely defined the utter impracticability of any
such joint occupancy. He indicated the root of the impending ruin to
his own race, and he found a justification of the conspiracy which he
instigated in pointing to the white man’s clearings and fences, and to
the impossibility of joining planting with hunting, and domestic cattle
with wild game.

The history of the Hudson Bay Company and that of the enterprises
conducted by the French for more than a century, when set in contrast
with the steady development of colonization by English settlers and by
the people of the United States succeeding to them, brings out in full
force the different relations into which the aborigines have always
been brought by the presence of Europeans among them, either as traders
or possessors of territory. The Hudson Bay Company for exactly two
centuries, from 1670 to 1870, held a charter for the monopoly of trade
with the Indians here over an immense extent of territory, and in the
later portion of that period held an especial grant for exclusive trade
over an even more extended region, further north and west. The company
made only such a very limited occupancy of the country, at small and
widely distant posts, as was necessary for its trucking purposes and
the exchange of European goods for peltries. During that whole period,
allowing for rare casualties, not a single act of hostility occurred
between the traders and the natives. A large number of different
tribes, often at bitter feud with each other, were all kept in amity
with the official residents of the company, and each party probably
found as much satisfaction in the two sides of a bargain as is usual
in such transactions. Deposits of goods were securely gathered in some
post far off in the depths of the wilderness, under the care of two
or three young apprentices of the company, and here bands of Indians
at the proper season came for barter. Previous to the operations of
this company, beginning as early as 1620, large numbers of Frenchmen,
singly or in parties, ventured deep into the wilderness in company with
savage bands, for purposes of adventure or traffic, and very rarely did
any of them meet a mishap or fail to find a welcome. Such adventurers
in fact became in most cases Indians in their manner of life. Nor
did the jealousy of the savages manifest itself in a way not readily
appeased when they found the French priests planting mission stations
and truck-houses. In no case did the French intruders ask, as did the
English colonists, for deeds of territory. It was understood that
they held simply by sufferance, and with a view to mutual advantage
for both parties, with no purpose of overreaching. The relations thus
established between the French and the natives continued down till even
after the extinction of the territorial claims of France. And when,
just before the opening of the great French and Indian hostilities with
the English colonists, the French had manifested their purpose to get a
foothold on the heritage of the savages by pushing a line of strongly
fortified posts along their lakes and rivers, the apprehensions of the
savages were craftily relieved by the plea that these securities were
designed only to prevent the encroachment of the English.

A peaceful traffic with the Indians, like that of the Hudson Bay
Company and the French, had been from the first but a subordinate
object of the English colonists. These last, while for a period they
confined themselves to the seaboard, supplemented their agricultural
enterprise by the fishery and by a very profitable commerce. As soon
as they began to penetrate into the interior they took with them their
families and herds, made fixed habitations, put up their fences and
dammed the streams. Instead of fraternizing with the Indians, they
warned them off as nuisances. We must also take into view the fact
that this steadily advancing settlement of the Indian country directly
provoked and encouraged the resolute though baffled opposition of the
savages. They could match forces with these scattered pioneers, even
if, as was generally the case, a few families united in constructing
a palisadoed and fortified stronghold to which they might gather
for refuge. If a body of courageous men had advanced together well
prepared for common defence, it is certain the warfare would not have
been so desultory as it proved to be. All the wiles of the Indians
in conducting their hostilities gave them a great advantage. They
thought that the whites might be dislodged effectually from further
trespasses if once and again they were visited by sharp penalties for
their rash intrusion. It was plain that they were long in coming to a
full apprehension of the pluck of their invaders, of their recuperative
energies, and of the reserved forces which were behind them. From
the irregular base line of the coast the English advanced into the
interior, not by direct parallel lines, but rather by successive
semicircles of steadily extending radii. The advances from the middle
colonies of Pennsylvania and Virginia marked the farthest reaches in
this curvature. The French, in the mean while, aimed from the start for
occupying the interior.

* * * * *

The period which we have here under review is one through which the
savages, for the most part, were but subordinate agents, the principals
being the French and the English. So far as the diplomatic faculties of
the savages enabled them to hold in view the conditions of the strife,
there were doubtless occasions in which they thought they held what
among civilized nations is called the balance of power. Nor would it
have been strange if, at times, their chiefs had imagined that, though
it might be impossible for them again to hold possession of their old
domains free from the intrusion of the white man, they might have power
to decide which of the two nationalities should be favored above the
other. In that case the French doubtless would have been the favored
party. We have, however, to take into view the vast disproportion
between the numbers, if not of the resources, of these two foreign
nationalities, when the struggle between them earnestly began. In 1688
there were about eleven thousand of the French in America, and nearly
twenty times as many English. The French were unified under the control
of their home government. Its resources were at their call: its army
and navy, its arsenals and treasury, its monarch and ministers, might
be supposed to be serviceable and engaged for making its mastery on
this continent secure. The English, however, were only nominally, and
as regards some of the colonies even reluctantly and but truculently,
under the control of their home government. It had been the jealous
policy of the New England colonists, from their first planting, to
isolate themselves from the mother-country, and to make self-dependence
the basis of independence. Their circumstances had thrown them on their
own resources, and made them feel that as their foreign superiors could
know very little of their emergencies, it was not wise or even right
in them to interpose in their affairs. Indeed, it is evident that all
the British colonists felt themselves equal, without advice or help
from abroad, to take care of themselves, if they had to contend only
against the savages. But when the savages had behind them the power of
the French monarch, it was of necessity that the English should receive
a reinforcement from their own countrymen. In the altercations with the
British ministry which followed very soon after the close of the French
and Indian war, a keenly argued question came under debate as to the
claim which the mother-country had upon the gratitude of her colonists
for coming to their rescue when threatened with ruin from their red and
white enemies. And the answer to this question was judged to depend
upon whether, in sending hither her fleets and armies, Britain had
in view an extension of her transatlantic domains or the protection
of her imperilled subjects. At any rate, there were jealousies,
cross-purposes, and an entire lack of harmony between the direct
representatives of English military power and the coöperating measures
of the colonial government. Never, under any stress of circumstances,
was England willing to raise even the most serviceable of the officers
of the provincial forces to the rank of regulars in her own army. The
youthful Washington, whose sagacity and prowess had proved themselves
in field and council where British officers were so humiliated, had
to remain content with the rank of a provincial colonel. Nor did the
provincial legislatures act in concert either with each other, or with
the advice and appeals of their royal governors in raising men, money
or supplies for combined military operations against common enemies.
Each of the colonies thought it sufficient to provide for itself. Each
was even dilatory and backward when its own special peril was urgent.
These embarrassments of the English did very much to compensate the
French for their great inferiority in numerical strength. We are again
to remind ourselves of the fact that the French, alike from their
temperament and their policy, were always vastly more congenial and
influential with the savages.

The French in Canada from the first adopted the policy of alliance
with native tribes. Though their warfare with the English was hardly
intermittent, there were several occasions when it was specially
active. Beginning with the first invasion of the Iroquois territory
by Champlain, in 1609, already mentioned, under the plea of espousing
the side of his friends and allies, the Hurons and Algonquins, other
like enterprises were later pursued. Courcelles, in 1666, made a wild
and unsuccessful inroad upon the Iroquois. Tracy made a more effective
one in the same year. De la Barre in 1684, Denonville in 1687, and
Frontenac in 1693 and 1696, repeated these onsets. The last of these
invasions of what is now Central New York was intended to effect the
complete exhaustion of the Indian confederacy. Its havoc was indeed
well-nigh crushing, but there was a tenacity and a recuperative power
in that confederacy of savages which yielded only to a like desolating
blow inflicted by Sullivan, under orders from Washington, in our
Revolutionary War.

This formidable league of the Five Nations, when first known to
Europeans, claimed to have obtained by conquest the whole country from
the lakes to the Carolinas, and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi.
France, as against other Europeans, though not against the Indians,
claimed the same territory. Great Britain claimed the valley of the
Ohio and its tributaries, first against the French as being merely the
longitudinal extension of the line of seacoast discovered by English
navigators, and then through cessions from and treaties with the Five
Nations. The first of these treaties was that made at Lancaster, Pa.,
in June, 1744. But the Indians afterwards complained that they had been
overreached, and had not intended to cede any territory west of the
Alleghanies. Here, of course, with three parties in contention, there
was basis enough for struggles in which the prize, all considerations
of natural justice being excluded, was to be won only by superior
power. Neither of the rivals and intruders from across the ocean dealt
with the Indians as if even they had any absolute right to territory
from which they claimed to have driven off former possessors. So the
Indian prerogative was recognized by the French and the English as
available only on either side for backing up some rival claim of the
one or the other nation; though when the mother-countries were at peace
in Europe, their subjects here by no means felt bound even to a show
of truce, and they were always most ready to avail themselves of a
declaration of war at home to make their wilderness campaigns. It is
curious to note that in all the negotiations between the Indians and
Europeans, including those of our own government, the only landed right
recognized as belonging to the savages was that of giving up territory.
The prior right of ownership by the tenure of possession was regarded
as invalidated both by the manner in which it had been acquired and by
a lack to make a good use of it.

It was in the closing years of the seventeenth century and in
those opening the eighteenth that the military and the priestly
representatives of France in Canada resolutely advised and undertook
the measures which promised to give them a secure and extended
possession of the whole north of the continent, excepting only the
strip on the Atlantic seaboard then firmly held by the English
colonists. Even this excepted region of territory was by no means,
however, regarded as positively irreclaimable, and military enterprises
were often planned with the aim of a complete extinction of English
possession. The French in their earliest explorations, in penetrating
the country to the west and to the south, had been keenly observant in
marking the strategic points on lake and river for strongholds which
should give them the advantage of single positions and secure a chain
of posts for easy and safe communications. Their leading object was to
gain an ascendency over the native tribes; and as they could not expect
easily and at once to get the mastery over them all, policy dictated
such a skilful turning to account of their feuds among themselves as
would secure strong alliances of interest and friendship with the more
powerful ones. The French did vastly more than the English to encourage
the passions of the savages for war and to train them in military
skill and artifice, leaving them for the most part unchecked in the
indulgence of their ferocity. It is true that the Dutch and the English
had the start in supplying the savages with firearms, under the excuse
that they were needed by the natives for the most effective support of
the rapidly increasing trade in peltries. But the French were not slow
to follow the example, as it presented to them a matter of necessity.
And through the long and bloody struggle between the two European
nationalities with their red allies, it may be safely affirmed that the
frontier warfare of the English colonists was waged against savages
armed as well as led on by the French.

Two objects, generally harmonious and mutually helpful of each other,
inspired the activity of the French in taking possession successively
of posts in the interior of the continent. The first of these was the
establishment of mission stations for the conversion of the savages.
The other object of these wilderness posts was to secure the lucrative
gains of the fur trade from an ever-extending interior. Though, as was
just said, these two objects might generally be harmoniously pursued,
it was not always found easy or possible to keep them in amity, or to
prevent sharp collisions between them. There was a vigorous rivalry
in the fur trade between the members of an associated company, with
a government monopoly for the traffic, and very keenly enterprising
individuals who pursued it, with but little success in concealing their
doings, in defiance of the monopolists. The burden of the official
correspondence between the authorities in Canada and those at the
French court related to the irregularities and abuses of this traffic.
Incident to these was a lively plying of the temptations of that other
traffic which poured into the wilderness floods of French brandy. The
taste of this fiery stimulant once roused in a savage could rarely
afterwards be appeased. The English colonists soon gained an advantage
in this traffic in their manufacture of cheap rum. It is easy to see
how this rivalry between monopolists and individuals in the fur trade,
aided by the stimulant for which the Indian was most craving, would
impair the spiritual labors of the priests at their wild stations.
Nor were there lacking instances in which the priests themselves were
charged with sharing not only the gains of the fur trade, but also
those of the brandy traffic, either in the interests of the monopolists
or of individuals.

The earliest extended operations of the French fur trade with the
Indians were carried on by the northerly route to Lake Huron by
the Ottawa River. The French had little to apprehend from English
interference by this difficult route with its many portages. But it
soon became of vital necessity to the French to take and hold strong
points on the line of the Great Lakes. These were on the narrow streams
which made the junctions between them. So a fort was to be planted at
Niagara, between Ontario and Erie; another at Detroit, between Erie
and Huron; another at Michilimackinac, between Michigan and Huron;
another at the fall of the waters of Superior into Huron; and Fort St.
Joseph, near the head of Lake Michigan, facilitated communication with
the Illinois and the Miami tribes; the Ojibwas, Ottawas, Wyandots, and
Pottawattomies having their settlements around the westernmost of the
lakes, the Sioux being still beyond. South of Lake Erie, in the region
afterwards known as the Northwest Territory, between the Alleghanies,
the Ohio, and the Mississippi, were the Delawares, the Shawanees,
and the Mingoes. It is to be kept in view that this territory,
though formally ceded by France to England in the treaty of 1762-63,
had previously been claimed by the English colonists as rightfully
belonging to their monarch, it being merely the undefined extension of
the seacoast held by virtue of the discovery of the Cabots.

The fifth volume of the _Mémoires_ published by Margry gives us the
original documents, dating 1683-1695, relating to the first project
for opening a chain of posts to hold control of, and to facilitate
communication between, Canada and the west and south of the continent.
The project was soon made to extend its purpose to the Gulf of Mexico.
The incursions of the Iroquois and the attempted invasions of the
English, with a consequent drawing off of trade from the French, had
obliged the Marquis Denonville to abandon some of the posts that had
been established. In spite of the opposition of Champigny, Frontenac
vigorously urged measures for the repossession and strengthening of
these posts. The Jesuits were earnest in pressing the measure upon the
governors of Canada. In pushing on the enterprise, the French had sharp
experience of the intense hostility of the inner tribes who were to be
encountered, and who were to be first conciliated. The French followed
a policy quite unlike that of the English in the method of their
negotiations for the occupancy of land. The colonists of the latter
aimed to secure by treaty and purchase the absolute fee and ownership
of a given region. They intended to hold it generally for cultivation,
and they expected the Indians then claiming it to vacate it. The French
beguiled the Indians by asserting that they had no intention either of
purchasing or forcibly occupying, as if it were their own, any spot
where they established a stronghold, a trucking or a mission station.
They professed to hold only by sufferance, and that, too, simply for
the security and benefit of the natives, in furnishing them with a
better religion than their own and with the white man’s goods. The
Iroquois, finding the hunting and trapping of game for the English so
profitable on their own territory, were bent on extending their field.
They hoped, by penetrating to Michilimackinac, to make themselves the
agents or medium for the trade with the tribes near it, so that they
could control the whole southern traffic. So they had declared war
against the Illinois, the Miamis, the Ottawas, and the Hurons. It was
of vital importance to the French to keep firm hold of Lakes Ontario
and Erie, and to guard their connections. The Iroquois were always the
threatening obstacle. It was affirmed that they had become so debauched
by strong drink that their squaws could not nourish their few children,
and that they had availed themselves of an adoption of those taken
from their enemies. As they obtained their firearms with comparative
cheapness from the English on the Hudson and Mohawk, they used them
with vigor against the inner tribes with their primitive weapons, and
were soon to find them of service against the English on the frontiers
of Virginia. So keenly did the English press their trade as to cause a
wavering of the loyalty of those Indian tribes who had been the first
and the fast friends of the French. Thus it was but natural that the
Iroquois should be acute enough to oppose the building of a French
stronghold at any of the selected posts.

In 1699,[1346] La Mothe Cadillac proposed to assemble their red
allies, then much dispersed, and principally the Ottawas, at Detroit,
and there to construct both a fort and a village. At the bottom of
this purpose, and of the opposition to it, was a contention between
rival parties in the traffic. The favorers and the opponents of the
design made their respective representations to the French court. De
Callières objected to the plan because of the proximity of the hostile
Iroquois, who would prefer to turn all the trade to the English, and
his preference was to reëstablish the old posts. The real issue to be
faced was whether the Indians now, and ultimately, were to be made
subjects of the English or of the French monarch. Cadillac combated
the objections of Callières, and succeeded in effecting his design at
Detroit. The extension of the traffic was constantly bringing into
the field tribes heretofore too remote for free intercourse. In each
such case it depended upon various contingencies to decide whether the
French or the English would find friends or foes in these new parties,
and the alternative would generally rest, temporarily at least, upon
which party was most accessible and most profitable for trade. It would
hardly be worth the while for an historian, unless dealing with the
special theme of the rivalries involved in the fur trade as deciding
with which party of the whites one or another tribe came into amity, to
attempt to trace the conditions and consequences of such diplomacy in
inconstant negotiators.

The English began the series of attempts to bind the Five, afterwards
the Six, Nations into amity or neutrality by treaty in 1674. These
treaties were wearisome in their formalities, generally unsatisfactory
in their terms of assurance, and so subject to caprice and the
changes of fortune as to need confirmation and renewal, as suspicion
or alleged treachery on either side made them practically worthless.
There were two ends to be gained by these treaties of the English with
the confederated tribes. The one was to avert hostilities from the
English and to secure them privileges of transit for trade. The other
object, not always avowed, but implied as a natural consequent of the
first, was to alienate the tribes from the French, and if possible to
keep them in a state of local or general conflict. Each specification
of these treaties was to be emphasized by the exchange of a wampum
belt. Then a largess of presents, always including rum, was the final
ratification. These goods were of considerable cost to the English, but
always seemed a niggard gift to the Indians, as there were so many to
share in them.

The first of this series of treaties was that made in 1674, at Albany,
by Col. Henry Coursey, in behalf of the colonists of Virginia. It was
of little more service than as it initiated the parties into the method
of such proceedings.

In the middle of July, 1684, Lord Howard, governor of Virginia,
summoned a council of the sachems of the Five Nations to Albany. He
was attended by two of his council and by Governor Dongan of New York,
and some of the magistrates of Albany. Howard charged upon the savages
the butcheries and plunderings which they had committed seven years
previous in Virginia and Maryland, “belonging to the great king of
England.” He told the sachems that the English had intended at once to
avenge those outrages, but through the advice of Sir Edmund Andros,
then governor-general of the country, had sent peaceful messengers to
them. The sachems had proved perfidious to the pledges they then gave,
and the governor, after threatening them, demanded from them conditions
of future amity. After their usual fashion of shifting responsibility
and professions of regret and future fidelity, the sachems renewed
their covenants. Under the prompting of Governor Dongan they asked that
the Duke of York’s arms should be placed on the Mohawk castles, as a
protection against their enemies, the French. Doubtless the Indians, in
desiring, or perhaps only assenting to, the affixing of these English
insignia to their strongholds, might have had in view only the effect
of them in warning off the French. They certainly did not realize that
their English guests would ever afterwards, as they did, regard this
concession of the tribes as an avowal of allegiance to the king of
Great Britain, and as adopting for themselves the relation of subjects
of a foreign monarch.

The experience gained by many previous attempts to secure the
fidelity of the tribes, thenceforward known as the Six Nations by the
incorporation into the confederacy of the remnant of the Tuscaroras,
was put to service in three succeeding councils for treaty-making, held
respectively at Philadelphia in 1742, in Lancaster, Pa., in 1744,[1347]
and at Albany in 1746.[1348] Much allowance is doubtless to be made
in the conduct of the earlier treaties for the lack of competent
and faithful interpreters in councils made up of representatives of
several tribes, with different languages and idioms. Interpreters have
by no means always proved trustworthy, even when qualified for their
office.[1349] The difficulty was early experienced of putting into our
simple mother-tongue the real substance of an Indian harangue, which
was embarrassed and expanded by images and flowers of native rhetoric,
wrought from the structure of their symbolic language, but adding
nothing to the terms or import of the address. It was observed that
often an interpreter, anxious only to state the gist of the matter in
hand, would render in a single English sentence an elaborately ornate
speech of an orator that had extended through many minutes in its
utterance. The orator might naturally mistrust whether full justice had
been done to his plea or argument. There is by no means a unanimity
in the opinions or the judgments of those of equal intelligence, who
have reported to us the harangues of Indians in councils, as to the
qualities of their eloquence or rhetoric. The entire lack of terms
for the expression of abstract ideas compelled them to draw their
illustrations from natural objects and relations. Signs and gestures
made up a large part of the significance of a discourse. Doubtless the
cases were frequent in which the representation of a tribe in a council
was made through so few of its members that there might be reasonable
grounds for objection on the part of a majority to the terms of any
covenant or treaty that had been made by a chief or an orator. Of one
very convenient and plausible subterfuge, or honest plea,—whichever in
any given case it might have been,—our native tribes have always been
skilful in availing themselves. The assumption was that the elder, the
graver, wiser representatives of a tribe were those who appeared on its
behalf at a council. When circumstances afterwards led the whites to
complain of a breach of the conditions agreed on, the blame was always
laid by the chiefs on their “young men,” whom they had been unable to
restrain.

During the long term of intermittent warfare of the French and
English on this continent, with native tribes respectively for their
foes or allies, the conditions of the conflict, as before hinted,
were in general but slightly affected by the alternative of peace or
war as existing at any time between their sovereigns and people in
Europe. Some of the fiercest episodes of the struggle on this soil
took place during the intervals of truce, armistice, and temporary
treaty settlements between the leading powers in the old world. When,
in the treaties closing a series of campaigns, the settlement in the
articles of peace included a restoration of the territory which had
been obtained by either party by conquest, no permanent result was
really secured. These restitutions were always subject to reclamation.
Valuable and strategic points of territory merely changed hands for
the time being; Acadia, for example, being seven times tossed as a
shuttlecock between the parties to the settlement. The trial had to
be renewed and repeated till the decision was of such a sort as to
give promise of finality. The prize contended for here was really the
mastery of the whole continent, though the largeness of the stake was
not appreciated till the closing years of the struggle. Indeed, the
breadth and compass of the field were then unknown quantities. Those
closing years of stratagem and carnage in our forests correspond to
what is known in history as the “Seven Years’ War” in Europe, in which
France, as a contestant, was worsted in the other quarters of the
globe, as in this. Clive broke her power in India, as the generals of
Britain discomfited her here. The French, in 1758, held a profitable
mercantile settlement on five hundred miles of coast in Africa,
between Cape Blanco and the river Gambia. It is one of the curious
contrarieties in the workings of the same avowed principles under
different conditions, that just at the time that the pacific policy of
the Pennsylvania Quakers forbade their offering aid to their countrymen
under the bloody work going on upon their frontiers, an eminent English
Quaker merchant, Thomas Cumming, framed the successful scheme of
conquest over this French settlement in Africa.[1350]

The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, seemed to promise a
breathing-time in the strife between the French and English here.
In fact, however, so far from there being even a smouldering of the
embers on our soil, that date marks the kindling of the conflagration
which, continuing to blaze for fifteen years onward, comprehended
all the decisive campaigns. The earliest of these were ominous and
disheartening to the English, but they closed with the fullness of
triumph. We must trace with conciseness the more prominent acts and
incidents in which the natives, with the French and English, protracted
and closed the strife.

When Europeans entered upon the region now known as Pennsylvania,
though its well-watered and fertile territory and its abounding game
would seem to have well adapted it to the uses of savage life, it does
not appear that it was populously occupied. The Delawares, which had
held it at an earlier period, had, previously to the coming of the
whites, been subjugated by the more warlike tribes of the Five Nations,
or Iroquois. Some of the vanquished had passed to the south or west, to
be merged in other bands of the natives. Such of them as remained in
their old haunts were humiliated by their masters, despised as “women,”
and denied the privileges of warriors. While the Five Nations were thus
potent in the upper portion of Pennsylvania, around the sources of the
Susquehanna, its southern region was held by the Shawanees. The first
purchase near the upper region made by Europeans of the natives was by
a colony of Swedes, under Governor John Printz, in 1643. This colony
was subdued, though allowed to remain on its lands, by the Dutch, in
1655. In 1664, the English took possession of all Pennsylvania, and of
everything that had been held by the Dutch. Penn founded his province
in 1682, by grant from Charles II., and in the next year made his
much-lauded treaty of peace and purchase with the Indians for lands
west and north of his city. The attractions of the province, and the
easy opening of its privileges to others than the Friends, drew to it a
rapid and enterprising immigration. In 1729 there came in, principally
from the north of Ireland, 6,207 settlers. In 1750 there arrived 4,317
Germans and 1,000 English. The population of the province in 1769 was
estimated at 250,000. The Irish settlers were mostly Presbyterians,
the Germans largely Moravians. It soon appeared, especially when the
ravages of the Indians on the frontiers were most exasperating and
disastrous, that there were elements of bitter discord between these
secondary parties in the province and the Friends who represented the
proprietary right. And this suggests a brief reference to the fact
that, as a very effective agent entering into the imbittered conflicts
of the time and scene, we are to take into the account some strong
religious animosities. The entailed passions and hates of the peoples
of the old world, as Catholics and Protestants, and even of sects among
the latter, were transferred here to inflame the rage of combatants in
wilderness warfare.[1351] The zeal and heroic fidelity of the French
priests in making a Christian from a baptized and untamed savage had
realized, under rude yet easy conditions, a degree of success. In and
near the mission stations, groups of the natives had been trained to
gather around the cross, and to engage with more or less response in
the holy rites. Some of them could repeat, after a fashion, the Pater
Noster, the Ave Maria, and the Creed. Some had substituted a crucifix
or a consecrated medal for their old pagan charm, to be worn on the
breast. When about to go forth on the war-path, their priests would
give them shrift and benediction. But, as has been said, it was no
part or purpose of this work of christianizing savages to impair their
qualities as warriors, to dull their knives or tomahawks, to quench
their thirst for blood, or to restrain the fiercest atrocities and
barbarities of the fight or the victory. On the well-known experience
that fresh converts are always the most ardent haters of heresy, these
savage neophytes were initiated into some of the mysteries of the
doctrinal strife between the creed of their priests and the abominated
infidelity and impiety of the English Protestants. Some of the savages
were by no means slow to learn the lesson. Mr. Parkman’s brilliant
and graphic pages afford us abounding illustrations of the part which
priestly instructions and influence had in adding to savage ferocity
the simulation of religious hate for heresy. With whatever degree of
understanding or appreciation of the duty as it quickened the courage
or the ferocity of the savage, there were many scenes and occasions in
which the warrior added the charge of heretic to that of enemy, when he
dealt his blow.[1352]

Almost as violent and exasperating were the animosities engendered
between the disciples of different Protestant fellowships. The Quakers,
backed by proprietary rights, by the prestige of an original peace
policy and friendly negotiations with the Indians, and for the most
part secure and unharmed in the centralized homes of Philadelphia and
its neighborhood, imagined that they might refuse all participation
in the bloody work enacting on their frontiers. The adventurous
settlers on the borders were largely Presbyterians. The course of
non-interference by the Quakers, who controlled the legislature, seemed
to those who were bearing the brunt of savage warfare monstrously
selfish and inhuman. There was a fatuity in this course which had to be
abandoned. When a mob of survivors from the ravaged fields and cabins
of the frontiers, bringing in cartloads of the bones gathered from the
ashes of their burned dwellings, thus enforced their remonstrances
against the peace policy of the legislature, the Quakers were compelled
to yield, and to furnish the supplies of war.[1353] But sectarian
hatred hardly ever reached an intenser glow than that exhibited between
the Pennsylvania Quakers and Presbyterians. Meanwhile, the mild and
kindly missionary efforts of the Moravians, in the same neighborhood,
were cruelly baffled. Their aim was exactly the opposite of that which
guided the Jesuit priests. They sought first to make their converts
human beings, planters of the soil, taught in various handicrafts, and
weaned from the taste of war and blood.

When the frontier war was at its wildest pitch of havoc and fury, the
Moravian settlements, which had reached a stage giving such promise of
success as to satisfy the gentle and earnest spirit of the missionaries
who had planted them, were made to bear the brunt of the rage of
all the parties engaged in the deadly turmoil. The natives timidly
nestling in their settlements were regarded as an emasculated flock of
nurslings, mean and cowardly, lacking equally the manhood of the savage
and the pride and capacity of the civilized man. Worse than this,
their pretended desire to preserve a neutrality and to have no part
in the broil was made the ground of a suspicion, at once acted upon
as if fully warranted, that they were really spies, offering secret
information and even covert help as guides and prompters in the work
of desolation among the scattered cabins of the whites. So a maddened
spirit of distrust, inflamed by false rumors and direct charges of
complicity, brought upon the Moravian settlers the hate and fury of the
leading parties in the conflict.[1354]

It is noteworthy that the most furious havoc of savage warfare should
have been wreaked on the frontiers of Pennsylvania, the one of all the
English colonies in America whose boast was, and is, that there alone
the entrance of civilized men upon the domains of barbarism was marked
and initiated by the Christian policy of peace and righteousness. Penn
and his representatives claimed that they had twice paid the purchase
price of the lands covered by the proprietary charter to the Indian
occupants of them,—once to the Delawares residing upon them, and
again to the Iroquois who held them by conquest. The famous “Walking
Purchase,” whether a fair or a fraudulent transaction, was intended to
follow the original policy of the founder of the province.[1355]

In the inroads made upon the English settlements by Frontenac and
his red allies, New York and New England furnished the victims. The
middle colonies, so far as then undertaken, escaped the fray. Trouble
began for them in 1716, when the French acted upon their resolve to
occupy the valley of the Ohio. The Ohio Land Company was formed in
1748 to advance settlements beyond the Alleghanies, and surveys were
made as far as Louisville. This enterprise roused anew the Indians and
the French. The latter redoubled their zeal in 1753 and onward, south
of Lake Erie and on the branches of the Ohio. The English found that
their delay and dilatoriness in measures for fortifying the frontiers
had given the French an advantage which was to be recovered only with
increased cost and enterprise. In an earlier movement, had the English
engaged their efforts when it was first proposed to them, they might
have lessened, at least, their subsequent discomfiture. Governor
Spotswood, of Virginia, in 1720 had urged on the British government the
erection of a chain of posts beyond the Alleghanies, from the lakes to
the Mississippi. But his urgency had been ineffectual. The governor
reported that there were then “Seven Tributary Tribes” in Virginia,
being seven hundred in number, with two hundred and fifty fighting-men,
all of whom were peaceful. His only trouble was from the Tuscaroras on
the borders of Carolina.[1356]

The erection of Fort Duquesne may be regarded as opening the decisive
struggle between the French and the English in America, which reached
its height in 1755, and centred around the imperfect chain of stockades
and blockhouses on the line of the frontiers then reached by the
English pioneers.

About the middle of the eighteenth century the number of French
subjects in America, including Acadia, Canada, and Louisiana, was
estimated at about eighty thousand. The subjects of England were
estimated at about twelve hundred thousand. But, as before remarked,
this vast disparity of numbers by no means represented an equal
difference in the effectiveness of the two nationalities in the conduct
of military movements. The French were centralized in command. They
had unity of purpose and in action. In most cases they held actual
defensive positions at points which the English had to reach by
difficult approaches; and more than all, till it became evident that
France was to lose the game, the French received much the larger share
of aid from the Indians. Pennsylvania and Virginia were embarrassed in
any attempt for united defensive operations on the frontiers by their
own rival claims to the Ohio Valley. The English, however, welcomed
the first signs of vacillation in the savages. When Céloron, in 1749,
had sent messengers to the Indians beyond the Alleghanies to prepare
for the measures he was about to take to secure a firm foothold there,
he reported that the natives were “devoted entirely to the English.”
This might have seemed true of the Delawares and Shawanees, though
soon afterwards these were found to be in the interest of the French.
In fact, all the tribes, except the Five Nations, may be regarded as
more or less available for French service up to the final extinction of
their power on the continent. Indeed, as we shall see, the mischievous
enmity of the natives against the English was never more vengeful than
when it was goaded on by secret French agency after France had by
treaty yielded her claims on this soil. Nor could even the presumed
neutrality of the Five Nations be relied upon by the English, as there
were reasons for believing that many among them acted as spies and
conveyed intelligence. Till after the year 1754 so effective had been
the activity of the French in planting their strongholds and winning
over the savages that there was not a single English post west of the
Alleghanies.

At the same critical stage of this European rivalry in military
operations, the greed for the profits of the fur trade was at its
highest pitch. The beavers, as well as the red men, should be regarded
as essential parties to the struggle between the French and the
English. The latter had cut very deep into the trade which had formerly
accrued wholly to the French at Oswego, Toronto, and Niagara.

Up to the year 1720 there had come to be established a mercantile
usage which had proved to be very prejudicial to the English, alike
in their Indian trade and in their influence over the Indians. The
French had been allowed to import goods into New York to be used for
their Indian trade. Of course this proved a very profitable business,
as it facilitated their operations and was constantly extending over
a wider reach their friendly relations with the farther tribes. Trade
with Europe and the West Indies and Canada could be maintained only
by single voyages in a year, through the perilous navigation of the
St. Lawrence. With the English ports on the Atlantic, voyages could
be made twice or thrice a year. A few merchants in New York, having
a monopoly of supplying goods to the French in Canada, with their
principals in England, had found their business very profitable. Goods
of prime value, especially “strouds,” a kind of coarse woollen cloth
highly prized by the Indians, were made in and exported from England
much more cheaply than from France. The mischief of this method of
trade being realized, an act was passed by the Assembly in New York, in
1720, which prohibited the selling of Indian goods to the French under
severe penalties, in order to the encouragement of trade in general,
and to the extension of the influence of the English over the Indians
to counterbalance that of the French. Some merchants in London, just
referred to, petitioned the king against the ratification of this act.
By order in council the king referred the petition to the Lords of
Trade and Plantations. A hearing, with testimonies, followed, in which
those interested in the monopoly made many statements, ignorant or
false, as to the geography of the country, and the method and effects
of the advantage put into the hands of the French. But the remonstrants
failed to prevent the restricting measure. From that time New York
vastly extended its trade and intercourse with the tribes near and
distant, greatly to the injury of the French.[1357]

The first white man’s dwelling in Ohio was that of the Moravian
missionary, Christian Frederic Post.[1358] He was a sagacious and able
man, and had acquired great influence over the Indians, which he used
in conciliatory ways, winning their respect and confidence by the
boldness with which he ventured to trust himself in their villages and
lodges, as if he were under some magical protection. He went on his
first journey to the Ohio in 1758, by request of the government of
Pennsylvania, on a mission to the Delawares, Shawanees, and Mingoes.
These had once been friendly to the English, but having been won over
by the French, the object was to regain their confidence. The tribes
had at this time come to understand, in a thoroughly practical way,
that they were restricted to certain limited conditions so far as they
were parties to the fierce rivalry between the Europeans. The issue was
no longer an open one as to their being able to reclaim their territory
for their own uses by driving off all these pale-faced trespassers.
It was for them merely to choose whether they would henceforward have
the French or the English for neighbors, and, if it must be so, for
masters. Nor were they left with freedom or power to make a deliberate
choice. But Post certainly stretched a point when he told the Indians
that the English did not wish to occupy their lands, but only to drive
off the French.

As Governor Spotswood, in the interest of Virginia, had attempted, in
1716, to break the French line of occupation by promoting settlements
in the west, Governor Keith, of Pennsylvania, followed with a similar
effort in 1719. Both efforts could be only temporarily withstood, and
if baffled at one point were renewed at another. The English always
showed a tenacity in clinging to an advance once made, and were
inclined to change it only for a further advance. Though Fort Duquesne
was blown up when abandoned by the French, with the hope of rendering
it useless to the English, the post was too commanding a one to be
neglected. After it had been taken by General Forbes in November,
1758, and had been strongly reconstructed by General Stanwix, though
it was then two hundred miles distant from the nearest settlement,
the possession of it was to a great extent the deciding fact of the
advancing struggle. Colonel Armstrong had taken the Indian town of
Kittanning in 1756.

The treaty negotiations between English and French diplomates at
a foreign court, in 1763, which covenanted for the surrender of all
territory east of the Mississippi and of all the fortified posts on
lake and river to Great Britain, was but a contract on paper, which
was very long in finding its full ratification among the parties alone
interested in the result here. There were still three of these parties:
the Indians; the French, who were in possession of the strongholds in
the north and west; and the English colonists, supported by what was
left of the British military forces, skeleton regiments and invalided
soldiers, who were to avail themselves of their acquired domain. During
the bloody and direful war which had thus been closed, the Indians had
come to regard themselves as holding the balance of power between the
French and the English. Often did the abler savage warriors express
alike their wonder and their rage that those foreign intruders should
choose these wild regions for the trial of their fighting powers. “Why
do you not settle your fierce quarrels in your own land, or at least
upon the sea, instead of involving us and our forests in your rivalry?”
was the question to the officers and the file of the European forces.
Though the natives soon came to realize that they would be the losers,
whichever of the two foreign parties should prevail, their preferences
were doubtless on the side of the French; and by force of circumstances
easily explicable, after the English power, imperial and provincial,
had obtained the mastery of the territory, the sympathies and aid of
the natives went with the British during the rebellion of the colonies.
But before this result was reached England won its ascendency at a
heavy sacrifice of men and money, in a series of campaigns under many
different generals. The general peace between England, France, and
Spain, secured by the treaty of 1763, and involving the cession of
all American territory east of the Mississippi by France to Britain,
was naturally expected to bring a close to savage warfare against the
colonists. The result was quite the contrary, inasmuch as the sharpest
and most desolating havoc was wrought by that foe after the English
were nominally left alone to meet the encounter. The explanation of
this fact was that the French, though by covenant withdrawn from the
field, were, hardly even with a pretence of secrecy, perpetuating
and even extending their influence over their former wild allies in
embarrassing and thwarting all the schemes of the English for turning
their conquests to account. General Amherst was left in command here
with only enfeebled fragments of regiments and with slender ranks of
provincials. The military duty of the hour was for the conquerors
to take formal possession of all the outposts still held by French
garrisons, announcing to those in command the absolute conditions
of the treaty, and to substitute the English for the French colors,
henceforward to wave over them. This humiliating necessity was in
itself grievous enough, as it forced upon the commanders of posts which
had not then been reached by the war in Canada, a condition against
which no remonstrance would avail. But beyond that, it furnished the
occasion for the most formidable savage conspiracy ever formed on
this continent, looking to the complete extinction of the English
settlements here. The French in those extreme western posts had been
most successful in securing the attachment of the neighboring Indian
tribes, and found strong sympathizers among them in their discomfiture.
At the same time those tribes had the most bitter hostility towards the
English with whom they had come in contact. They complained that the
English treated them with contempt and haughtiness, being niggard of
their presents and sharp in their trade. They regarded each advanced
English settlement on their lands, if only that of a solitary trader,
as the germ of a permanent colony. Under these circumstances, the
French still holding the posts, waiting only the exasperating summons
to yield them up, found the temptation strong and easy of indulgence to
inflame their recent allies, and now their sympathizing friends, among
the tribes, with an imbittered rage against their new masters. Artifice
and deception were availed of to reinforce the passions of savage
breasts. The French sought to relieve the astounded consternation of
their red friends on finding that they were compelled to yield the
field to the subjects of the English monarch, by beguiling them with
the fancy that the concession was but a temporary one, very soon to be
set aside by a new turn in the wheel of fortune. Their French father
had only fallen asleep while his English enemies had been impudently
trespassing upon the lands of his red children. He would soon rouse
himself to avenge the insult, and would reclaim what he had thus
lost. Indeed, on the principle that the size and ornamentings of a
lie involved no additional wrong in the telling it, the Indians were
informed that a French army was even then preparing to ascend the
Mississippi with full force, before which the English would be crushed.

There was then in the tribe of Ottawas, settled near Detroit, a master
spirit, who, as a man and as a chief, was the most sagacious, eloquent,
bold, and every way gifted of his race that has ever risen before the
white man on this continent to contest in the hopeless struggle of
barbarism with civilization. That Pontiac was crafty, unscrupulous,
relentless, finding a revel in havoc and carnage, might disqualify him
for the noblest epithets which the white man bestows on the virtues
of a military hero. But he had the virtues of a savage, all of them,
and in their highest range of nature and of faculty. He was a stern
philosopher and moralist also, of the type engendered by free forest
life, unsophisticated and trained in the school of the wilderness. He
knew well the attractions of civilization. He weighed and compared
them, as they presented themselves before his eyes in full contrast
with savagery, in the European and in the Indian, and in those dubious
specimens of humanity in which the line of distinction was blurred by
the Indianized white man, the “Christian” convert, and the half-breed.
Deliberately and, we may say, intelligently, he preferred for his own
people the state of savagery. Intelligently, because he gave grounds
for his preference, which, from his point of view and experience,
had weight in themselves, and cannot be denied something more than
plausibility even in the judgment of civilized men, for idealists
like Rousseau and the Abbé Raynal have pleaded for them. Pontiac was
older in native sagacity and shrewdness than in years. He had evidence
enough that his race had suffered only harm from intercourse with
the whites. The manners and temptations of civilization had affected
them only by demoralizing influences. All the elements of life in the
white man struck at what was noblest in the nature of the Indian,—his
virility, his self-respect, his proud and sufficing independence,
his content with his former surroundings and range of life. With an
earnest eloquence Pontiac, in the lodges and at the council fires of
his people, whether of his own immediate tribe or of representative
warriors of other tribes, set before them the demonstration that
security and happiness, if not peace, depended for them on their
renouncing all reliance upon the white man’s ways and goods, and
reverting with a stern stoicism to the former conditions of their lot.
He told his responsive listeners that the Great Spirit, in pouring
the wide salt waters between the two races of his children, meant to
divide them and to keep them forever apart, giving to each of them a
country which was their own, where they were free to live after their
own method. The different tinting of their skin indicated a variance
which testified to a rooted divergence of nature. For his red children
the Great Spirit had provided the forest, the meadow, the lake, and
the river, with fish and game for food and clothing. The canoe, the
moccasin, the snow-shoe, the stone axe, the hide or bark covered lodge,
the fields of golden maize, the root crops, the vines and berries,
the waters of the cold crystal spring, made the inventory of their
possessions. They belonged to nature, and were of kin to all its other
creatures, which they put freely to their use, holding everything in
common. The changing moons brought round the seasons for planting
and hunting, for game, festivity, and religious rite. Their old men
preserved the sacred traditions of their race. Their braves wore the
scars and trophies of a noble manhood, and their young men were in
training to be the warriors of their tribes in defence or conquest.

These, argued Pontiac, were the heritage which the Great Spirit had
assigned to his red children. The spoiler had come among them from
across the salt sea, and woe and ruin for the Indian had come with him.
The white man could scorn the children of the forest, but could not be
their friend or helper. Let the Indian be content and proud to remain
an Indian. Let him at once renounce all use of the white man’s goods
and implements and his fire-water, and fall back upon the independence
of nature, fed on the flesh and clothed with the skins secured by bow
and arrow and his skill of woodcraft.

Such was the pleading of the most gifted chieftain and the wisest
patriot, the native product of the American wilderness. There was a
nobleness in him, even a grandeur and prescience of soul, which take a
place now on the list of protests that have poured from human breasts
against the decrees of fate. Pontiac followed up his bold scheme by all
the arts and appliances of forest diplomacy. He formed his cabinet, and
sent out his ambassadors with their credentials in the reddened hatchet
and the war-belt. They visited some of even the remoter tribes, with
appeals conciliatory of all minor feuds and quarrels. Their success
was qualified only by the inveteracy of existing enmities among some
of these tribes. It would be difficult to estimate, even if only
approximately, the number of the savages who were more or less directly
engaged in the conspiracy of Pontiac. A noted French trader, who had
resided many years among the Indians, and who had had an extended
intercourse with the tribes, stayed at Detroit during the siege, having
taken the oath of allegiance to the king of Great Britain. Largely
from his own personal knowledge, he drew up an elaborate list of the
tribes, with the number of warriors in each. The summing up of these is
56,500. In the usual way of allowing one to five of a whole population
for able-bodied men, this would represent the number of the savages as
about 283,000, which slightly exceeds the number of Indians now in our
national domain.[1359]

The lake and river posts which had been yielded up by the French,
on the summons, were occupied by slender and poorly supplied English
garrisons, unwarned of the impending concentration. The scheme
of Pontiac involved two leading acts in the drama: one was the
beleaguerment of all the fortified lake and river garrisons; the other
was an extermination by fire and carnage of all the isolated frontier
settlements at harvest time, so as to cause general starvation. The
plan was that all these assaults, respectively assigned to bodies of
the allies, should be made at the same time, fixed by a phase of the
moon. Scattered through the wilderness were many English traders, in
their cabins and with their packh-orses and goods. These were plundered
and massacred.[1360] The assailed posts were slightly reinforced by
the few surviving settlers and traders who escaped the open field
slaughter. The conspiracy was so far effective as to paralyze with
dismay the occupants of the whole region which it threatened. But
pluck and endurance proved equal to the appalling conflict. Nearly all
the posts, after various alternations of experience, succumbed to the
savage foe. Such was the fate of Venango, Le Bœuf, Presqu’ Isle, La
Bay, St. Joseph, Miamis, Ouachtanon, Sandusky, and Michilimackinac.
Detroit alone held out. The fort at Niagara, being very strong, was
not attacked. The Shawanees and Delawares were active agents in this
conspiracy. The English used all their efforts and appliances to keep
the Six Nations neutral. The French near the Mississippi were active
in plying and helping the tribes within their reach. The last French
flag that came down on our territory was at Fort Chartres on the
Mississippi.[1361]

* * * * *

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.[1362]

_By Dr. Ellis and the Editor._

ON some few historical subjects we have volumes so felicitously
constructed as to combine all that is most desirable in original
materials with a judicious digest of them. Of such a character is
Francis Parkman’s _France and England in North America, A Series of
Historical Narratives_. So abundant, authentic, and intelligently
gathered are his citations from and references to the journals,
letters, official reports, and documents, often in the very words of
the actors, that, through the writer’s luminous pages, we are, for all
substantial purposes, made to read and listen to their own narrations.
Indeed, we are even more favored than that. So comprehensive have
been his researches, and so full and many-sided are the materials
which he has digested for us, that we have all the benefit of an
attendance on a trial in a court or a debate in the forum, where by
testimony and cross-examination different witnesses are made to verify
or rectify their separate assertions. The official representatives of
France, military and civil, on this continent, like their superiors
and patrons at home, were by no means all of one mind. They had their
conflicting interests to serve. They made their reports to those to
whom they were responsible or sought to influence, and so colored
them by their selfishness or rivalry. These communications, gathered
from widely scattered repositories, are for the first time brought
together and made to confront each other in Mr. Parkman’s pages.
Allowing for a gap covering the first half of the eighteenth century,
which is yet to be filled, Mr. Parkman’s series of volumes deals with
the whole period of the enterprise of France in the new world to its
cession of all territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain.
His marvellously faithful and skilful reproduction of the scenic
features of the continent, in its wild state, bears a fit relation
to his elaborate study of its red denizens. His wide and arduous
exploration in the tracks of the first pioneers, and his easy social
relations with the modern representatives of the aboriginal stock, put
him back into the scenes and companionship of those whose schemes and
achievements he was to trace historically. After identifying localities
and lines of exploration here, he followed up in foreign archives the
missives written in these forests, and the official and confidential
communications of the military and civic functionaries of France,
revealing the joint or conflicting schemes and jealousies of intrigue
or selfishness of priests, traders, monopolists, and adventurers. The
panorama that is unrolled and spread before us is full and complete,
lacking nothing of reality in nature or humanity, in color, variety,
or action. The volumes rehearse in a continuous narrative the course
of French enterprise here, the motives, immediate and ultimate, which
were had in view, the progress in realizing them, the obstacles and
resistance encountered, and the tragic failure.[1363]

The references in Parkman show that he depends more upon French than
upon English sources, and indeed he seems to give the chief credit for
his drawing of the early Indian life and character to the _Relations_
of the French and Italian Jesuits,[1364] during their missionary work
in New France.

We must class with these records of the Jesuits, though not
equalling them in value, the volumes of Champlain, Sagard, Creuxius,
Boucher,[1365] and the later Lafitau and Charlevoix. Parkman[1366]
tells us that no other of these early books is so satisfactory as
Lafitau’s _Mœurs des Sauvages_ (1724); and Charlevoix gave similar
testimony regarding his predecessor.[1367] For original material on
the French side we have nothing to surpass in interest the _Mémoires
et documents_, published by Pierre Margry, of which an account has
been given elsewhere,[1368] as well as of the efforts of Parkman and
others in advancing their publication.[1369] There is but little matter
in these volumes relating to the military operations which make the
subject of this chapter, though jealousy and rivalry of the schemes
of the English, and the necessity of efforts to thwart them in their
attempts to gain influence and to open trade with the Indians, are
constantly recognized. In the diplomatic and military movements which
opened on this continent the Seven Years’ War, the English, who had
substantially secured the alliance of the Iroquois, or the Six Nations,
insisted that they had obtained by treaties with them the territory
between the Alleghanies and the Ohio, which the Six Nations on their
part claimed to have gained by conquest and cession of the tribes that
had previously occupied it. But when the English vindicated their
entrance on the territory on the basis of these treaties with the Six
Nations, the Shawanees and the Delawares, having recuperated their
courage and vigor, denied this right by conquest. The French could
not claim a right either by conquest or by cession. Their assumed
occupancy and tenure through mission stations and strongholds were
maintained simply and wholly on grounds of discovery and exploration.
Margry’s volumes furnish the abundant and all-sufficient evidence of
the priority of the French in this enterprise. The official documents
interchanged with the authorities at home are all engaged with advice
and promptings and measures for making good the claim to dominion
founded on discovery. These volumes also are of the highest value
as presenting to us from the first explorers, every way intelligent
and competent as observers and reporters, the scenes and tenants
of the interior of the continent. Here we have the wilderness, its
primeval forests, its sea-like lakes, its threading rivers, shrunken
or swollen, its cataracts and its confluent streams, its marshy
expanses, bluffs, and plains, and its resources, abundant or scant,
for sustaining life of beasts or men, all touched in feature or full
portrayal by the charming skill of those to whom the sight was novel
and bewildering.[1370] These French explorers will henceforth serve for
all time as primary authorities on the features and resources of the
interior of this continent just before it became the prize in contest
between rival European nationalities. That contest undoubtedly had
more to do in deciding the fate of the savage tribes from that time
to our own. There are many reasons for believing that if the French
had been able to hold alone an undisputed dominion in the interior of
the continent, their relations with the Indian tribes, if not wholly
pacific, would have been far more amicable than those which followed
upon the hot rivalry with the English for the possession of their
territories. The French were the wiser, the more tolerant and friendly
of the two, in their intercourse with and treatment of the savages,
with whom they found it so easy to affiliate. Under other circumstances
the Indians might have come to hold the relation of _wards_ to the
French in a sense far more applicable than that in which the term has
been used by the government of the United States.

Of the early English material there is no dearth, but it hardly has
the same stamp of authority. The story of the Moravian and other
missions on the Protestant and English side has less of such invariable
devotedness and success than is recorded in the general summaries of
the Jesuit and Recollet missions, like Shea’s _History of the Catholic
Missions_, 1529-1854 (N. Y., 1855).[1371] The _Indian Nations_ of
Heckewelder,[1372] the service of the United Brethren, and the labors
instituted by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,[1373]
are records not without significance; but they yield to the superior
efficacy of the French.[1374] Among the English administrative
officers, the lead must doubtless be given to Sir William Johnson,
for his personal influence over the Indian mind, winning their
full confidence by fair and generous treatment of them, by a free
hospitality, by assimilating with their habits even in his array,
and by mastering their language. His deputy, Col. George Croghan, as
interpreter and messenger, was kept busily employed in constant tramps
through the woods, and in fearless errands to parties of vacillating
or hostile tribes, to hold or win them to the English interest. The
principal and the deputy, in this hazardous diplomacy, were specially
qualified for their office by having mastered the gift and qualities of
Indian oratory, by a familiarity with Indian character in its strength
and weakness, and by endeavoring to keep faith with them, and to
imitate the adroit methods of the French rather than the contemptuous
hauteur of most of the English in intercourse with them.[1375]

The reader will naturally go to the biographies of Johnson, Washington,
and the other military leaders of their time, to those of a few
civilians, like Franklin, and to the general histories of the French
and Indian wars and of their separate campaigns, for much light upon
the Indian in war; and these materials have been sufficiently explored
in another volume of the present History.[1376] These more general
accounts are easily supplemented in the narratives of adventures and
sufferings by a large class of persons who fell captive to the Indians,
and lived to tell their tales.[1377]

The earlier travellers, like P. E. Radisson,[1378] Richard
Falconer,[1379] Le Beau,[1380] and Jonathan Carver,[1381] not to name
others; the later ones, like Prinz Maximilian;[1382] the experiences of
various army officers on the frontiers, like Randolph B. Marcy[1383]
and J. B. Fry,[1384]—all such books fill in the picture in some of its
details.

The early life in the Ohio Valley was particularly conducive to
such auxiliary helps in this study, and we owe more of this kind of
illustration to Joseph Doddridge[1385] than to any other. He was a
physician and a missionary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and in
both his professions a man highly esteemed. He was born in Maryland
in 1769, and in his fourth year removed with his family to the
western border of the line between Pennsylvania and Virginia. With
abundant opportunities in his youth of familiarity with the rudest
experiences of frontier life near hostile Indians, he was a keen
observer, a skilful narrator, and a diligent gatherer-up of historical
and traditional lore from the hardy and well-scarred pioneers. He had
received a good academic and medical education, and was a keen student
of nature as well as of humanity. His pages give us most vivid pictures
of life under the stern and perilous conditions; not, however, without
their fascinations, of forest haunts, of rude and scattered cabins, of
domestic and social relations, of the resources of the heroic whites,
and of the qualities of Indian warfare in the desperate struggle with
the invaders.[1386]

Another early writer in this field was Dr. S. P. Hildreth of Ohio, who
published his _Pioneer History_ (Cincinnati, 1848) while some of the
pioneers of the Northwest were still living, and the papers of some
of them, like Col. George Morgan, could be put to service.[1387] Dr.
Hildreth, in his _Biographical and Historical Memoirs of the early
Pioneer Settlers of Ohio_ (Cincinnati, 1852), included a Memoir of
Isaac Williams, who at the age of eighteen began a course of service
and adventure in the Indian country, which was continued till its
close at the age of eighty-four. When eighteen years of age he was
employed by the government of Pennsylvania, being already a trained
hunter, as a spy and ranger among the Indians. He served in this
capacity in Braddock’s campaign, and was a guard for the first convoy
of provisions, on pack-horses, to Fort Duquesne, after its surrender
to General Forbes in 1758. He was one of the first settlers on the
Muskingum, after the peace made there with the Indians, in 1765, by
Bouquet. His subsequent life was one of daring and heroic adventure on
the frontiers.[1388]

* * * * *

Passing to the more general works, the earliest treatment of the North
American Indians, of more than local scope, was the work of James
Adair, first published in 1775, a section of whose map, showing the
position of the Indian tribes within the present United States at that
time, is given elsewhere.[1389] This _History of the American Indians_
was later included by Kingsborough in _Antiquities of Mexico_ (vol.
viii. London, 1848).[1390] At just about the same time (1777), Dr.
Robertson, in his _America_ (book iv.), gave a general survey, which
probably represents the level of the best European knowledge at that
time.

It was not till well into the present century that much effort was made
to summarize the scattered knowledge of explorers like Lewis and Clarke
and of venturesome travellers. In 1819, we find where we might not
expect it about as good an attempt to make a survey of the subject as
was then attainable, in Ezekiel Sanford’s _History of the United States
before the Revolution_,—a book, however, which was pretty roundly
condemned for its general inaccuracy by Nathan Hale in the _North
American Review_. The next year the Rev. Jedediah Morse made _A report
to the secretary of war, on Indian affairs, comprising a narrative of
a tour in 1820, for ascertaining the actual state of the Indian tribes
in our country_ (New Haven, 1822), which is about the beginning of
systematized knowledge, though the subject in its scientific aspects
was too new for well-studied proportions. The _Report_, however,
attracted attention and instigated other students. De Tocqueville, in
1835, took the Indian problem within his range.[1391] Albert Gallatin
printed, the next year, in the second volume of the _Archæologia
Americana_ (Cambridge, 1836), his _Synopsis of the Indian Tribes within
the United States east of the Rocky Mountains_; and though his main
purpose was to explain the linguistic differences, his introduction is
still a valuable summary of the knowledge then existing.

There were at this time two well-directed efforts in progress to catch
the features and life of the Indians as preserving their aboriginal
traits. Between 1838 and 1844 Thomas L. McKenney and James Hall
published at Philadelphia, in three volumes folio, their _History of
the Indian tribes of North America, with biographical sketches of
the principal chiefs. With 120 portrs. from the Indian gallery of
the Department of war, at Washington_;[1392] and in 1841 the public
first got the fruits of George Catlin’s wanderings among the Indians
of the Northwest, in his _Letters and notes on the manners, customs
and condition of the North American Indians, written during eight
years’ travel among the wildest tribes of Indians in North America, in
1832-39_ (N. Y., 1841), in two volumes. The book went through various
editions in this country and in London.[1393] It was but the forerunner
of various other books illustrative of his experience among the tribes;
but it remains the most important.[1394] The sufficient summary of
all that Catlin did to elucidate the Indian character and life will
be found in Thomas Donaldson’s _George Catlin’s Indian Gallery in the
U. S. Nat. Museum, with memoirs and statistics_, being part v. of the
_Smithsonian Report_ for 1885.[1395]

The great work of Schoolcraft has been elsewhere described in the
present volume.[1396]

The agencies for acquiring and disseminating knowledge respecting the
condition, past and present, of the red race have been and are much the
same as those which improve the study of the archæological aspects of
their history: such publications as the _Transactions of the American
Ethnological Society_ (1845-1848); the _Reports_ of the governmental
geological surveys, and those upon trans-continental railway routes;
those upon national boundaries; those of the Smithsonian Institution,
with its larger _Contribution_s, and of late years the _Reports of the
Bureau of Ethnology_; the reports of such institutions as the Peabody
Museum of Archæology; and those of the Indian agents of the Federal
government, of chief importance among which is Miss Alice C. Fletcher’s
_Indian Education and Civilization_, published by the Bureau of
Education (Washington, 1888). To these must be added the great mass of
current periodical literature reached through _Poole’s Index_, and the
action and papers of the government, not always easily discoverable,
through Poore’s _Descriptive Catalogue_.

The maps of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are, in addition
to the reports of traders, missionaries, and adventurers, the means
which we have of placing the territories of the many Indian tribes
which, since the contact of Europeans, have been found in North
America; but the abiding-places of the tribes have been far from
permanent. Many of these early maps are given in other volumes of the
present History.[1397] Geographers like Hutchins and military men
like Bouquet found it incumbent on them to study this question.[1398]
Benjamin Smith Barton surveyed the field in 1797; but the earliest of
special map seems to have been that compiled by Albert Gallatin, who
endeavored to place the tribes of the Atlantic slope as they were in
1600, and those beyond the Alleghanies as they were in 1800. The map in
the _American Gazetteer_ (London, 1762) gives some information,[1399]
and that of Adair in 1775 is reproduced elsewhere.[1400] In 1833,
Catlin endeavored to give a geographical position to all the tribes
in the United States on a map, given in his great work and reproduced
in the _Smithsonian Report_, part v. (1885). In 1840 compiled maps
were given on a small scale in George Bancroft’s third volume of his
_United States_, and another in Marryat’s _Travels_, vol. ii. The
government has from time to time published maps showing the Indian
occupation of territory, and the present reservations are shown on maps
in Donaldson’s _Public Domain_ and in the _Smithsonian Report_, part v.
(1885).[1401]

The migrations and characteristics of the Eskimos have already been
discussed,[1402] and the journals of the Arctic explorers will yield
light upon their later conditions. We find those of the Hudson Bay
region depicted in all the books relating to the life of the Company’s
factors.[1403] The Beothuks of Newfoundland, which are thought to
have become extinct in 1828,[1404] are described in Hatton and
Harvey’s _Newfoundland_; by T. G. B. Lloyd in the _Journal of the
Anthropological Institute_ (London), 1874, p. 21; 1875, p. 222; by A.
S. Gatschet in the _American Philosophical Society’s Transactions_
(Philad., 1885-86, vols. xxii. xxiii.); and in the _Nineteenth
Century_, Dec., 1888. Leclercq in his _Nouvelle Relation de la
Gaspésie_ (Paris, 1691) gives us an account of the natives on the
western side of the gulf.[1405]

The Micmacs of Nova Scotia are considered in Lescarbot and the later
histories and in the documentary collections of that colony; and as
they played a part in the French wars, the range of that military
history covers some material concerning them.[1406]

For the aborigines of Canada, we easily revert to the older writers,
like Champlain, Sagard, Creuxius, Boucher, Leclercq, Lafitau; the
_Voyage curieux et nouveau parmi les sauvages_ of Le Beau (Amsterdam,
1738); the _Nouvelle France_ of Charlevoix; the _Histoire de l’Amérique
Septentrionale_ (Paris, 1753) of Bacqueville de la Potherie;[1407] and
to the later historians, like Fernald (ch. 7, 8), Garneau (2d book),
and Warburton’s _Conquest of Canada_ (ch. 6, 7, 8). The Abenaki, which
lay between the northeastern settlements of the English and the French,
are specially treated by Bacqueville (vol. iv.), in the _Maine Hist.
Soc. Collection_s, vol. vi., and in Maurault’s _Histoire des Abenakis_
(1866).[1408]

The rich descriptive literature of the early days of New England gives
us much help in understanding the aboriginal life. We begin with John
Smith, and come down through a long series of writers like Governor
Bradford and Edward Winslow for Plymouth; Gorges, Morton, Winthrop,
Higginson, Dudley, Johnson, Wood, Lechford, and Roger Williams for
other parts. These are all characterized in another place.[1409]
The authorities on the early wars with the Pequots and with Philip,
the accounts of Daniel Gookin, who knew them so well,[1410] and
chance visits like those of Rawson and Danforth,[1411] furnish the
concomitants needful to the recital. The story of the labors of
Eliot, Mayhew, and others in urging the conversion of the natives
is based upon another large range of material, in which much that
is merely exhortative does not wholly conceal the material for the
historian.[1412] Here too the chief actors in this work help us in
their records. We have letters of Eliot, and we have the tracts which
he was instrumental in publishing.[1413] There is also a letter of
Increase Mather to Leusden on the Indian missions (1688).[1414] Gookin
tells us of the sufferings of the Christian Indians during the war of
1675,[1415] and he gives also reports of the speeches of the Indian
converts.[1416] The Mayhews of Martha’s Vineyard, Thomas, Matthew, and
Experience, have left us records equally useful.[1417]

The principal student of the literature, mainly religious, produced
in the tongue of the natives, has been Dr. James Hammond Trumbull, of
Hartford, and he has given us the leading accounts of its creation and
influence.[1418] It was this propagandist movement that led Eleazer
Wheelock into establishing (1754) an Indian Charity School at Lebanon,
Connecticut, which finally removed to Hanover, in New Hampshire, and
became (1769) Dartmouth College.[1419]

The New England tribes have produced a considerable local illustrative
literature. The Kennebecs and Penobscots in Maine are noticed in the
histories of that State, and in many of the local monographs.[1420] For
New Hampshire, beside the state histories,[1421] the Pemigewassets are
described in Wm. Little’s _Warren_ (Concord, 1854), and the Pemicooks
in the _N. H. Hist. Collections_, i.; Bouton’s _Concord_, Moore’s
_Concord_, and Potter’s _Manchester_.

The Archives of Massachusetts yield a large amount of material
respecting the relations of the tribes to the government, particularly
at the eastward, while Maine was a part of the colony;[1422] and the
large mass of its local histories, as well as those of the State,[1423]
supply even better than the other New England States material for the
historian.[1424]

The Indians of Rhode Island are noted by Arnold in his _Rhode Island_
(ch. 3), and some special treatment is given to the Narragansetts
and the Nyantics.[1425] Those of Connecticut have a monographic
record in De Forest’s _Indians of Connecticut_, as well as treatment
otherwise.[1426]

Palfrey (_Hist. New England_, i. ch. 1, 2), in his general survey
of the Indians of New England, delineates their character with much
plainness and discrimination, and it is perhaps as true a piece of
characterization as any we have.[1427]

The Iroquois of New York have probably been the subject of a more
sustained historical treatment than any other tribes. We have the
advantage, in studying them, of the observations of the Dutch,[1428]
as well as of the French and English. The French priests give us the
earliest accounts, particularly the relations of Jogues and Milet.[1429]

The story of the French missions in New York is told elsewhere;[1430]
those of the Protestant English yield us less.[1431]

We have another source in the local histories of New York.[1432]
The earliest of the general histories of the Iroquois is that of
Cadwallader Colden, and the best edition is _The history of the five
Indian nations depending on the province of New-York. Reprinted
exactly from Bradford’s New York edition, 1727; with an introduction
and notes by J. G. Shea_ (New York, 1866).[1433] The London reprints
of 1747, and later, unfortunately added to the title _Five Indian
Nations_ [_of Canada_] the words in brackets. This was the very point
denied by the English, who claimed that the French had no territorial
rights south of the lakes. Otherwise his title conveys two significant
facts: first, that the English had come to regard the Five Nations as
their “dependants”; and second, that these Indians actually were a
barrier between them and the French. There was something farcical in
the formula used by Sir Wm. Johnson in a letter to the ministry: “The
combined tribes have taken arms against his Britannic Majesty.” The
Mohawks had been induced to ask that the Duke of York’s arms should be
attached to their castles. This had been assented to, and allowed as a
security against the inroads of the French—a sort of talismanic charm
which might be respected by European usage. But those ducal bearings
did not have their full meaning to the Iroquois as binding their own
allegiance, nor were the Six Nations ever the gainers by being thus
constructively protected.

Colden was born in Scotland in 1688, and died on Long Island in 1776.
He was a physician, botanist, scholar, and literary man, able and
well qualified in each pursuit. The greater part of his long life was
spent in this country. As councillor, lieutenant-governor, and acting
governor, he was in the administration of New York from 1720 till near
his death. He was a most inquisitive and intelligent investigator
and observer of Indian history and character. In dedicating his work
to General Oglethorpe, he claims to have been prompted to it by his
interest in the welfare of the Five Nations. He is frank and positive
in expressing his judgment that they had been degraded and demoralized
by their intercourse with the whites. He says that he wrote the former
part of his history in New York, in 1727, to thwart the manœuvres of
the French in their efforts to monopolize the western fur trade. They
had been allowed to import woollen goods for the Indian traffic through
New York. Governor Burnet advised that a stop be put to this abuse. The
New York legislature furthered his advice, and built a fort at Oswego
for three hundred traders. When the Duke of York was represented here
by Governor Dongan, and “Popish interests” were allowed sway,—there
being at the time a mean pretence of amity between England and
France,—the interests of the former were sacrificed to those of the
latter. This, of course, had a bad influence on the Five Nations, as
leading them to regard the French as masters. The whole of the first
part of Colden’s History deals with the Iroquois as merely the centre
of the rivalry between the French and the English with their respective
savage allies. The English had the advantage at the start, because from
the earliest period when Champlain made a hostile incursion into the
country of the Iroquois, attended by their Huron enemies, the relations
of enmity were decided upon, and afterwards were constantly imbittered
by a series of invasions. The French sought to undo their own influence
of this sort when it became necessary for them to try to win over the
Iroquois to their own interest in the fur traffic. The Confederacy
which existed among the Five, and afterwards the Six, Nations was
roughly tried when there was so sharp a bidding for alliances between
one or another of the tribes by their European tempters. An incidental
and very embarrassing element came in to complicate the relations of
the parties, English, French, and Indians, on the grounds of the claim
advanced by the English to hold the region beyond the Alleghanies
by cession from the Iroquois in a council in 1726. The question was
whether the Iroquois had previous to that time obtained tenable
possession of the Ohio region, by conquest of the former occupants.
It would appear that after that conquest that region was for a time
well-nigh deserted. When it was to some extent reoccupied, the
subsequent hunters and tenants of it denied the sovereignty of the
Iroquois and the rights of the English intruders who relied upon the
old treaty of cession.

The rival French history while Colden was in vogue was the third
volume of Bacqueville de la Potherie’s _Hist. de l’Amérique
Septentrionale_ (Paris, 1753); and another contemporary English
view appeared in Wm. Smith’s _Hist. of the Province of New York_
(1757).[1434] Nothing appeared after this of much moment as a general
account of the Six Nations till Henry R. Schoolcraft made his _Report_
to the New York authorities in 1845, which was published in a more
popular form in his _Notes on the Iroquois, or Contributions to
American history, antiquities, and general ethnology_ (Albany, 1847), a
book not valued overmuch.[1435]

Better work was done by J. V. H. Clark in what is in effect a good
history of the Confederacy, in his _Onondaga_ (Syracuse, 1849).
The series of biographies by W. L. Stone, of Sir William Johnson,
Brant, and Red Jacket, form a continuous history for a century
(1735-1838).[1436] The most carefully studied work of all has been that
of Lewis H. Morgan in his _League of the Iroquois_ (1851), a book of
which Parkman says (_Jesuits_, p. liv) that it commands a place far
in advance of all others, and he adds, “Though often differing widely
from Mr. Morgan’s conclusions, I cannot bear too emphatic testimony
to the value of his researches.”[1437] The latest scholarly treatment
of the Iroquois history is by Horatio Hale in the introduction to
_The Iroquois Book of Rites_ (Philad., 1883), which gives the forms
of commemoration on the death of a chief and upon the choice of a
successor.[1438]

Moving south, the material grows somewhat scant. There is little
distinctive about the New Jersey tribes.[1439] For the Delawares and
the Lenni Lenape, the main source is the native bark record, which as
Walam-Olum was given by Squier in his _Historical and Mythological
Traditions of the Algonquins_,[1440] as translated by Rafinesque,[1441]
while a new translation is given in D. G. Brinton’s _Lenâpé and their
legends; with the complete text and symbols of the Walam Olum, a new
translation, and an inquiry into its authenticity_ (Philadelphia,
1885), making a volume of his _Library of aboriginal American
literature_; and the book is in effect a series of ethnological studies
on the Indians of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland.[1442]

In addition to some of the early tracts[1443] on Maryland[1444] and
Virginia and the general histories, like those of Beverly, and Stith
for Virginia, and particularly Bozman for Maryland, with Henning’s
_Statutes_, and some of the local histories,[1445] we have little for
these central coast regions.[1446] In Carolina we must revert to such
early books as Lawson and Brickell; to Carroll’s _Hist. Collections of
South Carolina_, and to occasional periodic papers.[1447]

Farther south, we get help from the early Spanish and French,—Herrera,
Barcia, the chroniclers of Florida, Davilla Padilla, Laudonnière, the
memorials of De Soto’s march, the documents in the collections of
Ternaux, Buckingham Smith, and B. F. French, all of which have been
characterized elsewhere.[1448]

The later French documents in Margry and the works of Dumont and Du
Pratz give us additional help.[1449] On the English side we find
something in Coxe’s _Carolana_, in Timberlake, in Lawson,[1450] in the
Wormsloe quartos on Georgia and South Carolina,[1451] and in later
books like Filson’s _Kentucke_, John Haywood’s _Nat. and Aborig. Hist.
Tennessee_ (down to 1768), Benjamin Hawkins’s _Sketch of the Creek
Country_ (1799), and Jeffreys’ _French Dominion in America_. Brinton,
in _The National Legend of the Chata-Mus-ko-kee tribes_ (in the _Hist.
Mag._, Feb., 1870), printed a translation of “What Chekilli the head
chief of the upper and lower Creeks said in a talk held at Savannah
in 1735,” which he derived from a German version preserved in _Herrn
Philipp Georg Friederichs von Reck Diarium von seiner Reise nach
Georgien im Jahr 1735_ (Halle, 1741).[1452] This legend is taken by
Albert S. Gatschet, in his _Migration Legend of the Creek Indians, with
a linguistic, historic, and ethnographic introduction_ (Philad., 1884),
as a centre round which to group the ethnography of the whole gulf
water-shed of the Southern States, wherein he has carefully analyzed
the legend and its language, and in this way there is formed what is
perhaps the best survey we have of the southern Indians.

This we may supplement by Pickett’s _Alabama_. Col. C. C. Jones, Jr.,
has given us a sketch (1868) of Tomo-chi-chi, the chief who welcomed
Oglethorpe.[1453]

C. C. Royce has given us glimpses of the relations of the Cherokees and
the whites in the _Fifth Report, Bureau of Ethnology_. A recent book
is G. E. Foster’s _Se-Quo-Yah, the American Cadmus and modern Moses. A
biography of the greatest of redmen, around whose life has been woven
the manners, customs and beliefs of the early Cherokees, with a recital
of their wrongs and progress toward civilization_ (Philadelphia, etc.,
1885.)[1454] Gatschet cites the _Mémoire_ of Milfort, a war chief of
the Creeks.[1455] The Chippewas are commemorated in a paper in Beach’s
_Indian Miscellany_.[1456] The Seminole war produced a literature[1457]
bearing on the Florida tribes. Bernard Romans’ _Florida_ (1775) gave
the comments of an early English observer of the natives of the
southeastern parts of the United States. Dr. Brinton’s _Floridian
Peninsula_ and the paper of Clay Maccauley on the Seminoles in the
_Fifth Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_ help out the study. The Natchez have
been considered as allied with the races of middle America,[1458] and
we may go back to Garcilasso de la Vega and the later Du Pratz for some
of the speculations about them, to be aided by the accounts we get from
the French concerning their campaigns against them.[1459]

The placing of the tribes in the Ohio Valley is embarrassed by
their periodic migrations.[1460] Brinton follows the migrations
of the Shawanees,[1461] and C. C. Royce seeks to identify them in
their wanderings.[1462] O. H. Marshall tracks other tribes along the
Great Lakes.[1463] Hiram W. Beckwith places those in Illinois and
Indiana.[1464] The Wyandots[1465] have been treated, as affording
a type for a short study of tribal society, by Major Powell in
the _Bureau of Ethnology, First Report_.[1466] G. Gale’s _Upper
Mississippi_ (Chicago, 1867) gives us a condensed summary of the tribes
of that region, and Miss Fletcher’s _Report_ will help us for all this
territory. Use can be also made of Caleb Atwater’s _Indians of the
Northwest, or a Tour to Prairie du Chien_ (Columbus, 1850). Dr. John G.
Shea and others have used the _Collections of the Wisconsin Historical
Society_ to make known their studies of the tribes of that State.[1467]
One of the most readable studies of the Indians in the neighborhood of
Lake Superior is John G. Kohl’s _Kitchi-Gami_ (1860). The authorities
on the Black Hawk war throw light on the Sac and Fox tribes.[1468]
Pilling’s _Bibliography of the Siouan Languages_ (1887) affords the
readiest key to the mass of books about the Sioux or Dacotah stocks
from the time of Hennepin and the early adventurers in the Missouri
Valley. The travellers Carver and Catlin are of importance here. Mrs.
Eastman’s _Dacotah, or life and legends of the Sioux_ (1849) is an
excellent book that has not yet lost its value; and the same can be
said of Francis Parkman’s _California and the Oregon Trail_ (N. Y.,
1849), which shows that historian’s earliest experience of the wild
camp life. Miss Alice C. Fletcher is the latest investigator of their
present life.[1469] Of the Crows we have some occasional accounts like
Mrs. Margaret J. Carrington’s _Absaraka_.[1470] On the Modocs we have
J. Miller’s _Life among the Modocs_ (London, 1873). J. O. Dorsey has
given us a paper on the Omaha sociology in the _Third Rept. Bureau
of Ethnology_ (p. 205); and we may add to this some account in the
_Transactions_ (vol. i.) of the Nebraska State Hist. Society, and a
tract by Miss Fletcher on the _Omaha tribe of Indians in Nebraska_
(Washington, 1885). The Pawnees have been described by J. B. Dunbar in
the _Mag. Amer. Hist._ (vols. iv., v., viii., ix.) The Ojibways have
had two native historians,—Geo. Copway’s _Traditional Hist. of the
Ojibway Nation_ (London, 1850), and Peter Jones’ _Hist. of the Ojibway
Indians, with special reference to their conversion to Christianity_
(London, 1861). The _Minnesota Hist. Soc. Collections_ (vol. v.)
contain other historical accounts by Wm. W. Warren and by Edw. D.
Neill,—the latter touching their connection with the fur-traders. Miss
Fletcher’s _Report_ (1888) will supplement all these accounts of the
aborigines of this region.

Our best knowledge of the southwestern Indians, the Apaches, Navajos,
Utes, Comanches, and the rest, comes from such government observers
as Emory in his _Military Reconnaissance_; Marcy’s _Exploration of
the Red River in 1852_; J. H. Simpson in his _Expedition into the
Navajo Country_ (1856); and E. H. Ruffner’s _Reconnoissance in the Ute
Country_ (1874). The fullest references are given in Bancroft’s _Native
Races_,[1471] with a map.

We may still find in Bancroft’s _Native Races_ (i. ch. 2, 3) the best
summarized statement with references on the tribes of the upper Pacific
coast, and follow the development of our knowledge in the narratives
of the early explorers of that coast by water, in the account of Lewis
and Clark and other overland travels, and in such tales of adventures
as the _Journal kept at Nootka Sound by John R. Jewitt_, which has had
various forms.[1472]

The earliest of the better studied accounts of these northwestern
tribes was that of Horatio Hale in the volume (vi.) on ethnography,
of the Wilkes’ _United States Exploring Expedition_ (Philad., 1846),
and the same philologist’s paper in the _Amer. Ethnological Society’s
Transactions_ (vol. ii.). Recent scientific results are found in _The
North-West Coast of America, being Results of Recent Ethnological
Researches, from the Collections of the Royal Museums at Berlin,
published by the Directors of the Ethnological Department, by Herr E.
Krause, and partly by Dr. Grunwedel, translated from the German, the
Historical and Descriptive Text by Dr. Reiss_ (New York, 1886), and
in the first volume of the _Contributions to North Amer. Ethnology_
(Powell’s Survey), in papers by George Gibbs on the tribes of
Washington and Oregon, and by W. H. Dall on those of Alaska.[1473]

For the tribes of California, Bancroft’s first volume is still the
useful general account; but the Federal government have published
several contributions of scientific importance: that of Stephen Powers
in the _Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology_ (vol. iii., 1877);[1474]
the ethnological volume (vii.) of _Wheeler’s Survey_, edited by
Putnam; and papers in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1863-64, and in Miss
Fletcher’s _Report_, 1888.[1475]

This survey would not be complete without some indication of the
topical variety in the consideration of the native peoples, but we have
space only to mention the kinds of special treatment, shown in accounts
of their government and society, their intellectual character, and of
some of their customs and amusements.[1476] Their industries, their
linguistics, and their myths have been considered with wider relations
in the appendixes of the present volume.

[Illustration: Signatures]

CHAPTER VI.

THE PREHISTORIC ARCHÆOLOGY OF NORTH AMERICA.

BY HENRY W. HAYNES,

_Archæological Institute of America._

BY the discovery of America a new continent was brought to light,
inhabited by many distinct tribes, differing in language and in
customs, but strikingly alike in physical appearance. All that can be
learned in regard to their condition, and that of their ancestors,
prior to the coming of Columbus, falls within the domain of the
prehistoric archæology of America. This recent science of Prehistoric
Archæology deals mainly with facts, not surmises. In studying the past
of forgotten races, “hid from the world in the low-delved tomb,” her
chief agent is the spade, not the pen. Her leading principles, the
lamps by which her path is guided, are superposition, association,
and style. Does this new science teach us that the tribes found in
possession of the soil were the descendants of its original occupants,
or does she rather furnish reasons for inferring that these had been
preceded by some extinct race or races? The first question, therefore,
that presents itself to us relates to the antiquity of man upon this
continent; and in respect to this the progress of archæological
investigation has brought about a marked change of opinion. Modern
speculation, based upon recent discoveries, inclines to favor the view
that this continent was inhabited at least as early as in the later
portion of the quaternary or pleistocene period. Whether this primitive
people was autochthonous or not, is a problem that probably will never
be solved; but it is now generally held that this earliest population
was intruded upon by other races, coming either from Asia or from the
Pacific Islands, from whom were descended the various tribes which have
occupied the soil down to the present time.

The writer believes also that the majority of American archæologists
now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that any mysterious,
superior race has ever lived in any portion of our continent. They find
no archæological evidence proving that at the time of its discovery
any tribe had reached a stage of culture that can properly be called
civilization. Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the
Spanish conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition from the
stone to the bronze age, possessing no written language, or what can
properly be styled an alphabet, and not yet having even learned the use
of beasts of burden.

By a large and growing school of archæologists, moreover, it
is maintained that all the various tribes upon this continent,
notwithstanding their different degrees of advancement, were living
under substantially similar institutions; and that even the different
forms of house construction practised by them were only stages in the
development of the same general conceptions. Without attempting to
dogmatize about such difficult problems, the object of this chapter
is to set forth concisely such views as recommend themselves to the
writer’s judgment. He is profoundly conscious of the limitations of his
knowledge, and fully aware that his opinions will be at variance with
those of other competent and learned investigators. _Non nostrum tantas
componere lites._

The controversy in regard to the antiquity of man in the old world
may be regarded as substantially settled. Scarcely any one now denies
that man was in existence there during the close of the quaternary
or pleistocene period; but there is a great difference of opinion as
to the sufficiency of the evidence thus far brought forward to prove
that he had made his appearance in Europe in the previous tertiary
period, or even in the earlier part of the quaternary. What is the
present state of opinion in regard to the correlative question about
the antiquity of man in America? Less than ten years ago the latest
treatise published in this country, in which this subject came under
discussion, met the question with the sweeping reply that “no truly
scientific proof of man’s great antiquity in America exists.”[1477]
But we think if the author of that thorough and “truly scientific”
work were living now his belief would be different. After a careful
consideration of all the former evidence that had been adduced in
proof of man’s early existence upon this continent, none of which
seemed to him conclusive, he goes on to state that “Dr. C. C. Abbott
has unquestionably discovered many palæolithic implements in the
glacial drift in the valley of the Delaware River, near Trenton,
New Jersey.”[1478] Now a single discovery of this character, if it
were unquestionable, or incapable of any other explanation, would
be sufficient to prove that man existed upon this continent in
quaternary times. The establishment, therefore, of the antiquity of
man in America, according to this latest authority, seems to rest
mainly upon the fact of the discovery by Dr. Abbott of palæolithic
implements in the valley of the Delaware. To quote the language of an
eminent European man of science, “This gentleman appears to stand in
a somewhat similar relation to this great question in America as did
Boucher de Perthes in Europe.”[1479] The opinion of the majority of
American geologists upon this point is clearly indicated in a very
recent article by Mr. W. J. McGee, of the U. S. Geological Survey:
“But it is in the aqueo-glacial gravels of the Delaware River, at
Trenton, which were laid down contemporaneously with the terminal
moraine one hundred miles further northward, and which have been so
thoroughly studied by Abbott, that the most conclusive proof of the
existence of glacial man is found.”[1480] It will accordingly be
necessary to give in considerable detail an account of the discovery
of palæolithic implements by Dr. Abbott in the Delaware valley, and of
its confirmation by different investigators, as well as of such other
discoveries in different parts of our country as tend to substantiate
the conclusions that have been drawn from them by archæologists.

[Illustration: PALÆOLITHIC IMPLEMENT FROM THE TRENTON GRAVELS.

Side and edge view, of natural size. From the _Peabody Museum Reports_,
vol. ii. p. 33.]

By the term palæolithic implements we are to understand certain rude
stone objects, of varying size, roughly fashioned into shape by a
process of chipping away fragments from a larger mass so as to produce
cutting edges, with convex sides, massive, and suited to be held at one
end, and usually pointed at the other. These have never afterwards been
subjected to any smoothing or polishing process by rubbing them against
another stone. But it is only when such rude tools have been found
buried in beds of gravel or other deposits, which have been laid down
by great floods towards the close of what is known to geologists as the
quaternary or pleistocene period, that they can be regarded as really
palæolithic.[1481] At that epoch which immediately preceded the present
period, certain rivers flowed with a volume of water much greater than
now, owing to the melting of the thick ice-cap once covering large
portions of the northern hemisphere, which was accompanied by a climate
of great humidity. Vast quantities of gravels were washed down from
the débris of the great terminal moraine of this ice-sheet, and were
accumulated in beds of great thickness, extending in some instances
as high as two hundred feet up the slopes of the river valleys. In
such deposits, side by side with the rude products of human industry
we have thus described, and deposited by the same natural forces, are
found the fossil remains of several species of animals, which have
subsequently either become extinct, like the mammoth and the tichorhine
rhinoceros, or, driven southwards by the encroaching ice, have since
its disappearance migrated to arctic regions, like the musk-sheep and
the reindeer, or to the higher Alpine slopes, like the marmot. Such a
discovery establishes the fact that man must have been living as the
contemporary of these extinct animals, and this is the only proof of
his antiquity that is at present universally accepted.

There has been much discussion among geologists in regard to both the
duration and the conditions of the glacial period, but it is now the
settled opinion that there have been two distinct times of glacial
action, separated by a long interval of warmer climate, as is proved by
the occurrence of intercalated fossiliferous beds; this was followed
by the final retreat of the glacier.[1482] The great terminal moraine
stretching across the United States from Cape Cod to Dakota, and thence
northward to the foot of the Rocky Mountains, marks the limit of the
ice invasion in the second glacial epoch. South of this, extending
in its farthest boundary as low as the 38th degree of latitude, is
a deposit which thins out as we go west and northwest, and which is
called the drift-area. The drift graduates into a peculiar mud deposit,
for which the name of “loess” has been adopted from the geologists of
Europe, by whom it was given to a thick alluvial stratum of fine sand
and loam, of glacial origin. This attenuated drift represents the first
glacial invasion. From Massachusetts as far as northern New Jersey,
and in some other places, the deposits of the two epochs seem to
coalesce.[1483]

The interval of time that separated the two glacial periods can be best
imagined by considering the great erosions that have taken place in the
valleys of the Missouri and of the upper Ohio. “Glacial river deposits
of the earlier epoch form the capping of fragmentary terraces that
stand 250 to 300 feet above the present rivers;” while those of the
second epoch stretch down through a trough excavated to that depth by
the river through these earlier deposits and the rock below.[1484]

As to the probable time that has elapsed since the close of the
glacial period, the tendency of recent speculation is to restrict the
vast extent that was at first suggested for it to a period of from
twenty thousand to thirty thousand years. The most conservative view
maintains that it need not have been more than ten thousand years, or
even less.[1485] This lowest estimate, however, can only be regarded as
fixing a minimum point, and an antiquity vastly greater than this must
be assigned to man, as of necessity he must have been in existence long
before the final events occurred in order to have left his implements
buried in the beds of débris which they occasioned.

In April, 1873, Dr. C. C. Abbott, who was already well known as
an investigator of the antiquities of the Indian races, which he
believed had passed from “a palæolithic to a neolithic condition”
while occupying the Atlantic seaboard, published an article on
the “Occurrence of implements in the river-drift at Trenton, New
Jersey.”[1486] In this he described and figured three rude implements,
which he had found buried at a depth as great in one instance as
sixteen feet in the gravels of a bluff overlooking the Delaware
River. He argued that these must be of greater antiquity than relics
found on the surface, from the fact of their occurring _in place_ in
undisturbed deposits; that they could not have reached such a depth
by any natural means; and that they must be of human origin, and not
accidental formations, because as many as three had been discovered
of a like character. His conclusion is that they are “true drift
implements, fashioned and used by a people far antedating the people
who subsequently occupied this same territory.”

After two years of further research he returned to the subject,
publishing in the same journal, in June, 1876, an account of the
discovery of seven similar objects near the same locality. Of these he
said: “My studies of these palæolithic specimens and of their positions
in the gravel-beds and overlying soil have led me to conclude that not
long after the close of the last glacial epoch man appeared in the
valley of the Delaware.”[1487]

Most of these specimens were deposited by Dr. Abbott in the
Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology at Cambridge,
Massachusetts; and the curator of that institution, Professor Frederick
W. Putnam, in September, 1876, visited the locality in company with Dr.
Abbott. Together they succeeded in finding two examples _in place_.
Having been commissioned to continue his investigations, Dr. Abbott
presented to the trustees, in November of the same year, a detailed
report _On the Discovery of Supposed Palæolithic Implements from the
Glacial Drift in the Valley of the Delaware River, near Trenton, New
Jersey_.[1488] In this, three of the most characteristic specimens were
figured, which had been submitted to Mr. M. E. Wadsworth of Cambridge,
to determine their lithological character. He pronounced them to be
made of argillite, and declared that the chipping upon them could not
be attributed to any natural cause, and that the weathering of their
surfaces indicated their very great antiquity. The question “how and
when these implements came to be in the gravel” is discussed by Dr.
Abbott at some length. He argued that the same forces which spread the
beds of gravel over the wide area now covered carried them also; and
he predicted that they will be met with wherever such gravels occur in
other parts of the State. He specially dwells upon the circumstances
that the implements were found in _undisturbed_ portions of the freshly
exposed surface of the bluff, and not in the mass of talus accumulated
at its base, into which they might have fallen from the surface; and
that they have been found at great depths, “varying from five to over
twenty feet below the overlying soil.” He also insisted upon the marked
difference between their appearance and the materials of which they
are fashioned and the customary relics of the Indians. The conditions
under which the gravel-beds were accumulated are then studied in
connection with a report upon them by Professor N. S. Shaler, which
concludes, from the absence of stratification and of pebbles marked
with glacial scratches, that they were “formed in the sea near the foot
of the retreating ice-sheet, when the sub-glacial rivers were pouring
out the vast quantities of water and waste that clearly were released
during the breaking up of the great ice-time.” This view regards the
deposits as of glacial origin, and as laid down during that period, but
considers that they were subsequently modified in their arrangement by
the action of water. In such gravel-beds there have also been found
rolled fragments of reindeer-horns, and skulls of the walrus, as well
as the relics of man. Dr. Abbott accordingly drew the conclusion that
“man dwelt at the foot of the glacier, or at least wandered over the
open sea, during the accumulation of this mass of gravel;” that he was
contemporary of these arctic animals; and that this early race was
driven southward by the encroaching ice, leaving its rude implements
behind. Thus it will be seen that Dr. Abbott no longer considers man in
this country as belonging to post-glacial, but to interglacial times.

Continuing his investigations, in the following year Dr. Abbott gave
a much more elaborate account of his work and its results, in which
he announced his discovery of some sixty additional specimens.[1489]
To the objection that had been raised, that these supposed implements
might have been produced by the action of frost, he replied that a
single fractured surface might have originated in that way or from an
accidental blow; but when we find upon the same object from twenty
to forty planes of cleavage, all equally weathered (which shows that
the fragments were all detached at or about the same time), it is
impossible not to recognize in this the result of intentional action.
Four such implements are described and figured, of shapes much more
specialized than those previously published, and resembling very
closely objects which European archæologists style stone axes of “the
Chellean type,” whose artificial origin cannot be doubted.

[Illustration: THE TRENTON GRAVEL BLUFF.

From a photograph kindly furnished by Professor F. W. Putnam, showing
the Delaware and its bluff of gravel, where many of the rude implements
have been found.]

As some geologists were still inclined to insist upon the post-glacial
character of the débris in which the implements were found, Dr. Abbott,
admitting that the great terminal moraine of the northern ice-sheet
does not approach nearer than forty miles to the bluff at Trenton,
nevertheless insists that the character of the deposits there much more
resembles a mass of material accumulated in the sea at the foot of the
glacier than it does beds that have been subjected to the modifying
arrangement of water. He finds an explanation of this condition of
things in a prolongation of the glacier down the valley of the Delaware
as far as Trenton, at a time when the lower portions of the State had
suffered a considerable depression, and before the retreat of the
ice-sheet. But besides the comparatively unmodified material of the
bluff, in which the greater portion of the palæolithic implements has
been found, there also occur limited areas of stratified drift, such
as are to be seen in railway cuttings near Trenton, in which similar
implements are also occasionally found. These, however, present a more
worn appearance than the others. But it will be found that these tracts
of clearly stratified material are so very limited in extent that
they seem to imply some peculiar local condition of the glacier. This
position is illustrated by certain remarkable effects once witnessed
after a very severe rainfall, by which two palæolithic implements were
brought into immediate contact with ordinary Indian relics such as are
common on the surface. This leads to an examination of the question
of the origin of this surface soil, and a discussion of the problem
how true palæolithic implements sometimes occur in it. This soil is
known to be a purely sedimentary deposit, consisting almost exclusively
of sand, or of such finely comminuted gravels as would readily be
transported by rapid currents of water. But imbedded in it and making a
part of it are numerous huge boulders, too heavy to be moved by water.
Dr. Abbott accounted for their presence from their having been dropped
by ice-rafts, while the process of deposition of the soil was going on.
The same sort of agency could not have put in place both the soil and
the boulders contained in it, and the same force which transported the
latter may equally well have brought along such implements as occur in
the beds of clearly stratified origin. The wearing effect upon these of
gravels swept along by post-glacial floods will account for that worn
appearance which sometimes almost disguises their artificial origin.

In conclusion Dr. Abbott attempted to determine what was the early
race which preceded the Indians in the occupation of this continent.
From the peculiar nature and qualities of palæolithic implements he
argues that they are adapted to the needs of a people “living in a
country of vastly different character, and with a different fauna,”
from the densely wooded regions of the Atlantic seaboard, where the
red man found his home. The physical conditions of the glacial times
much more nearly resembled those now prevailing in the extreme north.
Accordingly he finds the descendants of the early race in the Eskimos
of North America, driven northwards after contact with the invading
Indian race. In this he is following the opinion of Professor William
Boyd Dawkins, who considers that people to be of the same blood as the
palæolithic cave-dwellers of southern France, and that of Mr. Dall and
Dr. Rink, who believed that they once occupied this continent as far
south as New Jersey. In confirmation of this view he asserts that the
Eskimos “until recently used stone implements of the rudest patterns.”
But unfortunately for this theory the implements of the Eskimos bear
no greater resemblance to palæolithic implements than do those of any
other people in the later stone age; and subsequent discoveries of
human crania in the Trenton gravels have led Dr. Abbott to question its
soundness.[1490]

These discoveries of Dr. Abbott are not liable to the imputation of
possible errors of observation or record, as would be the case if
they rested upon the testimony of a single person only. As has been
already stated, in September, 1876, Professor Putnam was present at
the finding _in place_ of two palæolithic implements, and in all has
taken five with his own hands from the gravel at various depths.[1491]
Mr. Lucien Carr also visited the locality in company with Professor J.
D. Whitney, in September, 1878, and found several _in place_.[1492]
Since then Professors Shaler, Dawkins, Wright, Lewis, and others,
including the writer, have all succeeded in finding specimens either
in place or in the talus along the face of the bluff, from which they
had washed out from freshly exposed surfaces of the gravel.[1493]
The whole number thus far discovered by Dr. Abbott amounts to
about four hundred specimens.[1494] Meanwhile, the problem of the
conditions under which the Trenton gravels had been accumulated was
made the subject of careful study by other competent geologists,
besides Professor Shaler, to whose opinion reference has already been
made. In October, 1877, the late Thomas Belt, F. G. S., visited the
locality, and shortly afterwards published an account of Dr. Abbott’s
discoveries, illustrated by several geological sections of the gravel.
His conclusion is, “that after the land-ice retired, or whilst it was
retiring, and before the coast was submerged to such a depth as to
permit the flotation of icebergs from the north, the upper pebble-beds
containing the stone implements were formed.”[1495] The geologists of
the New Jersey Survey had already recognized the distinction between
the drift gravels of Trenton and the earlier yellow marine gravels
which cover the lower part of the State. But it was the late Professor
Henry Carvill Lewis, of Philadelphia, who first accurately described
the character and limits of the Trenton gravels.[1496] This he had
carefully mapped before he was informed of Dr. Abbott’s discoveries,
and it has been found (with only one possible very recent exception)
that the implements occur solely in these newer gravels of the glacial
period.

Professor Lewis’s matured conclusions in regard to the geological
character and the age of the Trenton gravel cliff are thus expressed:
“The presence of large boulders in the bluff at Trenton, and the extent
and depth of the gravel at this place, have led to the supposition that
there was here the extremity of a glacial moraine. Yet the absence of
‘till’ and of scratched boulders, the absence of glacial striæ upon the
rocks of the valley, and the stratified character of the gravel, all
point to water action alone as the agent of deposition. The depth of
the gravel and the presence of the bluff at this point are explained by
the peculiar position that Trenton occupies relatively to the river,
... in a position where naturally the largest amount of a river gravel
would be deposited, and where its best exposures would be exhibited....
Any drift material which the flooded river swept down its channel
would here, upon meeting tide-water, be in great part deposited.
Boulders which had been rolled down the inclined floor of the upper
valley would here stop in their course, and all be heaped up with the
coarser gravel in the more slowly flowing water, except such as cakes
of floating ice could carry oceanward.... Having heaped up a mass of
detritus in the old river channel as an obstruction at the mouth of the
gorge, the river, so soon as its volume diminished, would immediately
begin wearing away a new channel for itself down to ocean level. This
would be readily accomplished through the loose material, and would
be stopped only when rock was reached.... It has been thought that to
account for the high bank at Trenton an elevation of the land must have
occurred.... An increase in the volume of the river will explain all
the facts. The accompanying diagram will render this more clear.

[Illustration: Section of bluff two miles south of Trenton, New Jersey.
_a b_, TRENTON GRAVEL; Implements—_a_, fine gray sand (boulder); _b_,
coarse sandy gravel; _c_, red gravel; _d_, yellow gravel (pre-glacial);
_e_, plastic clay (Wealden); _f_, fine yellow sand (Hastings?); _g_,
gneiss; _h_, alluvial mud; _i_, Delaware River.

A From a cut in _Primitive Industry_, p. 535.]

“The Trenton gravel, now confined to the sandy flat borders of the
river, corresponds to the ‘intervale’ of New England rivers, ... and
exhibits a topography peculiar to a true river gravel. Frequently
instead of forming a flat plain it forms higher ground close to the
present river channel than it does near its ancient bank. Moreover,
not only does the ground thus slope downward on retreating from the
river, but the boulders become smaller and less abundant. Both of these
facts are in accordance with the facts of river deposits. In time of
flood the rapidly flowing water in the main channel, bearing detritus,
is checked by the more quiet waters at the side of the river, and is
forced to deposit its gravel and boulders as a kind of bank.... Having
shown that the Trenton gravel is a true river gravel of comparatively
recent age, it remains to point out the relation it bears to the
glacial epoch.... Two hypotheses only can be applied to the Trenton
gravel. It is either _post_-glacial, or it belongs to the very last
portion of the glacial period. The view held by the late Thomas Belt
can no longer be maintained.... He fails to recognize any distinction
between the gravels. As we have seen, the Trenton gravel is truly
post-glacial. It only remains to define more strictly the meaning of
that term. There is evidence to support both of these hypotheses.”[1497]

After discussing them both at considerable length, he concludes as
follows: “A second glacial period in Europe, known as the ‘Reindeer
Period,’ has long been recognized. It appears to have followed that
in which the clays were deposited and the terraces formed, and may
therefore correspond with the period of the Trenton gravel. If there
have been two glacial epochs in this country, the Trenton gravel cannot
be earlier than the close of the later one. If there has been but one,
traces of the glacier must have continued into comparatively recent
times, or long after the period of submergence. The Trenton gravel,
whether made by long-continued floods which followed a first or second
glacial epoch,—whether separated from all true glacial action or the
result of the glacier’s final melting,—is truly a post-glacial deposit,
but still a phenomenon of essentially glacial times,—times more nearly
related to the Great Ice Age than to the present.”

He then goes on to consider the bearings of the age of this gravel
upon the question of the antiquity of man. “When we find that the
Trenton gravel contains implements of human workmanship so placed with
reference to it that it is evident that at or soon after the time of
its deposition man had appeared on its borders, and when the question
of the antiquity of man in America is thus before us, we are tempted
to inquire still further into the age of the deposit under discussion.
It has been clearly shown by several competent archæologists that the
implements that have been found are a constituent part of the gravel,
and not intrusive objects. It was of peculiar interest to find that
it has been only within the limits of the Trenton gravel, precisely
traced out by the writer, that Dr. Abbott, Professor F. W. Putnam, Mr.
Lucien Carr, and others, have discovered these implements _in situ_....
At the localities on the Pennsylvania Railroad, where extensive
exposures of these gravels have been made, the deposit is undoubtedly
undisturbed. No implements could have come into this gravel except at
a time when the river flowed upon it, and when they might have sunk
through the loose and shifting material. All the evidence points to the
conclusion that at the time of the Trenton gravel flood man ... lived
upon the banks of the ancient Delaware, and lost his stone implements
in the shifting sands and gravel of the bed of that stream.... The
actual age of the Trenton gravel, and the consequent date to which the
antiquity of man on the Delaware should be assigned, is a question
which geological data alone are insufficient to solve. The only clew,
and that a most unsatisfactory one, is afforded by calculations based
upon the amount of erosion. This, like all geological considerations,
is relative rather than absolute, yet several calculations have been
made, which, based either upon the rate of erosion of river channels or
the rate of accumulation of sediment, have attempted to fix the date
of the close of the glacial epoch. By assuming that the Trenton gravel
was deposited immediately after the close of this epoch, an account
of such calculations may be of interest. If the Trenton gravel is
_post_-glacial in the widest acceptation of the term, a yet later date
must be assigned to it.”

After going carefully through them all, he concludes: “Thus we find
that if any reliance is to be placed upon such calculations, even if we
assume that the Trenton gravel is of glacial age, it is not necessary
to make it more than ten thousand years old. The time necessary for
the Delaware to cut through the gravel down to the rock is by no
means great. When it is noted that the gravel cliff at Trenton was
made by a side wearing away at a bank, and when it is remembered that
the erosive power of the Delaware River was formerly greater than at
present, it will be conceded that the presence of the cliff at Trenton
will not necessarily infer its high antiquity; nor in the character of
the gravel is there any evidence that the time of its deposition need
have been long. It may be that, as investigations are carried further,
it will result not so much in proving man of very great antiquity as
in showing how much more recent than usually supposed was the final
disappearance of the glacier.”

Professor Lewis’s studies of the great terminal moraine of the
northern ice-sheet were still further prosecuted in conjunction
with Professor George Frederick Wright, of Oberlin, Ohio, whose
labors have been of the highest importance in shedding light upon
the question of the antiquity of man in America.[1498] Together they
traced the southern boundary of the glacial region across the State
of Pennsylvania, and subsequently Professor Wright has continued his
researches through the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, as far
as the Mississippi River and even beyond. He has found that glacial
floods similar to those of the Delaware valley have deposited similar
beds of drift gravel in the valleys of all the southerly flowing
rivers, and he has called attention to the importance of searching in
them for palæolithic implements. As early as March, 1883, he predicted
that traces of early man would be found in the extensive terraces and
gravel deposits of the southern portion of Ohio.[1499] This prediction
was speedily fulfilled, and upon November 4, 1885, Professor Putnam
reported to the Boston Society of Natural History that Dr. C. L. Metz,
of Madisonville, Ohio, had found in the gravels of the valley of the
Little Miami River, at that place, eight feet below the surface, a rude
implement made of black flint, of about the same size and shape as one
of the same material found by Dr. Abbott in the Trenton gravels. This
was followed by the announcement from Dr. Metz that he had discovered
another specimen (a chipped pebble) in the gravels at Loveland, in
the same valley, at a depth of nearly thirty feet from the surface.
Professor Wright has visited both localities, and given a detailed
description of them, illustrated by a map. He finds that the deposit
at Madisonville clearly belongs to the glacial-terrace epoch, and is
underlain by “till,” while in that at Loveland it is known that the
bones of the mastodon have been discovered. He closes his account
with these words: “In the light of the exposition just given, these
implements will at once be recognized as among the most important
archæological discoveries yet made in America, ranking on a par with
those of Dr. Abbott at Trenton, New Jersey. They show that in Ohio, as
well as on the Atlantic coast, man was an inhabitant before the close
of the glacial period.”[1500] Further confirmation of these predictions
was received at the meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, at Cleveland, Ohio, in August, 1888, when Mr.
Hilborne T. Cresson reported his discovery of a large flint implement
in the glacial gravels of Jackson County, Indiana, as well as of two
chipped implements made of argillite, which he had found _in place_ at
a depth of several feet in the ancient terrace of the Delaware River,
in Claymont, Newcastle County, Delaware.[1501]

This discovery of Mr. Cresson’s has assumed a great geological
importance, and it is thus reported by him: “Toward midday of July 13,
1887, while lying upon the edge of the railroad cut, sketching the
boulder line, my eye chanced to notice a piece of steel-gray substance,
strongly relieved in the sunlight against the red-colored gravel, just
above where it joined the lower grayish-red portion. It seemed to me
like argillite, and being firmly imbedded in the gravel was decidedly
interesting. Descending the steep bank as rapidly as possible, the
specimen was secured.... Upon examining my specimen I found that it was
unquestionably a chipped implement. There is no doubt about its being
firmly imbedded in the gravel, for the delay I made in extricating it
with my pocket-knife nearly caused me the unpleasant position of being
covered by several tons of gravel.... Having duly reported my find
to Professor Putnam, I began, at his request, a thorough examination
of the locality, and on May 25, 1888, the year following, discovered
another implement four feet below the surface, at a place about one
eighth of a mile from the first discovery.... The geological formation
in which the implement was found seems to be a reddish gravel mixed
with schist.”[1502]

Professor Wright thus comments upon these discoveries and their
geological situation: “The discovery of palæolithic implements, as
described by Mr. Cresson, near Claymont, Del., unfolds a new chapter
in the history of man in America. It was my privilege in November last
to visit the spot with him, and to spend a day examining the various
features of the locality.... The cut in the Baltimore and Ohio railroad
in which this implement was found is about one mile and a half west
of the Delaware River, and about one hundred and fifty feet above it.
The river is here quite broad. Indeed, it has ceased to be a river,
and is already merging into Delaware Bay; the New Jersey shore being
about three miles distant from the Delaware side. The ascent from
the bay at Claymont to the locality under consideration is by three
or four well-marked benches. These probably are not terraces in the
strict sense of the word, but shelves marking different periods of
erosion when the land stood at these several levels, but now thinly
covered with old river deposits. Upon reaching the locality of Mr.
Cresson’s recent discovery, we find a well-marked superficial water
deposit containing pebbles and small boulders up to two or three
feet in diameter, and resting unconformably upon other deposits,
different in character, and in some places directly upon the decomposed
schists which characterize the locality. This is without question
the Philadelphia Red Gravel and Brick Clay of Lewis. The implement
submitted to us was found near the bottom of this upper deposit, and
eight feet below the surface.... As Mr. Cresson was on the ground
when the implement was uncovered, and took it out with his own hands,
there would seem to be no reasonable doubt that it was originally a
part of the deposit; for Mr. Cresson is no novice in these matters,
but has had unusual opportunities, both in this country and in the
old world, to study the localities where similar discoveries have
heretofore been made. The absorbing question concerning the age of this
deposit is therefore forced upon our attention as archæologists....
The determination of the age of these particular deposits at Claymont
involves a discussion of the whole question of the Ice Age in North
America, and especially that of the duality of the glacial epoch. At a
meeting of this society on January 19, 1881, I discussed the age of the
Trenton gravel, in which Dr. Abbott has found so many palæoliths, and
was led also incidentally at the same time to discuss the relative age
of what Professor Lewis called the Philadelphia Red Gravel. I had at
that time recently made repeated trips to Trenton, and with Professor
Lewis had been over considerable portions of the Delaware valley for
the express purpose of determining these questions. The conclusions to
which we—that is, Professor Lewis and myself—came were thus expressed
in the paper above referred to (_Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol.
xxi. pp. 137-145), namely, that the Philadelphia Brick Clay and Red
Gravel (which are essentially one formation) marked the period when
the ice had its greatest extension, and when there was a considerable
depression of the land in that vicinity; perhaps, however, less than
a hundred feet in the neighborhood of the moraine, though increasing
towards the northwest. During this period of greatest extension and
depression, the Philadelphia Red Gravel and Brick Clay were deposited
by the ice-laden floods which annually poured down the valley in the
summer seasons. As the ice retreated towards the headwaters of the
valley, the period was marked also by a reëlevation of the land to
about its present height, when the later deposits of gravel at Trenton
took place. Dr. Abbott’s discoveries at Trenton prove the presence of
man on the continent at that stage of the glacial epoch. Mr. Cresson’s
discoveries prove the presence of man at a far earlier stage. How much
earlier, will depend upon our interpretation of the general facts
bearing on the question of the duality of the glacial epoch.

“Mr. McGee, of the United States Geological Survey, has recently
published the results of extensive investigations carried on by him
respecting the superficial deposits of the Atlantic coast. (See _Amer.
Jour. of Science_, vol. xxxv., 1888.) He finds that on all the rivers
south of the Delaware there are deposits corresponding in character
to what Professor Lewis had denominated Philadelphia Red Gravel and
Brick Clay.... From the extent to which this deposit is developed
at Washington, in the District of Columbia, Mr. McGee prefers to
designate it the Columbia formation. But the period is regarded by him
as identical with that of the Philadelphia Red Gravel and Brick Clay,
which Professor Lewis had attributed to the period of maximum glacial
development on the Atlantic coast.

“It is observable that the boulders in this Columbia formation belong,
so far as we know, in every case, to the valleys in which they are now
found.... It is observable also that it is not necessary in any case to
suppose that these deposits were the direct result of glacial ice. Mr.
McGee does not suppose that glaciers extended down these valleys to any
great distance. Indeed, so far as we are aware, there is no evidence of
even local glaciers in the Alleghany Mountains south of Harrisburg. But
it is easy to see that an incidental result of the glacial period was a
great increase of ice and snow in the headwaters of all these streams,
so as to add greatly to the extent of the deposits in which floating
ice is concerned. And this Columbia formation is, as we understand
it, supposed by Mr. McGee to be the result of this incidental effect
of the glacial period in increasing the accumulations of snow and ice
along the headwaters of all the streams that rise in the Alleghanies.
In this we are probably agreed. But Mr. McGee differs from the
interpretation of the facts given by Professor Lewis and myself, in
that he postulates, largely, however, on the basis of facts outside of
this region, two distinct glacial epochs, and attributes the Columbia
formation to the first epoch, which he believes to be from three to
ten times as remote as the period in which the Trenton gravels were
deposited. If, therefore, Dr. Abbott’s implements are, as from the
lowest estimate would seem to be the case, from ten thousand to fifteen
thousand years old, the implements discovered by Mr. Cresson in the
Baltimore and Ohio cut at Claymont, which is certainly in Mr. McGee’s
Columbia formation, would be from thirty thousand to one hundred and
fifty thousand years old.

“But as I review the evidence which has come to my knowledge since
writing the paper in 1881, I do not yet see the necessity of making
so complete a separation between the glacial epochs as Mr. McGee and
others feel compelled to do. But, on the other hand, the unity of
the epoch (with, however, a marked period of amelioration in climate
accompanied by extensive recession of the ice, and followed by a
subsequent re-advance over a portion of the territory) seems more
and more evident. All the facts which Mr. McGee adduces from the
eastern side of the Alleghanies comport, apparently, as readily with
the idea of one glacial period as with that of two.... Until further
examination of the district with these suggestions in view, or until a
more specific statement of facts than we find in Mr. McGee’s papers,
it would therefore seem unnecessary to postulate a distinct glacial
period to account for the Columbia formation.... But no matter which
view prevails, whether that of two distinct glacial epochs, or of one
prolonged epoch with a mild period intervening, the Columbia deposits
at Claymont, in which these discoveries of Mr. Cresson have been made,
long antedate (perhaps by many thousand years) the deposits at Trenton,
N. J., at Loveland and Madison, Ohio, at Little Falls, Minn., ... and
at Medora, Ind.... Those all belong to the later portion of the glacial
period, while these at Claymont belong to the earlier portion of that
period, if they are not to be classed, according to Mr. McGee, as
belonging to an entirely distinct epoch.”[1503]

The objects discovered by both Dr. Metz and Mr. Cresson have been
deposited in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, and their artificial
character cannot be disputed.

At nearly the same date at which Dr. Abbott published the account of
his discoveries, Col. Charles C. Jones, of Augusta, Georgia, recorded
the finding of “some rudely-chipped, triangular-shaped implements in
Nacoochee valley under circumstances which seemingly assign to them
very remote antiquity. In material, manner of construction, and in
general appearance, so nearly do they resemble some of the rough,
so-called flint hatchets belonging to the drift type, as described by
M. Boucher de Perthes, that they might very readily be mistaken the
one for the other.”[1504] They were met with in the course of mining
operations, in which a cutting had been made through the soil and the
underlying sands, gravels, and boulders down to the bedrock. Resting
upon this, at a depth of some nine feet from the surface, were the
three implements described. But it is plain that this deposit can
scarcely be regarded as a true glacial drift, since the great terminal
moraine lies more than four hundred miles away to the north, and the
region where it occurs does not fall within the drift area. It must
be of local origin, and few geologists would be willing to admit the
existence of local glaciers in the Alleghanies so far to the south
during the glacial period. Consequently these objects do not fall
within our definition of true palæolithic implements.

The same thing may be said in a less degree of the implements
discovered by C. M. Wallace, in 1876, in the gravels and clays of the
valley of the James River.[1505]

A different character attaches to certain objects discovered in 1877
by Professor N. H. Winchell, at Little Falls, Minnesota, in the valley
of the Mississippi River.[1506] These consisted mainly of pieces
of chipped white quartz, perfectly sharp, although occurring in a
water-worn deposit, and they were found to extend over quite a large
area. Their artificial character has been vouched for by Professor
Putnam, and among them were a few rude implements which are well
represented in an accompanying plate. A geological section given in the
report shows that they occur in the terrace some sixty feet above the
bank of the river, and were found to extend about four feet below the
surface. In the words of Professor Winchell: “The interest that centres
in these chips ... involves the question of the age of man and his
work in the Mississippi Valley.... The chipping race ... preceded the
spreading of the material of the plain, and must have been pre-glacial,
since the plain was spread out by that flood stage of the Mississippi
River that existed during the prevalence of the ice-period, or resulted
from the dissolution of the glacial winter.... The wonderful abundance
of these chips indicates an astonishing amount of work done, as if
there had been a great manufactory in the neighborhood, or an enormous
lapse of time for its performance.”

This discovery of Professor Winchell was followed up by researches
prosecuted in 1879 in the vicinity of Little Falls by Miss F. E.
Babbit, of that place.[1507] She discovered a similar stratum of
chipped quartz in the ancient terrace, of a mile or more in width,
about forty rods to the east of the river, and elevated some
twenty-five feet above it. This had been brought to light by the
wearing of a wagon track, leading down a natural drainage channel,
which had cut through the quartz stratum down to a level below it. The
result of her prolonged investigations showed that “the stratum of
quartz chips lay at a level some twelve or fifteen feet lower than the
plane of the terrace top.”[1508] While the quartz chips discovered by
Professor Winchell were contained in the upper surface of the terrace
plain, these were strictly confined to a lower level, and cannot be
synchronous with them. They must be older “by at least the lapse of
time required for the deposition of the twelve or fifteen feet of
modified drift forming the upper part of the terrace plain above the
quartz-bearing stratum.”

This conclusion is abundantly confirmed by Mr. Warren Upham, of
the U. S. Geological Survey, in his study of “The recession of
the ice-sheet in Minnesota in its relation to the gravel deposits
overlying the quartz implements found by Miss Babbit at Little Falls,
Minnesota.”[1509] The great ice-sheet of the latest glacial epoch
at its maximum extension pushed out vast lobes of ice, one of which
crossed western and central Minnesota and extended into Iowa. Different
stages of its retreat are marked by eleven distinct marginal moraines,
and this deposit of modified drift at Little Falls Mr. Upham believes
occurred in the interval between the formation of the eighth and the
ninth. “It is,” he says, “upon the till, or direct deposit of the
ice, and forms a surface over which the ice never re-advanced.” An
examination of the terraces and plains of the Mississippi Valley from
St. Paul to twenty-five miles above Little Falls shows them to be
similar in composition and origin to the terraces of modified drift in
the river valleys of New England. In his judgment, “the rude implements
and fragments of quartz discovered at Little Falls were overspread by
the glacial flood-plain of the Mississippi River, while most of the
northern half of Minnesota was still covered by the ice.... It may
be that the chief cause leading men to occupy this locality so soon
after it was uncovered from the ice was their discovery of the quartz
veins in the slate there, ... affording suitable material for making
sharp-edged stone implements of the best quality. Quartz veins are
absent, or very rare and unsuitable for this, in all the rock outcrops
of the south half of Minnesota, that had become uncovered from the
ice, as well as of the whole Mississippi basin southward, and this was
the first spot accessible whence quartz for implement-making could be
obtained.”

According to this view the upper deposit at Little Falls would appear
to be more recent than those laid down by the immediate wasting of the
great terminal moraine at Trenton and in Ohio; but the occupation of
the spot by man upon the lower terrace may well have been at a much
earlier time.

Many of the objects discovered by Miss Babbitt have been placed in the
Peabody Museum, and as their artificial character has been questioned,
the writer wishes to repeat his opinion, formed upon the study of
numerous specimens that have been submitted to him, but not the same as
those upon which Professor Putnam based his similar conclusions, that
they are undoubtedly of human origin.

Implements of palæolithic form have been discovered in several
other localities, but as none of them have been found _in place_, in
undisturbed gravel-beds, either those which have been derived from
the terminal moraine of the second extension of the great northern
ice-sheet, or those which are included within the drift area, they
cannot be considered as proved to be true palæolithic implements,
although it is highly probable that many of them are such.[1510]

* * * * *

We have now to consider the claim to high antiquity of objects which
have been discovered in several places in certain deposits, equally
regarded as of glacial origin, which occur in the central and western
portions of the United States. These are the so-called “lacustrine
deposits,” which are believed to have had their origin from the
former presence of vast lakes, now either extinct or represented by
comparatively small bodies of water. The largest of such lakes occupied
a great depression which once existed between the Rocky Mountains
and the chain of the Sierra Nevada during the quaternary period. The
existing lakes represent the lowest part of two basins, into which
this depression was divided; of these, the western one, represented by
certain smaller lakes, has received the name of Lake Lahontan. This
never had any communication with the sea, and its deposits consequently
register the greater or less amount of rain and snow during the period
of its existence. To the eastern the name of Lake Bonneville has been
given, and it is at present represented by the Great Salt Lake in
Utah. This formerly had an outlet through the valley of the Columbia
River. These lakes are believed to have been produced by the melting of
local glaciers existing during the quaternary times in the above-named
mountains; and similar consequences seem to have followed from the like
presence of ancient glaciers in the Wahsatch and Uintah mountains,
where no lake now exists.

In the ancient deposits of such an immense fresh-water lake, derived
from the melting of glaciers in the last-mentioned mountains, which
once existed in southern Wyoming, Professor Joseph Leidy first
reported, in 1872, the discovery near Fort Bridger of “mingled
implements of the rudest construction, together with a few of the
highest finish.... Some of the specimens are as sharp and fresh in
appearance as if they had been but recently broken from the parent
block. Others are worn and have their sharpness removed, and are so
deeply altered in color as to look exceedingly ancient.”[1511] The
plates accompanying the report show that some of these objects are of
palæolithic form, but as no further information is given in regard to
the conditions under which they were discovered, we cannot pronounce
them to be really palæolithic.

In 1874, Dr. Samuel Aughey made known the existence in Nebraska of
“hundreds of miles of similar lacustrine deposits, almost level or
gently rolling.”[1512] To these the name of “loess” has also been
given, as well as to the mud deposits derived from the northern drift.
Aughey states that these beds are perfectly homogeneous throughout, and
of almost uniform color, ranging in thickness from five to one hundred
and fifty feet. Generally they lie above a true drift formation derived
from glaciers in the Black Hills, and represent “the final retreat of
the glaciers, and that era of depression of the surface of the State
when the greater part of it constituted a great fresh-water lake, into
which the Missouri, the Platte, and the Republican rivers poured their
waters.” The Missouri and its tributaries, flowing for more than one
thousand miles through these deposits, gradually filled up this great
lake with sediment. The rising of the land by degrees converted the
lake-bottom into marshes, through which the rivers began to cut new
channels, and to form the bluffs which now bound them. “The Missouri,
during the closing centuries of the lacustrine age, must have been from
five to thirty miles in breadth, forming a stream which for size and
majesty rivalled the Amazon.” Many remains of mastodons and elephants
are found in this so-called loess, as well as those of the animals now
living in that region, together with the fresh-water and land shells
peculiar to it. In it Aughey has also discovered an arrow-point and a
spear-head, of which he gives well-executed figures. Both are excellent
examples of those well-chipped implements which are regarded as typical
of the Neolithic age or the age of polished stone, and are absolutely
different from the palæolithic implements of which we have hitherto
spoken. They were both found in railroad cuttings on the Iowa side of
the Missouri River, and within three miles of it. The first lay at a
depth of fifteen feet below the top of the deposit. Of the second he
says it was “twenty feet below the top of the loess, and at least six
inches from the edge of the cut, so that it could not have slid into
that place.... Thirteen inches above the point where it was found, and
within three inches of being on a line with it, in undisturbed loess,
there was a lumbar vertebra of an elephant.”[1513]

This intermingling in these deposits of the bones of extinct and
living animals appears to have been brought about by the shifting of
the beds of the vast rivers he has described, which have been flowing
for ages through the slight and easily moved material. It seems to be
analogous to what has taken place in recent times in the valley of the
Mississippi and in its delta. The finding, therefore, of arrow-heads
of recent Indian type, even _in place_ under twenty feet of loess and
below a fossil elephant-bone, cannot be considered as affording any
stronger proof of the antiquity of man than the oft-cited instances of
the discovery of basket-work and pottery underneath similar fossils
at Petite Anse Island in Louisiana, or of pottery and mastodon-bones
on the banks of the Ashley River in South Carolina. No such discovery
can be considered of consequence as bearing upon the question of
palæolithic man.

The late Thomas Belt wrote to Professor Putnam, in 1878, that he had
discovered “a small human skull in an undisturbed loess in a railway
cutting about two miles from Denver (Colorado). All the plains are
covered with a drift deposit of granitic and quartzose pebbles overlaid
by a sandy and calcareous loam closely resembling the diluvial clay
and the loess of Europe. It was in the upper part of the drift series
that I found the skull. Just the tip of it was visible in the cutting
about three and one half feet below the surface.”[1514] Not long after
this Mr. Belt died, and we are without further information in regard
to the locality. It would seem, however, that the loess in which the
skull occurred belongs to the latest in the lacustrine series, and
consequently does not imply any very great antiquity for it.

[Illustration: OBSIDIAN SPEAR-HEAD.

Found in the Lahontan sediments,—from a cut in Russell’s _Lake
Lahontan_, monograph xi. of Powell’s _U. S. Geological Survey_, p. 247.]

In 1882 Mr. W. J. McGee, of the U. S. Geological Survey, obtained
from the upper lacustral clays of the basin of the ancient Lake
Lahontan, where they are exposed in the walls of Walker River Cañon,
a spear-head, made of obsidian, beautifully chipped, and perfectly
resembling those found on the surface throughout the southwest. “It
was discovered projecting point outwards from a vertical scarp of
lacustral clays twenty-five feet below the top of the section, at a
locality where there were no signs of recent disturbance.”[1515] This
is said to have been “associated in such a manner with the bones of an
elephant or mastodon as to leave no doubt of their having been buried
at approximately the same time.” But we are also told that these lakes
are of very recent date, and that they have “left the very latest
of all the complete geological records to be observed in the Great
Basin.”[1516] The fossil shells obtained from these deposits all belong
to living species; while the mammalian remains, which have been found
in only very limited numbers, and all, with a single exception, in the
upper beds, “are the same as occur elsewhere in tertiary or quaternary
strata.” Mr. McGee says: “If the obsidian implement ... was really _in
situ_ (as all appearances indicated), it must have been dropped in a
shallow and quiet bay of the saline and alkaline Lake Lahontan, and
gradually buried beneath its fine mechanical deposits and chemical
precipitates.”[1517]

In Mr. Russell’s opinion, this single implement, although supported
by no other finds of a similar character, is sufficient to prove
that “man inhabited this continent during the last great rise of the
former lake.” But if this last great rise occurred in recent times,
the presence of the bones of tertiary mammals in the upper beds shows
that great natural forces must have been in operation at that time
to have washed these out of their original place of deposit. The
principal organic remains found, we are told, are those of living
shells, and the intermingling of these with the bones of tertiary
mammals could scarcely have taken place in “shallow and quiet bays.”
To the writer this discovery seems rather to prove that an Indian
spear-head was in some manner washed down and buried in the clays of
the Walker River Cañon than that man was the contemporary there of
the tertiary or quaternary mammalia. This fairly seems to be a case
where, in the language of Dr. Brinton, “Archæology may at times correct
Geology.”[1518]

It is almost paralleled by the discovery made by Mr. P. A. Scott, in
Kansas, of a broken knife or lance-head, measuring in its present
condition two inches and one eighth in length. Sir Daniel Wilson, who
reports it, says: “The spot where the discovery was made is in the
Blue Range of the Rocky Mountains, in an alluvial bottom, and distant
several hundred feet from a small stream called Clear Creek. A shaft
was sunk, passing through four feet of rich, black soil, and below
this through upward of ten feet of gravel, reddish clay, and rounded
quartz. Here the flint was found.... The actual object corresponds more
to the small and slighter productions of the modern Indian tool-maker
than to the rude and massive drift implement.” But this most careful
and conscientious observer goes on to remark, “Under any circumstances
it would be rash to build up comprehensive theories on a solitary case
like this.”[1519]

If the discovery by Mr. McGee of this spear-head be insisted upon
as establishing that man inhabited this continent during the last
great rise of the lake, it would be easier to believe that that event
occurred in recent and not in quaternary times, than to admit that the
distinction between palæolithic and neolithic implements, established
by so many discoveries in this country and in Europe, is thereby
utterly overthrown.

The only alternative left is to believe that neolithic man was the
contemporary of the tertiary mammals. To this conclusion we are asked
to come by Professor Josiah D. Whitney, on account of the discovery
of the remains of man and of his works in the auriferous gravels of
California. The famous “Calaveras skull” is figured upon another
page of this volume, where the circumstances attending its discovery
are briefly referred to.[1520] It is astonishing to see how frail is
the foundation upon which such a surprising superstructure has been
raised, as it is found set forth in detail in the section entitled
_Human remains and works of art of the gravel series_, in the third
chapter of Professor Whitney’s memoir on _The auriferous gravels of
the Sierra Nevada of California_.[1521] All is hearsay testimony, and
entirely uncontrolled by any such careful scrutiny as marks the work
of the British Association in the explorations carried on for fifteen
years at Kent’s Hole, near Torquay. There can be no question that
human bones and human implements have often been discovered in these
gravels, but according to the accounts as given these are mingled in
them in inextricable confusion. What is the character of these objects
of human workmanship? So far are they from being, as Professor Whitney
describes them, “always the same kind of implements, ... namely, the
coarsest and the least finished which one would suppose could be made
and still be implements.” One account speaks of “a spear or lance
head of obsidian, five inches long and one and a half broad, quite
regularly formed.” Others mention “spear and arrow heads made of
obsidian;” or “certain discoidal stones from three to four inches in
diameter, and about an inch and a half thick, concave on both sides,
with perforated centre.” Still another witness speaks of “a large stone
bead, made perhaps of alabaster, about one and a half inches long and
about one and one fourth inches in diameter, with a hole through it
one fourth of an inch in size.” We are also told of a “stone hatchet
of a triangular shape, with a hole through it for a handle, near the
middle. Its size was four inches across the edge, and length about
six inches.” So also oval stones with continuous “grooves cut around
them,” and “grooved oval disks,” are more than once mentioned. We think
these quotations will be sufficient to convince the archæologist that
here is no question of palæolithic implements, but that we have to do
simply with the common Indian objects found on the surface all over
our country. Besides the rude cuts in Bancroft,[1522] I know of only
one example of these California discoveries which has been figured.
This is the “beautiful relic” described by Mr. J. W. Foster, of which
he says: “When we consider its symmetry of form ... and the delicate
drilling of the hole through a material so liable to fracture, we are
free to say it affords an exhibition of the lapidary’s skill superior
to anything yet furnished by the Stone age of either continent.”[1523]
Mr. Foster doubtfully suggests that this object was “used as a plummet
for the purpose of determining the perpendicular to the horizon.” It
has been shown, however, by Mr. W. H. Henshaw, that among the Indians
of Southern California similar objects have long been used by their
medicine-men as “medicine or sorcery stones.”[1524] Whichever may be
held to be the true explanation of its use, either is more likely to be
a characteristic of the Indian race than of primitive man.

But the objects whose presence in the gravels is most repeatedly spoken
of are stone mortars, which Professor Whitney supposes were “used by
the race inhabiting this region in prehistoric times ... for providing
food.” One of these is stated to have been “found standing upright,
and the pestle was in it, in its proper place, apparently just as it
had been left by the owner.” It was taken out of a shaft, according
to the testimony, twelve feet underneath undisturbed strata. This was
certainly a very marvellous thing to have happened if all the objects
found in the gravels are supposed to have been brought there by the
action of floods of water. But it is a very simple matter, if the
supposition of Mr. Southall be correct, who thinks that “these mortars
have been left in these positions by the ancient inhabitants in their
search for _gold_.”[1525] The Spaniards found gold in abundance in
Mexico, and the locality from which it came is believed by Mr. Southall
to be indicated by a discovery made in 1849 by some gold-diggers at
one of the mountain diggings called Murphy’s, in the region in which
Professor Whitney’s discoveries have taken place. In examining a
high barren district of mountain, they were surprised to come upon
the abandoned site of an ancient mine. At the bottom of a shaft two
hundred and ten feet deep a human skeleton was found, with an altar for
worship and other evidences of ancient labor by the aborigines.[1526]
Mr. Southall believes that these mortars were used “for crushing the
cemented gravel of the auriferous beds.” Some corroboration is afforded
for this suggestion by the fact that stone mortars of a like character
are found in the ancient gold mines, worked by the early Egyptian
monarchs, in the Gebel Allakee Mountains near the Red Sea, which were
used in pulverizing the gold-bearing quartz.

As to the authenticity of the “Calaveras skull,”

“Great contest followed and much learned dust.”

The probabilities seem in favor of its being a genuine human fossil,
and the question recurs as to its character and the presumable age
of the deposits from which it came. The latest geologist who has
studied the locality, so far as the writer is aware, says of these
deposits: “Even before visiting California I had suspected these old
river gravels might be contemporaneous with the glacial epoch, and
I still think this possible. This area was not glaciated, and these
old gravels, hundreds of feet in thickness, may very well represent
that great interval of time occupied in other regions by the glacial
periods.”[1527] In discussing this question from the point of view of
the character of the fossil animal remains contained in the gravels,
we must continually bear in mind what Professor E. D. Cope says of
the _Mesozoic and Cænozoic of North America_: “The faunæ of these
periods have not yet been discriminated.... Many questions of the exact
contemporaneity of these different beds are as yet unsettled.”[1528]
Professor Cope has previously pointed out how marked a difference there
is between the quaternary fauna of North America and that of Europe; we
have no Hippopotamus or Rhinoceros Tichorinus, and they no Megatherium,
Megalonyx, and other species. Under the varying conditions of animal
existence thus implied, to assail established ideas upon the sequence
in man’s development, or to maintain that he has had a long career on
the Pacific slope of our continent before he had made his appearance
in Western Europe, seems to the writer to be an attempt to explain
“_ignotum per ignotius_.”

What is really to be understood by the assumption that man existed
in tertiary times? So profound a palæontologist as Professor William
Boyd Dawkins thinks “it is impossible to believe that man should have
been an exception to the law of change. In the Pliocene age we cannot
expect to find traces of man upon the earth. The living placental
mammals had only then begun to appear, and seeing that the higher
animals have invariably appeared in the rocks according to their place
in the zoölogical scale, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, placental
mammals, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the highest of all
should then have been upon the earth.”[1529] When, therefore, some of
the geologists of our country support Professor Whitney’s claim that
these discoveries of human fossils have actually proved man’s existence
in the Pliocene period, by arguments mainly based upon the effects of
erosion and the immense periods of time which these imply, or favor
his inference from the animal fossils contained in these deposits that
there has been “a total change in the fauna and flora of the region,”
and that “the fauna of the gravel deposits is almost exclusively made
up of extinct species,” we may well insist, with Dawkins, that the
human remains should not be regarded as standing upon a different basis
from those of the horse, since both occur under similar conditions.
Dr. Leidy reports the finding of remains of four different species of
fossil _Equus_. But among them “we may note the skull of a mustang,
identical with that of Mexico and California, which could not have been
buried in the gravels of Sierra County before the time of the Spanish
Conquest, when the living race of horses was introduced.” Professor
Jeffries Wyman says of the Calaveras skull: “Any conclusions based upon
a single skull are liable to prove erroneous, unless we have sufficient
grounds for the belief that such a skull is a representative one of the
race to which it belongs.... We have no sufficient reason for assuming
in the present instance that the skull is a representative one.... The
skull presents no signs of having belonged to an inferior race. In its
breadth it agrees with the other crania from California, except those
of the Diggers, but surpasses them in the other particulars in which
comparisons have been made.”[1530] As, therefore, what appear to be
the skulls of a California Indian and that of a Mexican mustang have
been found to occur in the same deposits, this circumstance, instead
of proving that man was an inhabitant of pliocene America, would seem
to the writer to imply either that these deposits are comparatively
recent, or that the fossil bones found in them are so commingled that
arguments based upon purely palæontological considerations can be
regarded as entitled to very little weight.

But although some American palæontologists are inclined to argue that
these deposits belong to the Pliocene, on account of the character of
the vertebrate fossils found in them, it must not be forgotten that
geologists generally prefer to refer them to the Pleistocene. They
believe that even the superimposition of lava beds upon the gravels
does not establish a very high antiquity for them, and question whether
the time that has elapsed since the outflow of the lava, as measured
by the amount of erosion that has taken place in the gravels, is to
be regarded as much greater than can properly be assigned to the
Pleistocene period elsewhere. Professor Whitney himself admits the
difficulty of distinguishing whether “deposits have been accumulated in
the place where we find them previous to the cessation of the period
of volcanic activity. The gravels which have not been protected by a
capping of basalt, or only thinly or not at all covered by erupted
materials, may in some places have been overlain by recent deposits
in such a way that the line between volcanic and post-volcanic cannot
be distinctly drawn.... It must not unfrequently have happened that
fossils have been washed out of the less coherent detrital beds
belonging to the volcanic series, carried far from their original
resting-place, and deposited in such a position that they seem to
belong to the present epoch.”[1531] In one of the reports of Hayden’s
survey can be seen a plate representing “Modern Lake Deposits capped
with Basalt.”[1532] There is sufficient ground for believing that the
volcanic activity of the regions of the Sierras has continued down to
very recent times, geologically speaking, and that there is no such
great difference of age between the lava-cappings and the other beds
as Professor Whitney supposes. Hayden thinks “the main portion of the
volcanic material of the West has been thrown out at a comparatively
modern date.”[1533] Undoubtedly the amount of erosion that has taken
place in these river gravels implies a great lapse of time, but so
do the other facts of physical geography which have been employed
as chronometers by which to measure the time since the close of the
quaternary period. To carry this erosion back to the tertiary times,
and to assign man his place in the world then on that ground, in face
of the arguments to the contrary drawn from archæology, palæontology,
and geology, in view of the essential weakness of the testimony upon
which the arguments in its favor are based, would seem to be a most
hazardous assumption. It is only equalled by the statement that “the
discoveries made in Europe, which have already obtained general
credence, carry man close to the verge of the tertiary; if not,
indeed, a little the other side of the line.”[1534] In the writer’s
opinion, this is the belief of only a small number of the most extreme
evolutionists in Europe, while the great body of cautious and critical
observers think that it has not been proved, and a few are willing to
hold their judgment in suspense.

Professor Whitney’s conclusions, however, are supported by Mr. Wallace
in the article quoted at the beginning of this chapter, in his
character as an evolutionist of the most advanced school. He says:
“Believing that the whole bearing of the comparative anatomy of man and
of the anthropoid apes, together with the absence of indications of any
essential change in his structure during the quaternary period, lead to
the conclusion that he _must_ have existed, as man, in pliocene times,
and that the intermediate forms connecting him with the higher apes
probably lived during the early pliocene or the miocene period, it is
urged that all such discoveries ... are in themselves probable and such
as we have a right to expect.”[1535] In such a frame of mind it is very
easy for him to wave aside every objection raised by the archæologist
to the character of the evidence brought forward to sustain the alleged
discoveries. To the objection that the objects accompanying the human
remains, for which such a great antiquity is claimed, are too similar
to those of comparatively recent times, he has a ready answer: “The
same may be said of the most ancient bow and spear-heads and those
made by modern Indians. The use of the articles has in both cases
been continuous, and the objects themselves are so necessary and so
comparatively simple that there is no room for any great modification
of form.” The writer can only state here that no archæologist holds
this opinion, and will refer for a detailed statement of his reasons
for the contrary view to an article by him upon _The Bow and Arrow
unknown to Palæolithic Man_.[1536]

It is not easy to believe that so vast a difference in age can be
attributed to the deposits upon the opposite sides of the chain of the
Sierra Nevada, as would follow if we are to hold that the auriferous
gravels belong to the tertiary, while the Lahontan deposits belong to
the quaternary period. Far more reasonable does it seem to suppose
that they both fall within the two divisions into which we have seen
that the pleistocene has been divided. To the writer it appears, from
what study he has made of the evidences alleged of man’s existence
in North America in early times, that proof is wanting that he made
his appearance here earlier than in interglacial times. Dr. Abbott’s
discoveries seem to be worthy of all the importance which has been
assigned to them, and the more so from the fact that they are in accord
with similar discoveries made in the Old World. The evidence adduced
appears to be altogether too fragmentary and strained to warrant the
conclusion that has been drawn that there is no proper correlation
between the geological calendars of the two hemispheres.

Besides the numerous palæolithic implements which the Trenton gravels
have yielded, there have been found in them three human crania, more
or less complete, and portions of others.[1537] Professor Putnam is
inclined to the opinion that these may be veritable remains of the
makers of the palæolithic implements. But it is difficult to conceive
how such fragile objects as human skulls, in this period and at this
locality, could have survived the destructive forces to which they must
have been subjected. We must recollect that the bones of man are very
seldom met with in the river gravels of the Old World, and such crania
as are accepted as belonging to these deposits are dolichocephalic, and
not, like these, brachycephalic.[1538] The circumstances under which
these three have been found are not reported with sufficient detail
to enable us to account satisfactorily for their presence, nor can we
admit that the fact that they “are not of the Delaware Indian type”
affords any adequate criterion for our judgment. It is well established
that “in America we find extreme brachycephaly, as well among the
prehistoric as among the historic peoples from British America to
Patagonia. At the same time, dolichocephaly is found, besides among the
Eskimos, throughout the American Indian tribes from north to south; but
it cannot be considered an American craniologic characteristic.”[1539]
The various forms of skulls, moreover, are found to be so intermingled
that they have been compared to “what might be looked for in a
collection made from the potter’s field of London or New York.”[1540]
The problem is still further complicated by the widespread custom
among the American tribes of altering the natural shape of the skull,
sometimes by flattening it, sometimes by making it as round as
possible.[1541] Taking all these matters into consideration, we are
compelled to regard craniology by itself as an insufficient guide.

We have now passed in review such evidences of man’s early existence in
North America as seem to be sufficiently substantiated by satisfactory
proof, and have intentionally left out of consideration many former
examples, which were accustomed to be cited before the science of
prehistoric archæology had formulated her laws and established her
general conclusions, as well as some more recent ones in which the
evidence seems to be weak.

It only remains for the writer to express his own conclusions on the
question. But first let him draw attention to the state of public
opinion upon this subject as it is well expressed by an English writer:
“The evidence for the existence of palæolithic man in America has been
more fiercely contested even than in Europe, and the problem there
is certainly more complicated. In Europe we can test the age of the
remains not merely by their actual character, but also by the presence
or absence of associated domestic animals. In America this test is
absent, for there were virtually no domestic animals save the dog
known to the pre-European inhabitants. We are therefore remitted to
less direct evidence, namely, the provenance of the remains from beds
of distinctly Pleistocene age, the fabric of the remains, and their
association with animals, we have reason to believe, become extinct at
the termination of that period.”[1542]

As an example of the spirit in which this “fierce contest” is waged in
America, it will be sufficient to quote a few passages from a work by
one of her most eminent men of science. He is speaking of “what seems
to be a village site in Europe, of far greater antiquity than the Swiss
lake-villages, and which may be a veritable ‘Palæolithic’ antediluvian
town. It occurs at Solutré, near Mâcon, in eastern France, and has
given rise to much discussion and controversy, as described by Messrs.
De Ferry and Arcelin.... It destroys utterly the pretension that the
men of the mammoth age were an inferior race, or ruder than their
successors in the later stone age.... Lastly, many of the flint weapons
of Solutré are of the palæolithic type characteristic of the river
gravels, ... while other implements and weapons are as well worked as
those of the later stone age. Thus this singular deposit connects these
two so-called ages, and fuses them into one.”[1543] The only comment
the writer will make upon this statement is to say that he has twice
visited the station at Solutré in company with M. Arcelin; that he has
examined the collection of the late M. De Ferry at his house; and that
he has before him the work which is supposed to be quoted from,[1544]
and he accordingly feels warranted in asserting with confidence that
not one “flint implement of the palæolithic type characteristic of the
river gravels” was ever found at Solutré. A note appended to Sir J. W.
Dawson’s rash statement adds: “Recent discoveries by M. Prunières, in
caves at Beaumes Chaudes, seem to show that the older cave-men were
in contact with more advanced tribes, as arrow-heads of the so-called
neolithic type are found sticking in their bones, or associated with
them. This would form another evidence of the little value to be
attached to the distinction of the two ages of stone.” The writer
has already indicated his conviction that palæolithic man had not
advanced sufficiently to invent the bow and arrow, and he wishes to
add here that “arrow-heads of the so-called neolithic type” continued
to be ordinary weapons employed during the Age of Bronze. He is only
surprised that Dr. Prunières’ discoveries are not quoted to prove that
there is no distinction between the Age of Stone and the Age of Bronze.

Tested by the canons of prehistoric archæology, superposition,
association, and style, in the judgment of the writer the fact of the
existence of palæolithic man upon this continent, and the distinction
between the rude palæolithic implement and the skilfully chipped
obsidian objects which belong to what is called in Europe the Solutré
type (a development of the later period in the early stone age, which
cannot be overlooked in discussing the question of the antiquity of
man), are truths as firmly established as any taught by modern science.
The small minority who refuse to admit the last stated proposition are
laggards in her march, and the few doubters who still question the
genuineness of the palæolithic implements from the Trenton gravels are
not entitled by their knowledge of the processes of manufacturing stone
implements to have much weight attached to their opinions.

Regarding, then, the existence of palæolithic man as established by
the finding of four hundred of his relics in the Delaware valley near
Trenton, we have next to inquire whether there is evidence that in
that region man made any progress towards the neolithic condition.
For an answer to this question we have only to study the immense
collection of objects gathered by Dr. Abbott, and now deposited in
the Peabody Museum at Cambridge. This seems to warrant a conclusion
exactly the opposite to Professor Whitney’s, who states that “so far
as California is concerned ... the implements, tools, and works of
art obtained are throughout in harmony with each other, all being the
simplest and least artistic of which it is possible to conceive;” and
his further statement that the “rude tools required but little more
skill than is indicated by the chipped obsidian implements which are
now, and have been from all time, in use among the aborigines of this
continent.”[1545]

We have already seen that Professor Whitney’s inferences about the
relics of man occurring in the gravels of California are not at all
justified by the facts relating to their discovery as reported by him;
and as he offers no proof of his other assertion that “chipped obsidian
implements have been _for all time_ in use among the aborigines of
this continent,” we will venture to question its accuracy, even should
he argue that his loose statement was intended to apply only to the
aborigines of California. Consequently we are somewhat at a loss
to understand why Dr. Abbott should feel called upon to refute his
conclusions. He does this, however, successfully in his _Primitive
Industry_, which is so largely based upon this great collection as
to answer satisfactorily as a catalogue for it. In his own words,
“the careful and systematic examination of the surface geology of New
Jersey, of itself, it is believed, shows as abundant and unmistakable
evidence of the transition from a true palæolithic to a neolithic
condition as is exhibited in the traces of human handiwork found in
the valley of any European river.”[1546] The arguments upon which
this conclusion is based are drawn from each of the three canons of
prehistoric archæology. A certain class of objects, superior in form
and finish to the rude palæolithic implement, but decidedly inferior
in every respect to the common types of Indian manufacture, with
which collectors of such objects all over our country are perfectly
familiar, is found occurring _principally_ in deposits which occupy a
position intermediate between the drift gravels, from which come the
palæolithic implements, and the cultivable surface-soil, in which the
former implements of the Indians are constantly brought to light by the
ordinary operations of agriculture. In other instances, where these
peculiar objects are found on or near the surface, not only do they not
always occur there in association with the common Indian relics, but
the material of which they are made, argillite, is the same as that out
of which all the four hundred palæolithic implements are fabricated,
with the exception of “two of quartz, one of quartzite, and one made
from a black chert pebble.”[1547] This peculiar material occurs _in
place_ only a few miles north of Trenton, and as the ice-sheet withdrew
it afforded “the first available mineral for effective implements other
than pebbles, and these were largely covered with water, and not so
readily obtained as at present; while the dry land of that day, the
Columbia gravel, contained almost exclusively in this region small
quartzite pebbles an inch or two in length.”[1548] The objects thus
referred to exhibit only a few simple types. There is a rudely chipped
spear-head, about three or four inches in length and from one to two
in breadth, characterized by the same kind of decomposition of the
surface which is seen upon the palæolithic implements. These occur in
large numbers; “as many as a thousand have been found in an area of
fifty acres.... A peculiarity ... is their frequent occurrence ... at
a depth that suggests that they were lost when the face of the country
was different from what it now is.”[1549] An implement is often found
which was probably used as a knife, also very rudely chipped, and
shaped somewhat like a spear-head, but never having a sharp point.
The argillite, of which these are made, “is very hard and susceptible
of being brought to a very sharp edge,” but they are now all much
decomposed upon the surface, and “are frequently brought to light
through land-slides and the uprooting of trees from depths greater than
it is usual to find jasper implements”[1550] of the Indians.

The most common object of all, however, and one that occurs in
very large numbers, is a slender argillite spear-point, about three
inches in length, of nearly uniform size, and having little or no
finish at the base. These are found at various depths up to five
feet, principally in the alluvial mud that has accumulated upon the
meadows skirting the Delaware River, that are liable to be overflowed
occasionally by the tide. From this circumstance, in addition to
their shape, Dr. Abbott has conjectured that they were used as
fish-spears.[1551] “This deposit of mud is of a deep blue-black color,
stiff in consistency, and almost wholly free from pebbles. It is
composed of decomposed vegetable matter and a large percentage of very
fine sand. It varies in depth from four to twenty feet, and rests on
an old gravel of an origin antedating the river gravels that contain
palæolithic implements. This mud is the geological formation next
succeeding the palæolithic implement-bearing gravels.... A careful
survey of this mud deposit, made at several distant points, leads
to the conclusion that its formation dates from the exposure of the
older gravel upon which it rests, through the gradual lessening of
the bulk of the river, until it occupied only its present channel....
The indications are that the present volume and channel of the river
have been essentially as they now are for a very long period; and the
character of the deposit is such that its accumulation, if principally
from decomposition of vegetable matter, must necessarily be very
gradual. Since its accumulation to a depth sufficient to sustain tree
growth, forests have grown, decayed, and been replaced by a growth
of other timber. While so recent in origin that it seems scarcely
to warrant the attention of the geologist, its years of growth are
nevertheless to be numbered by centuries, and the traces of man found
at all depths through it hint of a distant, shadowy past that is
difficult to realize.

“The same objection, it may be, will be urged in this instance as in
others where the comparative antiquity of man is based upon the depth
at which stone implements are found,—that all these traces have been
left upon the present surface of the ground, and subsequently have
gotten, by unexplained means, to the various depths at which they now
occur. It is, indeed, difficult to realize how some of these argillite
spear-points have finally sunk through a compact peaty mass until they
have reached the very base of the deposit. For those who urge that this
sinking process explains the occurrence of implements at great depths,
it remains to demonstrate that the people who made these argillite
fish-spears either made only these, or were careful to take no other
evidences of their handicraft with them when they wandered about these
meadows; for certainly nothing else appears to have shared the fate
of sinking deeply into the mud. In fact, the objection mentioned is
met in this case, as in that of the palæolithic implements, that if
these fish-spears are of the same age and origin as the ordinary Indian
relics of the surface, then all alike should be found at great depths.
This, we know, is not the case. Furthermore, the character of the
deposit is not that of a loose mud or quicksand, but more like that of
peat. It has a close texture, is tough and unyielding to a degree, and
offers decided resistance to the sinking of comparatively light objects
deeply into it. This is, of course, lessened when the deposit is
subject to tidal overflows, and in the immediate vicinity of springs,
which, bubbling through it, have caused a deposit of quicksand. While
here an object sinks instantly out of sight, it is not here that we
must judge of the character of the formation as a whole; and over the
greater portion of its area we find no evidence of objects disappearing
beneath the surface at a more rapid rate than the accumulation of
decomposing vegetable matter would explain. Efforts have been made to
determine the rate of progress of this growth of mould, but they are
not wholly satisfactory; nevertheless the indications are sufficient to
warrant our belief that the rate is so gradual as to invest with great
archæological interest the characteristic traces of man found in these
alluvial deposits.”

Although these argillite spear-points seem _principally_ to occur, as
has been stated, in the alluvial mud along the banks of the Delaware,
yet they are often found upon the surface, and associated with objects
of Indian origin. This circumstance Dr. Abbott attempts to explain by
the following considerations: “One marked result of the deforesting of
the country and its constant cultivation has been to remove in great
part the many inequalities of the surface and to dry up many of the
smaller brooks. The hillocks have been worn down, the valleys filled
up, and this of course has resulted in bringing to the surface, on the
higher ground, the argillite implements which were at considerable
depths, and in burying in the valleys the more recent jasper and quartz
implements of Indian origin that were left upon the soil when lost or
discarded by the red man. In the remnants of forests still remaining,
where no such disturbance of the soil has occurred, the relative depths
at which argillite and jasper respectively occur indicate the greater
age of the former.”[1552]

He recurs to this subject in another place:[1553] “The telling fact
with reference to these argillite spear-points is that they are not,
in the same sense as jasper arrow-heads, surface-found implements.
They occur also, and even more abundantly, beneath the surface-soil.
The celebrated Swedish naturalist, Peter Kalm, travelled throughout
central and southern New Jersey in 1748-50, and in his description of
the country remarks: ‘We find great woods here, but when the trees in
them have stood a hundred and fifty or a hundred and eighty years, they
are either rotting within or losing their crown, or their wood becomes
quite soft, or their roots are no longer able to draw in sufficient
nourishment, or they die from some other cause. Therefore, when storms
blow, which sometimes happens here, the trees are broken off either
just above the roots, or in the middle, or at the summit. Several trees
are likewise torn out with their roots by the power of the winds....
In this manner the old trees die away continually, and are succeeded
by a younger generation. Those which are thrown down lie on the ground
and putrefy, sooner or later, and by that means increase the _black
soil_, into which the leaves are likewise finally changed, which drop
abundantly in autumn, are blown about by the winds for some time, but
are heaped up and lie on both sides of the trees which are fallen
down. It requires several years before a tree is entirely reduced to
dust.’[1554] This quotation has a direct bearing on that which follows.
It is clear that the surface-soil was forming during the occupancy of
the country by the Indians. The entire area of the State was covered
with a dense forest, which century after century was increasing the
_black soil_ to which Kalm refers. If, now, an opportunity occurs to
examine a section of virgin soil and underlying strata, as occasionally
happens on the bluffs facing the river, the limit in depth of this
black soil may be approximately determined. An average derived from
several such sections leads me to infer that the depth is not much
over one foot, and the proportion of vegetable matter increases as
the surface is approached. Of this depth of superficial soil probably
not over one half has been derived from decomposition of vegetable
growths. While no positive data are determinable in this matter beyond
the naked fact that rotting trees increase the bulk of top-soil, one
archæological fact that we do derive is that _flint implements_ known
as Indian relics belong to this superficial or ‘black soil,’ as Kalm
terms it. Abundantly are they found on the surface; more sparingly are
they found near the surface; more sparingly still the deeper we go;
while at the base of this deposit of soil the _argillite_ implements
occur in greatest abundance. Here, then, we have the whole matter in
a nut-shell. The two forms were dissociated until by the deforesting
of the country and subsequent cultivation of the soil, except in a few
instances, they became commingled.”

A further argument in respect to the relation which argillite
implements bear to those made of jasper and quartz is derived from
the relative proportion in which they occur in localities which are
believed to have been occupied first by the users of argillite, and
subsequently by the Indians. “Of a series of twenty thousand objects
gathered in Mercer County, New Jersey, forty-four hundred were of
argillite, and of such rude forms and in such limited varieties as
would be expected of the productions of a less cultured people than
the Indian of the stone age. Of this series of forty-four hundred, two
hundred and thirty-three are well-designed drills or perforators and
scrapers; the others being spear-points, fishing-spears, arrow-heads,
and knife-like implements.”[1555] This is supplemented by negative
evidence drawn from “the character of the sites of arrow-makers’
open-air workshops, or those spots whereon the professional chipper
of flint pursued his calling. In the locality where I have pursued my
studies several such sites have been discovered and carefully examined.
In no one of these workshop sites has there been found any trace of
argillite mingled with the flint-chips that form the characteristic
feature of such spots. On the other hand, no similar sites have been
discovered, to my knowledge, where argillite was used exclusively.
The absence of this mineral cannot be explained on the ground that it
was difficult to procure, for such is not the case. It constitutes,
in fact, a considerable percentage of the pebbles and boulders of the
drift from which the Indians gathered their jasper and quartz pebbles
for working into implements and weapons. If the absence of argillite
from such heaps of selected stones is explained by the assertion that
the Indians had recognized the superiority of jasper, then the belief
that argillite was used prior to jasper receives tacit assent. If,
however, it was the earlier _Indians_ who used argillite, and gradually
discarded it for the various forms of flint, then we ought to find
workshop sites older than the time of _flint_-chipping, and others
where the two minerals are associated. This, as has been stated, has
not been done.”[1556]

Professor Putnam has found a confirmation of these views of Dr. Abbott
in the contents of a great shell-heap at Keyport, in New Jersey,
investigated over thirty years ago by Rev. Samuel Lockwood, and now
placed in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge. “As the shell-heap at
Keyport, once covering a mile or more in length along a narrow strip
bordered upon one side by the ocean and on the other by Raritan Bay, is
entirely obliterated, it is of importance that the materials obtained
from it are now in the museum for comparison with our very extensive
collections from the shell-heaps of New England. The fact that at
certain places on this narrow strip between the bay and the sea the
prevailing implements were of argillite and of great antiquity has a
peculiar significance in connection with those from Trenton, and again
points to an intermediate period between the palæolithic and the late
Indian occupation of New Jersey.”[1557]

To these various arguments the writer wishes to add the statement
that to his personal knowledge argillite spear-points, and especially
those of the fish-spear type, are occasionally found in other parts
of our country besides New Jersey. In his own researches, which have
been principally carried on upon the seacoast of New England, he has
_never_ found an example of them in the shell-heaps proper, which are
universally recognized by archæologists as relics of the Indians. The
few which he has found himself, or has obtained from others, have come
from meadows by the side of rivers or ponds, where they might very well
have been used as fish-spears.

A further confirmation of Dr. Abbott’s opinions in regard to the
descendants of palæolithic man is derived from certain discoveries
made by Mr. Hilborne T. Cresson in the alluvial deposits at Naaman’s
Creek, in Delaware. These were first made known in November, 1887,
by a letter to the editor of the American Antiquarian. “In 1870, a
fisherman living in the village of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, gave me
some spear and arrow heads flaked from a dense argillite, as well as
other rude implements of a prehistoric people, which he had found on
some extensive mud flats near the mouth of Naaman’s Creek, a small
tributary of the Delaware. The finder stated that while fishing ... he
had noticed here and there the ends of logs or stakes protruding from
the mud, and that they seemed to him to have been placed in rows....
A visit made a few days afterward to the place ... disclosed the ends
of much-decayed stakes or piles protruding here and there above the
mud.... On my return from France in 1880 I again visited the spot....
While abroad I studied in spare moments many archæological collections,
especially those from the Swiss Lake Dwellings, and visited the
various lake stations of Switzerland. The rude dressings of the ends
of the piles in some places were evidently made with blunt stone
implements, and recalled those I had seen on the ends of the posts in
the Delaware River marshes. Since 1880 I have quietly examined the
remains, excavating what pile ends remained _in situ_ (preserving a
few that did not crumble to pieces), preserving careful notes of the
dredging and excavations (at low tides), carried on principally by
myself, aided at times by interested friends. The results so far seem
to indicate that the ends of the piles imbedded in the mud, judging
from the implements and other débris scattered around them, once
supported shelters of early man that were erected a few feet above the
water,—the upper portion of the piles having disappeared in the long
lapse of time that must have ensued since they were placed there. (The
flats are covered by four and one half feet of water on the flood tide;
on the ebb the marsh is dry, and covered with slimy ooze several feet
in depth, varying in different places.) Three different dwellings have
been located, all that exist in the flats referred to, after a careful
examination within the last four years of nearly every inch of ground
carefully laid off and examined in sections. The implements found in
two of ‘the supposed river dwelling sites’ are very rude in type, and
generally made of dense argillite, not unlike the palæoliths found by
my friend Dr. C. C. Abbott in the Trenton gravels. The character of
the implements from the other or third supposed river dwelling on the
Delaware marshes is better finished objects made of argillite.”[1558]

The greater portion of the objects obtained by Mr. Cresson has been
placed in the Peabody Museum, to which he is at present attached as a
special assistant; but he has also kindly sent to the writer a small
illustrative collection from each site, for his study.

The writer would hesitate to draw the inference from this single
discovery that the custom of living in pile-dwellings ever prevailed
in North America, although there is evidence that such a practice was
not unknown in South America. This is to be found in the account of the
voyage of Alonso de Ojeda along the north coast of that country, in the
year 1499, in which he was accompanied by Vespucius.[1559] I will quote
the language of Washington Irving: “Proceeding along the coast, he
arrived at a vast, deep gulf resembling a tranquil lake, entering which
he beheld on the eastern side a village whose construction struck him
with surprise. It consisted of twenty large houses, shaped like bells,
and built on piles driven into the bottom of the lake, which in this
part was limpid and of but little depth. Each house was provided with
a drawbridge, and with canoes by which the communication was carried
on. From these resemblances to the Italian city, Ojeda gave to the bay
the name of the Gulf of Venice, and it is called at the present day
Venezuela, or Little Venice.”[1560] There is no inherent improbability
that such a custom may have prevailed upon the shores of Delaware Bay,
and for the same reason that has caused it to be followed elsewhere.
“It has been stated that the natives living near Lake Maracaybo, in
South America, erect pile dwellings over the lake, to which they resort
in order to escape from the mosquitoes which infest the shore. Lord
also mentions that the Indians of the Suman prairie, British Columbia,
on the subsidence of the annual floods in May and June, build pile
dwellings over a lake there, to which they retire to escape from the
mosquitoes which at that period infest the prairie in dense clouds, but
will not cross the water.”[1561]

But it would be safer, probably, to consider these discoveries of Mr.
Cresson’s as marking the site of ancient aboriginal fish-weirs, such as
are described by Captain Ribault and other early explorers as made by
the natives.[1562] The writer agrees with Professor Putnam in thinking
that “the fact that at only one station pottery occurs, and, also, that
at this station the stone implements are largely of jasper and quartz,
with few of argillite, while at the two other stations many rude stone
implements are associated with chipped points of argillite, with few of
jasper and other flint-like material, is of great interest.”[1563]

Still further confirmation of the progress of the palæolithic man in
this region is afforded by discoveries made in a rock-shelter near
the headwaters of Naaman’s Creek, as early as 1866, for an account
of which, and the preservation of the objects then found, we are
also indebted to Mr. Cresson: “The remains of the Naaman’s Creek
rock-shelter luckily fell into hands that have preserved them.... To
give a detailed account of _how_ the rock-shelter was discovered would
consume too much time. Let us rather consider briefly the ... contents
of the shelter’s various layers.... Fortunately careful drawings of
the shelter were made during its excavation between the years 1866 and
1867.... A glance shows the outcrop of the rock as it appeared before
the excavations were begun in 1866. The trees show that the ground
was then covered by a thick wood.... From the point that marks the
innermost edge of the outcrop, overhanging the hollow, a perpendicular
line dropped to the ground would measure five and one eighth feet,
the height of the projection of the rock above the ground before the
excavations were commenced.

“Twenty-two feet eight inches from the outcrop, measured from its
inner face, there is still another outcrop.... This marks the opposite
side of the hollow.... It is evident how admirably the place was
adapted to the wants of the early hunters of the Delaware valley,
whether it be as a shelter, or as a place of defence against their
enemies.... Let us look at the layers of earth that filled it, these
being intermingled with rude implements, broken bones, and charcoal,
indicating that man at times had resorted to the spot.

“Layer C [the lowest]. This was composed of schist, resting on the
bedrock of the shelter. A layer of aqueous gravel, of the same type
as that underlying Philadelphia, rested on the decomposed schist. The
greatest depth of the red gravel layer was four feet two and one fourth
inches, measured from the layer of decomposed schist. Least depth of
gravel observed, one foot three inches....

“Layer A [next above]. This was a layer of grayish-white brick clay
mixed with yellow clay, similar to that underlying Philadelphia, on
top of which was a layer mixed with sand.... Stone implements were
discovered in this layer. They were but few in number and very rude,
exclusively of argillite, and palæolithic in type. Greatest depth of
layer, two feet one and one half inches. No implements of bone were
found....

“Layer T [next above]. This was of reddish gravel, intermingled with
decomposed schist, cinders, and broken bones of animals. Fragments of a
human skull were found ... in this layer. A fragment of a human rib was
also preserved. The fragments of the skull are covered here and there
by dendritic incrustations. Rude spears and implements of argillite
were found in this layer. Depth of layer, thirteen to eighteen inches.

“Layer D [next above]. Composed of reddish-yellow clay. Depth, two feet
three inches. No implements.

“Layer M [next above]. In this layer were numerous implements of
argillite and some of bone, intermingled with rude implements of
quartzite and jasper and fragments of rude pottery, with charcoal.
Greatest depth, one foot one and one half inches. Least depth, three
inches.

“Layer R [next above]. Yellow clay. Greatest depth, two feet one and
one half inches; least depth, eight inches. No implements.

“Layer W [next above]. This contained chipped implements; those made
of jasper and quartzite predominating over those of argillite. In the
lowest part of this layer were fragments of rude pottery. In the upper
portion of the layer were potsherds decidedly superior in decoration
and technique to those from the lower portion. Geological composition
of this layer, yellow clay loam. Greatest depth, three feet four
inches. Least depth, two and one half inches.

“Layer L [top]. This consists of leaf mould seven inches thick,
converted into swamp muck by decomposing action of water from springs.
No implements.... No remains of extinct animals were found.”[1564]

Professor Putnam thus proceeded to comment upon these discoveries: “We
have a series of objects, taken from the several layers of the shelter,
giving us a chronology of the utmost importance, as each period of
occupation of the shelter was followed by a natural deposition,
separating the different periods of occupation. The stone implements
... are taken from the lowest layer, indicating the earliest period of
occupation of the rock-shelter; and ... they correspond in shape and
rudeness of execution with those taken from the gravel-bed at Trenton;
and like most of the latter they are all of argillite. The specimens
from the second period are of argillite, and while many are chipped
into slender points, they are still of very rude forms; and these in
turn correspond with the argillite points found by Dr. Abbott deep
down in the black soil, or resting upon the gravel, at Trenton. In
the upper layers of the cave we observe ... the gradual introduction
of implements chipped from jasper and quartz, and corresponding in
form with those found upon the surface throughout the valley. And as a
further indication of this later development, it was only in the upper
layers that pottery, bone implements, and ornaments were found; the
three distinct periods of occupation of the Delaware valley are thus
distinctly shown; and this cave-shelter is a perfect exemplification of
the results which Dr. Abbott had obtained from a study of the specimens
which he has collected upon the surface, deep in the black soil, and in
the gravel, at Trenton.”

* * * * *

From the accumulative force of these various lines of reasoning, the
writer thinks that there is a strong probability that here, on the
waters of the Delaware, man developed from the palæolithic to the
neolithic stage of culture. But we cannot follow Dr. Abbott in his
further conclusion (if, indeed, he still holds to it) that we are to
seek the descendants of this primitive population in the Eskimos,
driven north after contact with the Indians. We have failed to discover
the slightest evidence to sustain this position. The hereditary enmity
existing between the Eskimos and the Indians may be equally well
explained upon the theory that the former are later comers to this
continent, and are therefore hated by the Indian races as intruders.
The two races are certainly markedly unlike.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show the development of the
argillite-using people into the Indian races, with their perfected
implements and weapons of the age of polished stone, it seems more
reasonable to hold with Professor Dawkins that the earlier and ruder
race perished before or were absorbed by a people furnished with a
better equipment in the struggle for the “survival of the fittest.” The
palæolithic man of the river gravels of Trenton and his argillite-using
posterity the writer believes to be completely extinct.[1565]

It only remains for the writer to express his regret that he has
been prevented from setting forth in detail, at the present time, the
grounds upon which he has come to other conclusions which were briefly
indicated at the beginning of this chapter. He can only repeat here
his belief that the so-called Indians, with their many divisions into
numerous linguistic families, were later comers to our shores than the
primitive population, whose development he has attempted to trace; that
the so-called “moundbuilders” were the ancestors of tribes found in the
occupation of the soil; and that the Pueblos and the Aztecs were only
peoples relatively farther advanced than the others.

The writer further thinks that these are propositions capable, if not
of being demonstrated, at least of being made to appear in a very high
degree probable by means of authorities which will be found amply
referred to in other chapters of this volume.

[Illustration: Signature]

THE PROGRESS OF OPINION RESPECTING THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN
AMERICA.

BY THE EDITOR.

THE literature respecting the origin and early condition of the
American aborigines is very extensive; and, as a rule, especially
in the earlier period, it is not characterized by much reserve in
connecting races by historical analogies.[1566] Few before Dr.
Robertson, in discussing the problem, could say: “I have ventured to
inquire without presuming to decide.”

The question was one that allured many of the earlier Spanish writers
like Herrera and Torquemada. Among the earlier English discussions is
that of Wm. Bourne in his _Booke called the Treasure for Travellers_
(London, 1578), where a section is given to “The Peopling of America.”
The most famous of the early discussions of the various theories
was that of Gregorio Garciá, a missionary for twenty years in South
America, who reviewed the question in his _Origen de los Indios de
el Nuevo Mundo_ (Valencia, 1607).[1567] He goes over the supposed
navigations of the Phœnicians, the identity of Peru with Solomon’s
Ophir, and the chances of African, Roman, and Jewish migrations,—only
to reject them all, and to favor a coming of Tartars and Chinese.
Clavigero thinks his evidences the merest conjectures. E. Brerewood,
in his _Enquiries touching the diversity of languages and religions_
(London, 1632, 1635), claimed a Tartar origin. In New England, where
many were believers in the Jewish analogies, it is somewhat amusing to
find not long after this the quizzical Thomas Morton, with what seems
like mock gravity, finding the aboriginal source in “the scattered
Trojans, after such time as Brutus departed from Latium.”[1568] The
reader, however, is referred to other sections of the present volume
for the literature bearing upon the distinct ethnical connections of
the early American peoples.

The chief literary controversy over the question began in 1642,
when Hugo Grotius published his _De Origine Gentium Americanarum
Dissertatio_ (Paris and Amsterdam, 1642).[1569] He argued that all
North America except Yucatan (which had an Ethiopian stock) was peopled
from the Scandinavian North; that the Peruvians were from China, and
that the Moluccans peopled the regions below Peru. Grotius aroused an
antagonist in Johannes de Laet, whose challenge appeared the next year:
_Joannis de Laet Antwerpiani notae ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii
de origine gentium Americanarum: et observationes aliquot ad meliorem
indaginem difficillimæ illius quæstionis_ (Amsterdam, 1643).[1570]
He combated his brother Dutchman at all points, and contended that
the Scythian race furnished the predominant population of America.
The Spaniards went to the Canaries, and thence some of their vessels
drifted to Brazil. He is inclined to accept the story of Madoc’s
Welshmen, and think it not unlikely that the people of the Pacific
islands may have floated to the western coast of South America, and
that minor migrations may have come from other lands. He supports his
views by comparisons of the Irish, Gallic, Icelandic, Huron, Iroquois,
and Mexican tongues.

To all this Grotius replied in a second _Dissertatio_, and De Laet
again renewed the attack: _Ioannis de Laet Antwerpiani responsio
ad dissertationem secundam Hvgonis Grotii, de origine gentium
Americanarum. Cum indice ad utrumque libellum_ (Amsterdam, 1644).[1571]

De Laet, not content with his own onset, incited another to take part
in the controversy, and so George Horn (Hornius) published his _De
Originibus Americanis, libri quatuor_ (Hagæ Comitis, _i. e._ The Hague,
1652; again, Hemipoli, _i. e._ Halberstadt, 1669).[1572] His view was
the Scythian one, but he held to later additions from the Phœnicians
and Carthaginians on the Atlantic side, and from the Chinese on the
Pacific.

For the next fifty years there were a number of writers on the
subject, who are barely names to the present generation;[1573]
but towards the middle of the eighteenth century the question was
considered in _The American Traveller_ (London, 1741), and by
Charlevoix in his _Nouvelle France_ (1744). The author of an _Enquiry
into the Origin of the Cherokees_ (Oxford, 1762) makes them the
descendants of Meshek, son of Japhet. In 1767, however, the question
was again brought into the range of a learned and disputatious
discussion, reviving all the arguments of Grotius, De Laet, and Horn,
when E. Bailli d’Engel published his _Essai sur cette question: Quand
et comment l’America a-t-elle été peuplée d’hommes et d’Animaux?_ (5
vols., Amsterdam, 1767, 2d ed., 1768). He argues for an antediluvian
origin.[1574] The controversy which now followed was aroused by C.
De Pauw’s characterization of all American products, man, animals,
vegetation, as degraded and inferior to nature in the old world, in
an essay which passed through various editions, and was attacked and
defended in turn.[1575] An Italian, Count Carli, some years later,
controverted De Pauw, and using every resource of mythology, tradition,
geology, and astronomy, claimed for the Americans a descent from the
Atlantides.[1576] It was not till after reports had come from the Ohio
Valley of the extensive earthworks in that region that the question
of the earlier peoples of America attracted much general attention
throughout America; and the most conspicuous spokesman was President
Stiles of Yale College, in an address which he delivered before the
General Assembly of Connecticut, in 1783, on the future of the new
republic.[1577] In this, while arguing for the unity of the American
tribes and for their affinity with the Tartars, he held to their being
in the main the descendants of the Canaanites expelled by Joshua,
whether finding their way hither by the Asiatic route and establishing
the northern Sachemdoms, or coming in Phœnician ships across the
Atlantic to settle Mexico and Peru.[1578] Lafitau in 1724 (_Mœurs de
Sauvages_) had contended for a Tartar origin. We have examples of the
reasoning of a missionary in the views of the Moravian Loskiel, and of
a learned controversialist in the treatise of Fritsch, in 1794 and 1796
respectively.[1579]

[Illustration: BENJAMIN SMITH BARTON.]

The earliest American with a scientific training to discuss the
question was a professor in the University of Pennsylvania, Benjamin
Smith Barton, a man who acquired one of the best reputations in his
day among Americans for studies in this and other questions of natural
history. His father was an English clergyman settled in America,
and his mother a sister of David Rittenhouse. It was while he was a
student of medicine in Edinburgh that he first approached the subject
of the origin of the Americans, in a little treatise on American
Antiquities, which he never completed.[1580] His _Papers relating
to certain American Antiquities_ (Philad., 1796) consists of those
read to the Amer. Philos. Soc., and printed in their _Transactions_
(vol. iv.). They were published as the earnest of his later work on
American Antiquities. He argues against De Pauw, and contends that the
Americans are descended—at least some of them—from Asiatic peoples
still recognized. The _Papers_ include a letter from Col. Winthrop
Sargent, Sept. 8, 1794, describing certain articles found in a mound
at Cincinnati, and a letter upon them from Barton to Dr. Priestley.
He in the end gave more careful attention to the subject, mainly on
its linguistic side, and went farther than any one had gone before him
in his _New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America_
(Philad., 1797; 2d ed., enlarged, 1798).[1581] The book attracted
much notice, and engaged the attention in some degree of European
philologists, and made Barton at that time the most conspicuous student
on these matters in America. Jefferson was at that time gathering
material in similar studies, but his collections were finally burned in
1801. Barton, in dedicating his treatise to Jefferson, recognized the
latter’s advance in the same direction. He believed his own gathering
of original MS. material to be at that time more extensive than any
other student had collected in America. His views had something of the
comprehensiveness of his material, and he could not feel that he could
point to any one special source of the indigenous population.

During the early years of the present century old theories and new were
abundant. The powerful intellect and vast knowledge of Alexander von
Humboldt were applied to the problem as he found it in Middle America.
He announced some views on the primitive peoples in 1806, in the _Neue
Berlinische Monatsschrift_ (vol. xv.); but his ripened opinions found
record in his _Vues de Cordillères et monumens des peuples indigènes de
l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1816), and the Asiatic theory got a conservative
yet definite advocate.

Hugh Williamson[1582] thought he found traces of the Hindoo in the
higher arts of the Mexicans, and marks of the ruder Asiatics in the
more northern American peoples. A conspicuous littérateur of the day,
Samuel L. Mitchell, veered somewhat wildly about in his notions of
a Malay, Tartar, and Scandinavian origin.[1583] Meanwhile something
like organized efforts were making. The American Antiquarian Society
was formed in 1812.[1584] Silliman began his _Journal of Arts and
Sciences_ in 1819, and both society and periodical proved instruments
of wider inquiry. In the first volume published by the Antiquarian
Society, Caleb Atwater, in his treatise on the Western Antiquities,
gave the earliest sustained study of the subject, and believed in a
general rather than in a particular Asiatic source. The man first to
attract attention for his grouping of ascertained results, unaided
by personal explorations, however, was Dr. James H. McCulloh, who
published his _Researches on America_ at Baltimore in 1816. The book
passed to a second edition the next year, but received its final shape
in the _Researches, philosophical and antiquarian, concerning the
aboriginal history of America_ (1829), a book which Prescott[1585]
praised for its accumulated erudition, and Haven[1586] ranked high for
its manifestations of industry and research, calling it encyclopædic in
character. McCulloh examines the native traditions, but can evolve no
satisfactory conclusion from them as to the origin of the Americans.
The public mind, however, was not ripe for scholarly inquiry, and there
was not that in McCulloh’s style to invite attention; and greater
popularity followed upon the fanciful and dogmatic confidence of
John Haywood,[1587] upon the somewhat vivid if unsteady speculations
of C. S. Rafinesque,[1588] and even upon the itinerant Josiah
Priest, who boasted of the circulation of thousands of copies of his
popular books.[1589] John Delafield’s _Inquiry into the Origin of
the Antiquities of America_ (N. Y., 1839) revived the theory, never
quite dormant, of the descent of the Mexicans from the riper peoples
of Hindostan and Egypt; while the more barbarous red men came of the
Mongol stock. The author ran through the whole range of philology,
mythology, and many of the customs of the races, in reaching this
conclusion. A little book by John McIntosh, _Discovery of America and
Origin of the North American Indians_, published in Toronto, 1836, was
reissued in N. Y. in 1843, and with enlargements in 1846, _Origin of
the North American Indians_, continued down to 1859 to be repeatedly
issued, or to have a seeming success by new dates.[1590]

* * * * *

When Columbus, approaching the main land of South America, imagined
it a large island, he associated it with that belief so long current
in the Old World, which placed the cradle of the race in the Indian
Ocean,—a belief which in our day has been advocated by Haeckel,
Caspari and Winchell,—and imagined he was on the coasts, skirting an
interior, where lay the Garden of Eden.[1591] No one had then ventured
on the belief that the doctrine of Genesis must be reconciled with
any supposed counter-testimony by holding it to be but the record of
the Jewish race. Columbus was not long in his grave when Theophrastus
Paracelsus, in 1520, and before the belief in the continuity of North
America with Asia was dispelled, and consequently before the question
of how man and animals could have reached the New World was raised,
first broached the heterodox view of the plurality of the human
race. All the early disputants on the question of the origin of the
American man looked either across the Atlantic or the Pacific for the
primitive seed; nor was there any necessary connection between the
arguments for an autochthonous American man and a diversity of race,
when Fabricius, in 1721, published his _Dissertatio Critica_[1592] on
the opinions of those who held that different races had been created.
From that day the old orthodox interpretation of the record in Genesis
found no contestant of mark till the question came up in relation
to the American man, it being held quite sufficient to account for
the inferiority or other distinguishing characteristics of race by
assigning them to the influence of climate and physical causes.[1593]

[Illustration: LOUIS AGASSIZ.

After a photograph, hanging in the Somerset Club, Boston; suggested to
the editor by Mr. Alexander Agassiz as a satisfactory likeness.]

The strongest presentation of the case, in considering the American
man a distinct product of the American soil, with no connection with
the Old World[1594] except in the case of the Eskimos, was made when
S. G. Morton, in 1839, printed his _Crania Americana, or a comparative
view of the skulls of various aboriginal nations of North and South
America_, of which there was a second edition in 1844.[1595] Here
was a new test, and applied, very likely, in ignorance of the fact
that Governor Pownal, in 1766, in Knox’s _New Collection of Voyages_,
had suggested it.[1596] Dr. Morton had gathered a collection of near
a thousand skulls from all parts of the world,[1597] and based his
deductions on these,—a process hardly safe, as many of his successors
have determined.[1598] The views of Morton respecting the autochthonous
origin of the Indian found an able upholder when Louis Agassiz,
taking the broader view of the independent creation of higher and
inferior races,[1599] gave in his adhesion to the original American
man (_Christian Examiner_, July, 1850, vol. xlix. p. 110). These
views got more extensive expression in a publication which appeared
in Philadelphia in 1854, in which some unpublished papers of Morton
are accompanied by a contribution from Agassiz, and all are grouped
together and augmented by material of the editors, Dr. Josiah Clark
Nott[1600] of Mobile, and Mr. George R. Gliddon, long a resident in
Cairo. The _Types of Mankind, or Ethnological Researches_ (Philad.,
1854, 1859, 1871), met with a divided reception; the conservative
theologians called it pretentious and false, and there was some color
for their detraction in some rather jejune expositions of the Hebrew
Scriptures contained in the book. The physiologists thought it brought
new vigor to a question which properly belonged to science.[1601] Other
fresh material, with some discussions, made up a new book by the same
editors, published three years later, _Indigenous Races of the Earth,
or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry_ (Philad. and London, 1857; 2d
ed., 1857).[1602]

The theological attacks were not always void of a contempt that ill
befitted the work of refutation. The most important of them were John
Bachman’s _Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race_ (Charleston, S. C.,
1850), with his _Notice of the Types of Mankind_ (Charleston, 1854-55);
and Thomas Smyth’s _Unity of the Human Race proved by Scripture, Reason
and Science_ (N. Y., 1850).[1603]

[Illustration: SAMUEL FOSTER HAVEN.

After a photograph. A heliotype of a portrait by Custer is in the
_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Ap., 1879. Haven’s _Annual Reports_, as
librarian of the Amer. Antiq. Soc., furnish a good chronological
conspectus of the progress of anthropological discovery.]

The scientific attack on Morton and Agassiz, and the views they
represented, was an active one, and embraced such writers as Wilson,
Latham, Pickering, and Quatrefages.[1604] The same collection of skulls
which had furnished Morton with his proofs yielded exactly opposite
evidence to Dr. J. A. Meigs in his _Observations upon the Cranial Forms
of the American Aborigines_ (Philad., 1866).[1605] Two of the most
celebrated of the evolutionists reject the autochthonous view, for
Darwin’s _Descent of Man_ and Haeckel’s _Hist. of Creation_ consider
the American man an emigrant from the old world, in whatever way the
race may have developed.[1606]

[Illustration: SIR DANIEL WILSON, LL. D., F.R.S.E.

From a photograph kindly furnished, on request, by Professor Wilson’s
family.]

Of the leading historians of the early American peoples, Prescott,
dealing with the Mexicans, is inclined to agree with Humboldt’s
arguments as to their primitive connection with Asia.[1607] Geo.
Bancroft, in the third volume of his _Hist. of the United States_
(1840), surveying the field, found little in the linguistic affinities,
little in what Humboldt gathered from the Mexican calendars and from
other developments, nothing from the Western mounds, which he was sure
were natural earth-knobs and water-worn passages,[1608] and decides
upon some transmission by the Pacific route from Asia, but so remote
as to make the American tribes practically indigenous, so far as their
character is concerned.

In 1843 another compiler of existing evidence appeared in Alexander W.
Bradford in his _American Antiquities, or Researches into the origin
and history of the Red Race_. His views were new. He connects the
higher organized life of middle America with the corresponding culture
of Southern Asia, the Polynesian islands probably furnishing the avenue
of migrations; while the ruder and more northern peoples of both shores
of the Pacific represent the same stock degraded by northern migrations.

In 1845 the American Ethnological Society began its publications, and
in Albert Gallatin it had a vigorous helper in unravelling some of
these mysteries. A few years later (1853) the United States government
lent its patronage and prestige to the huge conglomerate publication of
Schoolcraft, his _Indian Tribes of the United States_, which leaves the
bewildered reader in a puzzling maze,—the inevitable result of a work
undertaken beyond the ambitious powers of an untrained mind. The work
is not without value if the user of it has more systematic knowledge
than its compiler, to select, discard, and arrange, and if he can weigh
the importance of the separate papers.[1609]

In 1856 Samuel F. Haven, the librarian and guiding spirit of the
American Antiquarian Society, summed up, as it had never been done
before, for comprehensiveness, and with a striking prescience, the
progress and results of studies in this field, in his _Archæology of
the United States_ (_Smithsonian Contributions_, viii., Washington,
1856).

[Illustration: EDWARD B. TYLOR.

After a photograph.]

In 1851 Professor Daniel Wilson, in his _Prehistoric Annals of
Scotland_, first brought into use the designation “prehistoric” as
expressing “the whole period disclosed to us by means of archæological
evidence, as distinguished from what is known through written records;
and in this sense the term was speedily adopted by the archæologists
of Europe.”[1610] Eleven years later he published his _Prehistoric
Man: Researches into the origin of civilization in the old and new
world_.[1611] The book unfortunately is not well fortified with
references, but it is the result of long study, partly in the field,
and written with a commendable reserve of judgment. It is in the main
concerned with the western hemisphere, which he assumes with little
hesitation “began its human period subsequent to that of the old world,
and so started later in the race of civilization.” While thus in effect
a study of early man in America, its scope makes it in good degree a
complement to the _Origin of Civilization_ of Lubbock.

The comparative study of ethnological traces, to enable us to depict
the earliest condition of human society, owes a special indebtedness
to Edward B. Tylor, among writers in English. It is nearly twenty-five
years since he first published his _Researches into the Early History
of Mankind and the Development of Civilization_,[1612] the work
almost, if not quite, of a pioneer in this interesting field, and he
has supplied the reader with all the references necessary to test his
examples. Max Müller (_Chips_, ii. 262) has pointed out how he has
vitalized his vast accumulation of facts by coherent classifications
instead of leaving them an oppressive burden by simple aggregation, as
his precursors in Germany, Gustav Klemm[1613] and Adolf Bastian, had
done; and it is remarked that while thus classifying, he has not been
lured into pronounced theory, which future accession of material might
serve to modify or change. He shortly afterwards touched a phase of the
subject which he had not developed in his book in a paper on “Traces of
the Early Mental Condition of Man,”[1614] and illustrated the methods
he was pursuing in another on “The Condition of Prehistoric Races as
inferred from observations of modern tribes.”[1615]

The postulate of which he has been a distinguished expounder, that man
has progressed from barbarism to civilization, was a main deduction
to be drawn from his next sustained work, _Primitive Culture:
researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion,
art, and custom_.[1616] The chief points of this further study of
the thought, belief, art, and custom of the primitive man had been
advanced tentatively in various other papers beside those already
mentioned,[1617] and in this new work he further acknowledges his
obligations to Adolf Bastian’s _Mensch in der Geschichte_ and Theodor
Waitz’s _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_.[1618] He still pursued his
plan of collecting wide and minute evidence from the writers on
ethnography and kindred sciences, and from historians, travellers, and
missionaries, as his foot-notes abundantly testify.

[Illustration: THEODOR WAITZ.

After a likeness in Otto Caspari’s _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, 2d
ed., vol. i. (Leipzig, 1877).]

These studies of Professor Tylor abundantly qualified him to give
a condensed exposition of the science of anthropology, which he had
done so much to place within the range of scientific studies, by a
primary search for facts and laws; and having contributed the article
on that subject to the ninth edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_,
he published in 1881 his _Anthropology: an Introduction to the study
of man and civilization_ (London and N. Y., 1881 and 1888). He maps
out the new science, which has now received of late years so many new
students in the scientific method, without references, but with the
authority of a teacher, tracing what man has been and is under the
differences of sex, race, beliefs, habits, and society.[1619] Again,
at the Montreal meeting (August, 1884) of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, he set down in an address the bounds of the
“American Aspects of Anthropology.”[1620]

[Illustration: SIR JOHN LUBBOCK.

After a photograph.]

Closely following upon Tylor in this field, and gathering his material
with much the same assiduity, and presenting it with similar beliefs,
though with enough individuality to mark a distinction, was another
Englishman, who probably shares with Tylor the leading position in
this department of study. Sir John Lubbock, in his _Prehistoric Times
as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and customs of
modern savages_,[1621] gathered the evidence which exists of the
primitive condition of man, embracing some chapters on modern savages
so far as they are ignorant of the use of metals, as the best study
we can follow, to fill out the picture of races only archæologically
known to us. This study of modern savage life, in arts, marriages,
and relationships, morals, religion, and laws, is, as he holds, a
necessary avenue to the knowledge of a condition of the early man,
from which by various influences the race has advanced to what is
called civilization. His result in this comparative study—not indeed
covering all the phases of savage life—he made known in his _Origin
of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man_.[1622] While
referring to Tylor’s _Early Hist. of Mankind_ as more nearly like
his own than any existing treatise, but showing, as compared with
his own book, “that no two minds would view the subject in the same
manner,” he instanced previous treatments of certain phases of the
subject, like Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_,
J. F. M’Lennan’s _Primitive Marriage_,[1623] and J. J. Bachofen’s _Das
Mutterrecht_ (Stuttgart, 1861); and even Lord Kames’ _History of Man_,
and Montesquieu’s _Esprit des Lois_, notwithstanding the absence in
them of much of the minute knowledge now necessary to the study of the
subject. These data, of course, are largely obtained from travellers
and missionaries, and Lubbock complains of their unsatisfactory extent
and accuracy. “Travellers,” he adds, “find it easier to describe the
houses, boats, food, dress, weapons, and implements of savages than to
understand their thoughts and feelings.”

[Illustration: SIR JOHN WILLIAM DAWSON.

After a photograph.]

The main controversial point arising out of all this study is the one
already adverted to,—whether man has advanced from savagery to his
present condition, or has preserved, with occasional retrogressions,
his original elevated character; and this causes the other question,
whether the modern savage is the degenerate descendant of the same
civilized first men. “There is no scientific evidence which would
justify us,” says Lubbock (_Prehist. Times_, 417), “in asserting that
this kind of degradation applies to savages in general.”[1624] The
most distinguished advocate of the affirmative of this proposition is
Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, both in his _Political Economy_
and in his lecture on the _Origin of Civilization_ (1855), in which
he undertook to affirm that no nation, unaided by a superior race,
ever succeeded in raising itself out of savagery, and that nations
can become degraded. Lubbock, who, with Tylor, holds the converse of
this proposition, answered Whately in an appendix to his _Origin of
Civilization_, which was originally given as a paper at the Dundee
meeting of the British Association.[1625] The Duke of Argyle, while
not prepared to go to the extent of Whately’s views, attacked, in his
_Primeval Man_, Lubbock’s argument,[1626] and was in turn reviewed
adversely by Lubbock, in a paper read at the Exeter meeting of the
same association (1869), which is also included in the appendix of his
_Origin of Civilization_. Lubbock seems to show, in some instances at
least, that the duke did not possess himself correctly of some of the
views of his opponents.

[Illustration: MIGRATIONS.

A sketch map given in Dawson’s _Fossil Men_, p. 48, showing his view
of the probable lines of migration and distribution of the American
tribes. Morgan (_Ancient Society_) makes what he calls three centres
of subsistence, whence the migration proceeded which overran America.
Cf. Hellwald in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 328. The question is
more or less discussed in Latham’s _Man and his migrations_ (London,
1851); Chas. Pickering’s _Men and their geog. distribution_; and Oscar
Peschel’s _Races of Man_ (Eng. transl., London, 1876). On the passage
from the valley of the Columbia to that of the Missouri, see Humboldt’s
_Views of Nature_, 35. Morgan (_No. Am. Rev._, cix.) supposes the
valley of the Columbia River to be the original centre where the
streams diverged, and (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 251) says there
are reasons for believing that the Shoshone migration was the last
which left the Columbia valley, and that it was pending at the epoch
of European colonization. Morgan’s papers in the _No. Am. Rev._, Oct.
1868 and Jan. 1870, are reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_, p.
158. On a general belief in a migration from the north, see _Congrès
des Amér_. (1877), ii. 50, 51. L. Simonin, in “L’homme Américain, notes
d’ethnologie et de linguistique sur les indiens des Etats-Unis,” gives
a map of the tribes of North America in the _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._
Feb. 1870.]

In the researches of Tylor and Lubbock, and of all the others
cited above, the American Indian is the source of many of their
illustrations. Of all writers on this continent, Sir John Wm. Dawson
in his _Fossil Men_, and Southall in his _Recent Origin of Man_, are
probably the most eminent advocates of the views of Whately and Argyle,
however modified, and both have declared it an unfounded assumption
that the primitive man was a savage.[1627] Morgan, in his _Ancient
Society_ (N. Y., 1877), has, on the other hand, sketched the lines of
human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization.

One of the defenders of the supposed Bible limits best equipped by
reading, if not in the scientific spirit, has been a Virginian, James
C. Southall, who published a large octavo in 1875, _The Recent Origin
of Man as illustrated by geology and the modern science of prehistoric
archæology_ (Philad., 1875). Three years later,—leaving out some
irrelevant matters as touching the antiquity of man, condensing his
collations of detail, sparing the men of science an attack for what in
his earlier volume he called their fickleness, and somewhat veiling
his set purpose of sustaining the Bible record,—he published a more
effective little book, _The Epoch of the Mammoth and the Apparition of
Man upon Earth_ (Philad., 1878). Barring its essentially controversial
character, and waiving judgment on its scientific decisions, it is one
of the best condensed accumulations of data which has been made. His
belief in the literal worth of the Bible narrative is emphatic. He
thinks that man, abruptly and fully civilized, appeared in the East,
and gave rise to the Egyptian and Babylonian civilization, while the
estrays that wandered westward are known to us by their remains, as
the early savage denizens of Europe. To maintain this existence of the
hunter-man of Europe within historic times, he rejects the prevailing
opinions of the geologists and archæologists. He reverses the judgment
that Lyell expresses (_Student’s Elements of Geology_, Am. ed., 162)
of the historical period as not affording any appreciable measure
for calculating the number of centuries necessary to produce so many
extinct animals, to deepen and widen valleys, and to lay so deep
stalagmite floors, and says it does. He contends that the stone age is
not divided into the earlier and later periods with an interval, but
that the mingling of the kinds of flints shows but different phases of
the same period,[1628] and that what others call the palæolithic man
was in reality the quaternary man, with conditions not much different
from now.[1629] The time when the ice retreated from the now temperate
regions he holds to have been about 2000 b.c., and he looks to the
proofs of the action of which traces are left along the North American
great lakes, as observed by Professor Edmund Andrews[1630] of Chicago,
to confirm his judgment of the Glacial age being from 5,300 to 7,500
years ago.[1631] He claims that force has not been sufficiently
recognized as an element in geological action, and that a great lapse
of time was not necessary to effect geological changes (_Ep. of the
M._, 194).[1632] He thinks the present drift of opinion, carrying
back the appearance of man anywhere from 20,000 to 9,000,000 years,
a mere fashion. The gravel of the Somme has been, he holds, a rapid
deposit in valleys already formed and not necessarily old. The peat
beds were a deposit from the flood that followed the glacial period,
and accumulated rapidly (_Ep. of the M._, ch. 10). The extinct animals
found with the tools of man in the caves simply show that such beasts
survived to within historic times, as seems everywhere apparent as
regards the mastodon when found in America. The stalagmites of the
caves are of unequal growth, and it is an assumption to give them
uniformly great age. The finely worked flints found among those called
palæolithic; the skilfully free drawings of the cave-men; the bits of
pottery discovered with the rude flints, and the great similarity of
the implements to those in use to-day among the Eskimos; the finding
of Roman coin in the Danish shell heaps and an English one in those of
America (_Proc. Philad. Acad. Nat. Sci._, 1866, p. 291),—are all parts
of the argument which satisfies him that the archæologists have been
hasty and inconclusive in their deductions. They in turn will dispute
both his facts and conclusions.[1633]

Southall’s arraignment of the opinions generally held may introduce us
to a classification of the data upon which archæologists rely to reach
conclusions upon the antiquity of man, and over some of which there is
certainly no prevailing consensus of opinion. We may find a condensed
summary of beliefs and data respecting the antiquity of man in J. P.
Maclean’s _Manual of the Antiquity of Man_ (Cincinnati, revised ed.,
1877; again, 1880).[1634] The independent view and conservative spirit
are placed respectively in juxtaposition in J. P. Lesley’s _Origin and
Decline of Man_ (ch. 3), and in Dawson’s _Fossil Men_ (ch. 8).[1635]
The opinions of leading English archæologists are found in Lubbock’s
_Prehistoric Times_ (ch. 12), Wallace’s _Tropical Nature_ (ch. 7), and
Huxley’s “Distribution of Races in Relation to the Antiquity of Man,”
in _Internat. Cong. of Prehist. Archæol. Trans._ (1868). Dawkins has
given some recent views in _The Nation_, xxvi. 434, and in _Kansas City
Review_, vii. 344.[1636] Not to refer to special phases, the French
school will be found represented in Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_
(ii. ch. 13); in Gabriel de Mortillet’s _La préhistorique antiquité
de l’homme_ (Paris, 1883); Hamy’s _Précis de paléontologie humaine_;
Le Hon’s _L’homme fossile_ (1867); Victor Meunier’s _Les Ancêtres
d’Adam_ (Paris, 1875); Joly’s _L’homme avant métaux_ (Eng. transl.
_Man before Metals_, N. Y., 1883); _Revue des Questions historiques_
(vol. xvi.). The German school is represented in Haeckel’s _Natürliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte_; Waitz’s _Anthropologie_; Carl Vogt’s _Lectures
on Man_ (Eng. transl., Lond., 1864); and L. Büchner’s _Der Mensch und
seine Stellung in der Natur_ (2d ed., Leipzig, 1872; or W. S. Dallas’s
Eng. translation, Lond., 1872). The history of the growth of geological
antagonism to the biblical record as once understood, and the several
methods proposed for reconciling their respective teaching, is traced
concisely in the article on geology in M’Clintock and Strong’s
_Cyclopædia_, with references for further examination. The views there
given are those propounded by Chalmers in 1804, that the geological
record, ignored in the account of Genesis, finds its place in that book
between the first and second verses,[1637] which have no dependence on
one another, and that the biblical account of creation followed in six
literal days. What may be considered the present theological attitude
of churchmen may be noted in _The Speaker’s Commentary_ (N. Y. ed.,
1871, p. 61).

* * * * *

The question of the territorial connection of America with Asia under
earlier geological conditions is necessarily considered in some of the
discussions on the transplanting of the American man from the side of
Asia.

Otto Caspari in his _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_ (Leipzig, 1873), vol.
i., gives a map of Asia and America in the post-tertiary period, as he
understands it, which stretches the Asiatic and African continents over
a large part of the Indian Ocean; and in this region, now beneath the
sea, he places the home of the primeval man, and marks the lines of
migration east, north, and west. This view is accepted by Winchell in
his _Preadamites_ (see his map). Haeckel (_Nat. Schöpfungsgeschichte_,
1868, 1873; Eng. transl. 1876) calls this region “Lemuria” in his map.
Caspari places large continental islands between this region and South
America, which rendered migration to South America easy. The eastern
shore of the present Asia is extended beyond the Japanese islands,
and similar convenient islands render the passage by other lines of
immigration easy to the regions of British Columbia and of Mexico. (Cf.
Short, 507; Baldwin, App.) Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, supposes a
connection at Behring’s Straits. The supposed similarity of the flora
of the two shores of the Pacific has been used to support this theory,
but botanists say that the language of Hooker and Gray has been given a
meaning they did not intend. It is opposed by many eminent geologists.
A. R. Wallace (_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xix.) finds no ground to
believe that any of the oceans contain sunken continents. (Cf. his
_Geographical Distribution of Animals_ and his _Malay Archipelago_.)
James Croll in his _Climate and Cosmology_ (p. 6) says: “There is no
geological evidence to show that at least since Silurian times the
Atlantic and Pacific were ever in their broad features otherwise than
they now are.”[1638] Hyde Clarke has examined the legend of Atlantis in
reference to protohistoric communication with America, in _Royal Hist.
Soc. Trans._, n. s., iii. p. 1.[1639]

* * * * *

The arguments for the great antiquity of man[1640] are deduced in the
main from the testimony of the river gravels, the bone caves, the peat
deposits, the shell heaps, and the Lacustrine villages, for the mounds
and other relics of defence, habitation, and worship are very likely
not the records of a great antiquity. The whole field is surveyed with
more fullness than anywhere else, and with a faith in the geological
antiquity of the race, in Sir Charles Lyell’s _Geological Evidences of
the Antiquity of Man_.[1641] With as firm a belief in the integrity of
the biblical record, and in its not being impugned by the discoveries
or inductions of science, we find a survey in Southall’s _Recent Origin
of Man_. These two books constitute the extremes of the methods,
both for and against the conservative interpretation of the Bible.
The independent spirit of the scientist is nowhere more confidently
expressed than by J. P. Lesley (_Man’s Origin and Destiny_, Philad.,
1868, p. 45), who says: “There is no alliance possible between Jewish
theology and modern science.... Geologists have won the right to be
Christians without first becoming Jews.” Southall[1642] interprets
this spirit in this wise: “I do not recollect that the _Antiquity of
Man_ ever recognizes that the book of Genesis is in existence; and yet
every one is perfectly conscious that the author has it in mind, and
is writing at it all the time.”[1643] The entire literature of the
scientific interpretation shows that the canons of criticism are not
yet secure enough to prevent the widest interpretations and inferences.

The intimations which are supposed to exist in the Bible of a race
earlier than Adam have given rise to what is called the theory of
the Preadamites, and there is little noteworthy upon it in European
literature back of Isaac de La Peyrère’s _Praeadamitae_ (Paris and
Amsterdam, 1655), whose views were put into English in _Man before
Adam_ (London, 1656).[1644] The advocates of the theory from that day
to this are enumerated in Alexander Winchell’s _Preadamites_ (Chicago,
1880), and this book is the best known contribution to the subject by
an American author. It is his opinion that the aboriginal American,
with the Mongoloids in general, comes from some descendant of Adam
earlier than Noah, and that the black races come from a stock earlier
than Adam, whom Cain found when he went out of his native country.[1645]

* * * * *

The investigations of the great antiquity of man in America fall far
short in extent of those which have been given to his geological
remoteness in Europe; and yet, should we believe with Winchell that the
American man represents the pre-Adamite, while the European man does
not, we might reasonably hope to find in America earlier traces of the
geological man, if, as Agassiz shows, the greater age of the American
continent weighs in the question.[1646]

The explicit proofs, as advanced by different geologists, to give a
great antiquity to the American man, and perhaps in some ways greater
than to the European man,[1647] may now be briefly considered in detail.

Oldest of all may perhaps be placed the gold-drift of California, with
its human remains, and chief among them the Calaveras skull, which is
claimed to be of the Pliocene (tertiary) age; but it must be remembered
that Powell and the government geologists call it quaternary. It
was in February, 1866, that in a mining shaft in Calaveras County,
California, a hundred and thirty feet below the surface, a skull
was found imbedded in gravel, which under the name of the Calaveras
skull has excited much interest. It was not the first time that human
remains had been found in these California gravels, but it was the
first discovery that attracted notice. It was not seen _in situ_ by a
professional geologist, and a few weeks elapsed before Professor Josiah
Dwight Whitney, then state geologist of California, visited the spot,
and satisfied himself that the geological conditions were such as to
make it certain that the skull and the deposition of the gravel were
of the same age. The relic subsequently passed into the possession of
Professor Whitney, and the annexed cut is reproduced from the careful
drawing made of it for the _Memoirs of the Museum of Comp. Zoölogy_
(Harvard University), vol. vi. He had published earlier an account in
the _Revue d’Anthropologie_ (1872), p. 760.[1648] This interesting
relic is now in Cambridge, coated with thin wax for preservation, but
this coating interferes with any satisfactory photograph. The volume of
_Memoirs_ above named is made up of Whitney’s _Auriferous Gravels of
the Sierra Nevada of California_ (1880), and at p. ix he says: “There
will undoubtedly be much hesitancy on the part of anthropologists and
others in accepting the results regarding the Tertiary Age of man, to
which our investigations seem so clearly to point.” He says that those
who reject the evidence of the Calaveras skull because it was not seen
_in situ_ by a scientific observer forget the evidence of the fossil
itself; and he adds that since 1866 the other evidence for tertiary
man has so accumulated that “it would not be materially weakened by
dropping that furnished by the Calaveras skull itself.”

[Illustration: CALAVERAS SKULL. (_Front and side view._)]

What Whitney says of the history and authenticity of the skull will
be found in his paper on “Human remains and works of art of the
gravel series,” in _Ibid._ pp. 258-288. His conclusions are that it
shows the existence of man with an extinct fauna and flora, and under
geographical and physical conditions differing from the present,—in
the Pliocene age certainly. This opinion has obtained the support of
Marsh and Le Conte and other eminent geologists. Schmidt (_Archiv
für Anthropologie_) thinks it signifies a pre-glacial man. Winchell
(_Preadamites_, 428) says it is the best authenticated evidence of
Pliocene man yet adduced. On the contrary, there are some confident
doubters. Dawkins (_No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883) thinks that all but a
few American geologists have given up the Pliocene man, and that the
chances of later interments, of accidents, of ancient mines, and the
presence of skulls of mustang ponies (introduced by the Spaniards)
found in the same gravels, throw insuperable doubts. “Neither in the
new world nor the old world,” he says, “is there any trace of Pliocene
man revealed by modern discovery.” Southall and all the Bible advocates
of course deny the bearing of all such evidence. Dawson (_Fossil
Men_, 345) thinks the arguments of Whitney inconclusive. Nadaillac
(_L’Amérique préhistorique_, 40, with a cut, and his _Les Premiers
Hommes_, ii. 435) hesitates to accept the evidence, and enumerates the
doubters.[1649]

* * * * *

Footprints have been found in a tufa bed, resting on yellow sand, in
the neighborhood of an extinct volcano, Tizcapa, in Nicaragua. One of
the prints is shown in the annexed cut, after a representation given
by Dr. Brinton in the _Amer. Philosoph. Soc. Proc._ (xxiv. 1887, p.
437). Above this tufa bed were fourteen distinct strata of deposits
before the surface soil was reached. Geologists have placed this yellow
sand, bearing shells, from the post-Pliocene to the Eocene. The seventh
stratum, going downwards, had remains of the mastodon.[1650]

Some ancient basket work discovered at Petit Anse Island, in Louisiana,
has been figured in the _Chicago Acad. of Sciences, Transactions_ (i.
part 2). Cf. E. W. Hilgard, in _Smithsonian Contributions_, no. 248.

* * * * *

Foster rather strikingly likens what we know of the history of the
human race to the apex of a pyramid, of which we know neither the
height nor extent of base. Our efforts to trace man back to his
beginning would be like following down the sides of that pyramid till
it reaches a firm base, we know not where. Many geologists believe
in a great ice-sheet which at one time had settled upon the northern
parts of America, and covered it down to a line that extends across
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and westerly in a direction of some variableness.
There are some, like Sir William Dawson,[1651] who reject the evidence
that persuades others. Prof. Whitney (_Climatic Changes_, 387) holds
that it was a local phenomenon confined in America to the northeastern
parts. The advocates look to Dr. James Geikie[1652] as having
correlated the proofs of the proposition as well as any, while writers
like Howorth[1653] trace the resulting phenomena largely to a flood.

[Illustration: ANCIENT FOOTPRINT FROM NICARAGUA.]

How long ago this was, the cautious geologist does not like to
say;[1654] nor is he quite ready to aver what it all means.[1655]
Perhaps, as some theorize, this prevailing ice showed the long winter
brought about by the precession of the equinoxes, as has long been a
favorite belief, with the swing of ten thousand years, more or less,
from one extreme to the other.[1656]

Others believe that we must look back 200,000 years, as James
Croll[1657] and Lubbock do, or 800,000 and more, as Lyell did at first,
and find the cause in the variable eccentricity of the earth’s orbit,
which shall account for all the climatic changes since the dawn of
what is called the glacial epoch, accompanying the deflection of ocean
currents, as Croll supposes, or the variations in the disposition of
sea and land, as Lyell imagines.[1658] This great ice-sheet, however
extensive, began for some reason to retreat, at a period as remote,
according as we accept this or the other estimate, as from ten thousand
to a hundred thousand years.

* * * * *

That the objects of stone, shaped and polished, which had been observed
all over the civilized world, were celestial in origin seems to have
been the prevalent opinion,[1659] when Mahudel in 1723 and even when
Buffon in 1778 ventured to assign to them a human origin.[1660]

In the gravels which were deposited by the melting of this more or
less extended ice-sheet, parts of the human frame and the work of
human hands have been found, and mark the anterior limit of man’s
residence on the globe, so far as we can confidently trace it.[1661]
Few geologists have any doubt about the existence of human relics in
these American glacial drifts, however widely they may differ about the
age of them.[1662]

[Illustration: FROM DAWSON’S FOSSIL MEN.

The outer outline is that of the skull found in the cave of Cro-magnon,
in France, belonging, as Dawson says, p. 189, to one of the oldest
human inhabitants of western Europe, as shown in Lartet and Christy’s
_Reliquiae Aquitanicae_. The second outline is that of the Enghis
skull; the dotted outline that of the Neanderthal skull. The shaded
skull is on a smaller scale, but preserving the true outline, and is
one of the Hochelaga Indians (site of Montreal). Cuts of the Enghis
and Neanderthal skulls are given in Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_,
pp. 328, 329. Dawkins (_Cave Hunters_, 235) thinks the Enghis skull
of doubtful age. On the Neanderthal skull see Quatrefages and Hamy,
_Crania Ethnica_ (Paris, 1873-75), and Dawkins (p. 240). Huxley gives
it a great antiquity, and says it is the most ape-like one he ever
saw. Quatrefages, _Hommes fossiles_, etc. (1884), says it is not below
some later men. Southall (_Epoch of the Mammoth_, 80) says it has the
average capacity of the negro, and double that of the gorilla, and
doubts its antiquity.]

It was in the _American Naturalist_ (Mar. and Ap., 1872) that Dr.
C. C. Abbott made an early communication respecting the discovery of
rude human implements in the glacial gravels[1663] of the Delaware
valley, and since then the Trenton gravels have been the subject of
much interest. The rudeness of the flints has repeatedly raised doubts
as to their artificial character; but Wilson (_Prehistoric Man_, i.
29) says that it is impossible to find in flints broken for the road,
or in any other accumulation of rocky débris, a single specimen that
looks like the rudest implement of the drift. Experts attest the exact
correspondence of these Trenton tools with those of the European river
drift. Abbott has explained the artificial cleavages of stone in the
_American Antiquarian_ (viii. 43). There are geologists like Shaler
who question the artificial character of the Trenton implements. From
time to time since this early announcement, Dr. Abbott has made public
additional evidence as he has accumulated it, going to show, as he
thinks, that we have in these deposits of the glacial action the signs
of men contemporary with the glacial flow, and earlier than the red
Indian stock of historic times.[1664] He summarizes the matter in his
“Palæolithic implements of a people on the Atlantic coast anterior to
the Indians,” in his _Primitive Industry_ (1882).[1665]

* * * * *

Some discoveries of human bones in the loess or loam of the Mississippi
Valley have not been generally accepted. Lyell (_Second Visit_, ii.
197; _Antiq. of Man_, 203) suspends judgment, as does Joseph Leidy in
his _Extinct Mammalia of North America_ (p. 365).

* * * * *

The existence of man in western Europe with extinct animals is a
belief that, from the incredulity which accompanied the discovery by
Kemp in London, in 1714, of a stone hatchet lying in contiguity to some
elephant’s teeth,[1666] has long passed into indisputable fact, settled
by the exploration of cave and shell heaps.[1667] In North America,
this conjunction of man’s remains with those of the mastodon is very
widely spread.[1668] The geological evidence is quite sufficient
without resorting to what has been called an Elephant’s head in the
architecture of Palenqué, the so-called Elephant Mound in Wisconsin,
and the dubious if not fraudulent Elephant Pipe of Iowa.[1669] The
positions of the skeletons have led many to believe that the interval
since the mastodon ceased to roam in the Mississippi Valley is not
geologically great. Shaler (_Amer. Naturalist_, iv. 162) places it at
a few thousand years, and there is enough ground for it perhaps to
justify Southall (_Recent Origin, etc._, 551; _Ep. of the Mammoth_, ch.
8) in claiming that these animals have lived into historic times.

* * * * *

A human skeleton was found sixteen feet below the surface, near New
Orleans—(which is only nine feet above the Gulf of Mexico), and under
four successive growths of cypress forests. Its antiquity, however,
is questioned.[1670] The belief in human traces in the calcareous
conglomerate of Florida seems to have been based (Haven, p. 87) on a
misconception of Count Pourtalès’ statement (_Amer. Naturalist_, ii.
434), though it has got credence in many of the leading books on this
subject. Col. Whittlesey has reported some not very ancient hearths in
the Ohio Valley (_Am. Ass. Arts and Sciences, Proc., Chicago, 1868,
Meeting_, vol. xvii. 268).

* * * * *

The testimony of the caves to the early existence of man has never had
the importance in America that it has had in Europe.

It was in 1822 that Dr. Buckland, in his _Reliquiae diluvianae_ (2d
ed., 1824), first made something like a systematic gathering of the
evidence of animal remains, as shown by cave explorations; but he was
not prepared to believe that man’s remains were as old as the beasts.
He later came to believe in the prehistoric man. In 1833-34, Dr.
Schmerling found in the cave of Enghis, near Liége, a highly developed
skull, and published his _Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles
découverts dans les cavernes de la province de Liége_.[1671]

In 1841, Boucher de Perthes began his discoveries in the valley of
the Somme,[1672] and finally discovered among the animal remains some
flint implements, and formulated his views of the great antiquity of
man in his _Antiquités Celtiques_ (1847), rather for the derision than
for the delectation of his brother geologists. In 1848, the Société
Ethnographique de Paris ceased its sessions; but Boucher de Perthes had
aroused a new feeling, and while his efforts were still in doubt his
disciples[1673] gathered, and amid much ridicule founded the Société
d’Anthropologie de Paris, which has had so numerous a following in
allied associations in Europe and America.

He tells us of the struggles he endured to secure the recognition of
his views in his _De l’homme antédiluvien et de ses œuvres_ (Paris,
1860), and his trials were not over when, in 1863, he found at Moulin
Quignon a human jaw-bone,[1674] which, as he felt, added much strength
to the belief in the man of the glacial gravels.[1675]

* * * * *

The existence of man in the somewhat later period of the caves[1676]
was also claiming constant recognition, and the new society was
broad enough to cover all. In 1857, Dr. Fuhlrott had discovered the
Neanderthal skull in a cave near Düsseldorf.

In 1858, the discovery of flint tools in the Brixham cave, in
Devonshire, was more effective in turning the scientific mind to the
proofs than earlier discoveries of much the same character by McEnery
had been. In March, 1872, Emile Rivière investigated the Mentone caves,
and found a large skeleton, unmistakably human, and the oldest yet
found, supposed to be of the palæolithic period. (Cf. _Découverte d’un
Squelette humain de l’Epoque paléolithique_, Paris, 1873.) All this
evidence is best set forth in the collection of his periodical studies
on the mammals of the Pleistocene, which were collected by William Boyd
Dawkins in his _Cave Hunting: researches on the evidence of caves,
respecting the early inhabitants of Europe_ (London, 1874),[1677] a
book which may be considered a sort of complement to Lyell’s _Antiquity
of Man_ and Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Man_; Dawkins (ch. 9, and _Address_,
Salford, 1877, p. 3) and Lubbock (_Scientific Lectures_, 150) unite
in holding the modern Eskimos to be the representative of this cave
folk. No argument is quite sufficient to convince Southall that the
archæologists do not place the denizens of the caves too far back
(_Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 13), and he rejects a belief in the steady
slowness of the formation of stalagmites (_Epoch of the Mammoth_, 90),
upon which Evans, Geikie, Wallace, Lyell, and others rest much of their
belief in the great antiquity of the remains found beneath the cave
deposits.[1678]

The largest development of cave testimony in America has been made
by Dr. Lund,[1679] a Danish naturalist, who examined several hundred
Brazilian caves, finding in them the bones of man in connection with
those of extinct animals.[1680] The remains of a race, held to be
Indians, found in the caves of Coahuila (Mexico) are described by
Cordelia A. Studley in the _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xv. 233. Edward D.
Cope has studied the contents of a bone cave in the island of Anguilla
(West Indies), in the _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, no.
489 (1883). J. D. Whitney describes a cave in Calaveras County, in the
_Smithsonian Rept._ (1887), and Edward Palmer one in Utah (_Peab. Mus.
Rept._, xi. 269). Putnam explored some in Kentucky (_Ibid._ viii.).
Putnam’s first account of his cave work in Kentucky, showing the use
of them as habitations and as receptacles for mummies, is in the
_Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist._, xvii. 319. J. P. Goodnow made similar
explorations in Arizona (_Kansas City Rev_., viii. 647); E. T. Elliott
in Colorado (_Pop. Sci. Mo._, Oct., 1879), and Leidy in the Hartman
cave, in Pennsylvania (_Philad. Acad. Nat. Sci. Proc._, 1880, p. 348).
Cf. also Haldeman in the _Am. Philos. Soc. Trans._ (1880) xv. 351. Col.
Charles Whittlesey has discussed the “Evidences of the antiquity of
man in the United States,” in describing some cave remains of doubtful
age.[1681] W. H. Dall’s _On the remains of later prehistoric man
obtained from caves in the Catherine archipelago, Alaska territory, and
especially from the caves of the Aleutian islands_ (Washington, 1878)
is included in the _Smithsonian contributions to knowledge_, xxii.

* * * * *

Throughout the world, naturalists have found on streams and on the
seacoast, heaps of the refuse of the daily life of primitive peoples.
Beneath the loam which has covered them there are found the shells of
edible mollusks and other relics of food, implements, ornaments and
vessels, of stone, clay, and bone. Sometimes it happens that natural
superposed accumulations will mark them off in layers, and distinguish
the usages of successive periods.[1682]

[Illustration: OSCAR PESCHEL.

From the engraving in the 1877 ed. of his _Gesch. des Zeitalters der
Entdeckungen_. His _Abhandlungen zur Erd-und Völker-Kunde_, continuing
his contributions to _Das Ausland_ and other periodicals, and edited
by J. Löwenberg, was published at Leipzig, in 3 vols. in 1877-79, the
preface containing an account of Peschel’s services in this field.]

In the Old World such heaps upon the Danish coast have attracted the
most attention under the name of Kjœkkenmœddinger, or Kitchen-middens,
and their teachings have enlivened the recitals of nearly all the
European archæologists who have sought to picture the condition of
these early races.

It seems to be the general opinion that in the Old World this
shell-heap folk succeeded, if they do not in part constitute the
contemporaries of, the men of the caves.[1683]

[Illustration: JEFFRIES WYMAN.

From a photograph taken in 1868, furnished by his family. The portrait
in the _Peabody Museum Report_, no. viii., represents him somewhat
later in life, with a beard. He died Sept. 4, 1874. There are accounts
of Wyman in the same _Report_, by Asa Gray, who also made an address
on Wyman before the Boston Society of Nat. Hist. (cf. _Pop. Science
Monthly_, Jan., 1875), with commemorations by O. W. Holmes (_Atlantic
Monthly_, Nov., 1874, and _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xiv. 4), by F. W.
Putnam in the _Proc. Amer. Acad._ with a list of his publications; by
Packard in the _Mem. Nat. Acad._, and B. G. Wilder (_Old and New_,
Nov., 1874).]

These accumulations are known usually in America as shell heaps, and
it is generally characteristic of them that, while they contain pottery
and bone implements, the stone instruments are far less numerous,
and generally occur in the upper layers in those of Florida, but
they are scattered through all the layers in those of New England.
Professor Jeffries Wyman, whose name is in this country particularly
associated with shell-heap investigations, could not find[1684] that
any one had in the scientific spirit called attention to the subject
in America earlier than Caleb Atwater in the _Archæologia Americana_
(vol. i., 1820), who had observed such deposits on the Muskingum River
in Ohio. They had not passed unnoticed, however, by some of the early
explorers. Putnam (_Essex Inst. Bulletin_, xv. 86) notes that J. T.
Ducatel observed those on the Chesapeake in 1834. The earliest more
particular mention of the inland mounds seem to have been made in
Prinz Maximilian’s _Travels in the United States_.[1685] Foster, in
his _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._ (ch. 4,—a special survey of the
American heaps), says that Professor Vanuxem was the first to describe
the sea-side mounds in 1841, in the _Proc. Amer. Asso. Geologists_ (i.
22).[1686]

[Illustration: SHELL HEAPS ON CAPE COD.]

There has been as yet little found in America from which to develop
the evidence of early man from any lake or river dwellings, while
so much has been done in Europe.[1687] In some parts of Florida the
Indians are reported to have built houses on piles; and in South
America tree-houses and those on platforms are well known. Mr. Hilborne
T. Cresson has reported (_Peabody Mus. Rept_., xxii. for 1888) the
discovery of pile ends in the Delaware River, and has shown that two of
these river stations are earlier than the third, as is evident from the
rude implements of argillite found in the two when compared with those
discovered in the third, where implements of jasper and quartz and
fragments of pottery were associated with those of argillite.

[Illustration: PUEBLO REGION.

From a map, “Originalkarte der Urwohnsitze der Azteken und Verwandten
Pueblos in New Mexico, zusammengestellt von O. Loew,” in Petermann’s
_Mittheilungen über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete
der Geographie_, xxii. (1876), table xii. The small dotted circles
stand for inhabited pueblos; those with a perpendicular line
attached are ruins; and when this perpendicular line is crossed it
is a Mexicanized pueblo. See the map in Powell’s _Second Rept. Bur.
Ethnol._ (1880-81) p. 318, which marks the several classes: inhabited,
abandoned, ruined pueblos, cavate houses, cliff houses, and tower
houses.]

The earliest discoveries of the cliff houses of the Colorado region
were made by Lieut. J. H. Simpson, and his descriptions appeared in his
_Journal of a Military Reconnoissance_, in 1849.[1688] No considerable
addition was made to our knowledge of the cliff dwellers till in
1874-75, when special parties of the Hayden Geological Survey were
sent to explore them (_Hayden’s Report_, 1876), whence we got accounts
of those of southwestern Colorado by W. H. Holmes, including the
cavate-houses and cliff-dwellers of the San Juan, the Mancos, and the
ruins in the McElmo cañon.[1689] W. H. Jackson gives a revised account
of his 1874 expedition in the _Bulletin_ of the Survey (vol. ii. no.
1), adding thereto an account of his explorations of 1875. Jackson also
gives a chapter on the ruins of the Chaco cañon.[1690]

* * * * *

In coming to the class of ruins lying in a few instances just within,
but mostly to the north of, the Mexican line, we encounter the Pueblo
race, whose position in the ethnological chart is not quite certain,
be their connection with the Nahuas and Aztecs,[1691] or with the
moundbuilders,—red Indian if they be,—or with the cliff-dwellers, as
perhaps is the better opinion. Their connection with savage nations
farther north is not wholly determinable, as Morgan allows, on physical
and social grounds, and perhaps not as definitely settled by their
architecture as Cushing seems to think.[1692]

The Spaniard early encountered these ruins,[1693] and perhaps the
best summary of the growth of our knowledge of them by successive
explorations is in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. ch. 11.[1694] In the
century after the Spanish conquest, we have one of the best accounts
in the _Memorial_ of Fray Alonso Benavides, published at Madrid in
1630.[1695] The most famous of the ruins of this region, the Casa
Grande of the Gila Valley in Arizona,[1696] is supposed to have been
seen (1540) by Coronado, then in a state of ruin; but we get no clear
description till that given by Padre Mange, who accompanied Padre Kino
to see the ruins in 1697.[1697]

There are few descriptions[1698] of the antiquities of this country
previous to the military examination of it which was made during the
Mexican War. Such is recorded in W. H. Emory’s _Notes of a Military
Reconnoissance from Fort Leavenworth in Missouri to San Diego in
California_,[1699] which gives us some of the earliest representations
of these antiquities, including the ruins of Pecos.[1700] In 1849,
Col. Washington, the governor of New Mexico, organized an expedition
against the Navajos, and Lieut. James H. Simpson gives us the first
detailed account of the Chaco cañon in his _Journal of a Military
Reconnoissance_ (Philad., 1852).[1701] He also covered (p. 90), among
the other ruins of this region, the old and present habitations of the
Zuñi, but these received in some respects more detailed examination
in Capt. L. Sitgreave’s _Report of an Expedition down the Zuñi and
Colorado rivers_ (Washington, 1853),[1702] accompanied by a map and
other illustrations.[1703] New channels of information were opened
when the United States government undertook to make surveys (1853) for
a trans-continental line of railways; and a great deal of material is
embodied in Whipple’s report on the Indian tribes in the _Pacific R. R.
Reports_, vol. iii. The running of the boundary line between the United
States and Mexico also contributed to our knowledge. The commissioner
during 1850-53 was John Russell Bartlett, who, on the failure of the
government promptly to publish his report, printed his _Personal
narrative of explorations and incidents_ (N. Y., 1854), and made in
some parts of it an important contribution to our knowledge of the
antiquities of this region.[1704]

No considerable advance was now made in this study for about a score
of years. Major Powell first published his account of his adventurous
exploration (1869) of the Colorado cañon in _Scribner’s Monthly_ (Jan.,
Feb., Mar.) in 1875, and it was followed by his official _Exploration
of the Colorado River_ (Washington, 1875), making known the existence
of ruins in the cañon’s gloomy depths. The _Reports_ of the U. S.
Geological Survey, including the accounts by W. H. Jackson and W. H.
Holmes, give much valuable and original information; and a good deal of
what has been included in the _Reports of the Chief of Engineers_ (U.
S. Army) for 1875 and 1876 will also be found in the seventh volume,
edited by F. W. Putnam, of _Wheeler’s Survey_,[1705] including the
pueblos of Acoma, Taos, San Juan, and the ruin[1706] on the Animas
River.

The latest examinations of these Pueblo remains, of which we have
published accounts, are those made by A. F. Bandelier for the
Archæological Institute of America. He has given his results in his
“Historical introduction to studies among the sedentary Indians of New
Mexico,” and in his “Report on the ruins of Pecos,” which constitutes
the initial volume of _Papers, American series_, of the Institute
(Boston, 1881).[1707] He believes Pecos to be Cicuye, visited by
Alvarado in 1541,—a huge pile with 585 compartments, finally abandoned
in 1840. In October, 1880, he examined the region west of Santa Fé
(_Second Rept. Archæol. Inst._). His explorations also determined
the eastern limits of the sedentary occupation of New Mexico (_Fifth
Report_). He renewed his studies in 1882 (_First Bull. Archæol. Inst._,
Jan., 1883), and thought the ruins showed successive occupiers, and
divides them into cave dwellings, cliff houses, one-story buildings,
and those of more than one, with each higher one retreating from the
front of the next lower.

[Illustration: THE PUEBLO REGION.

A reduction of the map accompanying Bandelier’s report on his
investigations in New Mexico, in the _Fifth Rept. of the Archæological
Institute of America_ (Cambridge, 1884).]

The most essential sources of information have thus been enumerated,
but there is not a little fugitive and comprehensive treatment of
the subject worth the student’s attention who follows a course of
investigation.[1708]

* * * * *

The literature of the moundbuilders, and of the controversies arising
out of the mysterious relics of their life, is commensurate with the
very wide extent of territory covered by their traces.[1709] It was
long before any intelligent notice was taken of the mounds by those who
traversed the wilderness. De Soto, in 1540, could get no traditions
concerning them beyond the assurances that the peoples he encountered
had built them, or some of them. We read of them also in Garcilasso
de la Vega, Biedma and the Knight of Elvas, on the Spanish side; but
on the French at a later day we learn little or nothing from Joutel,
Tonti, and Hennepin, though something from Du Pratz, La Harpe and some
of the missionaries. Kalm,[1710] the Swede, in 1749, was about the
first to make any note of them. Carver found them near Lake Pepin in
1768. In 1772 the missionary David Jones[1711] made observations upon
those in Ohio. Adair did not wholly overlook them in his _American
Indians_ in 1775. Prof. James Dunbar, of Aberdeen, in his _Essays on
the history of mankind in rude and uncultivated ages_ (Lond., 1780),
uses what little Kalm and Carver afforded. Jefferson in his _Notes on
Virginia_ (1782) speaks of them as barrows “all over the country,” and
“obvious repositories of the dead.”[1712] Arthur Lee makes reference
to them in 1784. A map of the Northwest Territory, published by John
Fitch about 1785, places in the territory which is now Wisconsin the
following legend: “This country has once been settled by a people
more expert in the art of war than the present inhabitants. Regular
fortifications, and some of these incredibly large, are frequently
to be found. Also many graves and towers like pyramids of earth.” In
1786 Franklin thought the works at Marietta might have been built
by De Soto; and Noah Webster, in a paper in Roberts’ _Florida_,
assented.[1713] B. S. Barton, in his _Observations in some parts of
Natural History_ (London, 1787), credited the Toltecs with building
them, whom he considered the descendants of the Danes.

As the century draws to a close, we find occasional and rather
bewildered expression of interest in the _Observations on the Ancient
Mounds_ by Major Jonathan Heart;[1714] in the _Missions_ of Loskiel;
in the _New Views_ of Dr. Smith Barton; in the _Carolina_ of William
Bartram; and in the travels of Volney. In 1794 Winthrop Sargent
reported in the _Amer. Philos. Soc. Trans._, iv., on the exploration of
the mounds at Cincinnati. The present century soon elicited a variety
of observations, but there was little of practical exploration. A New
England minister, Thaddeus Mason Harris, passed judgment upon those in
Ohio, when he journeyed thither in 1803.[1715] The commissioner of the
United States to run the Florida boundary, Andrew Ellicott, describes
some near Natchez in his _Journal_ (1803). Bishop Madison communicated
through Professor Barton some opinions about those in Western Virginia,
which appear in the _Transaction_ of the American Philosophical
Society, taking different grounds from Dr. Harris, who had thought them
works of defence. The explorations of Lewis and Clark (1804-6) up the
Missouri, and of Pike (1805-7) up the Mississippi, produced little.
Robin, the French naturalist, in 1805,[1716] Major Stoddard[1717]
and Breckenridge[1718] later, saw some in Louisiana, Missouri, and
Illinois. A leading periodical, _The Portfolio_, contributed something
to the common stock in 1810 and 1814, giving plans of some of the
mounds. Those in Ohio were again the subject of inquiry by F. Cuming in
his _Sketches of a Tour to the Western Country_ (Pittsburg, 1810), and
by Dr. Daniel Drake in his _Picture of Cincinnati and the Miami Valley_
(Cinn., 1815). John Heckewelder, the Moravian missionary, accounted for
the ancient fortifications through the traditions of the Delawares,
who professed once to have inhabited this country, but it has been
suspected that the worthy missionary was imposed upon.[1719] DeWitt
Clinton, in 1811, before the New York Historical Society, and again in
1817, before the Literary and Philosophical Society of New York, had
given some theories in which the Scandinavians figured as builders of
the mounds in that State.

It was thus at a time when there was much speculation and not much
real experimental knowledge respecting these remains that, under the
auspices of the then newly founded American Antiquarian Society,
Mr. Caleb Atwater, of Ohio, was employed to explore and survey a
considerable number of these works. He embodied his results in the
initial volume of the publication of that society, the _Archæologia
Americana_.[1720] After pointing out scattered evidences of the traces
of European peoples, found in coins and other relics throughout the
country, Atwater proceeds to his description of the earthworks, mainly
of Ohio; and beside giving many plans,[1721] he enters into the
question of their origin, and expresses a belief in the Asiatic origin
of their builders, and in their subsequent migration south to lay, as
he thinks, the foundations of the Mexican and Peruvian civilizations.

[Illustration: COL. CHARLES WHITTLESEY.

After a photograph kindly furnished by the Hon. C. C. Baldwin, of
Cleveland, Ohio, who has printed a memorial of his friend with a list
of his writings in _Tract 68 of the Western Reserve Hist. Soc._]

During the next twenty-five years there cannot be said to have been
much added to a real knowledge of the subject. Yates and Moulton in
their _Hist. New York_ (1824) borrowed mainly from Kirkland (1788)
the missionary. Humboldt had no personal contact with the remains to
give his views any value (1825). Warden in his _Recherches_ (1827)
gave some new plans and rearranged the old descriptions. There was
some sober observation in M’Culloh’s _Researches_ (3d ed., 1829); some
far from sober in Rafinesque (1838); some compiled descriptions with
worthless comment in Josiah Priest’s _American Antiquities_ (Albany,
1838); something like scientific deductions in S. G. Morton’s study of
the few moundbuilders’ skulls then known, in his _Cranea Americana_
(1839); with an attempt at summing up in Delafield (1839) and Bradford
(1841). This is about all that had been added to what Atwater did, when
E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis eclipsed all labors preceding theirs, and
began the series of the _Smithsonian Contributions_ with their _Ancient
Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_ (Washington, 1847 and 1848).[1722]
During the preceding two years they had opened over two hundred mounds,
and explored about a hundred earthwork enclosures, and had gathered a
considerable collection of specimens of moundbuilders’ relics.[1723]
They had begun their work under the auspices of the American
Ethnological Society, but the cost of the production of the volume
exceeded the society’s resources, and the transfer was made to the
Smithsonian Institution. The work took a commanding position at once,
and still remains of essential value, though some of the grounds of its
authors are not acceptable to present observers; and indeed in his work
on the mounds of New York, which the Smithsonian Institution included
in the second volume of their _Contributions_, Squier found occasion to
alter some of his opinions in his earlier work, or at least to ascribe
the mounds of that State to the Iroquois. The third volume of the same
_Contributions_ (1852) introduces to us one of the ablest of the local
investigators in a paper by Charles Whittlesey, of “Descriptions of
Ancient Works in Ohio,”—the forerunner of numerous papers which he has
given to the public in elucidation of the mounds.[1724] Three years
later (1855), in the seventh volume of the _Smithsonian Contributions_,
a new field in the emblematic and animal mounds of the northwest
was for the first time brought to any considerable extent to public
attention in the paper by Increase A. Lapham, on the “Antiquities of
Wisconsin.” Lapham had made his explorations under the auspices of the
American Antiquarian Society,[1725] and his manuscript had been revised
by Haven, when it was decided to consign it for publication to the
Smithsonian Institution.

[Illustration: INCREASE A. LAPHAM.

Engraved from a photograph dated 1863, kindly furnished by his friend,
Prof. J. D. Whitney. Lapham died in 1875. Cf. _Amer. Journal of
Science_, x. 320; xi. 326, 333; _Trans. Wisc. Acad. Science_, iii. 264.]

The animal mounds had been indeed earlier mentioned, and the great
serpent mound of Ohio had long attracted attention; but it was in the
territory now known as Wisconsin that these mounds were found chiefly
to abound. Long, in 1823, speaks of mounds in this region; but the
forest coverings seem to have prevented any observer detecting their
shapes till Lapham first noted this peculiarity in 1836. In April,
1838, R. C. Taylor was the earliest to figure them in the _Amer.
Journal of Science_ (Silliman’s), and again they were described by S.
Taylor in _Ibid._, 1842. Prof. John Locke referred to them in a _Report
on the mineral lands of the United States_, made to Congress in 1844.
William Pidgeon, who had been a trader among the Indians, published in
his _Traditions of De-coo-dah, and Antiquarian researches: comprising
extensive exploration, surveys and excavations of the Mound Builders in
America; the traditions of the last Prophet of the Elk Nation, relative
to their origin and use, and the evidences of an ancient population
more numerous than the present Aborigines_ (N. Y., 1853; again 1858)
what he pretended was in large part the results of his intercourse
with an Indian chief, involving some theories as to the symbolism of
the mounds. The book contained so many palpable perversions, not to
say undisguised fictions, that the Smithsonian Institution refused to
publish it;[1726] and the book has never gained any credit, though some
unguarded writers have unwittingly borrowed from it.[1727]

In the eighth volume of the _Smithsonian Contributions_,[1728] Haven,
the librarian of the Amer. Antiq. Soc., summed up the results of mound
exploration as they then stood. The steady and circumspect habit of
Haven’s mind was conspicuous in his treatment of the mounds. It is
to him that the later advocates of the identity of their builders
with the race of the red Indians look as the first sensibly to affect
public opinion in the matter.[1729] He argued against their being a
more advanced race (p. 154), and in his _Report_ of the Am. Antiq.
Soc., in 1877 (p. 37), he held that it might yet be proved that the
moundbuilders and red Indians were one in race, as M’Culloh had already
suggested.

At the time when Haven was first intimating (1856) that this view
might yet become accepted, it was doubtless held to be best established
that those who built the mounds were quite another race from those
who lived among them when Europeans first knew the country. The fact
that the Indians had no tradition of their origin was held to be
almost conclusive, though it is alleged that the southern Indians in
later times retained no recollections of the expedition of De Soto,
and Dr. Brinton thinks that it is common for Indian traditions to die
out.[1730] It is not till recent years that any considerable number of
moundbuilder skulls have been known, and from the scant data which the
early craniologists had, their opinion seems to have coincided with
those in favor of a vanished race.[1731] It was a favorite theory, not
yet wholly departed, that they were in some way connected with the more
southern peoples, the Pueblo Indians, the Aztecs, or the Peruvians;
either that they came from them, or migrated south and became one with
them.[1732] The bolder theory, that we see their descendants in the red
Indians, is perhaps gaining ground, and it has had the support of the
Bureau of Ethnology and some able expounders.[1733]

[Illustration: THE GREAT SERPENT MOUND.

This follows a survey given in Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_ (N. Y.,
1851), p. 137. It is criticised by Putnam in _Peabody Museum Reports_,
xviii. 348, and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1883. Putnam has
recently purchased over sixty acres about the effigy, which is to
be held by the trustees of the Peabody Museum as a park (_Repts._,
xxi. 14); and his recent explorations show that the projections in
the side of the head (shaded dark in the cut) are not a part of the
construction. He also finds two distinct periods of occupation in this
region, to the oldest of which he attributes this work (_Peab. Mus.
Rept._ 1888). W. H. Holmes made a survey in 1886 (_Amer. Antiquarian_,
May, 1887, ix. 141; _Science_, viii. 624, Dec. 31, 1886). Cf. J. P.
MacLean, in _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 44, and his _Moundbuilders_, p.
56; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 29. T. H. Lewis describes a snake mound
in Minnesota (_Science_, ix. 393). On the serpent symbol see S. D.
Peet, in _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 197; ix. 13, where he manifests a
somewhat omnivorous appetite.]

Of the opposing theory of a disappeared race, Capt. Heart in reply to
Barton (_Amer. Philolog. Asso. Proc._ iii.) gave, as Thomas thinks,
“the earliest clear and distinct expression,” but Squier and Davis may
be considered as first giving it definite meaning; and though Squier
does not seem to have actually revoked this judgment as respects the
mounds in the Mississippi valley, he finally reached the conclusion
that those in New York were really the work of the Iroquois.[1734]
This ancient-race theory, sometimes amounting to a belief in their
autochthonous origin, has impressed the public through some of the
best known summaries of American antiquities, like those of Baldwin,
Wilson, and Short,[1735] and has been adopted by men of such reputation
as Lyell.[1736] The position taken by Professor F. W. Putnam, the
curator of the Peabody Museum of Archæology at Cambridge, is much like
that taken earlier by Warden in his _Recherches_, that both views
are, within their own limitations, correct, and, as Putnam expresses
it, “that many Indian tribes built mounds and earthworks is beyond
doubt; but that all the mounds and earthworks of North America are
by these same tribes, or their immediate ancestors, is not thereby
proved.”[1737] Thomas (_Fifth Report, Bureau Ethnol._) holds this
statement to be too vague. It is certainly shown in the whole history
of archæological study that uncompromising demarcations have sooner or
later to be abandoned.

Morgan finds it difficult to dissociate the mounds with his favorite
theory of communal life.[1738] There is no readier way of marking the
development of opinion on this question than to follow the series
of the _Annual Reports_ of the Smithsonian Institution, as hardly
a year has passed since 1861 but these _Reports_ have had in them
contributions on the subject.[1739] Among periodicals, the more
constant attention to the mounds is conspicuous in the _American
Antiquarian_.[1740]

The basis for estimating the age of the mounds is threefold. In the
first place, there are very few found on the last of the river terraces
to be reclaimed from the stream. In the second place, the decay of the
skeletons found in them can be taken as of some indication, if due
regard be had to the kind of earth in which they are buried. Third,
the age of trees upon them has been accepted as carrying them back a
certain period, at least, though this may widely vary, if you assume
their growth to be subsequent to the abandonment of the mounds, or
if, as Brinton holds,[1741] the trees were planted immediately upon
the building. The dependence upon counting the rings is by no means a
settled opinion as to all climes; but in the temperate zone the best
authorities place dependence upon it. Unfortunately it cannot carry us
back much over 600 years.[1742]

* * * * *

The early attempts to disclose the ethnological relations of the
moundbuilders on cranial evidence were embarrassed by the fewness
of the skulls then known. Morton (_Crania Americana_) called the
four examined by him identical with those of the red Indian.[1743]
At present, considerable numbers are available; but still Wilson
(_Prehistoric Man_, ii. 128) holds that “we lack sufficient data,” and
in the consideration of them sufficient care has not always been taken
to distinguish intrusive burials of a later date.[1744]

J. W. Foster (_Prehist. Races_, ch. 8; _Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
Trans._, 1872; and _Amer. Naturalist_, vi. 738) held to a lower type
of skull, on this evidence, than Wilson (_Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 20)
contended for. There are examples of the wide difference of views
(MacLean, 142), when some, like Morgan, connect them with the Pueblo
skulls (_No. Amer. Rev._, cix., Oct., 1869), and others, like Morton,
Winchell, Wilson, Brasseur, and Foster, find their correspondences
in those of Mexico and Peru.[1745] Putnam, whose experience with
mound skulls is greatest of all, holds to the southern short head
and the northern long head (_Rept._ 1888). Probably we have no
better enumeration of the variety of objects and relics found in the
mounds, though much has since been added to the collection, than in
Rau’s _Catalogue of the Archæological Collection of the National
Museum_ (Washington, 1876).[1746] Unfortunately he shows little or
no discrimination between discoveries in the mounds and those of
the surface. The interest in such collections has naturally brought
prominently to the attention of every student of such collections
the tricks of fraudulent imitators, and there are several well-known
instances of protracted controversies on the genuineness of certain
relics.[1747]

There remains in this survey of the literature of the mounds in
all their varieties, to go over it, finally, in relation to their
geographical distribution:[1748]—

New England is almost destitute of these antiquities. The one that has
attracted some attention is what is described as a fortification in
Sanbornton, in New Hampshire, which when found was faced with stone
externally, and the walls were six feet thick and breast-high, when
described about one hundred and fifteen years ago. There is a plan
of it, with a descriptive account, preserved in the library of the
American Antiq. Society,[1749] and another plan and description in M.
T. Runnels’s _Hist. of Sanbornton_ (Boston, 1882), i. ch. 4. Squier
also figured it.

[Illustration: CINCINNATI TABLET.

After a cut in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 274, engraved from a
rubbing taken from the original. Wilson adds: “Mr. Whittlesey has
included this tablet among his Archæological Frauds; but the result
of inquiries made by me has removed from my mind any doubt of its
genuineness.” Cf. other cuts in M. C. Read, _Archæol. of Ohio_ (1888);
Squier and Davis, fig. 195; Short, p. 45; MacLean, 107; and _Second
Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, pp. 133-34.]

As we move westward, the mounds begin to be numerous in the State
of New York, and particularly in the western part of it. One of the
earliest descriptions of them, after that of the missionary Kirkland
(about 1788), is in the “Journal of the Rev. John Taylor while on
a mission through the Mohawk and Black River Country in 1802,”
which was first printed, with plans of the works examined, in the
_Documentary Hist. New York_ (vol. iii. quarto ed.). In 1818 DeWitt
Clinton published at Albany his _Memoir on the Antiquities of the
western part of New York_, in which he attributes their origin to
the Scandinavians.[1750] They were again described in David Thomas’s
_Travels through the western country in 1816_ (Auburn, 1819). There is
not much else to note for twenty-five years. In 1845, Schoolcraft made
to the N. Y. Senate his _Report on the Census of the Iroquois Indians_
(Albany and N. Y., 1846, 1847, 1848), which is better known, perhaps,
in the trade edition, _Notes on the Iroquois; or Contributions to the
Statistics, Aboriginal History, Antiquities and General Ethnology
of Western New York_ (N. Y. 1846). In 1850, the _Third Report_ of
the Regents of the University of the State of N. Y. contains F. B.
Hough’s paper on the earthwork enclosures in the State, with cuts.
The same year (1850) came the essential authority on the New York
mounds, E. G. Squier’s _Aboriginal Monuments of the State of N. Y.,
comprising the results of original surveys and explorations, with an
illustrative appendix_ (Washington, 1850), which the next year made
part of the second volume of the _Smithsonian Contributions_.[1751] He
enumerates in New York about 250 defensive structures, beside burial
mounds and in his appendix describes those in New Hampshire and some in
Pennsylvania.[1752] Some new explorations of the New York mounds were
made in 1859 by T. Apoleon Cheney, who describes them, giving plans and
cuts, in the _Thirteenth Report_ of the Regents of the University.[1753]

[Illustration: ANCIENT WORKS ON THE MUSKINGUM.

Reduced from an early engraving in T. M. Harris’s _Journal of a Tour
into the territory northwest of the Alleghany, 1803_ (Boston, 1805).
Harris’s plan in relation to the new town of Marietta is given in Vol.
VII. p. 540. To follow down the plans chronologically, we find that of
Winthrop Sargent, communicated to the Amer. Academy in 1787, reproduced
in their _Memoirs_, new ser. v. part i. The _Columbian Mag._, May,
1787, vol. i. 425, and the _N. Y. Mag._ (1791) had plans. One was in
Schultz’s _Travels_ (1807), 146. Atwater, of course, gave one in 1820.
A survey by S. Dewitt, 1822, is in Josiah Priest’s _Amer. Antiquities_,
3d ed., Albany, 1833. Others are in the _Amer. Pioneer_, Oct., 1842,
June 1843, and in S. P. Hildreth’s _Pioneer History_, 212 (Jan., 1843).
Whittlesey made the survey in Squier and Davis (who also give a colored
view), and it is reduced in Foster. Cf. also _Amer. Antiquarian_, Jan.,
1880; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 547; Henry A. Shepard’s _Antiquities
of Ohio_ (Cinn., 1887); Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, 105,
and _Les prem. Hommes_, ii. 33.]

It was, however, in Ohio that the interest in these mounds was first
incited, and that the more thorough exploration has been made.[1754]
The earliest pioneers reported upon them. Cutler described them in
1789 in a letter to Jeremy Belknap.[1755] Benj. S. Barton described a
mound at Cincinnati in 1799.[1756] Dr. Harris in 1805 was seemingly
the earliest traveller to note them in _Journal of a Tour_, where he
gives one of the earliest engravings. A plan of those at Circleville,
with description by J. Kilbourne, is given in the _Ohio Gazetteer_
(Columbus, 1817). Caleb Atwater, in 1820, was more familiar with them
than with others of his broader field. Warden in his _Recherches_
noted the early describers. Gen. Harrison discussed the mounds in his
_Discourse on the Aborigines of the Valley of the Ohio_ (Cincinnati,
1838). Squier and Davis, of course, brought them within their
range,[1757] and Col. Whittlesey supplemented their work in the third
volume of the _Smithsonian Contributions_. Whittlesey and Matthew C.
Read contributed the Report on the Archæology of Ohio, which forms
the second portion of the _Final Report of the Ohio State Board of
Centennial Managers_ (Columbus, 1877), and in it is a list of the
ancient enclosures, which is not, as Short says (p. 82), as complete
as it should be. A survey of the mounds was made by E. B. Andrews,
and published in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._ (no. x.), 1877. The Ohio
State Archæological and Historical Society started in June, 1887, the
_Ohio archæological and historical Quarterly_, which has vigorously
entered the field, and in it (March, 1888) G. F. Wright has reported
on the present condition of the mounds. M. C. Read’s _Archæology of
Ohio_ (Cleveland, 1888) was published by the Western Reserve Historical
Society, whose series of Tracts is of importance for the study of the
mounds.[1758] Henry A. Shepard’s _Antiquities of the State of Ohio_
(Cincinnati, 1887) summarizes the discoveries to date.[1759] Thomas
(_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._) claims that the Ohio mounds were built
by Indians, but not by the Indians, nor by the ancestors of them, who
inhabited this region at the coming of the whites; but by an Indian
race driven south, of whom he finds the modern representatives in the
Cherokees.

[Illustration: MAP OF A SECTION OF TWELVE MILES _of the_ SCIOTO VALLEY.
_WITH ITS_ ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

_LITH. OF SARONY & MAJOR, 117, FULTON ST. N. Y._

From E. G. Squier’s _Aboriginal Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_
(N. Y., 1847), taken from _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii. The letters
A, B, C, etc. mark the ancient works. Enclosures are shown by broken
lines. The mounds are designated by small dots. Some of the best maps
which we have showing the geographical positions of groups of mounds
accompany Thomas’s paper in the _Fifth Rept., Bur. Ethnol._]

The works at Marietta, on the Muskingum River, were the earliest
observed. Taking the southern and southeastern counties, there are
no very conspicuous examples elsewhere, though the region is well
dotted with earthworks.[1760] Those at Cincinnati were, after those at
Marietta, the earliest to be noticed.[1761] The adjacent Little Miami
Valley is the region which Professor Putnam and Dr. Metz have been of
late so successfully working.[1762]

[Illustration: THE WORKS AT NEWARK, OHIO.

After a cut in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 269, made from surveys
“executed while the chief earthworks could still be traced in all
their integrity;” and they “illustrate rites and customs of an ancient
American people, without a parallel among the monumental memorials of
the old world.” Cf. Atwater, Warden, Squier and Davis, and MacLean.]

Of all the works in the central portions of Ohio, and indeed of all
in any region, those at Newark, in Licking County, are the most
extensive, and have been often described.[1763] In the east[1764] and
west[1765] there are other of these earthworks; but those in the north
have been particularly examined by Col. Whittlesey and others.[1766]
The enclosure called Fort Azatlan, at Merom on the Wabash River, is
the most noticeable in Indiana.[1767] In Illinois, the great Cahokia
truncated pyramid, 700 feet long by 500 wide and 90 high, is the most
important.[1768]

Henry Gillman, of Detroit, has been the leading writer on the mounds
of Michigan.[1769] The supposed connection of their builders with the
ancient copper mines of Lake Superior is considered in another place.
Thomas (_Fifth Rept., Bur. Ethnol._) contends that much of the copper
found in the mounds was of European make, and had no relation to any
aboriginal mining.

Wisconsin is the central region of what are known as the animal,
effigy, symbolic, or emblematic mounds. Mention has been made elsewhere
of the earliest notices of this kind of earthwork. The most extensive
examination of them is the _Antiquities of Wisconsin as surveyed and
described by I. A. Lapham_ (Washington, 1855), with a map showing the
sites.[1770] The consideration of these effigy mounds has given rise to
various theories regarding their significance, whether as symbols or
to totems.[1771] It is Thomas’s conclusion that the effigy mounds and
the burial mounds of Wisconsin were the work of the same people (_Fifth
Rept., Bur. Ethnol._).

The existence of what is called an elephant or mastodon mound in Grant
County has been sometimes taken to point to the age of those extinct
animals as that of the erection of the mounds.[1772] Putnam, referring
to the confined area in which these effigy mounds are found, says that
the serpent mound, the alligator mound,[1773] and Whittlesey’s effigy
mound in Ohio, and two bird mounds in Georgia,[1774] are the only other
works in North America to which they are at all comparable.[1775]

When Lewis and Clark explored the Missouri River in 1804-6, they
discovered mounds in different parts of its valley; but their
statements were not altogether confirmed till the parties of the United
States surveyors traversed the region after the civil war, as is
particularly shown in Hayden’s _Geological Survey, 6th Rept._, in 1872.
Within the present State of Missouri the mounds which have attracted
most notice are those near the modern St. Louis.[1776] In Iowa (Clayton
County) there is said to be the largest group of effigy mounds west
of the Mississippi.[1777] The mounds of Iowa and the neighboring
region are also discussed by Thomas in the _Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._
O. H. Kelley has reported on the remains of an ancient town in
Minnesota.[1778] In Kansas there is little noticeable,[1779] and there
is not much to record in Dacotah,[1780] Utah,[1781] California,[1782]
and Montana.[1783] We find scant accounts of the mounds in Oregon and
Washington in the narrative of the Wilkes Exploring Expedition and
in the earlier story of Lewis and Clark. Some of the mounds are of
doubtful artificiality.[1784]

Along the lower portion of the Mississippi, but not within three
hundred miles of its mouth, we find in Louisiana other mound
constructions, but not of unusual significance.[1785]

The first effigy mound, a bear, which was observed south of the Ohio,
is near an old earthwork in Greenup County, Kentucky.[1786] The mounds
of this State early attracted notice.[1787] Bishop Madison[1788]
thought them sepulchral rather than military. In the _Western Review_
(Dec., 1819) one was described near Lexington. Rafinesque added a
not very sane account of them to Marshall’s _History of Kentucky_,
in 1824, which was also published separately, and since then all the
general histories of Kentucky have given some attention to these
antiquities.[1789]

In Tennessee we find in connection with the earthworks the stone
graves, which the explorations of Putnam, about ten years ago, brought
into prominence.[1790] The chief student of the aboriginal mounds
in Georgia has been Col. C. C. Jones, Jr., who has been writing on
the subject for nearly forty years.[1791] The mounds in the State of
Mississippi, as including the region of the Natchez Indians, derive
some added interest because of the connection sometimes supposed
to exist between them and the race of the mounds.[1792] The same
characteristics of the mounds extend into Alabama.[1793] The mounds in
Florida attracted the early notice of John and William Bartram, and
are described by them in their _Travels_, and have been dwelt upon
by later writers.[1794] The seaboard above Georgia has not much of
interest.[1795] Concerning the mounds along the Canadian belt there is
hardly more to be said.[1796]

* * * * *

Lubbock classes the signs of successive periods in North America thus:
original barbarism, mounds, garden beds, and then the relapse into
barbarism of the red Indian. The agricultural age thus follows that of
the mound erection, in his view, though, as Putnam says, there seems
enough evidence that the constructors of the old earthworks were an
agricultural race.[1797]

* * * * *

There is another class of relics which, outside the hieroglyphics of
Central America, has as yet had little comprehensive study, though the
general books on American archæology enumerate some of the inscriptions
on rocks, which are so widely scattered throughout the continent.[1798]

Out of all this discussion has risen the new science of Anthropology,
broad enough in its scope to include not only archæology in its
general acceptation, but to sweep into its range of observation
various aspects of ethnology and of geology. It is a new science
as at present formulated; but under other conditions it is traced
from its origin with the ancients in a paper by T. Bendyshe in the
_Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London_ (vol. i. 335).
Its progress in America is treated by O. T. Mason in the _American
Naturalist_ (xiv. 348; xv. 616). The most approved methods of modern
research are explained in Emil Schmidt’s _Anthropologische Methoden;
Anleitung zum beobachten und sammeln für Laboratorium und Reise_
(Leipzig, 1888). “The methods of archæological investigation are as
trustworthy as those of any natural science,” says Lubbock (_Scientific
Lectures_, 139). Beside the publications of the various Archæological,
Anthropological, and Ethnological Societies and Congresses[1799]
of both hemispheres, we find for Europe a considerable centre of
information in the _Materiaux pour l’histoire primitive et naturelle
(philosophique) de l’homme_,[1800] and for America in the publications
of the Smithsonian Institution,[1801] in the _Comptes rendus_ of the
successive Congresses of Américanistes, and in such periodicals as the
_American Antiquarian_, the _American Anthropologist_, and the _Folk
Lore Journal_.

[Illustration: MAJOR POWELL.]

The broad subject of prehistoric archæology is covered in a paper
by Lubbock, which is included in his _Scientific Lectures_ (Lond.,
1879);[1802] in H. M. Westropp’s _Prehistoric Phases, or Introductory
Essays on Prehistoric Archæology_ (Lond., 1872); in Stevens’s _Flint
Chips_ (1870); by Dr. Brinton in the _Iconographic Encyclopædia_, vol.
ii.; and more popularly in Charles F. Keary’s _Dawn of History, an
introd. to prehistoric study_ (N. Y., 1879), and in Davenport Adams’s
_Beneath the Surface, or the Underground World_.

The French have contributed a corresponding literature in Louis
Figuier’s _L’Homme Primitif_ (Paris, 1870);[1803] in Zaborowski’s
_L’homme préhistorique_ (Paris, 1878); and in the Marquis de
Nadaillac’s _Les premiers hommes et les temps préhistoriques_ (Paris,
1881), and his _Mœurs et monuments des peuples préhistoriques_ (Paris,
1888), not to mention others.[1804]

The principal comprehensive works covering the prehistoric period in
North America, are J. T. Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_ (N.
Y., 1879, and later); the _L’Amérique préhistorique_ of Nadaillac
(Paris, 1883);[1805] Foster’s _Prehistoric Races of the United States_
(Chicago, 1873; 6th ed., 1887); and the compact popular _Ancient
America_ (N. Y., 1871) of John D. Baldwin. Beside Bancroft’s _Native
Races_, there are various treatises of confined nominal scope, but
covering in some degree the whole North American field, which are noted
in other pages.[1806]

The purely ethnological aspects of the American side of the subject
are summarily surveyed in A. H. Keane’s “Ethnology of America,”
appended to Stanford’s _Compendium of Geography, Cent. America_,
etc. (London, 2nd ed., 1882), and there are papers on Ethnographical
Collections in the _Smithsonian Report_ (1862).[1807] The great
repository of material, however, is in the _Contributions to North
American Ethnology_, being a section of Major Powell’s _Survey of the
Rocky Mountain Region_, and in the _Annual Reports_ of the Bureau of
Ethnology since 1879, made under Major Powell’s directions, and in the
_Reports of the Peabody Museum_.[1808]

APPENDIX.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ABORIGINAL AMERICA.

_By the Editor._

THE student will find a general survey of “Les Sources de l’histoire
anté-Colombienne du nouveau monde, par Léon de Rosny,” in the _Revue
Orientale et Américaine_ (_Mém. de la soc. d’ethnographie_) _session
de 1877_ (p. 139). Bancroft in his _Native Races_ (v. 136) makes a
similar grouping of the classes of sources relating to the primitive
Americans.[1809] These classes are defined in Daniel G. Brinton’s
_Review of the data for the study of the prehistoric chronology of
America_ (Salem, 1887), from the _Proceedings of the Amer. Asso. for
the Advancement of Science_ (vol. xxxvi.), as conveniently divided into
groups pertaining to legendary, monumental, industrial, linguistic,
physical, and geological phenomena.

There have been given in the Introduction of the present volume the
titles of general bibliographies of American histories, most of which
include more or less of the titles pertaining to aboriginal times.
It is the purpose of the present brief essay to enumerate, in an
approximately chronological order, the titles of some of those and of
others which are useful to the archæologist. So far as they are of
service to the student of the American languages, an extended list will
be found prefixed to Pilling’s _Proof-Sheets_ (p. xi).

The earliest American bibliography was that of Antonio de Leon,
usually called Pinelo,—_Epitome de la Biblioteca oriental y occidental
náutica y Geográfica_ (Madrid, 1629),—but which is usually found in
the edition of Gonzales de Barcía, “Añadido y enmendado nuevamente”
(Paris, 1737-1738), in which the American titles, including numerous
manuscripts, are given in the second volume.[1810]

The _Bibliotheca Hispana Nova_ of Nicolás Antonio was first published
at Rome in 1672, but in a second edition at Madrid in 1783-88.[1811]

Passing by the _Bibliotheca Mexicana_ of Eguiara y Eguren,[1812] and
the early edition of Beristain, we note the new edition of the latter,
prepared not by Juan Evangelista Guadalajara, as Brasseur notes,[1813]
but by another, as the title shows,—_Biblioteca Hispano-Americana
Septentrional, ó catalogo y noticia de los Literatos que ó nacidos,
ó educados, ó florecientes en la America Septentrional Española, han
dado á luz algun escrito ó lo han dexado preparado para la prensa por
José Mariano Beristain y Martin de Souza. Segunda edicion, por Fortino
Hipólito Vera_ (Amecameca, 1883).

Dr. Robertson intimates that the lists of books which writers of
the seventeenth century had been in the habit of prefixing to their
books as evidence of their industry had come to be regarded as an
ostentatious expression of their learning, and with some hesitancy he
counted out to the reader his 717 titles; but Clavigero, as elsewhere
pointed out,[1814] was richer in such resources. Humboldt, in his
_Vues_,[1815] gives a list of the authors which he cites.

The class of dealers’ catalogues—we cite only such as have decided
bibliographical value—begins to be conspicuous in Paul Trömel’s
_Bibliothèque Américaine_ (Leipzig, 1861), the best of the German ones,
and in Charles Leclerc’s _Bibliotheca Americana_ (Paris, 1867), much
improved in his _Bibliotheca Americana. Histoire, géographie, voyages,
archéologie et linguistique des deux Amériques et des îles Philippines_
(Paris, 1878), with later supplements, constituting the best of the
French catalogues, provided with an excellent index and a linguistic
table, rendered necessary by the classified plan of the list.

The list formed by students in this field begins with the _Bibliotheca
Americana Vetustissima_ of Harrisse (New York, 1866; additions, Paris,
1872), and includes the _Bibliothèque Mexico-Guatémalienne, précédée
d’un coup d’œil sur les études américaines dans leurs rapports avec
les études classiques, et suivie du tableau, par ordre alphabétique,
des ouvrages de linguistique Américaine contenus dans le même volume_
(Paris, 1871) of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, who at that time had
been twenty-five years engaged in the studies and travels which led to
the gathering of his collection. The library, almost entire, was later
joined to that of Alphonse L. Pinart, and was included in the latter’s
_Catalogue de livres rares et précieux, manuscrits et imprimés_ (Paris,
1883).

In 1866, Icazbalceta published at Mexico his _Apuntes para un Catálogo
de Escritores en lenguas indígenas de América_,[1816] but of his great
bibliographical work only one volume has as yet appeared: _Bibliografía
Américana del Siglo xvi. Primera parte_. _Catálogo razonado de libros
impresos en México de 1539 à 1600, con biografías de autores y otras
ilustraciones, precedido de una noticia acerca de la introducción de la
imprenta en México_ (México, 1886).

Bandelier has embodied some of the results of his study in his “Notes
on the Bibliography of Yucatan and Central America,” in the _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc._, n. s., i. pp. 82-118.

The catalogues of collections having special reference to aboriginal
America are the following:—

_Catalogue de la Bibliothèque de José Maria Andrade, 7,000 pièces et
volumes, ayant rapport au Méxique ou imprimés dans ce pays_ (Leipzig,
1869).[1817]

_Bibliotheca Mejicana_: _Books and manuscripts almost wholly relating
to the history and literature of North and South America, particularly
Mexico_ (London, 1869). This collection was formed by Augustin Fischer,
chaplain to the Emperor Maximilian; but there were added to the
catalogue some titles from the collection of Dr. C. H. Berendt.

_Catalogue of the library of E. G. Squier, edited by Joseph Sabin_ (N.
Y., 1876).

_Bibliotheca Mexicana, or A Catalogue of the library of the rare books
and important MSS. relating to Mexico and other parts of Spanish
America, formed by the late Señor Don José Fernando Ramirez_ (London,
1880). This catalogue was edited by the Abbé Fischer.[1818]

The most useful guides to the literature of aboriginal America,
however, are some compiled in this country. First, the comprehensive
though not yet complete bibliography, Joseph Sabin’s _Dictionary of
books relating to America_, now being continued since Sabin’s death,
and with much skill, by Wilberforce Eames. Second, the voluminous
_Proof-sheets of a Bibliography of the languages of the North
American Indians_ (Washington, 1885), prepared by James Constantine
Pilling, tentatively, in a large quarto volume, distributed only to
collaborators, and out of which, with emendations and additions, he is
now publishing special sections of it, of which have already appeared
those relating to the Eskimo and Siouan tongues. His enumeration
so much exceeds the range of purely linguistic monographs that the
treatises become in effect general bibliographies of aboriginal America.

Third, _An Essay towards an Indian bibliography, being a Catalogue
of books relating to the history, antiquities, languages, customs,
religion, wars, literature and origin of the American Indians, in the
library of Thos. W. Field, with bibliographical and historical notes
and synopses of the contents of some of the works least known_ (N. Y.,
1873). The sale of Mr. Field’s library took place in New York, May,
1875, from a Catalogue not so elaborate, but still of use. These books
are not so accurately compiled as to be wholly trustworthy as final
resorts.

Finally, the list prefixed to Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. i.,
and the references of his foot-notes, throughout his five volumes
(condensed often in Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_), are
on the whole the most serviceable aids to the general student, but
unfortunately the index of the set is of no use in searching for
bibliographical detail.

The reader will remember that the bibliographies of sectional or
partial import in the field of American archæology are referred to
elsewhere in the present volume.

II.

THE COMPREHENSIVE TREATISES ON AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES.

_By the Editor._

AT the time when Bancroft published his _Native Races_ (1875),
he referred to John D. Baldwin’s _Ancient America_ (N. Y., 1871)
as the only preceding, comprehensive book on America before the
Spaniards.[1819] It still remains a convenient book of small compass;
but its absence of references to sources precludes its usefulness for
purposes of study, and it is not altogether abreast of the latest
views. To the popular element a moderate share of the indexical
character, rendering the book passably serviceable to the average
reader, has been added in the somewhat larger _North Americans
of Antiquity, their origin, migrations, and type of civilization
considered, by John T. Short_ (N. Y., 1880,—somewhat improved in later
editions), though it will be observed that the Peruvian and other
South American antiquities have not come within his plan. The latest
of these comprehensive books is the Marquis de Nadaillac’s (Jean F.
A. du Pouget’s) _L’Amérique préhistorique_ (Paris, 1883), which in an
English version by N. D’Anvers was published with the author’s sanction
in London in 1882. With revision and some modifications by W. H.
Dall, which have not met the author’s sanction, it was republished as
_Prehistoric America_ (N. Y., 1884). It is a work of more theoretical
tendency than the student wishes to find at the opening stage of his
inquiry.

But as a compend of every department of archæological knowledge up to
about fifteen years ago no advance has yet been made upon Bancroft’s
_Native Races_ as indicative of every channel of investigation which
the student can pursue. Upon the monuments of the moundbuilders (iv.
ch. 13) and the antiquities of Peru (iv. ch. 14) the treatment is
condensed and without references, as occupying a field beyond his
primary purpose of covering the Pacific slope of North America and the
immediately adjacent regions. Mention is made elsewhere of Bancroft’s
methods of compilation, and it may suffice to say that in the five
volumes of his _Native Races_ he has drawn and condensed his matter
from the writings of about 1200 writers, whose titles he gives in a
preliminary list.[1820] The method of arranging the departments of the
work is perhaps too far geographical to be always satisfactory to the
special student,[1821] and he seems to be aware of it (for instance, i.
ch. 2); but it may be questioned if, while writing with, or engrafting
upon, an encyclopædic system, what might pass for a continuous
narrative, any more scientific plan would have been more successful.
Bancroft’s opinions are not always as satisfactory as his material.
The student who uses the _Native Races_ for its groups and references
will accordingly find a complemental service in Sir Daniel Wilson’s
_Prehistoric Man_ (London, 1876), in which the Toronto professor
conducts his “researches into the origin of civilization in the old and
the new world,” by primarily treating of the early American man, as the
readiest way of understanding early man in Europe. His system is to
connect man’s development topically in the directions induced by his
habits, industries, dwellings, art, records, migrations, and physical
characterizations.

Another and older book, in some respects embodying like purposes,
and though produced at a time when archæological studies were much
less advanced than at present, is Alexander W. Bradford’s _American
Antiquities and researches into the origin and history of the red
race_ (N. Y., 1841).[1822] The first section of the book is strictly
a record of results; but in the final portion the author indulges
more in speculative inquiry. Even in this he has not transcended the
bounds of legitimate hypothesis, though some of his postulates will
hardly be accepted nowadays, as when he contends that the red Indians
are the degraded descendants of the people who were connected with the
so-called civilization of Central America.[1823]

The periodical literature of a comprehensive sort is not so
extensive as treatments of special aspects; but the student will find
Poole’s _Index_ and Rhee’s _Catalogue and Index of the Smithsonian
publications_ serviceable.

III.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON THE INDUSTRIES AND TRADE OF THE AMERICAN
ABORIGINES.

_By the Editor._

WHILE we have a moderate list of works on the general subject of
prehistoric art and industries,[1824] we lack any comprehensive survey
of the subject as respects the American continent, and must depend on
sectional and local treatment. Humboldt in the introduction to his
_Atlas_ of his _Essai politique_ (Paris, 1813) was among the earliest
to grasp the material which illustrates the origin and first progress
of the arts in America. The arts of the southern regions and western
coasts of North America are best followed in those portions of the
chapters on the Wild Tribes, devoted to the subject, which make up
the first volume of Bancroft’s _Native Races_,[1825] and for Mexican
and Maya productions some chapters (ch. 15, 24) in the second volume.
Prescott’s treatment of the more advanced peoples of this region is
scant (_Mexico_, i., introd., ch. 5). The art in stone of the Pueblo
Indians is beautifully illustrated in Putnam’s portion of Wheeler’s
_Report_ of his survey, and comparison may be made with Hayden’s
_Annual Rept._ (1876) of the U. S. Geol. and Geographical Survey.
The work of Putnam and his collaborators in the archæological volume
(vii.) of Wheeler’s _Survey_ is probably the most complete account of
the implements, ornaments and utensils of any one people (those of
Southern California) yet produced; and its illustrations have not been
surpassed. Passing north, we shall get some help from E. L. Berthoud’s
paper on the “Prehistoric human art from Wyoming and Colorado,” in his
“Journal of a reconnaissance in Creek Valley, Col.,” published by the
Colorado Acad. of Nat. Sciences (_Proceedings_, 1872, p. 46). In the
_Pacific Rail Road Reports_ (vol. iii. in 1856) there is a paper by
Thomas Ewbank in “Illustrations of Indian antiquities and arts.” S. S.
Haldeman has described the relics of human industry found in a rock
shelter in southeastern Pennsylvania (_Compte Rendu, Cong. des Amér._,
Luxembourg, ii. 319; and _Transactions Amer. Philos. Soc._, 1878). The
best of all the more comprehensive monographs is Charles C. Abbott’s
_Primitive industry: or illustrations of the handiwork, in stone, bone
and clay, of the native races of the Northern Atlantic seaboard of
America_ (Salem, 1881). Morgan’s _League of the Iroquois_ touches in
some measure of the arts of that confederacy, his earliest study being
in the _Fifth Report of the Regents of the State of New York_ (1852).

For the Canada regions, the _Annual Reports of the Canadian Institute_,
appended to the _Reports_ of the Minister of Education, Ontario,
contain accounts of the discovery of objects of stone, horn, and shell.
(See particularly the sessions of 1886-87.) Dawson in his _Fossil men_
(ch. 6) considers what he accounts the lost arts of the primitive races
of North America. On the other hand, Professor Leidy found still in use
among the present Shoshones split pebbles resembling the rudest stone
implements of the palæolithic period (_U. S. Geological Survey_, 1872,
p. 652).

Many archæologists have remarked on the uniform character of many
prehistoric implements, wherever found, as precluding their being
held as ethnical evidences. The system of quarrying[1826] for flint
best fitted for the tool-maker’s art has been observed by Wilson
(_Prehistoric man_, i. 68) both in the old and new world, and in
his third chapter (vol. i.) we have a treatise on the ancient
stone-worker’s art.[1827]

Treating the subject topically, we find the late Charles Rau making
some special studies of the implements used in native agriculture[1828]
in the _Smithsonian Reports_ for 1863, 1868, and 1869.[1829] The
agriculture of the Aztecs and Mayas is treated in Max Steffen’s _Die
Landwirtschaft bei den altamerikanischen Kulturvölkern_ (Leipzig,
1883).[1830]

The working of flint or obsidian into arrowpoints or cutting implements
is a process by pressure that has not been wholly lost. Old workshops,
or the chips of them, have been discovered, and they are found in
numerous localities (Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 75, 79; Abbott’s
_Primitive Industry_, and Putnam in the _Bull. Essex Institute_),
but Powell in his _Report of Explorations of the Colorado of the
West_ (1873) does not, as Wilson says he does, describe the present
ways.[1831]

Wilson (_Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 4 and 7) in an essay on the bone and
ivory workers substitutes for the corresponding words usually employed
in classifying stone implements the terms palæotechnic and neotechnic,
as indicating periods of progress, in order that the art of making
tools in horn, bone, shell, and ivory might have a better recognition,
as of equal importance with that of making such in stone. Separate
treatises are few. Morgan has a paper on the bone implements of the
Arickarees in the _21st Rept. of the Regents of the University of the
State of N. Y._ (1871), and Rau’s monograph on _Prehistoric fishing in
Europe and North America, one of the Smithsonian Contributions_ (1884),
involves the making of fish-hooks of bone. See also Putnam in the
_Peabody Museum Reports_, and in _Wheeler’s Survey_, vol. vii.; Wyman’s
contributions on the shell heaps, and the _Journal of the Cincinnati
Soc. of Nat. Hist_. for such as have been found in the ash-pits of
Madisonville. On shell-work there is a section in Foster’s _Prehistoric
Races_ (p. 234); a paper by W. H. Holmes in the _Second Rept. of the
Bureau of Ethnology_ (p. 179); and one on American shell-work and its
affinities by Miss Buckland in the _Journal Anthropol. Inst._, xvi. 155.

From the primitive materials of stone, bone, horn, or shell, we pass
to metals; but as Wilson (i. p. 174) says, “if metal could be found
capable of being wrought and fashioned without smelting or moulding,
its use was perfectly compatible with the simple arts of the stone
period, as a mere malleable stone;” and to the present day, he adds,
the rude American race has no knowledge of working metal, except by
pounding or grinding it cold.[1832] The story which Brereton tells
in his account of Gosnold’s visit (1602) to New England, about the
finding of abundant metal implements in use among the natives, is
questioned (Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, p. 62). We have the evidences
of the early mining[1833] of copper extending for over a hundred miles
along the southern shores of Lake Superior and on Isle Royale, in the
abandoned trenches and tools first discovered in 1847; and in one case
there was found a mass of native copper (ten feet by three and two, and
weighing over six tons) which had been elevated on a wooden frame prior
to removal, and was discovered in this condition.[1834] There are also
indications that the manufacture of copper tools was carried on in the
neighborhood of the mines (Wilson, i. 213); and chemical tests have
shown that a popular belief in the tempering of metal by these early
peoples is without foundation.[1835]

It seems to be a fact that while in the use of metals an intermediate
stage of pure copper, as coming between the use of bone and stone
and the use of alloyed metals, was not until comparatively recently
suspected in Great Britain, the “peculiar interest attaches to the
metallurgy of the new world that there all the earlier stages are
clearly defined: the pure native metal wrought by the hammer without
the aid of fire; the melted and moulded copper; the alloyed bronze;
and the smelting, soldering, graving, and other processes resulting
from accumulating experience and matured skill” (Wilson, i. 230).
It is in the regions extending from Mexico to Peru that the art of
alloying introduces us to the American bronze age. Columbus in his
fourth voyage found in a vessel which had come alongside from Yucatan
crucibles to melt copper, as Herrera tells us; and Humboldt was among
the earliest to discover tools alloyed of copper and tin, and many such
alloys have since been recognized among Peruvian bronzes (Wilson, i.
239). In Mexico, metallurgic arts were carried perhaps even farther
in casting and engraving, and not only the results but the evidences
of their mining places have remained to our day (_Ibid._ i. 248). It
seems evident, however, that experimenting with them had not carried
them so near the perfect combination for tool-making (one part tin to
nine parts copper) as the bronze people of Europe had reached, though
they fell considerably short of the exact standard (_Ibid._ i. 234).
Doubt has sometimes been expressed of Mexican mining for copper, as
by Frederick von Hellwald (_Compte Rendu, Cong. des Américanistes_,
1877, i. 51); but Rau indicated the references[1836] to Short (p.
94), which forcibly led him to the conclusion that the Mexicans mined
copper to turn into tools.[1837] Among the Mayas, Nadaillac (p. 269)
contends that only copper and gold were in use. Bancroft (ii. 749)
thinks the use of copper doubtful, and if used, that it must have
been got from the north. He cites the evidences of the use of gold.
William H. Holmes discusses _The use of gold and other metals among
the ancient inhabitants of Chiriqui, Isthmus of Darien_ (Washington,
1887). As to iron, that found in the Ohio mounds, only of late years,
has been proved to be meteoric iron by Professor Putnam (_Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1883). Bancroft (i. 164) says iron was in use among
the British Columbian tribes before contact with the whites, but it
was probably derived through some indirect means from the whites.
Though iron ore abounds in Peru, and the character of the Peruvian
stone-cutting would seem to indicate its use, and though there is a
native word for it, no iron implements have been found.[1838] There is
not much recorded of the use of silver. It has been found by Putnam in
the mounds in thin sheets, used as plating for other metals.[1839] He
has also found native silver in masses, and in one case a small bit of
hammered gold.

* * * * *

Wilson, in 1876, while regretting the dispersion of the William
Bullock collection of pottery, the destruction of that formed by
Stephens and Catherwood, and the transference to an English museum
of most of the specimens gathered by Squier and Davis, lamented that
no American collection[1840] had been yet formed adequate to the
requirements of the students of American archæology and ethnology.
Since that date, however, the collections in the National Museum
(Smithsonian Institution) at Washington and in the Peabody Museum at
Cambridge have largely grown; and especially for the fictile art and
work in stone of Spanish North America the Museo Nacional in Mexico has
assumed importance. The collection in the possession of the American
Philosophical Society in Philadelphia,[1841] since transferred to the
Philadelphia Academy, is also of value for the study of the pottery of
middle America.

Rau has supplied a leading paper on American pottery in the
_Smithsonian Report_, 1866; and E. A. Barber has touched the subject
in papers at the Copenhagen, Luxembourg, and Madrid meetings of the
Congrès des Américanistes, and in the _American Antiquarian_ (viii.
76).[1842] W. H. Holmes has a paper on the origin and development of
form and of ornament in ceramic art in the _Fourth Report, Bureau of
Ethnology_, p. 437.

For local characters there are various monographs.[1843]

There is no satisfactory evidence that the potter’s wheel was known
to any American tribe; but Wilson, in his chapter on ceramic art
(_Prehistoric Man_, ii. ch. 16), feels convinced that the early potter
employed some sort of mechanical process, giving a revolving motion to
his clay.

[Illustration: MEXICAN CLAY MASK.

After a cut in _Wilson’s Prehistoric Man_, ii. p. 33, of an example in
the collections of the American Philosophical Society, in a totally
different style from the usual Mexican terra-cottas; and Wilson remarks
of it that one will look in vain in it for the Indian physiognomy.
Tyler, _Anahuac_, 230, considers it a forgery.]

Modelling in clay for other purposes than the making of vessels is
also considered in this same seventeenth chapter of Wilson, and the
subject runs, as respects masks, figurines, and general ornamentation,
into the wide range of aboriginal art, which necessarily makes part of
all comprehensive histories of art. W. H. Dall has a paper on Indian
masks in the _Third Report, Bureau of Ethnology_, p. 73. The subject is
further treated by Wilson in a paper on “The artistic faculty in the
aboriginal races,” in the _Proceedings_ (iii., 2d part, 67, 119) of the
Royal Society of Canada, and again in a general way by Nadaillac on
_L’art préhistorique en Amérique_ (Paris, 1883), taken from the _Revue
des deux Mondes_, Nov. 1, 1883.[1844]

* * * * *

As regards the textile art in prehistoric times, see for a general view
W. H. Holmes in the _American Antiquarian_, viii. 261; and the same
archæologist has treated the subject on the evidences of the impression
of textures as preserved in pottery, in the _Third Rept. Bur. of
Ethnology_, p. 393. Cf. Sellers in _Popular Science Journal_, and Wyman
in _Peabody Museum Reports_.

J. W. Foster first made (1838) the discovery of relics of textile
fabrics of the moundbuilders; but he did not announce his discovery
till at the Albany meeting (1851) of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (_Transactions_, 1852, vol. vi. p. 375).
He tells the story in his _Prehistoric Races_, p. 222, and figures
the implements, found in the mounds, supposed to be employed in the
making their cloth with warp and woof. Putnam has since made similar
discoveries (_Peabody Museum Reports_). The subject is also treated
in the _Proceedings_ of the Davenport Academy and of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. The fabrics were preserved
by being placed in contact with copper implements.

The Indians of New Mexico were found by the Spaniards in possession
of the art of weaving. Cf. Washington Matthews on the Navajo weavers,
in the _Third Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_, p. 371, and Bancroft (i.
582), who also records the making of fabrics by the wild tribes of
Central America (_Ibid._ i. 766-67). He also notes the references to
the textile manufactures of the Nahuas and Mayas (ii. 484, 752). The
richest accumulation of graphic data relative to the fabrics of Peru is
contained in the great work on the _Necropolis of Ancon_.

Feather-work was an important industry in some parts of the continent.
The subject is studied in Ferdinand Denis’ _Arte plumaria: Les plumes,
leur valeur et leur emploi dans les arts au Méxique, au Pérou, au
Brésil et dans les Indes et dans l’Océanie_ (Paris, 1875).[1845]

Lewis H. Morgan’s _Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines_
(Washington, 1881) is the completest study of the habitations of
the early peoples; but it is written too exclusively in the light
of universal communal custom, and this must be borne in mind in
using it. The edifices of middle America and Peru have been given a
bibliographical apparatus in another part of the present volume; but
references may be made to Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_ (ii. ch. 16),
Viollet le Duc’s _Habitations of Man_, translated by R. Bucknall
(Boston, 1876), and to Bandelier’s _Archæological Tour_, 226, where he
quotes as typical the description of a native house in 1583, drawn by
Juan Bautista Pomar.

There is no good comprehensive account of American prehistoric trade.
The T-shaped pieces of copper in use by the Mexicans came nearest to
currency as we understand it, unless it be the wampum of the North
American Indians, and the shell money in use on the Pacific coast;
but it should be remembered that copper axes and copper plates served
such a purpose with some tribes.[1846] The Peruvians used weights, but
the Mexicans did not. The latter had, however, a system of measures
of length.[1847] The canoe was a great intermediary in the practice
of barter.[1848] The Peruvians alone understood the use of sails,
and the earliest Spanish navigators on the Pacific were surprised at
what they thought were civilized predecessors in those seas when they
espied in the distance the large white sails of the Peruvian rafts of
burden.[1849] The chief source of trade in such conditions was barter,
and we know how the Mexican travelling merchants got information
that was availed of by the Mexican marauders in their invasions.
Bandelier[1850] gives us the references on the barter system, the
traders, and the currency in that country, and we need to consult Dr.
W. Behrnauer’s _Essai sur le Commerce dans l’ancien Méxique et en
Pérou_, in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (n. s., vol. i.).

All the treatises on the mounds of the Ohio Valley derive
illustrations of intertribal traffic from the shells of the coast, the
copper of Lake Superior, the mica of the Alleghanies, the obsidian of
the Rocky Mountains or of Mexico, and the unique figurines which the
explorations of the mounds have disclosed. Charles Rau has a paper on
this aboriginal trade in North America, published in the _Archiv für
Anthroplogie_ (Braunschweig, 1872, vol. iv.), which was republished
in English in the _Smithsonian Report_, 1872, p. 249. Bancroft’s
references under “Commerce” (v. p. 668) will help the student out in
various particulars.

IV.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON AMERICAN LINGUISTICS.

_By the Editor._

IT cannot be said that the study of American linguistics has
advanced to a position wholly satisfactory. It is beset with all the
difficulties belonging to a subject that has not been embraced in
written records for long periods, and it is open to the hazards of
articulation and hearing, acting without entire mutual confidence.
And yet we may not dispute Max Müller’s belief,[1851] that it is the
science of language which has given the first comprehensive impulse to
the study of mankind.

Out of the twenty distinct sounds which it is said the voice of
man can produce,[1852] there have been built up from roots and
combinations a great diversity of vocabularies. Comparisons of these,
as well as of the methods of forming sentences, have been much used
in investigations of ethnical relations. Of these opposing methods,
neither is sufficiently strong, it is probable, to be pressed without
the aid of the other, though the belief of the Bureau of Ethnology at
Washington, under the influence of Major Powell, practically discards
all tests but the vocabulary, in tracing ethnological relations. It
is held that this one test of words satisfies, as to customs, myths,
and other ethnological traits, more demands of classifications than
any other. Granted that it does, there are questions yet unsolvable
by it; and many ethnologists hold that there are still other tests,
physiological, for instance,[1853] which cannot safely be neglected
in settling such complex questions. The favorite claim of the Bureau
is that its officers are studying man as a human being, and not as an
animal; but it is by no means sure that the physical qualities of man
are so disconnected with his mind and soul as to be unnecessary to
his interpretation. Even if language be given the chief place in such
studies, there is still the doubt if the vocabulary can in all ways
be safely followed to the exclusion of the structure of the language;
and it is not to be forgotten, as Haven recognized thirty years ago,
that “one of the greatest obstacles to a successful and satisfactory
comparison of Indian vocabularies is caused by the capricious and
ever-varying orthography applied by writers of different nations.” This
is a chance of error that cannot be eliminated when we have to deal
with lists of words made in the past, by persons not to be communicated
with, in whom both national and personal peculiarities of ear and vocal
organs may exist to perplex. A part of the difficulty is of course
removed by trained assistants acting in concert, though in different
fields; but the individual sharpness or dulness of ear and purity and
obscurity of articulation will still cause diversity of results,—to say
nothing of corresponding differences in the persons questioned. There
is still the problem, broader than all these divisionary tests, whether
language is at all a safe test of race, and on this point there is
room for different opinions, as is shown in the discussions of Sayce,
Whitney, and others.[1854] “Any attempt,” says Max Müller, “at squaring
the classification of races and tongues must necessarily fail.”[1855]
On the other hand, George Bancroft (Final revision, ii. 90) says that
“the aspect of the red men was so uniform that there is no method of
grouping them into families but by their languages.”

It is the wide margin for error, already indicated, that vitiates
much that has already been done in philological comparisons, and the
over-eager recognition at all times of what is thought to be the
word-shunting of “Grimm’s Law” has doubtless been responsible for other
confusions.[1856]

Most of the general philological treatises touch more or less
intimately the question of language as a test of race,[1857] and
all of them engage in tracing affinities, each with confidence in
a method that others with equal assurance may belittle.[1858] Thus
Bancroft,[1859] reflecting an opinion long prevalent, says that
“positive grammatical rules carry with them much more weight than mere
word likenesses,”[1860] while, on the contrary, Dawson[1861] says that
“grammar is, after all, only the clothing of language. The science
consists in its root-words; and multitudes of root-words are identical
in the American languages over vast areas.” This last proposition is,
as we have seen, the principle on which this inquiry is now conducted
with governmental patronage. “Each American language,” says George
Bancroft, in his chapter on the dialects of North America, “was
competent of itself, without improvement of scholars, to exemplify
every rule of the logician and give utterance to every passion.” In
accordance with such perhaps extreme views, it has been usually said
that the American languages are in development in advance of aboriginal
progress in other respects. It is another common observation that while
a certain resemblance runs through all the native tongues,[1862] there
is no such general resemblance to the old-world languages;[1863] but
at the same time the linguistic proof of the unity of the American
race is not irrefragable,[1864] and it would take tens of thousands of
years, as Brinton holds, if there had been a single source, for the
eighty stocks of the North American and for the hundred South American
speeches to have developed themselves in all their varieties.[1865]
Proceeding beyond stocks to dialects, and counting varieties, Ludewig,
in his _Literature of the American Languages_, gave 1,100 different
American languages; but an alphabetical list given by H. W. Bates in
his _Central America, West Indies and South America_ (London, 1882,
2d ed.)[1866] affords 1,700 names of such. The number, of course,
depends on how exclusive we are in grouping dialects. Squier, for
instance, gives only 400 tongues for both North and South America;
for, as Nadaillac says, “philology has no precise definition of what
constitutes a language.”[1867]

The most comprehensive survey of the bibliography of American
linguistics, excluding South America, is in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets
of a bibliography of the languages of the North American Indians_
(Washington, 1885), a tentative issue of the Bureau of Ethnology,
already mentioned. Pilling also earlier catalogued the linguistic
MSS. in the library of the Bureau of Ethnology, in Powell’s _First
Report_ of that Bureau (p. 553), in which that bibliographer also gave
a sketch of the history of gathering such collections. A section of
the _Bibliotheca Americana_ of Charles Leclerc (Paris, 1878) is given
to linguistics, and it affords by groups one of the best keys to the
literature of the aboriginal languages which we yet have, and it has
been supplemented by additional lists issued since by Maisonneuve
of Paris. Ludewig’s _Literature of American Aboriginal Languages,
with additions by W. Turner_ (London, 1858), was up to date, thirty
years ago, a good list of grammars and dictionaries, but the increase
has been considerable in this field since then (Pilling’s _Eskimo
Languages_, p. 62). The libraries of collectors of Spanish-American
history, as enumerated elsewhere,[1868] have usually included much on
the linguistic history, and the most important of the printed lists
for Mexico and Central America is that of Brasseur de Bourbourg’s
_Bibliothèque Mexico-Guatémalienne, précédée d’un coup d’œil sur les
études américaines dans leurs rapports avec les études classiques, et
suivi du tableau, par ordre alphabétique, des ouvrages de linguistique
américaine contenus dans le même volume_ (Paris, 1871). This list is
repeated with additions in the _Catalogue de Alphonse L. Pinart et ...
de Brasseur de Bourbourg_ (Paris, 1883). Field’s _Indian Bibliography_
characterizes some of the leading books up to 1873; but the best source
up to about the same date for a large part of North America is found
in the notes in that section of Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii.,
given to linguistics.[1869] The several _Comptes Rendus_ of the Congrès
des Américanistes have sections on the same subject, and the second
volume of the _Contributions to North American Ethnology_, published
by the U. S. Geological Survey (Powell’s), has been kept back for the
completion of the linguistic studies of the government officials, which
will ultimately, under the care of A. S. Gatschet, compose that belated
volume. Major Powell, in his conduct of ethnological investigations
for the United States government, has found efficient helpers in James
C. Pilling, J. Owen Dorsey, S. R. Riggs, A. S. Gatschet, not to name
others. Powell outlined some of his own views in an address on the
evolution of language before the Anthropological Society of Washington,
of which there is an abstract in their _Transactions_ (1881), while the
paper can be found in perfected shape as “The evolution of language
from a study of the Indian languages,” in the _First Report of the
Bureau of Ethnology_.

Among the earliest of the students of the native languages in the
north were the Catholic missionaries in Canada and in the northwest,
and there is much of interest in their observations as recorded in the
_Jesuit Relations_. We find a _Dictionnaire de la langue huronne_ in
the _Grand Voyage du Pays des Hurons_ (Paris, 1632, etc.).

The most conspicuous of the English publications of the seventeenth
century was the Natick rendering of the _Bible_ for the Massachusetts
Indians, undertaken by the Apostle John Eliot, as he was called, at
the expense of the London Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
Eliot also published a _Grammar of the Massachusetts Indian Language_
(Cambridge, 1666), which, with notes by Peter S. Duponceau and an
introduction by John Pickering, was printed for the Mass. Hist.
Society in 1822, as was John Cotton’s _Vocabulary of the Massachusetts
Indian Language_ (Cambridge, 1830). Roger Williams’ _Key into the
language of America_ has been elsewhere referred to.[1870] The Rev.
Jonathan Edwards wrote a paper on the language of the Mohegan Indians,
which, with annotations by Pickering, was printed in the _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Coll._ in 1823, and is called by Haven (_Archæol. U. S._, 29)
the earliest exposition of the radical connection of the American
languages. Dr. James Hammond Trumbull, the most learned of the students
of these eastern languages, has furnished various papers on them in
the publications of the American Philological Association and of the
American Antiquarian Society,[1871] and has summarized the literature
of the subject, with references, in the _Memorial Hist. of Boston_
(vol. i.).

In the eighteenth century there were several philological recorders
among the missionaries. Sebastian Rasle made a _Dictionary of the
Abnake Language_, now preserved in MS. in Harvard College library,
which, edited by John Pickering, was published as a volume of the
_Memoirs_ of the Amer. Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1833. A
grammatical sketch of the Abnake as outlined in Rasle’s _Dictionary_
is given by M. C. O’Brien in the _Maine Hist. Soc. Coll._, vol. ix.
The publications of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia
have preserved for us the vocabularies and grammars of the Delaware
language, collected and arranged by John Heckewelder[1872] and
David Zeisberger, while the latter Moravian missionary collected a
considerable MS. store of linguistic traces of the Indian tongues, a
part of which is now preserved in Harvard College library.[1873] One of
this last collection, an _Indian Dictionary; English, German, Iroquois_
(_the Onondaga_), _and Algonquin_ (_the Delaware_) (Cambridge, 1887,)
has been carefully edited for the press by Eben Norton Horsford. Dr.
John G. Shea published a _Dictionnaire Français-Onontagué, édité
d’après un manuscrit du 17^e siècle_ (N. Y., 1859), which is preserved
in the Mazarin library in Paris.

There was no attempt made to treat the study of the American languages
in what would now be termed a scientific spirit by any English
scholar till towards the end of the eighteenth century. The whole
question of the origin of the Indians had for a long time been the
subject of discussion, and it had of necessity taken more or less
of a philological turn from the beginning; but the inquiry had been
simply a theoretical one, with efforts to substantiate preconceived
beliefs rather than to formulate inductive ones, as in such works
as—not to name others—Adair’s _American Indians_ (London, 1775), where
every trace was referable to the Jews, and Count de Gebelin’s _Monde
Primitif_ (Paris, 1781), where a comparison of American and European
vocabularies is given.[1874]

A much closer student appeared in Benjamin Smith Barton, of
Philadelphia, though he was not wholly emancipated from these same
prevalent notions of connecting the Indian tongues with the old-world
speeches. He says that he was instigated to the study by Pallas’
_Linguarum totius orbis Vocabularia comparativa_ (Petropolis, 1786,
1789), and the result was his _New View of the Origin of the tribes
and nations of America_ (Philad., 1797; again, 1798). He sets forth
in his introduction his methods of study. Charlevoix had suggested
that the linguistic test was the only one in studying the ethnological
connections of these peoples; but Barton asserted that there were other
manifestations, equally important, like the physical aspects, the
modes of worship, and the myths. He examined forty different Indian
languages, and thinks they show a common origin, and that remotely a
connection existed between the old and new continents.

The most eminent American student[1875] of this field in the early half
of this century was Albert Gallatin. He began his observations in 1823,
at the instance of Humboldt, and two years later he took advantage of a
representative convocation of Indian tribes, then held in Washington,
to continue his studies of their speech. In 81 tribes brought under his
notice he found what he thought to be 27 or 28 linguistic families.
This was a wider survey than had before been made, and he regretted
that he was not privileged to profit by the vocabularies collected by
Lewis and Clark, which had unfortunately been lost. At the request of
the Amer. Antiquarian Society, he wrote out and enlarged this study in
the second volume of their _Collections_ in 1836, and advanced views
that he never materially changed, believing in a very remote Asiatic
origin of the tongues, and without excepting the Eskimos from his
conclusions. In 1845, in his _Notes on the semi-civilized nations of
Mexico_, his conclusions were much the same, but he made an exception
in favor of the Otomis. At this time he counted more than a hundred
languages, similar in structure but different in vocabularies, and he
argued that a very long period was necessary thus to differentiate the
tongues. At the age of eighty-seven Gallatin gave his final results in
vol. ii. of the _Transactions of the American Ethnological Society_
(1848). Gallatin published a review[1876] of the volume on Ethnography
and Philology, which had been prepared by Horatio Hale as the seventh
volume of the _Publications of the Wilkes United States Exploring
Expedition_ (1838-42), and Hale himself, then in the beginning of his
reputation as a linguistic scholar,[1877] published some papers of his
own in the same volume of the _Transactions_.[1878]

The two Americans who have done more than others, without the aid of
the government, to organize aboriginal linguistic studies are Dr. John
Gilmary Shea of Elizabeth, New Jersey, and Dr. Daniel Garrison Brinton
of Philadelphia. Of _Shea’s Library of American Linguistics_ he has
given an account in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1861.[1879]

Dr. Brinton has set forth the purposes of his linguistic studies in
an address before the Pennsylvania Historical Society, _American
Aboriginal Languages and why we should study them_ (Philad., 1885,—from
the _Pennsylvania Magazine of History_, 1885, p. 15). In starting his
_Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, he announced his purpose
to put within the reach of scholars authentic materials for the study
of the languages and culture of the native races, each work to be
the production of the native mind, and to be printed in the original
tongue, with a translation and notes, and to have some intrinsic
historical or ethnological importance.[1880]

The other considerable collections are both French. Alphonse L.
Pinart published a _Bibliothèque de linguistique et d’ethnographie
Américaines_ (Paris and San Francisco, 1875-82).[1881]

The publishing house of Maisonneuve et Compagnie of Paris, which has
done more than any other business firm to advance these studies, has
conducted a _Collection linguistique Américaine_, of much value to
American philologists.[1882]

Other French studies have attracted attention. Pierre Etienne Duponceau
published a _Mémoire sur le système grammatical des langues de quelques
nations indiennes de l’Amérique du Nord_ (Paris, 1838).[1883] He
conducted a correspondence with the Rev. John Heckewelder respecting
the American tongues, which is published in the _Transactions of
the Amer. Philosophical Society_ (Phil., 1819), and he translated
Zeisberger’s _Delaware Grammar_.

The studies of the Abbé Jean André Cuoq have been upon the Algonquin
dialects,[1884] and published mainly in the _Actes de la Société
philologique_ (Paris, 1869 and later). His monographic _Etudes
philologiques sur quelques langues sauvages de l’Amérique_ was printed
at Montreal, 1866. It was the result of twenty years’ missionary work
among the Iroquois and Algonquins, and besides a grammar contains a
critical examination of the works of Duponceau and Schoolcraft. Lucien
Adam has been very comprehensive in his researches, his studies being
collected under the titles of _Etudes sur six langues Américaines_
(Paris, 1878) and _Examen grammatical comparé de seize langues
Américaines_ (Paris, 1878).[1885]

The papers of the Count Hyacinthe de Charencey have been in the first
instance for the most part printed in the _Revue de Linguistique_, the
_Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne_, and the _Mémoires de l’Académie de
Caen_, and have wholly pertained to the tongues south of New Mexico;
but his principal studies are collected in his _Mélanges de philologie
et de paléographie Américaines_ (Paris, 1883).[1886]

The most distinguished German worker in this field, if we except the
incidental labors of Alexander and William von Humboldt,[1887] is J. C.
E. Buschmann, whose various linguistic labors cover the wide field of
the west coast of North America from Alaska to the Isthmus, with some
of the regions adjacent on the east. He published his papers in Berlin
between 1853 and 1864, and many of them in the _Mémoires de l’Académie
de Berlin_.[1888]

Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt has published his papers in Spanish, English,
and German, and some of them will be found in the _Smithsonian
Reports_, in the Berlin _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, and in the
_Revista de Mérida_. Under the auspices of the American Ethnological
Society, a fac-simile reproduction of his graphic _Analytical Alphabet
for the Mexican and Central American languages_ was published in 1869,
the result of twelve years’ study in those countries.[1889]

* * * * *

The languages of what are called the civilized nations of the central
regions of America deserve more particular attention.

In the Mexican empire the Aztec was largely predominant, but not
exclusively spoken, for about twenty other tongues were more or less
in vogue in different parts. Humboldt and others have found occasional
traces in words of an earlier language than the Aztec or Nahua, but
different from the Maya, which in Brasseur’s opinion was the language
of the country in those pre-Nahua days. Bancroft, contrary to some
recent philologists, holds the speech of the Toltec, Chichimec, and
Aztec times to be one and the same.[1890] It was perhaps the most
copious and most perfected of all the aboriginal tongues; and in
proof of this are cited the opinions of the early Spanish scholars,
the successes of the missionaries in the use of it in imparting the
subtleties of their faith, and the literary use which was made of it by
the native scholars, as soon as they had adapted the Roman alphabet to
its vocabulary and forms.[1891]

The Maya has much the same prominence farther south that the Nahua has
in the northerly parts of the territory of the Spanish conquest, and a
dialect of it, the Tzendal, still spoken near Palenqué, is considered
to be the oldest form of it, though probably this dialect was a
departure from the original stock. It is one of the evidences that the
early Mayas may have come by way of the West India islands that modern
philologists say the native tongues of those islands were allied to
the Maya. Bancroft (iii. 759, with other references, 760) refers to
the list of spoken tongues given in Palacio’s _Carta al Rey de España_
(1576) as the best enumeration of the early Spanish writers.[1892] For
its literary value we must consult some of the authorities like Orozco
y Berra, mentioned in connection with the Aztec. Squier published a
_Monograph of authors who have written on the languages of Central
America, and collected vocabularies and composed works in the native
dialects of that country_ (Albany, 1861,—100 copies), in which he
mentions 110 such authors, and gives a list of their printed and MS.
works. Those who have used these native tongues for written productions
are named in Ludewig’s _Literature of the Amer. Aborig. Languages_
(London, 1858) and in Brinton’s _Aboriginal American Authors_ (Phila.,
1883).[1893]

The philology of the South American peoples has not been so
well compassed as that of the northern continent. The classified
bibliographies show the range of it under such heads as Ande (or
Campa), Araucanians (Chilena), Arrawak, Aymara, Brazil (the principal
work being F. P. von Martius’s _Beiträge zur Ethnographie und
Sprachenkunde Amerika’s, zumal Brasiliens_, Leipzig, 1867, with a
second part called _Glossaria linguarum brasiliensium, Erlangen_,
1863), Chama, Chibcha (or Muysca, Mosca), Cumanagota, Galibi, Goajira,
Guarani, Kiriri (Kariri), Lule, Moxa, Paez, Quichua, Tehuelhet,
Tonocote, Tupi, etc.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON THE MYTHS AND RELIGIONS OF AMERICA.

_By the Editor._

THE earliest scholarly examination of the whole subject, which has been
produced by an American author, is Daniel G. Brinton’s _Myths of the
New World, a treatise on the symbolism and mythology of the Red Race
of America_ (N. Y., 1868; 2d ed., 1876). It is a comparative study,
“more for the thoughtful general reader than for the antiquary,” as
the author says. “The task,” he adds, “bristles with difficulties.
Carelessness, prepossessions, and ignorance have disfigured the subject
with false colors and foreign additions without number” (p. 3).
After describing the character of the written, graphic, or symbolic
records, which the student of history has to deal with in tracing North
American history back before the Conquest, he adds, while he deprives
mythology of any historical value, that the myths, being kept fresh
by repetition, were also nourished constantly by the manifestations
of nature, which gave them birth. So while taking issue with those
who find history buried in the myths, he warns us to remember that
the American myths are not the reflections of history or heroes.
In the treatment of his subject he considers the whole aboriginal
people of America as a unit, with “its religion as the development
of ideas common to all its members, and its myths as the garb thrown
around those ideas by imaginations more or less fertile; but seeking
everywhere to embody the same notions.”[1894] This unity of the
American races is far from the opinion of other ethnologists.

Brinton gives a long bibliographical note on those who had written on
the subject before him, in which he puts, as the first (1819) to take a
philosophical survey, Dr. Samuel Farmer Jarvis in a _Discourse on the
religion of the Indian tribes of North America_, printed in the _N. Y.
Hist. Soc. Collections, iii._ (1821). Jarvis confined himself to the
tribes north of Mexico, and considered their condition, as he found
it, one of deterioration from something formerly higher. There had
been, of course, before this, amassers of material, like the Jesuits in
Canada, as preserved in their _Relations_,[1895] sundry early French
writers on the Indians,[1896] the English agents of the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in New England, and the Moravian missionaries
in Pennsylvania and the Ohio country, to say nothing of the historians,
like Loskiel (_Geschichte der Mission_, 1789), Vetromile (_Abnakis and
their History_, New York, 1866), Cusick (_Six Nations_), not to mention
local observers, like Col. Benjamin Hawkins, _Sketch of the Creek
Country (Georgia Hist. Soc. Collections_, 1848, but written about 1800).

If the placing of Brinton’s book as the earliest scholarly
contribution is to be contested, it would be for E. G. Squier’s
_Serpent Symbol in America_ (N. Y., 1851);[1897] but the book is not
broadly based, except so far as such comprehensiveness can be deduced
from his tendency to consider all myths as having some force of nature
for their motive, and that all are traceable to an instinct that
makes the worship of fire or of the sun the centre of a system.[1898]
With this as the source of life, Squier allies the widespread phallic
worship. In Bancroft’s _Native Races_ (iii. p. 501) there is a summary
of what is known of this American worship of the generative power.
Brinton doubts (_Myths_, etc., 149) if anything like phallic worship
really existed, apart from a wholly unreligious surrender to appetite.

Another view which Squier maintains is, that above all this and
pervading all America’s religious views there was a sort of rudimentary
monotheism.[1899]

When we add to this enumeration the somewhat callow and wholly
unsatisfactory contributions of Schoolcraft in the great work on
the _Indian Tribes of the United States_ (1851-59), which the U. S.
government in a headlong way sanctioned, we have included nearly all
that had been done by American authors in this field when Bancroft
published the third volume of his _Native Races_. This work constitutes
the best mass of material for the student—who must not confound
mythology and religion—to work with, the subject being presented
under the successive heads of the origin of myths and of the world,
physical and animal myths, gods, supernatural beings, worship and
the future state; but of course, like all Bancroft’s volumes, it
must be supplemented by special works pertaining to the more central
and easterly parts of the United States, and to the regions south of
Panama. The deficiency, however, is not so much as may be expected
when we consider the universality of myths. “Unfortunately,” says this
author, “the philologic and mythologic material for such an exhaustive
synthesis of the origin and relations of the American creeds as Cox has
given to the world in the Aryan legends in his _Mythology of the Aryan
Nations_ (London, 1870) is yet far from complete.”

In 1882 Brinton, after riper study, again recast his views of a leading
feature of the subject in his _American hero-myths; a study in the
native religions of the western continent_ (Philad., 1882), in which
he endeavored to present “in a critically correct light some of the
fundamental conceptions in the native beliefs.” His purpose was to
counteract what he held to be an erroneous view in the common practice
of considering “American hero-gods as if they had been chiefs of
tribes at some undetermined epoch,” and to show that myths of similar
import, found among different peoples, were a “spontaneous production
of the mind, and not a reminiscence of an historic event.” He further
adds as one of the impediments in the study that he does “not know
of a single instance on this continent of a thorough and intelligent
study of a native religion made by a Protestant missionary.”[1900]
After an introductory chapter on the American myths, Brinton in this
volume takes up successively the consideration of the hero-gods of
the Algonquins and Iroquois, the Aztecs, Mayas, and the Quichuas of
Peru. These myths of national heroes, civilizers, and teachers are,
as Brinton says, the fundamental beliefs of a very large number of
American tribes, and on their recognition and interpretation depends
the correct understanding of most of their mythology and religious
life,—and this means, in Brinton’s view, that the stories connected
with these heroes have no historic basis.[1901]

The best known of the comprehensive studies by a European writer is
J. G. Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_ (Basle,
1855; again in 1867), in which he endeavors to work out the theory that
at the south there is a worship of nature, with a sun-worship for a
centre, contrasted at the north with fetichism and a dread of spirits,
and these he considers the two fundamental divisions of the Indian
worship. Bancroft finds him a chief dependence at times, but Brinton,
charging him with quoting in some instances at second-hand, finds him
of no authority whatever.

One of the most reputable of the German books on kindred subjects
is the _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (Leipzig, 1862-66) of Theodor
Waitz. Brinton’s view of it is that no more comprehensive, sound, and
critical work on the American aborigines has been written; but he
considers him astray on the religious phases, and that his views are
neither new nor tenable when he endeavors to subject moral science to a
realistic philosophy.[1902]

In speaking of the scope of the comprehensive work of H. H. Bancroft we
mentioned that beyond the larger part of the great Athapascan stock of
the northern Indians his treatment did not extend. Such other general
works as Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, the sections of his
_American Hero-Myths_ on the hero-gods of the Algonquins and Iroquois,
and the not wholly satisfactory book of Ellen R. Emerson, _Indian
myths; or, Legends, traditions, and symbols of the aborigines of
America, compared with those of other countries, including Hindostan,
Egypt, Persia, Assyria, and China_ (Boston, 1884), with aid from such
papers as Major J. W. Powell’s “Philosophy of the North American
Indians” in the _Journal of the Amer. Geographical Society_ (vol. viii.
p. 251, 1876), and his “Mythology of the North American Indians” in
the _First Annual Rept. of the Bureau of Ethnology_ (1881), and R.
M. Dorman’s _Origin of primitive superstition among the aborigines
of America_ (Philad., 1881), must suffice in a general way to cover
those great ethnic stocks of the more easterly part of North America,
which comprise the Iroquois, centred in New York, and surrounded by
the Algonquins, west of whom were the Dacotas, and south of whom were
the Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, sometimes classed together as
Appalachians.[1903]

The mythology of the Aztecs is the richest mine, and Bancroft in his
third volume finds the larger part of his space given to the Mexican
religion.

Brinton (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 73, 78), referring to the “Historia de los
Méxicanos por sus Pinturas” of Ramirez de Fuenleal, as printed in the
_Anales del Museo Nacional_ (ii. p. 86), says that in some respects it
is to be considered the most valuable authority which we possess,[1904]
as taken directly from the sacred books of the Aztecs, and as explained
by the most competent survivors of the Conquest.[1905]

We must also look to Ixtlilxochitl and Sahagún as leading sources. From
Sahagún we get the prayers which were addressed to the chief deity,
of various names, but known best, perhaps, as Tezcatlipoca; and these
invocations are translated for us in Bancroft (iii. 199, etc.), who
supposes that, consciously or unconsciously, Sahagún has slipped into
them a certain amount of “sophistication and adaptation to Christian
ideas.” From the lofty side of Tezcatlipoca’s character, Bancroft
(iii. ch. 7) passes to his meaner characteristics as the oppressor of
Quetzalcoatl.

The most salient features of the mythology of the Aztecs arise from
the long contest of Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, the story of which
modified the religion of their followers, and, as Chavero claims,
greatly affected their history.[1906] This struggle, according as the
interpreters incline, stands for some historic or physical rivalry, or
for one between St. Thomas and the heathen;[1907] but Brinton explains
it on his general principles as one between the powers of Light and
Darkness (_Am. Hero Myths_, 65).

The main original sources on the character and career of Quetzalcoatl
are Motolinía, Mendieta, Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, and
these are all summarized in Bancroft (iii. ch. 7).

It has been a question with later writers whether there is a foundation
of history in the legend or myth of Quetzalcoatl. Brinton (_Myths of
the New World_, 180) has perhaps only a few to agree with him when he
calls that hero-god a “pure creature of the fancy, and all his alleged
history nothing but a myth,” and he thinks some confusion has arisen
from the priests of Quetzalcoatl being called by his name.

Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_) takes issue with Brinton in deeming
Quetzalcoatl on the whole an historical person, whom Ixtlilxochitl
connects with the pre-Toltec tribes of Olmeca and Xicalanca, and
whom Torquemada says came in while the Toltecs occupied the country.
Bandelier thinks it safe to say that Quetzalcoatl began his career
in the present state of Hidalgo as a leader of a migration moving
southward, with a principal sojourn at Cholula, introducing arts and a
purer worship. This is substantially the view taken by J. G. Müller,
Prescott, and Wuttke.

[Illustration: QUETZALCOATL.

After a drawing in Cumplido’s Mexican ed. of Prescott’s _Mexico_, vol.
iii. Images of him are everywhere (Nadaillac, 273-74). Cf. Eng. transl.
of Charnay, p. 87.]

Bancroft (iii. 273) finds the _Geschichte der Amer. Urreligionen_
(p. 577) of Müller to present a more thorough examination of the
Quetzalcoatl myth than any other,[1908] but since then it has been
studied at length by Bandelier in his _Archæological Tour_ (p. 170
etc.), and by Brinton in his _Amer. Hero Myths_, ch. 3.[1909]

* * * * *

What Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, ii. 279) calls “the inexplicable
compound, parthenogenetic deity, the hideous, gory Huitzilopochtli”
(Huitziloputzli, Vitziliputzli), the god of war,[1910] the protector of
the Mexicans, was considered by Boturini (_Idea_, p. 60) as a deified
ancient war-chief. Bancroft in his narrative (iii. 289, 294; iv. 559)
quotes the accounts in Sahagún and Torquemada, and (pp. 300-322)
summarizes J. G. Müller’s monograph on this god, which he published in
1847, and which he enlarged when including it in his _Urreligionen_.

Acosta’s description of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli is translated in
Bancroft (iii. 292). Solis follows Acosta, while Herrera copies Gomara,
who was not, as Solis contends, so well informed.

As regards the Votan myth of Chiapas, Brinton tells us something in
his _American Hero Myths_ (212, with references, 215); but the prime
source is the Tzendal manuscript used by Cabrera in his _Teatro
Critico-Americano_.[1911] No complete translation has been made, and
the abstracts are unsatisfactory. Bancroft aids us in this study of
worship in Chiapas (iii. 458), as also in that of Oajaca (iii. 448),
Michoacan[1912] (iii. 445), and Jalisco (iii. 447).

[Illustration: THE MEXICAN TEMPLE.

Reduced from a drawing in Icazbalceta’s _Coleccion de Documentos_,
i. p. 384. There were two usual forms of the Mexican temple: one of
this type, and the other with two niche-like pavilions on the top. Cf.
drawings in Clavigero (Casena, 1780), ii. 26, 34; Eng. tr. by Cullen,
i. 262, 373; Stevens’s Eng. tr. Herrera (London, 1740, vol. ii.).]

“The religion of the Mayas,” says Bancroft (iii. ch. 11), “was
fundamentally the same as that of the Nahuas, though it differed
somewhat in outward forms. Most of the gods were deified heroes....
Occasionally we find very distinct traces of an older sun-worship
which has succumbed to later forms, introduced according to vague
tradition from Anahuac.” The view of Tylor (_Anahuac_, 191) is that the
“civilization,” and consequently the religions, of Mexico and Central
America were originally independent, but that they came much into
contact, and thus modified one another to no small extent.”

Modern scholars are not by any means so much inclined as Las Casas and
the other Catholic fathers were to recognize the dogma of the Trinity
and other Christian notions, which have been thought to be traceable in
what the Maya people in their aboriginal condition held for faith.

The most popular of their deified heroes were Zamná and Cukulcan, not
unlikely the same personage under two names, and quite likely both
are correspondences of Quetzalcoatl. We can find various views and
alternatives on this point among the elder and recent writers. The
belief in community of attributes derives its strongest aid from the
alleged disappearance of Quetzalcoatl in Goazacoalco just at the epoch
when Cukulcan appeared in Yucatan. The centres of Maya worship were at
Izamal, Chichen-Itza, and the island of Cozumel.

The hero-gods of the Mayas is the topic of Brinton’s fourth chapter in
his _American Hero Myths_, with views of their historical relations of
course at variance with those of Bancroft. As respects the material,
he says that “most unfortunately very meagre sources of information
are open to us. Only fragments of their legends and hints of their
history have been saved, almost by accident, from the general wreck of
their civilization.” The heroes are Itzamná, the leader of the first
immigration from the east, through the ocean pathways; and Kukulcan,
the conductor of the second from the west. For the first cycle of
myths Brinton refers to Landa’s _Relation_, Cogolludo’s _Yucatan_, Las
Casas’s _Historia Apologética_, involving the reports of the missionary
Francisco Hernandez, and to Hieronimo Roman’s _De la Republica de las
Indias Occidentales_.

[Illustration: THE TEMPLE OF MEXICO.

After plate (reduced) in Herrera.]

The Kukulcan legends are considered by Brinton to be later in date
and less natural in character, and Hernandez’s Report to Las Casas
is the first record of them. Brinton’s theory of the myths does not
allow him to identify the Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan hero-gods as one
and the same, nor to show that the Aztec and Maya civilizations had
more correspondence than occasional intercourse would produce; but he
thinks the similarity of the statue of “Chac Mool,” unearthed by Le
Plongeon at Chichen-Itza, to another found at Tlaxcala compels us to
believe that some positive connection did exist in parts of the country
(_Anales del Museo Nacional_, i. 270).[1913] “The Nahua impress,”
says Bancroft (iii. 490), “noticeable in the languages and customs of
Nicaragua, is still more strongly marked in the mythology. Instead of
obliterating the older forms of worship, as it seems to have done in
the northern parts of Central America, it has here and there passed by
many of the distinct beliefs held by different tribes, and blended with
the chief elements of a system which is traced to the Muyscas in South
America.”

The main source of the Quiché myths and worship is the _Popul Vuh_,
but Bancroft (iii. 474), who follows it, finds it difficult to make
anything comprehensible out of its confusion of statement. But
prominent among the deities seem to stand Tepeu or Gucumatz, whom it is
the fashion to make the same with Quetzalcoatl, and Hurakan or Tohil,
who indeed stands on a plane above Quetzalcoatl. Brinton (_Myths_,
156), on the contrary, connects Hurakan with Tlaloc, and seems to
identify Tohil with Quetzalcoatl. Bancroft (iii. 477) says that
tradition, name, and attributes connect Tohil and Hurakan, and identify
them with Tlaloc.

[Illustration: TEOYAOMIQUI.

The idol dug up in the Plaza in Mexico is here presented, after a cut,
following Nebel, in Tylor’s _Anahuac_, showing the Mexican goddess of
war, or death. Cf. cut in _American Antiquarian_, Jan., 1883; Powell’s
_First Rept. Bur. Ethn._, 232; Bancroft, iv. 512, 513, giving the front
after Nebel, and the other views after Léon y Gama. Bandelier (_Arch.
Tour_, pl. v) gives a photograph of it as it stands in the court-yard
of the Museo Nacional.

Gallatin (_Am. Ethn. Soc. Trans._, i. 338) describes Teoyaomiqui
as the proper companion of Huitzilopochtli: “The symbols of her
attributes are found in the upper part of the statue; but those from
the waist downwards relate to other deities connected with her or with
Huitzilopochtli.” Tylor (_Anahuac_, 222) says: “The antiquaries think
that the figures in it stand for different personages, and that it
is three gods: Huitzilopochtli the god of war, Teoyaomiqui his wife,
and Mictlantecutli the god of hell.” Léon y Gama calls the statue
Teoyaomiqui, but Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 67, thinks its proper name
is rather Huitzilopochtli. Léon y Gama’s description is summarized in
Bancroft, iii. 399, who cites also what Humboldt (_Vues_, etc., ii.
153, and his pl. xxix) says. Bancroft (iii. 397) speaks of it as “a
huge compound statue, representing various deities, the most prominent
being a certain Teoyaomiqui, who is almost identical with, or at least
a connecting link between, the mother goddess” and Mictlantecutli, the
god of Mictlan, or Hades. Cf. references in Bancroft, iv. 515.]

Brinton’s _Names of the gods in the Kiché myths, a monograph on Central
American mythology_ (Philad. Am. Philos. Soc., 1881), is a special
study of a part of the subject.

Brinton (_Myths_, etc., 184) considers the best authorities on the
mythology of the Muyscas of the Bogota region to be Piedrahita’s
_Historia de las Conquistas del Nuevo Reyno de Granada_ (1668, followed
by Humboldt in his _Vues_) and Simm’s _Noticias historiales de las
Conquistas de Tierra Firme en el Nuevo Reyno de Granada_, given in
Kingsborough, vol. viii.

The mythology of the Quichuas in Peru makes the staple of chap. 5 of
Brinton’s _Amer. Hero-Myths_. Here the corresponding hero-god was
Viracocha. Brinton depends mainly on the _Relacion Anónyma de los
Costumbres Antiguos de los Naturales del Piru, 1615_ (Madrid, 1879);
on Christoval de Molina’s account of the fables and religious customs
of the Incas, as translated by C. R. Markham in the Hakluyt Society
volume, _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_ (London, 1873);
on the _Comentarios reales_ of Garcilasso de la Vega; on the report
made to the viceroy Francisco de Toledo, in 1571, of the responses to
inquiries made in different parts of the country as to the old beliefs
which appear in the “Informacion de las idolatras de los Incas é
Indios,” printed in the _Coleccion de documentos ineditos del archivo
de Indias_, xxi. 198; and in the _Relacion de Antigüedades deste Reyno
del Piru_, by Juan de Santa Cruz Pachicuti.

[Illustration: ANCIENT TEOCALLI, OAXACA, MEXICO.

After a cut in Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_, p. 78.]

Brinton dissents to D’Orbigny’s view in his _L’homme Américaine_, that
the Quichua religion is mainly borrowed from the older mythology of the
Aymaras.

Francisco de Avila’s “Errors and False Gods of the Indians of
Huarochiri” (1608), edited by Markham for the Hakluyt Society in the
volume called _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, is a
treatment of a part of the subject.

Adolf Bastian’s _Ein Jahr auf Reisen—Kreuzfahrten zum Sammelbehuf aus
Transatlantischen Feldern der Ethnologie_, being the first volume of
his _Die Culturländer des Alten America_ (Berlin, 1878), has a section
“Aus Religion and Sitte des Alten Peru.”

VI.

ARCHÆOLOGICAL MUSEUMS AND PERIODICALS.

_By the Editor._

THE oldest of existing American societies dealing with the scientific
aspects of knowledge is the American Philosophical Society of
Philadelphia, whose _Transactions_ began in 1769, and made six volumes
to 1809. A second series was begun in 1818.[1914] What are called
the _Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee_ make two
volumes (1819, 1838), the first of which contains contributions by
Heckewelder and P. S. Duponceau on the history and linguistics of the
Lenni Lenape. Its _Proceedings_ began in 1838. The American Academy
of Arts and Sciences was instituted at Boston in 1780, a part of its
object being “to promote and encourage the knowledge of the antiquities
of America,”[1915] and its series of _Memoirs_ began in 1783,[1916]
and its _Proceedings_ in 1846. These societies have only, as a rule,
incidentally, and not often till of late years, illustrated in their
publications the antiquities of the new world; but the American
Antiquarian Society was founded in 1812 at Worcester, Mass., by Isaiah
Thomas, with the express purpose of elucidating this department of
American history. It began the _Archæologia Americana_ in 1820, and
some of the volumes are still valuable, though they chiefly stand for
the early development by Atwater, Gallatin, and others of study in this
direction. In the first volume is an account of the origin and design
of the society, and this is also set forth in the memoir of Thomas
prefixed to its reprint of his _History of Printing in America_, which
is a part of the series. The _Proceedings_ of the society were begun in
1849, and they have contained some valuable papers on Central American
subjects. The Boston Society of Natural History[1917] published the
_Boston Journal of Natural History_ from 1834 to 1863, and in 1866
began its _Memoirs_. Col. Whittlesey gave in its first volume a paper
on the weapons and military character of the race of the mounds,
and subsequent volumes have had other papers of an archæological
nature; but they have formed a small part of its contributions. Its
_Proceedings_ have of late years contained some of the best studies of
palæolithic man. The American Ethnological Society, founded by Gallatin
(New York), began its exclusive work in a series of _Transactions_
(1845-53, vols. i., ii., and one number of vol. iii.), but it was
not of long continuance, though it embraced among its contributors
the conspicuous names of Gallatin, Schoolcraft, Catherwood, Squier,
Rafn, S. G. Morton, J. R. Bartlett, and others. Its _Bulletin_ was
not continued beyond a single volume (1860-61).[1918] The society was
suspended in 1871.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science began its
publications with the _Proceedings_ of its Philadelphia meeting in
1848. Questions of archæology formed, however, but a small portion of
its inquiries[1919] till the formation of a section on Anthropology a
few years ago.

The American Geographical Society has published a _Bulletin_
(1852-56); _Journal_ (or _Transactions_) (1859), etc., and
_Proceedings_ (1862-64). Some of the papers have been of archæological
interest.

The Anthropological Institute of New York printed its transactions in a
_Journal_ (one vol. only, 1872-73).

The Archæological Institute of America was founded in Boston in 1879,
and has given the larger part of its interest to classical archæology.
The first report of its executive committee said respecting the field
in the new world: “The study of American archæology relates, indeed,
to the monuments of a race that never attained to a high degree of
civilization, and that has left no trustworthy records of continuous
history.... From what it was and what it did, nothing is to be
learned that has any direct bearing on the progress of civilization.
Such interest as attaches to it is that which it possesses in common
with other early and undeveloped races of mankind.” Appended to this
report was Lewis H. Morgan’s “Houses of the American Aborigines,
with suggestions for the exploration of the ruins in New Mexico,”
etc.,—advancing his well-known views of the communal origin of the
southern ruins. Under the auspices of the Institute, Mr. A. F.
Bandelier, a disciple of Morgan, was sent to New Mexico for the
study of the Pueblos, and his experiences are described in the
second _Report_ of the Institute. In their third _Report_ (1882) the
committee of the Institute say: “The vast work of American archæology
and anthropology is only begun.... Other nations, with more or less
of success, are trying to do our work on our soil. It is time that
Americans bestir themselves in earnest upon a field which it would
be a shame to abandon to the foreigner.” Still under the pay of the
Institute, Mr. Bandelier, in 1881, devoted his studies to the remains
at Mexico, Cholula, Mitla, and the ancient life of those regions. At
the same time, Aymé, then American consul at Merida, was commissioned
to explore certain regions of Yucatan, but the results were not
fortunate.

The Institute began in 1881 the publication of an _American Series_ of
its _Papers_, the first number of which embodied Bandelier’s studies
of the Pueblos, and the second covered his Mexican researches. In 1885
the _American Journal of Archæology_ was started at Baltimore as the
official organ of the Institute, and occasional papers on American
subjects have been given in its pages. The editors were called upon
to define more particularly their relations to archæology in America
in the number for Sept., 1888. In this they say: “The archæology of
America is busied with the life and work of a race or races of men in
an inchoate, rudimentary, and unformed condition, who never raised
themselves, even at their highest point, as in Mexico and Peru,
above a low stage of civilization, and never showed the capacity of
steadily progressive development.... These facts limit and lower the
interest which attaches ... to crude and imperfect human life.... A
comparison of their modes of life and thought with those of other races
in a similar stage of development in other parts of the world, in
ancient and modern times, is full of interest as exhibiting the close
similarity of primitive man in all regions, resulting from the sameness
of his first needs, in his early struggle for existence.” The editors
rest their reasons for giving prominence to classical archæology upon
the necessity of affording by such complemental studies the means of
comparison in archæological results, which can but advance to a higher
plane the methods and inductions of the prehistoric archæology of
America.

The American Folk-Lore Society was founded in Jan., 1888, and _The
Journal of American Folk-Lore_ was immediately begun. A large share
of its papers is likely to cover the popular tales of the American
aborigines.

The Anthropological Society of Washington is favorably situated to
avail itself of the museums and apparatus of the American government,
and members of the Geological Survey and Ethnological Bureau have
been among the chief contributors to its _Transactions_,[1920] which
in January, 1888, were merged in a more general publication, _The
American Anthropologist_. A National Geographic Society was organized
in Washington in 1888.

There are numerous local societies throughout the United States whose
purpose, more or less, is to cover questions of archæological import.
Those that existed prior to 1876 are enumerated in Scudder’s _Catalogue
of Scientific Serials_; but it was not easy always to draw the line
between historical associations and those verging upon archæological
methods.[1921]

The oldest of the scientific periodicals in the United States to
devote space to questions of anthropology is Silliman’s _American
Journal of Science and Arts_ (1818, etc.). The _American Naturalist_,
founded in 1867, also entered the field of archæology and anthropology.
The same may be said in some degree of the _Popular Science Monthly_
(1877, etc.), _Science_ (1883), and the _Kansas City Review_. The chief
repository of such contributions, however, since 1878, has been _The
American Antiquarian_ (Chicago), edited by Stephen D. Peet. Its papers
are, unluckily, of very uneven value.[1922]

The best organized work has been done in the United States by the
Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology, in Cambridge,
Mass., and by certain departments of the Federal government at
Washington.

The Peabody Museum resulted from a gift of George Peabody, an American
banker living in London, who instituted it in 1866 as a part of Harvard
University.[1923] It was fortunate in its first curator, Dr. Jeffries
Wyman, who brought unusual powers of comprehensive scrutiny to its
work.[1924] He died in 1874, and was succeeded by one of his and of
Agassiz’s pupils, Frederick W. Putnam, who was also placed in the chair
of archæology in the university in 1886. The _Reports_, now twenty-two
in number, and the new series of _Special Papers_ are among the best
records of progress in archæological science.

The creation of the Smithsonian Institution in 1846, under the bequest
of an Englishman, James Smithson, and the devotion of a sum of about
$31,000 a year at that time arising from that gift, first put the
government of the United States in a position “to increase and diffuse
knowledge among men.”[1925]

The second _Report_ of the Regents in 1848 contains approvals of a
manuscript by E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, which had been offered to
the Institution for publication, and which had been commended by Albert
Gallatin, Edward Robinson, John Russell Bartlett, W. W. Turner, S. G.
Morton, and George P. Marsh. Thus an important archæological treatise,
_The Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, comprising the
results of extensive original surveys and explorations_ (Washington,
1848), became the first of the _Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge_. The subsequent volumes of the series have contained other
important treatises in similar fields. Foremost among them may be
named those of Squier on the Aboriginal Monuments of New York (vol.
ii., 1851); Col. Whittlesey on _The Ancient Works in Ohio_ (vol. iii.,
1852); S. R. Riggs’ _Dakota Grammar and Dictionary_ (vol. iv., 1852);
I. A. Lapham’s _Antiquities of Wisconsin_ (vol. vii., 1855); S. F.
Haven’s _Archæology of the United States_ (vol. viii., 1856); Brantz
Mayer’s _Mexican History and Archæology_ (vol. ix., 1857); Whittlesey
on _Ancient Mining on Lake Superior_ (vol. xiii., 1863); Morgan’s
_Systems of Consanguinity of the human family_ (vol. xvii., 1871);—not
to name lesser papers. To supplement this quarto series, another in
octavo was begun in 1862, called _Miscellaneous Collections_; and in
this form there have appeared J. M. Stanley’s _Catalogue of portraits
of No. Amer. Indians_ (vol. ii., 1862); a _Catalogue of photographic
portraits of the No. Amer. Indians_ (vol. xiv., 1878).

Of much more interest to the anthropologist has been the series of
_Annual Reports_ with their appended papers,—such as Squier on _The
Antiquities of Nicaragua_ (1851); W. W. Turner on _Indian Philology_
(1852); S. S. Lyon on _Antiquities from Kentucky_ (1858), and many
others.

The sections of correspondence and minor papers in these reports soon
began to include communications about the development of archæological
research in various localities. They began to be more orderly arranged
under the sub-heading of Ethnology in the Report for 1867, and this
heading was changed to Anthropology in the _Report_ for 1879. Charles
Rau (d. 1887) had been a leading contributor in this department, and
no. 440 of the Smithsonian publications was made up of his _Articles on
Anthropological Subjects, contributed from 1863 to 1877_ (Washington,
1882). No. 421 is Geo. H. Boehmer’s _Index to Anthropological Articles
in the publications of the Smithsonian Institution_ (Washington, 1881).
Among the later papers those of O. T. Mason of the Anthropological
Department of the National Museum are conspicuous.

The last series is the _Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology_, placed by
Congress in the charge of the Smithsonian. The _Reports of the American
Historical Association_ will soon be begun under the same auspices.

Major J. W. Powell, the director of the Bureau of Ethnology, said that
its purpose was “to organize anthropologic research in America.”[1926]
It published its first report in 1881, and this and the later reports
have had for contents, beside the summary of work constituting the
formal report, the following papers:—

Vol. i.: J. W. POWELL. The evolution of language.—Sketch of the
mythology of the North American Indians.—Wyandot government.—On
limitations to the use of some anthropologic data.—H. C. YARROW.
A further contribution to the study of mortuary customs among the
North American Indians.—E. S. HOLDEN. Studies in Central American
picture-writing.—C. C. ROYCE. Cessions of land by Indian tribes to
the United States: illustrated by those in Indiana.—G. MALLERY.
Sign language among North American Indians compared with that among
other peoples and deaf-mutes.—J. C. PILLING. Catalogue of linguistic
manuscripts in the library.—Illustration of the method of recording
Indian languages. From the manuscripts of J. O. Dorsey, A. S. Gatschet,
and S. R. Riggs.

Vol. ii.: F. H. CUSHING. Zuñi fetiches.—_Mrs._ E. A. SMITH. Myths
of the Iroquois.—H. W. HENSHAW. Animal carvings from mounds of the
Mississippi Valley.—W. MATTHEWS. Navajo silversmiths.—W. H. HOLMES. Art
in shell of the ancient Americans.—J. STEVENSON. Illustrated catalogue
of the collections obtained from the Indians of New Mexico and Arizona
in 1879;—Illustrated catalogue of the collections obtained from the
Indians of New Mexico in 1880.

Vol. iii.: CYRUS THOMAS. Notes on certain Maya and Mexican
manuscripts.—W. (C.) H. DALL On masks, labrets, and certain aboriginal
customs, with an inquiry into the bearing of their geographical
distribution.—J. O. DORSEY. Omaha sociology.—WASHINGTON MATTHEWS.
Navajo weavers.—W. H. HOLMES. Prehistoric textile fabrics of the United
States, derived from impressions on pottery;—Illustrated catalogue of a
portion of the collections made by the Bureau of Ethnology during the
field season of 1881.—JAMES STEVENSON. Illustrated catalogue of the
collections obtained from the Pueblos of Zuñi, New Mexico, and Wolpi,
Arizona, in 1881.

Vol. iv.: GARRICK MALLERY. Pictographs of the North American
Indians.—W. H. HOLMES. Pottery of the ancient Pueblos;—Ancient
pottery of the Mississippi Valley;—Origin and development of form and
ornament in ceramic art.—F. H. CUSHING.. A study of Pueblo pottery as
illustrative of Zuñi culture growth.

Vol. v.: CYRUS THOMAS. Burial mounds of the northern sections of the
United States.—C. C. ROYCE. The Cherokee nation of Indians.—WASHINGTON
MATTHEWS. The Mountain Chant: a Navajo ceremony.—CLAY MACCAULEY. The
Seminole Indians of Florida.—_Mrs._ TILLY E. STEVENSON. The religious
life of the Zuñi child.

* * * * *

What is known as the United States National Museum is also in charge of
the Smithsonian Institution,[1927] and here are deposited the objects
of archæological and historical interest secured by the government
explorations and by other means. The linguistic material is kept
in the Bureau of Ethnology. The skulls and physiological material,
illustrative of prehistoric times, are deposited in the Army Medical
Museum, under the Surgeon-General’s charge.

Major Powell, while in charge of the Geographical and Geological Survey
of the Rocky Mountain Region, had earlier prepared five volumes of
_Contributions to Ethnology_, all but the second of which have been
published. The first volume (1877) contained W. H. Dall’s “Tribes of
the Extreme Northwest” and George Gibbs’ “Tribes of Western Washington
and Northwestern Oregon.” The third (1877): Stephen Powers’ “Tribes
of California.” The fourth (1881): Lewis H. Morgan’s “Houses and
house life of the American Aborigines.” The fifth (1882): Charles
Rau’s “Lapidarian sculpture of the Old World and in America,” Robert
Fletcher’s “Prehistoric trephining and cranial Amulets,” and Cyrus
Thomas on the Troano Manuscript, with an introduction by D. G. Brinton.

Among the _Reports_ of the geographical and geological explorations
and surveys west of the 100th meridian conducted by Capt. Geo. M.
Wheeler, the seventh volume, _Report on Archæological and Ethnological
Collections from the vicinity of Santa Barbara, California, and from
ruined pueblos of Arizona and New Mexico and certain Interior Tribes_
(Washington, 1879), was edited by F. W. Putnam, and contains papers
on the ethnology of Southern California, wood and stone implements,
sculptures, musical instruments, beads, etc.; the Pueblos of New
Mexico, their inhabitants, architecture, customs, cliff houses and
other ruins, skeletons, etc.; with an _Appendix_ on Linguistics,
containing forty Vocabularies of Pueblo and other Western Indian
Languages and their classification into seven families.

The _Reports_ of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the
Territories, under the charge of F. V. Hayden, brought to us in those
of 1874-76 the knowledge of the cliff-dwellers, and they contain among
the miscellaneous publications such papers as W. Matthews’ _Ethnography
and Philology of the Hidatsa Indians_ and W. H. Jackson’s _Descriptive
Catalogue of photographs of No. Amer. Indians_.

There are other governmental documents to be noted: _The Exploration
of the Red River of Louisiana in 1852_, by R. B. Marcy and G. B.
McClellan (Washington, 1854), contains a vocabulary of the Comanches
and Witchitas, with some general remarks by W. W. Turner. There is help
to be derived from the geographical details, and from something on
ethnology, in the _Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad
from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean_ (Washington, 1856-60,
in 12 vols.); in W. H. Emory’s _Report on the United States and Mexican
Boundary Survey_ (Washington, 1857-58, in 2 vols.); J. H. Simpson’s
_Report of Explorations across the great basin of the territory of Utah
in 1859_ (Washington, 1876); J. N. Macomb’s _Report of the Exploring
Expedition from Santa Fé to the Junction of the Grand and Green Rivers
of the Great Colorado of the West in 1859_ (Washington, 1876).

There were also published, under the auspices of the government,
the conglomerate and very unequal work of Henry R. Schoolcraft,
_Historical and Statistical Information respecting the history,
conditions, and prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United
States, collected and prepared under the direction of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs_ (Philad., 1851-57, in 6 vols., with a trade
edition of the same date). An act of Congress (March 3, 1847)
authorized its publication. As reissued it is called _Archives
of aboriginal knowledge, containing original papers laid before
Congress, respecting the Indian tribes of the United States_
(Philadelphia, 1860, ’68, 6 vols.). It has the following divisions:
General history.—Manners and customs.—Antiquities.—Geography.—Tribal
organization, etc.—Intellectual capacity.—Topical history.—Physical
type.—Language.—Art.—Religion and mythology.—Demonology, magic,
etc.—Medical knowledge.—Condition and prospects.—Statistics and
population.—Biography.—Literature.—Post-Columbian history.—Economy and
statistics. An edition of vols. 1-5 (1856) is called _Ethnological
researches respecting the Red Men of America, Information respecting
the history_, etc. The sixth volume is in effect a summary of the
preceding five.[1928]

At a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, a committee was charged with preparing a memorial to Congress,
urging action to insure the preservation of certain national monuments.
There is a summary of their report in _Science_, xii. p. 101.

* * * * *

Of all European countries, the most has been done in France, by way of
periodical system and corporate organizations, to advance the study
of American anthropology, ethnology, and archæology. The _Annales des
voyages, de la géographie et de l’histoire, traduits de toutes les
langues Européennes; des relations originales, inédites_,[1929] the
publication of which was begun by Malte-Brun in 1808 and continued
to 1814, and the _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, begun in 1819
and continued with a slightly varying title till 1870, are sources
occasionally of much importance. At a later day, Edouard Lartet and
others have used the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_ as a medium
for their publications. We hardly trace here, however, any corporate
movement before the institution of the Société de Géographie de Paris
in 1820. In 1824 it issued the first volume of its _Recueil de Voyages
et de Mémoires_, which reached seven volumes in 1864, and had included
(vol. ii.) an account of Palenqué and the researches of Warden on the
antiquities of the United States. Since this society began the issue
of its _Bulletin_ in 1827, it has occasionally given assistance in the
study of American archæology.

The earliest distinctive periodical on the subject was the _Revue
Américaine_, of which, in 1826-27, three volumes, in monthly parts,
were published in Paris.[1930] In 1857 a movement was inaugurated
which engaged first and last the coöperation of some eminent scholars
in these studies, like Aubin, Buschmann, V. A. Malte-Brun, Abbé
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Jomard, Alphonse Pinart, Cortambert, Léon de
Rosny, Waldeck, Abbé Domenech, Charencey, etc. The active movers were
first known as the Comité d’Archéologie Américaine, and they issued
an _Annuaire_ (1863-67) and one volume, at least, of _Actes_ (1865),
as well as a collection of _Mémoires sur l’archéologie Américaine_
(1865). This organization soon became known as the Société Américaine
de France, and under the auspices of this name there has been a series
of publications of varying designation.[1931] Its _Annuaire_ began
in 1868, and has been continued. The general name of _Archives de la
Société Américaine de France_ covers its other publications, which
more or less coincide with the _Revue Orientale et Américaine par Léon
de Rosny_, the first series of which appeared in Paris in 10 vols.,
in 1859-65, followed by a second, the first volume of which (vol. xi.
of the whole) is called _Revue Américaine, publié sous les auspices
de la Société d’Ethnographie et du Comité d’Archéologie Américaine_,
and is at the same time the fourth volume of the _Actes de la Société
d’Ethnographie Américaine et Orientale_. The whole series is sometimes
cited as the _Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie_.[1932] The
series, already referred to, of the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de
France_ is made up thus: Première série: vol. i., _Revue Orientale et
Américaine_; ii., _Revue Américaine_; iii. and iv., _Revue Orientale et
Américaine_.[1933] The nouvelle série has no sub-titles, and the three
volumes bear date 1875, 1876, 1884.

The student of comparative anthropology will resort to the _Materiaux
pour l’histoire positive et philosophique_ (later _primitive et
naturelle_) _de l’homme_, the publication of which was begun at Paris
in 1864 by Gabriel de Mortillet, and has been continued by Trutot,
Cartailhac, Chautre, and others. This publication has contained
abstracts of the proceedings of an annual gathering in Paris, whose
_Comptes rendu_ have been printed at length as of the _Congrès
international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques_ (1865,
etc.).[1934]

Léon de Rosny published but a single volume of a projected series,
_Archives paléographiques de l’Orient et de l’Amérique_ (Paris,
1870-71), which contains some papers on Mexican picture-writing. Rosny
and others, who had been active in the movement begun by the Comité
d’Archéologie Américaine, were now instrumental in organizing the
periodical gathering in different cities of Europe, which is known
as the _Congrès international des Américanistes_. The first session
was held at Nancy in 1875, and its _Compte Rendu_ was published
in two volumes (Nancy and Paris, 1876). The second meeting was at
Luxembourg in 1877 (_Compte Rendu_, Paris, 1878, in 2 vols.); the third
at Brussels in 1879 (_Compte Rendu_); the fourth at Madrid in 1881
(_Congreso internacional de Américanistas. Cuarta reunion_, Madrid,
1881); the fifth at Copenhagen (_Compte Rendu_, Copenhagen, 1884); and
others at Chalons-sur-Marne, Turin, and Berlin. The papers are printed
in the language in which they were read.

The _Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie_ (founded in 1859) began
to appear in 1881, and its third volume (1882) is entitled _Les
Documents écrits de l’Antiquité Américaine, compte rendu d’une mission
scientifique en Espagne et en Portugal, par Léon de Rosny, avec une
carte et 10 planches_. The fourth volume is P. de Lucy-Fossarieu’s
_Ethnographie de l’Amérique Antarctique_ (Paris, 1884). In the second
volume of a new series there is an account by V. Devaux of the work in
American ethnology done by Lucien de Rosny as a preface to a posthumous
work[1935] of Lucien de Rosny, _Les Antilles, étude d’Ethnographie et
d’Archéologique Américaines_ (Paris, 1886).

Latterly there has been a consolidation of interests among kindred
societies under the name of Institution Ethnographique, whose initial
_Rapport annuel sur les récompenses et encouragements décernés en 1883_
was published at Paris in 1883. This society now comprises the Société
d’Ethnographie, Société Américaine de France, Athénée Oriental, and
Société des Etudes Japonaises.

* * * * *

In England, organized efforts for the record of knowledge began with
the creation of the Royal Society, though certain sporadic attempts
had earlier been known. America was represented among its founders
in the younger John Winthrop, and Cotton Mather was a contributor
to its transactions, and there has occasionally been a paper in its
publications of interest to American archæologists.[1936] The Society
of Antiquaries began to print its _Archæologia_ in 1779 and its
_Proceedings_ in 1848, and the American student finds some valuable
papers in them. The British Association for the Advancement of Science
began its _Reports_ with the meeting of 1831, and it has had among its
divisions a section of anthropology. In 1830 the Royal Geographical
Society began its _Journal_ with a preliminary issue (1830-31, in
2 vols.), though its regular series first came out in 1832. Its
_Proceedings_ appeared in 1855, and both publications are a conspicuous
source in many ways relating to early American history.[1937] Closely
connected with its interest has been the publication begun under the
editing of C. R. Markham, and called successively _Ocean Highways_
(1869-73, vol. i.-v.), with an added title of _Geographical Review_
(1873-74), and lastly as _The Geographical Magazine_ (vol. i.-iii.,
1874-76).

The Ethnological Society published four volumes of a _Journal_[1938]
between 1844 and 1856, and resuming published two more volumes in
1869-70. Its contents are mainly of interest in comparative study,
though there are a few American papers, like D. Forbes’s on the Aymara
Indians of Peru. This society’s _Transactions_ was issued in two
volumes, 1859-60; and again in seven volumes, 1861-69.

Meanwhile, some gentlemen, not content with the restricted field of
the Ethnological Society, founded in London an Anthropological Society,
which began the publication of _Memoirs_ (1863-69, in 3 vols.); and in
this publication Bollaert issued his papers on the population of the
new world, on the astronomy of the red man, on American paleography, on
Maya hieroglyphics, on the anthropology of the new world, on Peruvian
graphic records,—not to name other papers by different writers. The
_Transactions_ and _Journal_ of the society, as well as the _Popular
Magazine of Anthropology_ (1866), made part in one form or another of
the _Anthropological Review_, begun in 1863, and discontinued in 1870,
when the _Journal of Anthropology_ succeeded, but ceased the next year.
The _Proceedings_ of the society make one volume, 1873-75, under the
title of _Anthropologia_, and the society also maintained a series
of translations of foreign treatises, the first of which was Theodor
Waitz’s _Introduction to Anthropology_, ed. from the German by J. F.
Collingwood (1863); and this was followed by a version by James Hunt,
the president of the society, of Professor Carl Vogt’s _Lectures on
Man, his place in Creation and in the history of the Earth_ (1864), and
by other works of Broca, Pouchet, Blumenbach, etc.

What is known as the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland united some of these separate endeavors and began its _Journal_
in 1871. The _Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society_ has also at
times been the channel by which some of the leading anthropologists
have published their views, and a few papers of archæological import
have been given in the _Transactions_ (1884, etc.) of the Royal
Historical Society. Professedly broader relations belong to the
_Transactions_ (_Comptes rendus_) of the International Congress of
prehistoric (anthropology and) archæology, which began its sessions in
1866.[1939] The latest summary is the _Archæological Review, a journal
of historic and prehistoric antiquities_, edited by G. L. Gomme, of
which the first number appeared in March, 1888, which has for a main
feature a bibliographical record of past and current archæological
literature.[1940]

It is, however, in the volumes of the Hakluyt Society’s publications,
beginning in 1847, in the annotated reprint of the early writers on
American nations and on the European contact with them, that the most
signal service has been done in England to the study of the early
history of the new world. They are often referred to in the present
History.

* * * * *

In Germany a _Magazin für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen_ was
published at Zittau as early as 1788-1791.

Wagner published at Vienna, in 1794-96, two volumes of _Beiträge zur
philosophischen Anthropologie_; and Heynig’s _Psychologisches (zugleich
Anthropologisches) Magazin_ was published at Altenburg in 1796-97.

The Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaft began its _Abhandlungen_ in
1804, but it was not till long after that date that Buschmann and
others used it as a channel of their views.

Vertuch’s _Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik_ (Weimar, 1807) only
reached a single number.

The _Zeitschrift für physische Aerzte_, which was published by Nasse,
at Leipzig, 1818-22, was succeeded by the _Zeitschrift für die
Anthropologie_ (Leipzig, 1823-24), and this was followed by a single
volume, _Jahrbücher für Anthropologie_ (Leipzig, 1830).

Bran’s _Ethnographisches Archiv_ was published at Jena from 1818 to
1829.

It was not till after 1860 that the new interest began to manifest
itself, though Fechner’s _Centralblatt für Naturwissenschaften und
Anthropologie_ was published at Leipzig in 1853-54.

Ecker’s _Archiv für Anthropologie_ was published at Braunschweig
in 1866-68, which came in 1870 under the direction of the Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, which
also began a _Correspondenzblatt_ in 1870, and a series, _Allgemeine
Versammlung_, in 1873. This is the most important of the German
societies.

Bastian’s _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_ was begun at Berlin in 1869, and
later added a _Supplement_.

The Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Vienna began its _Mittheilungen_
in 1870; and in 1887 the Prähistorische Commission of the Kais.
Akad. der Wissenschaften at Vienna printed the first number of its
_Mittheilungen_.

The _Verein für Anthropologie_ in Leipzig published but a single number
of a _Bericht_ in 1871.

The Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte continued its _Verhandlungen_ for 1871-72 only; and the
Göttinger Anthropologischer Verein made but a bare beginning (1874) of
its _Mittheilungen_.

The _Bericht_ of the Museum für Völkerkunde was begun in Leipzig in
1874.

The Münchener Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte began the publication of _Beiträge_ in 1876.

In all these publications there have been papers interesting to
American archæologists, if only in a comparative way, and at times
American subjects have been frequent, especially in later years. The
publications of zoölogical and geographical societies have in some
respects been at times of equal interest, but it has not been thought
worth while to enumerate them.[1941]

The Königliche Museum at Berlin has a considerable collection of
American antiquities, which has been fostered by Humboldt and others,
and the ethnological department has made some important publications
like those relating to _Amerika’s Nordwestküste_.[1942]

Waitz in his _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (vol. iii.; _Die
Amerikaner_, Th. i., Leipzig, 1862) has enumerated the literature of
American anthropology upon which he depended.

* * * * *

The interest in most of the other European countries is more remotely
American. The Museum of Ethnography at St. Petersburg is not without
some objects of interest.[1943]

In Sweden the Antropologiska Sällskapet of Stockholm began a
_Tidsskrift_ in 1875; but it affords little assistance to the
Americanist except in comparative study.[1944]

The student will find some suggestions in a little tract by J. J. A.
Worsaae, _De l’organisation des musées historico-archéologiques dans le
Nord et ailleurs. Traduit par E. Beauvois_ (Copenhagen, 1885), which is
extracted from the _Mémoires de la société royale des antiquaires de
Nord, 1885_.

There has begun recently in Leyden an _Internationales Archiv für
Ethnographie. Herausg. von Krist. Bahnson, Guido Cora [etc.]_ (Leiden,
1888).

In Italy the _Archivio per l’Antropologia et la Etnologia_ was begun at
Florence in 1871, and was later made the organ of the Società Italiana
di Antropologia di Etnologia. There is an occasional paper in the
_Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana_, published at Rome.

In Spain the Sociedad Antropológica Española began at Madrid the
publication of its _Revista de Antropologia_ in 1875.

The session of the Congrès des Américanistes at Madrid in 1881 gave a
new life in Spain to the study of American archæology and history, and
out of this impulse there was begun a _Biblioteca de los Americanistas,
publícala D. Justo Zaragoza; Editor D. Luis Navarro_; and the series
has been begun with the _Recordacion florida, discurso del reino de
Guatemala_, an hitherto unpublished work (1690) of Francisco Antonio
de Fuentes y Guzmán, edited by Justo Zaragoza; and with the _Historia
de Venezuela_, being a third edition of the work of José de Oviedo y
Baños, edited by C. F. Duro.

The Museo Nacional in Mexico has grown to have a proper
importance,[1945] since the Mexican government has prevented the
further exportation of archæological relics. It was founded in 1824
by Fathers Icaza and Gondra, but it owes its creation largely to the
skill of Professor Gumesindo Mendoza, its curator, by whose death it
lost much.[1946] There is a tendency to draw to it other collections.
There was a beginning made to publish illustrations of the relics in
the museum sixty years ago, but it came to little,[1947] and it was
not until recently the publication of _Anales del Museo Nacional de
Méjico_ was begun that there seemed to be a proper effort made. The
periodicals _Revista Mexicana_ (1835), and _Museo Mexicano_ (1843-45)
have done something to illustrate the subject,—not to name others of
less importance. The principal periodical source farther south, the
_Registro Yucatéco_, only ran to four volumes, published at Merida in
1845-46.

The most conspicuous archæological repository in South America is that
of the National Museum at Rio de Janeiro, whose published _Mémoires_
contain important contributions to Brazilian Archæology.

* * * * *

_The editor must be understood as approaching the purely archæological
side of the study of Aboriginal America, as a student of the literature
pertaining to it, rather than as a critic of phenomena. He has not
proceeded even in this course without consultation with Professors
Putnam, Haynes, and Brinton, with Mr. Lucien Carr and with Señor
Icazbalceta._

INDEX.

[Reference is commonly made but once to a book, if repeatedly mentioned
in the text; but other references are made when additional information
about the book is conveyed.]

AA, VAN DER, _Voyagien_, xxxv.

Abancay, 236.

Abbot, C. C., associates the rude implements of Trenton with Eskimos,
106, 366;
his discoveries in the Delaware gravels considered, 330 _et seq._;
_Implements in the river-drift at Trenton_, 333;
_Supposed palæolithic implements from the valley of the Delaware_,
334, 388;
on the pre-Indian race, 336;
importance of his discoveries, 356;
on the origin of Americans, 369;
on the tertiary man, 387;
researches in the Trenton gravels, 388;
finds a molar tooth, 388;
and a human jaw, 388;
_Antiq. of Man in the Delaware Valley_, 388;
_Evidences of the Antiq. of Man_, 388;
on archæological frauds, 403;
_Primitive Industry_, 358, 416;
on Atlantic coast pottery, 419.

Abbott, _Brief Description_, 109.

Abelin, J. P., _Theatrum Europeum_, xxxiii.
_See_ Gottfried, J. L.

Abenaki, 322.

Abert, J. W., _Examination of New Mexico_, 396.

Acagchemem, 328.

Acaltecs, 191.

Achilles Tatius, _Isagoge_, 8.

Acolhua, forms a confederacy, 147.

Acolhuacan conquered, 147.

Acoma, 396.

Acora, burial-tower at, 248;
cut, 249.

Acosta, José de, in De Bry, xxxii;
_East and West Indies_, 45, 262;
_Historia_, 155, 262;
corresponds with Tobar, 155;
in Peru, 262;
_Concilium Limense_, 268;
_Nueva Granada_, 282.

Adair, Jas., _Amer. Indians_, 116, 320, 424;
on the lost tribes, 116;
on the mounds, 398.

Adam, Lucien, on Fousang, 80;
opposes Irish connection with Mexico, 83;
on the Eskimo language, 107;
on the Quichua, 281;
criticises Horatio Hale, 422;
edits the Taensa grammar, 426;
_Le Taensa_, 426;
_Etudes sur six langues_, 425, 427;
_Lengua Chiquita_, 425;
_Examen grammatical_, 425.

Adam of Bremen on Vinland, 89;
_Hist. Eccles._, 89, 94.

Adam, a race earlier than, 384.

Adams, Davenport, _Beneath the Surface_, 412.

Adelung, J. C., xxxv, 422.

Adhémer, _Rev. de la Mer_, 387.

Aelian, _Varia Historia_, 21, 40, 42.

Aeneas Silvius, 26.

Æschylus, _Prometheus Bound_, 13.

Africa, ancient views of its extension south of the equator, 7, 10;
circumnavigated, 7;
migrations from, to America, 116;
its people in Yucatan, 370.

Agassiz, Alex., _Cruises of the Blake_, 17.

Agassiz, Louis, on the autochthonous American man, 373;
portrait, 373;
his views attacked, 374;
on the earliest land above water, 384;
_Geol. Sketches_, 384.

Agatharcides, _Geography_, 34.

Agnese map (1554), 53.

Agnew, S. A., 410.

Agriculture in pre-Spanish America, 173, 417;
in Peru, 252.

Ahuitzotl, 148.

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty, 306.

Alabama, shell-heaps, 393;
mounds, 410.

Alaguilac language, 428.

Alaska, 77;
caves, 391;
Indians, 328.

Albany, treaty at (1674), 304;
(1684), 304.

Albinus, P., 370.

Albornoz, J. de, _Lengua Chiapaneca_, 425.

Albyn, Cornelis, _Nieuwe Weerelt_, xxv.

Alcavisa, 224.

Alcedo, Ant. de, _Bibl. Amer._, ii.

Alcobasa, 265.

Aleutian islands, as a route from Asia, 78;
caves, 391;
shell-heaps, 393.

Alexander, C. A., on the Royal Society, 442.

Algonquins, trace of the Northmen among, 99;
hero-gods, 430;
legends of, 431.

Allan, John, his library, xiii.

Allard, Latour, 192.

Allday, Jacob, 107.

Allen, Chas., _Stockbridge Indians_, 323.

Allen, Edw. G., iv.

Allen, F. A., 379;
_Polynesian Antiq._, 82.

Allen, Harrison, 201.

Allen, Joel A., _Works on the orders of Cete, etc._, 107.

Allen, Zachariah, _Condition of Indians_, 323.

Allibone, S. A., xii.

Alligator mound, 409.

Allouez, reference to copper mines, 417.

Alloys of metals, 418.

Almaraz, R., _Memoria_, 182.

Alpacas, 213, 253.

Alsop, Richard, 328.

Alzate y Ramirez, J. A., _Xochicalco_, 180.

Amaquemecan, 139.

Amat de San Filippo, Pietro, _Planisferio del 1436_, 56.

Amautas, 223, 241.

Amegluno, F., _La Antigüedad del Hombre en la Plata_, 390.

America, early descriptions of, xix;
early voyages to, xix;
how far known to the ancients, 1, 15, 22, 29;
held to be Atlantis, 16;
to be the land of Meropes, 22;
men supposed to reach Europe from, 26;
early references to, 40;
Egyptian visits, 41;
Phœnician, 41;
Tyrian, 41;
Carthaginian, 41;
Asiatic connection, 59, 76;
Basques in, 75;
early visits by drifting vessels, 75;
voyage to Fousang, 78;
maps of routes from Asia, 81;
by the Polynesian islands, 81;
state of culture reached in, 329;
origin of man in, 369;
climate, 370;
autochthonous man in, 372;
held to be, later than Europe, the home of man, 377;
stone age in, references, 377;
ethnological maps, 378;
connections with Asia, 383;
earliest land above water, 384;
geological connection with Europe, 384;
bibliog. of its aboriginal aspects, 413;
comprehensive treatises on the antiquities, 415;
arts in, 416.
_See_ Africa, Asia, Chinese, Jews, Madoc, Man, Northmen, Phœnician,
Scythian, Tartar, Zeni, Vinland, etc.

American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 437.

American Antiq. Soc. Catal., xvii;
founded, 371, 437;
_Archæologia Americana_, 437.

_American Anthropologist_, 438.

_American Antiquarian_, 439.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 437;
would protect antiquities, 441.

American Ethnological Society, 320, 399, 437;
its publications, 376.

American Folk-Lore Society, 438.

_American Gazetteer_, 321.

American Geographical Society, xvii, 437.

American Historical Association, 439.

_American Journal of Archæology_, 438.

_American Journal of Science and Arts_, 438.

_American Naturalist_, 438.

American Philosophical Society, their publications, 437.

_American Traveller_ (1743), xxxv, 370.

Americana, i;
bibliographies, i;
dealers in, xiii.

Americanism, 160.

Ammianus Marcellinus, 42.

Ampère, _Promenade en Amérique_, 81.

Anáhuac, history of, 139;
map of, in Clavigero, in facs., 144;
its limits, 182;
map, 182.

Anaxagoras, 3.

Anchorena, J. D., on the Quichua grammar, 280.

Ancients, their knowledge of America, 1.

Ancon, burials at, 276, 373;
cut of mummy, 276;
of cloth, 278.

Ancona, Eligio, _Yucatan_, 166.

Ande, 428.

Anderson, Rasmus B., translates Horn’s _Lit. Scandin. North_, 84;
_America not discovered by Columbus_, 97;
on Dighton Rock, 104.

Anderson, Winslow, on human bodies found in California, 138.

Andrade, J. M., 170;
_Catalogue_, 414.

Andree, Richard, _Ethnog. Parallelen_, 105.

Andrews, Edmund B., on geological evidence from the great lakes, 382;
on the Ohio mounds, 402, 407, 408.

Angliara, Johan von, xxi.

Angrand, L., on Waldeck, 194;
_Les Antiquités de Tiaguanaco_, 273.

Anguilla island, 390.

Animal mounds, 400.

Animals, domestic, hardly known in pre-Spanish America, 173.

Animas River, ruins, 396.

_Annales maritimos_, xix.

_Annales Archéologiques_, 441.

_Annals of Science_, 418.

Antarctic continent, 10.

_Anthropologia_, 442.

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, 443;
_Journal_, 443.

Anthropological Institute of New York, 438.

_Anthropological Review_, 442.

Anthropological Society of Washington, 438.

Anthropology and its method, 378, 411;
hist. of, 411.

Antichthones, 9.

Antilles, remnants of Atlantis, 44.
_See_ Antillia.

Antillia, island, 31, 48;
bibliog. 48;
in Bianco and Pizigani maps, 54.

Antipodes, ancient views of, 9, 31, 37.

_Antiquarisk Tidsskrift_, 94.

Antiquity of man. _See_ Man.

Antisell, Thos., 78.

Antonio, Nic., _Bibl. Hispaña nova_, 413.

Apaches, 327.

Apalaches, 426, 431.

Apes, Wm., _Kingdom of Christ_, 116;
_Son of the Forest_, 323.

Apianus’s map, xxi.

Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, 35.

Apponyi, _Libraries of San Francisco_, xviii.

Aprositos, 48.

Arabian geographers, 48.

Arabic maps, 53.

Arabs, their knowledge of the Atlantic islands, 47.

Arana, D. B., _Notas_, vi.

Arana, _Bibliog. de obras anon._, xxiv.

Aratus, _Phaenomena_, 35.

Araucanians, 428.

Arcelin, 357.

Archæological Institute of America, 169, 438.

_Archæological Review_, 443.

Archer-Hind, Ed. Plato’s _Timæus_, 46.

Archimedes, his globe, 3.

Architecture of Middle America, 176, 177;
in Peru, 247.

_Archiv für Ethnographie_, 444.

_Archivo des Açores_, xix.

_Archivio per l’Anthropologia_, 444.

Arctic peoples. _See_ Eskimos.

Arequipa, 277.

Argillite, 417;
spear-points, 359;
commonness of the mineral, 363.

Argonauts, 6.

Argyle, Duke of, _Primeval Man_, 381.

Arica, 275.

Arickarees, 417.

Aristotle on the form of the earth, 2;
_Meteorologia_, 7;
_De Mirab. Auscultationibus_, 24;
on the Atlantic, 28;
his scientific treatises, 34;
his influence in the West, 37.

Arizona, caves in, 391;
ruins in, 397;
map, 397.

Armin, _Heutige Mexico_, 178.

Armstrong, Col., 312.

Army Medical Museum, 440.

Arnold, Gov., his stone windmill at Newport, 105.

Arrawak, 428.

Arriaga, José de, 264;
_La Idolatria del Peru_, 264.

Arrow-heads, art of making, 417.

Arroyo de la Cuesta, F., _Mutsun language_, 425.

Artaun, S. de, 262.

Arthur, King, in Iceland, 60.

Arthur von Dartzig, xxxiii;
_Hist. Ind. orient._, xxxiii.

Arts in America, 416.

Arundel de Wardour, Lord, _Plato’s Atlantis_, 45.

Asguaws, 111.

Asher, David, 200.

Ashtabula Co., Ohio, mounds, 408.

Asia, emigration to America, 59, 76, 329, 371, 383;
similarity of flora, 60;
of physical appearance of peoples, 76;
migration to Fousang, 78;
maps of routes to America, 81;
supported by Humboldt, 371;
testimony of jade, 417;
ancient views of its east coast, 7.
_See_ Fousang, Mongols, etc.

Aspinwall, Thomas, his library, iv;
burned, iv;
sold to S. L. M. Barlow, iv.

Assarigoa, 289.

Astley, _Voyages_, xxxv.

Astor Library, xvii.

Astrolabe, 37.

Astronomy among the Mexicans, 179.

Atahualpa, his portrait, 228;
his palace, 231;
meets Pizarro, 231.

Atenco, 139.

_Atenco de Linia_, 282.

_Athenæ Rauricæ_, xxvi.

Atlantic islands, ancient names attached to, 14;
remnants of Atlantis, 21, 45;
fabulous ones, 31, 46;
in maps, 47, 48;
known to the Arabs, 47
as mapped by Gaffarel (_fac-simile_), 52.

Atlantic Ocean, contour of its bottom, map, 17;
depth of, 17;
its plateaus, 21;
dreaded by the ancients, 28;
myths of, 31;
soundings in, 44;
Toscanelli’s ideas of, 51;
early maps of, 53;
Arabs on, 72.

Atlantis, story of, 15;
in Plato, 16;
interpretations of it, 16;
held to be America, 16, 43;
maps of, 18, 19, 20;
merely a literary ornament, 21;
interest in it on the revival of learning, 33;
history of the belief, 41;
various identifications, 42;
the Atlantic islands remnants, 43;
Gaffarel’s map of the remnants, 52;
Dawson’s views, 382.

Atonaltzin, 148.

Attu, 78.

Atwater, Caleb, _Indians of the N. W._, 327;
on the origin of Americans, 372;
on the shell-heaps of the Muskingum, 392;
_Antiquities in the State of Ohio_, 398;
_Writings_, 398;
_Tour to Prairie du Chien_, 298.

Aubin, his acc. of Boturini’s collection of MSS., 159;
purchases what was left of it, 160;
aids in establishing the Soc. Américaine de France, 161;
describes his own collection, 162;
list of his MSS., 162;
_Mém. sur la peinture didactique_, 176, 200;
_Examen des anc. peintures fig. de l’anc. Méxique_, 200;
_La langue Méxicaine_, 427.

Aughey, Samuel, 348.

Autochthonous theory, 375. _See_ Man.

Avallon, 32.

Avendaño, F. de, 280.

Avendaño, H. de, 264;
_Idolatrios de los Indios_, 264.

Avienus, _Ora maritima_, 25;
_Descriptio orbis terræ_, 36.

Avila, F. de, 264;
his Indian mythology as translated by Markham, 436;
his chapter on the Quichua, 274.

Aviles, Estavan, _Guatemala_, 168.

Axapusco, 173.

Axayacatl, 148.

Axelsen, Otto, 107.

Axon, W. E. A., on Trübner, xvi.

Aymara Indians, 226, 428, 442;
language, 279, 428.

Aymé, L. H., on Mitla, 185.

Azangaro, 271.

Azatlan, Fort, 408.

Azcapuzalco, 146.

Azores, known to the Arabs, 47;
on the early maps, 49;
statue in, 49.

Aztecs, origin of, 135;
traces of their tongue in the north, 138;
their migration maps, 138;
their cradle in the north, 137, 138;
in the south, 139;
arrive in Mexico, 142;
Ranking’s map of their dominion, 144;
divided into Mexicans and Tlatelulcas, 146;
confederation formed, 147;
laws and institutions, 153;
_Mappe Tlotzin_, 163;
their profiles, 193;
the curve of the nose helped by an ornament, 193;
their military dress, 193;
picture-writing, 197 (_see_ Hieroglyphics);
Aubin’s studies of it, 200;
their books described, 203;
their paper, 203;
music of, 420;
language, 426;
hero-gods, 430;
alleged monotheism, 430;
mythology, 431;
prayers, 431;
priesthood and festivals, 431;
sacred buildings, 431;
goddess of war, 435.
_See_ Mexico, Nahua.

Aztlan, 137;
map of, 394;
a myth, 138;
its situation, 138;
in the south, 139.

BABBITT, MISS F. E., _Ancient Quartz Workers_, 345;
_Glacial Man in Minnesota_, 388.

Babel, dispersion of, 137.

Bachiller y Morales, on the Northmen, 94.

Bachman, John, _Unity of the Human Race_, 374.

Backer, Louis de, _Saint Brandan_, 48;
_Misc. Bibliog._, 48.

Backofen, J. J., _Mutterrecht_, 380.

Bacqueville de la Potherie, _Hist. de l’Amérique_, 321, 324.

Baffin Land, 107.

Baguet, M. A., _Races prim. des deux Amériques_, 369.

Bahnson, K., 444.

Baily, John, _Cent. America_, 197;
_Guatemala_, 168.

Baird, S. F., on shell-heaps, 392.

Bake, J., _Posidonii reliquiæ_, 34.

Balboa, M. C., _Miscellanea Austral._, 262.

Baldwin, Cornelius, on burial cists, 408.

Baldwin, C. C., 399; on the moundbuilders, 402;
_Relics of Moundbuilders_, 403.

Baldwin, E., _La Salle County, Ill._, 408.

Baldwin, John D., _Anc. America_, 412, 415.

Ballesteros, _Ordenanzas del Peru_, 268.

Baltic Sea, early maps, 119, 124, 125, 126, 129.

Baltimore, libraries, xviii.

Bamps, _L’homme blanc_, 195.

Bancarel, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Bancroft, Geo., his library, xvii;
on the Northmen, 93;
his map of Indian tribes, 321;
on the origin of Americans, 375;
believes in the unity of the race, 375.

Bancroft, H. H., aids to bibliog. of Indian languages, vii;
buys the Squier MSS., viii, 272;
his library, viii, ix;
his _Native Races_, viii, 169, 415, 430;
his lists and foot-note references, 414, 415;
_Literary Undertakings_, viii;
_Works_, viii;
his _Central America_, ix;
_Early American Chroniclers_, ix;
criticised, ix;
_Essays and Miscellanies_, ix;
_Hist. of the Pacific States_, ix;
_Hist. of California_, ix;
on Mexican history, 150;
on Sahagún, 157;
on Clavigero, 158;
on Maya history, 166;
condenses the _Popul Vuh_, 166;
on the anc. Mexican magnificence, 174;
on their warfare, 175;
attacks Morgan, 176;
his estimate of Prescott, 269;
on the moundbuilders, 401;
on the general sources of aboriginal America, 413;
his opinions, 415;
on the aboriginal arts, 416;
on American myths, 430.

Bandelier, A. F., on early Mexican chronology, 133, 155;
on the Toltecs, 141;
on the Aztec arrival, 142;
on the Mexican confederacy, 147;
on Torquemada, 157;
on Ixtlilxochitl, 157;
promises an ed. of the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, 158;
On the _Popul Vuh_, 167;
_Sources of the Aborig. History of Spanish America_, 167;
_Warfare of the Ancient Mexicans_, 169, 175;
_Tenure of lands_, 169;
_Mode of government_, 169, 175;
_Archæological Tour in Mexico_, 169, 180, 185;
on the Mexican civilization, 173;
Morgan’s pupil, 174, 175;
his papers on Mexican life, 175;
admiration for Morgan, 175;
on calendars, 179;
_Studies about Cholula_, 180;
_Archæolog. Notes on Mexico_, 182;
on Mitla, 185;
on the Mexican paintings, 200;
on the Pueblo ruins, 396;
_Sedentary Indians of New Mexico_, 396;
_Ruins of Pecos_, 396;
his use of sources, 413;
_Bibliog. of Yucatan and Cent. America_, 414;
on American Monotheism, 430;
Quetzalcoatl, 432;
his labors in Mexico, 438.

Baradère, 192.

Barber, _Hist. Coll. Mass._, 104.

Barber, E. A., 395, 419;
_Les anciens pueblos_, 397.

Barcia, annotates Garcia, 369.

Bardsen, Ivan, his sailing directions, 109.

Barentz, voyage, 36.

Baring-Gould, Sabine, _Iceland_, 84, 85.

Barlow, S. L. M., his library, iv, xviii;
_Rough List_, iv;
_Bibl. Barlowiana_, v.

Barnard, M. R., 85.

Barranca, J. S., _Ollanta_, 281.

Barrandt, A., 409.

Barrientos, Luis, _Doct. Cristiana_, 425.

Barrow, John, _Voyages into the Polar Regions_, xxxvi, 93.

Barry, Wm., 408.

Barter, _See_ Trade, Traffic.

Bartlett, John R., edits the Murphy Catalogue, x;
the Carter-Brown Catalogues, xii;
_Bibliog. Notices_, xii;
drawing of Dighton Rock, 101, 104;
_Personal Narrative_, 139, 396;
on rock inscriptions, 410.

Bartlett, S. C., on Dartmouth College, 322.

Bartoli, _Essai sur l’Atlantide_, 46.

Barton, Benj. Smith, _New Views_, 76, 371, 398, 424;
on the Madoc voyage, 110;
his linguistic studies, 424;
on the location of Indian tribes, 321;
portrait, 371;
his career, 371;
_Amer. Antiq._, 371;
_Observations_, 398;
thought the mounds built by the Toltecs, the descendants of the
Danes, 398;
on the Ohio mounds, 407;
on affinities of Indian words, 437.

Bartram, John, _Travels_, 398, 410.

Bartram, Wm., _Travels_, 398, 410.

Basadre, Modesto, 214;
_Riquezas Peruanas_, 244;
on Tiahuanacu, 273.

Basalenque, _San Augustin de Mechoacan_, 168.

Basques in America, 74;
their language, 75.

Bassett, F. S., _Legends of the Sea_, 46.

Bastian, Adolf, on Yucatan, 166;
_Geschichte des Alten Mexico_, 172;
_Stein Sculpturen aus Guatemala_, 197;
_Der Mensch in der Geschichte_, 378;
_Ein Jahr auf Reisen_, 436;
on the religion of Peru, 436;
_Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 443;
_Culturländer_, 443.

Bates, H. W., _Ethnog. of America_, 76;
_Cent. Amer._, 76, 422.

Baylies, Francis, 104.

Beach, W. W., _Indian Miscellany_, 320.

Beamish, N. L., _Disc. of Amer. by the Northmen_, 96.

Bear Mound, in Kentucky, 409.

Beatty, Chas., _Tour in America_, 110, 116, 325;
on the lost tribes, 116.

Beauchamp, A. de, _Conquête du Pérou_, 228.

Beauchamp, W. W., 323, 325.

Beaufoy, M., _Mex. Illustrations_, 180.

Beaumes Chaudes caves, 357.

Beauvois, Eugène, _L’Elysée transatlantique_, 31, 47;
_L’Eden_, 33, 50;
on St. Malo’s voyage, 48;
on the Irish discovery of America, 83;
_Markland et Escociland_, 83;
_Les relations des Gaels avec le Méxique_, 83;
_Ancien Evêché du Nouveau Découvertes des Scandinaves_, 96;
_Les derniers Vestiges du Christianisme dans le Markland_, 97;
_Les Colonies Européennes du Markland_, 97;
_Les Skrælings_, 105.

Beccario, his map, 49.

Becher, H. C. R., _Trip to Mexico_, 170.

Becker, J. H., 403;
_Migrations des Nahuas_, 139.

Beckwith, H. W., 327.

Becmann, I. C.,_ Hist. Orbis terrarum_, 43.

Bede, _De Natura Rerum_, 37.

Beéche, G., his books, xiii.

Behaim on the Seven Cities (island), 49;
globe (1492), 58, 120.

Behring’s Straits, route by, 77;
map of, 77;
in quaternary times, 78;
once land, 383.

Behrnauer, W., _Commerce dans l’ancien Méxique_, 420.

Belknap, Jeremy, on the Norse voyages, 92.

Bell, A. W., 397.

Bell, J. S., 184.

Bellegarde, Abbé, xxxv.

Belt, Th., _Stone implements_, 388.

Beltran de Santa Rosa, P., _Idioma Maya_, 427.

Beltrami, J. C., _Pilgrimage_, 369.

Beloit, Wisc., mounds, 409.

Belt, Thos., on the Trenton gravels, 337;
finds a skull in Colorado, 349.

Bembo, Cardinal, his history of Venice, 26.

Benasconi, A., on Palenqué, 191.

Benavides, Alonso, _Memorial_, 395.

Bendyshe, T., 411.

Benes, J. B., 265.

Benincasa, Andreas, his map (1476), cut, 56;
other maps, 56.

Bennet and Wijk, _Nederl. Ontdekkingen_, xxxvii;
_Zeereizen_, xxxvii.

Benzoni, _New World_, xxxii;
printed with Martyr, xxiii.

Beothuks, 321.
_See_ Newfoundland.

Berenger, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Berendt, C. H., his Maya collection bought by Brinton, 164;
memoir by Brinton, 164;
on Guatemala docs., 166;
_Centres of Anc. Civilization_, 176;
notes on Central America, 196;
his books, 414;
his linguistic studies, 426;
_Analytical Alphabet_, 426, 427;
his papers, 426;
memoir by Brinton, 426;
on the Maya tongue, 427;
_Ancient Civilizations in Cent. America_, 427.

Bergen, 68.

Berger, H., _Fragmente des Hipparchus_, 34;
_des Eratosthenes_, 9, 34;
_Gesch. der Wiss. Erdkunde_, 36;
_Geographie_, 28.

Beristain de Souza, _Bibl. Hisp.-Amer._, ii, 413.

Berlin, A. F., 347.

Berlin, Akad. der Wissenschaft, 443;
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, 443;
Königliche Museum, 443.

Berlin tablet, 404.

Berlioux, E. F., _Les Atlantes_, 43.

Bernard, _Voiages_, xxxv.

Bernhardy, G., _Eratosthenica_, 34.

Berniggerus, _Questiones_, 40.

Bernoulli, Dr., 200.

Berthelot, _Antiq. Canariennes_, 116.

Berthoud, E. L., 397; _Natchez Indians_, 326;
on human relics in Wyoming, 389;
_Creek Valley, Colorado_, 416.

Bertonio, L., his Aymara grammar, 279.

Bertran, Giacomo, map, 58.

Bertrand, _Mémoires_, 116.

Betanzos, J. J. de, _Doctrina_, 260;
_Suma y Narracion de los Incas_, 260.

Betoner, Wm. (of Worcester), 50.

Beughem, C., _Bibl. Hist._, i.

Bianco, Andreas, his map (1436), 50, 53, 55, 56, 114;
cut of, 54;
(1448), 50, 53;
Carta Nautica, 55;
assists Fra Mauro, 117.

Biart, Lucien, _Les Aztéques_, 143, 172;
_The Aztecs_, 172.

Bibliographies, Americana, i;
_Livres payés 1,000 francs et an dessus_, xx.

_Biblioteca de los Americanistas_, 444.

_Bibliothèque linguistique Amér._, vii.

Biddle, _Sebastian Cabot_, 112;
believed the Zeni story a fraud, 112.

Big Bone Lick, 388.

Bigelow, A., 409.

Bigelow, _Natick_, 322.

Bigmore, _Bibliog. of Printing_, xvi.

Billaine, _Recueil de divers Voyages_, xxxiv.

Bimini island, 47.

Birch, _Robt. Boyle_, 322.

Birchrod on Atlantis, 43.

Bird mounds, 409.

Biscayans in America, 75.

Bjarni Asbrandson, his voyage, 82.

Blackamoors found in Central America, 117.

Blackett, W. S., _Lost Histories of America_, 40, 43.

Blackmore collections, 399, 444.

Blade, J. F., _L’Origine des Basques_, 75.

Blake, C. C., on Peruvian skulls, 244.

Blake, John H., his Peruvian collection, 273.

Blenheim Library, xiii.

Blome, _Jamaica_, xxxiv.

Blondel, S., _Recherches_, 419.

Boas, Franz, on the Eskimos, 107;
his papers, 107.

Boban, 179.

Bodfish, J. P., on the Northmen voyages, 104.

Bodleian Library, _Codex Mendoza_, 203.

Boehmer, Geo. H., _Index to Anthropol. Articles_, 439.

Bohn, H. G., xvi.

Bolivia, map, 209.

Bollaert, Wm., on the Mexican calendars, 179;
on Amer. palæography, 201;
_Cent. Amer. hieroglyphics_, 201;
_Antiq. Researches_, 270;
_Anc. Peruvian graphic records_, 270;
Incas, 270;
on Tiahuanacu, 273;
_Anthropol. of the New World_, 270, 375;
his publications, 442.

Bollandists, _Acta Sanctorum_, 48.

Boncourt, F., 182.

Bone-workers, 417.

Bonneville, C. de, 370.

Boon, E. P., his library, xiii.

Bordone, B., his map of the Atlantic islands (1547), 57, 58;
map of Scandinavia, 114, 126;
had access to the Zeno map, 73.

Borgia, Cardinal, his museum, 205.

Bory de St. Vincent, J. B.,_ Les Isles Fortunées_, 19, 43;
map, 19.

Boscana, G., _Chinigchinich_, 328.

Bossange, Hector, xvi.

Boston, private libraries, x;
Public Library, its catalogues, xvii;
as centre of study in American history, xvii;
its libraries, xvii.

Boston Athenæum, its catal., xvii.

Boston Society of Natural History, 437.

Botanical arguments for the connection of Asia and America, 383.

Boturini, Beneduci, books on Indian tongues, vii;
his collections in Mexican history, 159;
its vicissitudes, 159;
described by Aubin, 159;
_Idea de una nueva Hist._, 159;
facs. of title, 161;
portraits, 160, 161;
his catalogue, 159;
his collection suffers in government hands, 162;
contentions over it, 162.

Boucher de Perthes, his discoveries, 390;
_Antiq. Celtiques_, 390;
_De l’homme antédiluvien_, 390;
_Bibl. Univ._, 93.

Boucher de la Richarderie, _Bibl. Univ. des Voyages_, ii.

Boudinot, Elias, _Star in the West_, 116.

Boué, A., on the floras of the earth, 44.

Bouquet, Col., secures captives from the Indians, 290.

Bourgeois, Abbé, on tertiary man, 387.

Bourke, J. G., _Snake Dance_, 429.

Bourne, Wm., _Treasure for Travellers_, 369.

Bovallius, K., _Nicaraguan Antiq._, 197.

Bowen, B. F., _America discovered by the Welsh_, 111.

Boyle, Fred., _Ride across a Continent_, 197.

Bracir (island). _See_ Brazil.

Braddock, Gen., his march, 294, 296.

Bradford, A. W., _Amer. Antiq._, 376, 415.

Brahm, Ger. de, 116.

Brainerd, David, his _Life_, 431.

Bran, _Ethnographisches Archiv_, 443.

Bransford, J. F., _Antiq. at Pantaleon_, 197.

Brasseur de Bourbourg, Abbé, his aids in linguistics, vii;
his writings and career, vii, 170;
_Coll. de docs. dans les langues Amér._, vii;
his library, xiii;
on Egyptian traces in America, 41, 167;
on the Atlantis theory, 44, 172;
on Fousang, 80;
on the Northmen and their traces, 94, 99;
on scattered traces of the Jews, 116;
on the Votan myth, 134;
on the Chichimecs, 136;
on the Nahua migrations, 138;
his easy credence, 139;
begins Mexican hist. at B.C. 955, 155;
on Sahagún, 157;
_Lettres au duc de Valmy_, 158;
on the Toltecs, 158;
_Nations civilisées du Méxique_, 158, 171;
chief sources of, 171;
uses the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, 158;
the _Codex Gondra_, 158;
describes Aubin’s collection, 162;
his own collection, 162;
edits _Landa’s Relation_, 164, 165, 200;
_Mission scientifique au Méxique_, 164, 170;
on Yucatan history, 165;
edits the _Popul Vuh_, 99, 166;
_Dissert. sur les mythes de l’Antiq. Amér._, 166;
his theory of cataclysms, 166;
a Quiché MS., 167;
translates _Mem. Tecpan-Atitlan_, 167;
on Oajaca, 168;
on Fuentes y Guzman, 168;
portrait, 170;
_Hist. du Canada_, 170;
in Mexico, 170;
_Esquisses l’histoire_, 170;
_Ruines de Mayapan_, 170;
_Lettres pour servir l’introduction a l’histoire du Méxique_, 171;
helped by Aubin, 171;
search for MSS., 171;
_Quatre Lettres_, 171;
bibliog., 171;
his _MS. Troano_, 172, 200, 206, 207;
_Chronol. hist. des Méxicains_, 179;
on the ruins of Yucatan, 188;
at Uxmal, 189;
furnishes a text to Waldeck’s _Monuments Anc. du Méxique_, 194;
_Ruines de Palenqué_, 171, 194;
_Lettre à Léon de Rosny_, 200;
Landa’s alphabet explained, 200;
futile attempts at interpreting the hieroglyphics, 201;
on the _Codex Telleriano-Remensis_, 205;
_Système graphique des Mayas_, 207;
_Dict. de la Langue Maya_, 207, 427;
his _Rapport_ on the MS. Troano, 207;
on the _Codex Perezianus_, 207;
on the origin of Americans, 369;
on the moundbuilders, 401;
_Bibl. Mex.-Guat._, 172, 414, 423;
on Mexican philology, 427;
finds Greek roots, 427;
_La lengua Quiché_, 427.

Brazil (country), rock inscriptions, 411.

Brazil (island), 31;
bibliog., 49;
origin of name, 50;
on recent maps, 53;
in Bianco and Pizigani maps, 54.

Brébœuf, the best observer of Indian traits, 317.

Breckenridge, H. H., on Indian populations, 437.

Breckenridge, _Louisiana_, 398.

Bredsdorff, T. H., on the Zeni, 112.

Breed, E. E., 409.

Brenden. _See_ St. Brandan.

Brenner, Oskar, 98
_Grönland_, 85;
his map of Olaus Magnus, 125;
_Die ächte Karte des O. Magnus_, 125.

Brerewood, E., _Enquiries_, 369.

Bretschneider, E., _Fusang_, 80.

Bretton, Baron de, _Origines des peuples de l’Amérique_, 369.

Breusing, _Nautik der Alten_, 24.

Brevoort, James C., his likeness, x;
his library, x, xviii;
supt. of Astor Library, x;
on Leclerc’s _Bib. Am._, xvi.

Briganti, A., xxix.

Brigham, W. T., _Guatemala_, 166, 197.

Brine, Lindesay, _Ruined Cities of Cent. Amer._, 176.

Brinley, Geo., his library, xii.

Brinton, D. G., _Abor. Amer. Authors_, vii, 426;
on Algonquin legends, 99;
on Aztlan, 138;
considers the Toltecs merely a dynasty, 141;
on the Votanic Empire, 152;
owns Berendt’s collection, 164;
portrait, 165;
on Dr. Berendt, 164;
on Central American MSS., 164;
_Books of Chilan Balam_, 164;
_Chac-Xulub-Chen_, 164;
on editions of Landa, 165;
on the _Popul Vuh_, 167;
_Names of the Gods in the Kiché myths_, 167, 436;
_Annals of the Cakchiquels_, 167, 425;
on the ethnology of the Cakchiquels, 167;
on Nicaraguan history, 169;
on Brasseur, 171;
on Landa’s alphabet, 200;
_Anc. Phonetic Alphabet of Yucatan_, 201, 427;
_Graphic system of the Mayas_, 201;
_Phonetic elements_, 201;
_Ikonomic method_, 201;
on the _MS. Troano_, 207;
on Peruvian myths and literature, 270;
on the effect of missions on the Indians, 318;
“Archæology corrects Geology”, 350;
on Theo. Waitz, 378;
on the Nicaragua footprints, 385;
_Floridian Peninsula_, 391, 393;
on shell heaps, 393;
opposes Carr’s views on the moundbuilders, 402;
his own views, 402;
_Rev. of data for the study of prehist. Chronology_, 412, 413;
_Recent European Contributions_, 412;
_Prehist. Archæology_, 412;
on the use of mica, 416;
_Lineal measures of Mexico_, 420;
_Language of the palæolithic man_, 421;
_Polysyntheism of Amer. languages_, 422;
_Amer. Aborig. languages_, 425;
_Chronicles of the Mayas_, 164, 425;
_Gueguence_, 425, 428;
the _Taensa Grammar_, 426;
_Philos. Grammar of the Amer. languages_, 426;
_Memoir of Berendt_, 164, 426;
_Anc. Nahuatl Poetry_, 426;
_Nahuatl language_, 426;
_Cakchiquel language_, 427;
_Xinca Indians_, 427;
_Alaguilac language_, 427;
on the Nicaragua tongues, 428;
_Mangue dialect_, 428;
_Lenape and their legends_, 325;
_Nat. legend of the Chata-mus-ko-kee tribes_, 326;
on the Shawanees, 326;
on the mental capacity of the Indian, 328;
_Myths of the New World_, 429;
on sun-worship, 429;
on phallic worship, 429;
_American Hero-Myths_, 430;
on monotheism, 430;
_Religious sentiment_, 430;
_Journey of the Soul_, 431;
on Quetzalcoatl, 432.

Bristol, Eng., sends out expeditions westward, 75.

Britain, the Island of the Blessed, 15.

British Assoc. for the Adv. of Science, _Reports_, 442.

British Columbia mounds, 410.

_British Sailor’s Directory_, 110.

Brixham cave, 390.

Broadhead, G. C., 409.

Brocard, _Descriptio_, xxi.

Brockhaus (Leipzig), _Bibl. Amér._, xvii.

Brocklehurst, T. U., _Mexico To-day_, 177, 182.

Brodbeck, J., 109.

Bronze Age in America, 418.

Brooks, C. T., _Newport Mill_, 105.

Brooks, Ch. W., on the emigrations to China, 81.

Broughton, Richard, _Monasticon Brit._, 83.

Brown, Dewi, 326.

Brown, D., on Georgia shell heaps, 393.

Brown, G. S., _Yarmouth_, 102.

Brown, John Carter, his library and its catalogues, xii.

Brown, J. Madison, on the ten lost tribes, 116.

Brown, Marie A., _Icelandic Discoverers_, 96.

Brown, Nathan, 81.

Brown, Dr. Robt., on the Eskimos, 107.

Brown, Thomas J., 407.

Browne, J. M., 328.

Browne, J. Ross, 328;
_Apache Country_, 396.

Bruff, J. G., on rock inscriptions, 104, 410.

Brühl, Gustav, _Culturvölker_, 195, 411.

Brunet on De Bry, xxxii.

Brunn, _Bibl. Danica_, 40.

Brunner, D. B., _Indians of Berks County_, 325.

Brunson, Alfred, 408.

Bruyas, J., _Radices Verborum Iroquæorum_, 425.

Bryce, Geo., on Manitoba mounds, 410.

Brynjalfson, G., on Scandin. polar explorations, 62.

Buache, Philippe, 20;
_Antillia_, 49;
map of the route to Fousang, 79;
on the Zeni, 112;
_Sur Frisland_, 112.

Buchholtz, _Die Homerische Realien_, 13.

Büchner, L., _Der Mensch_, 383;
_Man_, 381.

Buck, W. J., _Lappawinzo_, 325.

Buckland, Dr., _Reliq. Diluvianæ,_ 390.

Buckland, Miss, 417.

Buckle, _Hist. Civilization_, 41.

Buddhist priest in Fousang, 78.

Buffon, _Epoques de la Nat._, 44;
on stone implements, 387;
on bones from the Big Bone Lick, 388.

Bull, Henry, 323.

Bull, Ole, and the statue of Leif Ericson, 98.

Bull, Mrs. Ole, on the Northmen, 98.

_Bulletin Archéologique Français_, 441.

Bullock, Wm., collection of pottery, 418.

Bullock, W. H., _Six mos. in Mexico_, 180.

Bumstead, Geo., xvi.

Bumstead, Jos. (Boston), xv.

Bunbury, E. H., _Anc. Geog._, 36;
on Atlantis, 46.

Burder, Geo., _Welsh Indians_, 110.

Bureau of Ethnology, _Reports_, 439.

Burge, Lorenzo, _Preglacial Man_, 387.

Burgoa, F. de, _Géog. Descripcion_, 168.

Burkart, J., _Reisen in Mexico_, 183.

Burke, L., 46.

Burke, J., at Chichen-Itza, 190.

Burney, Jas., _Chron. History of Discovery_, xxxvi.

Burns, C. R., _Missouri_, 409.

Burr, R. T., 397.

Burton, R. F., _Ultima Thule_, 84, 85, 118.

Bus, land of, 47.

Buschmann, J. C. E., _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache_, 138;
_Die Lautveränderung Aztek. Wörter_, 138;
his linguistic studies, vii, 425;
_Die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, 427;
_Die Völker Neu-Mexicos_, 427.

Bussière, Th. de, _Le Pérou_, 275.

Bustamante, C. M. de, edits Leon y Gama’s _Piedras_, 159;
_Mañanas de la Alameda_, 179.

Butler, Amos W., _Sacrificial Stone_, 183.

Butler, J. D., _Prehistoric Wisconsin_, 408;
on copper implements, 418;
_Copper Age in Wisconsin_, 418.

Butler County, Ohio, mounds, 408.

Butterfield, C. W., 326; on the mounds, 407.

Buxton, _Migrations of the Ancient Mexicans_, 169.

Byles, Mather, xxviii.

CABOT, JOHN, xxviii, xxxiv;
in De Bry, xxxii;
bust of, 56.

Cabot, J. Elliot, on the Northmen, 96.

Cabot, Sebastian, in Bristol, 50.

Cabrera, Felix, _Teatro Crit. Amer._, 134, 191, 433.

Cacama, 149.

Cæsar, Julius (Englishman), xxiii.

Cahokia mound, 408.

Cakchiquels, in Guatemala, 150;
their geog. position, 151;
their ethnog. relations, 167;
their dialect, 427.

Calancha, A. de la, _Coronica Moralizada_, etc., 264;
_Hist. Peruanæ_, etc., 264.

Calaveras skull, 351, 352, 384;
cut, 385.

Calaveras County (Cal.) cave, 390.

Calculiform characters, 201.

Calderon, J. A., on Palenqué, 191.

Calendar disks, 179;
stone of Mexico, 159, 178.

California Acad. of Science, 438.

California, gold drift, 384;
its Indians, 81, 328;
an island in Sanson’s map, 18;
alleged tertiary relics, 351;
mounds, 409;
the original home of the Nahuas, 137, 138;
linguistic confusion in, 138;
pottery, 419;
shell heaps, 393.

Callender, John, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Callières, 303.

Camargo, D. M., _Tlaxcallan_, 163.

Campa, 428.

Campanius on the Sagas, 92.

Campbell, John, _Voyages_, xxxiv.

Campbell, John, 322, 369;
on the linguistic affiliations with Asia, 77;
on traditions of Mexico and Peru, 81;
on the Davenport tablet, 404.

Camus, A. G., _De Bry_, xxxii.

Canaanites, ancestors of the Americans, 371.

Canada, Indians, 321;
their arts, 416;
library of Parliament, xviii;
mounds, 410.

_Canadian Antiquarian_, 438.

Canadian Institute, 438;
_Ann. Repts._, 416.

_Canadian Journal_, 438.

_Canadian Monthly_, 438.

_Canadian Naturalist_, 438.

Canaries, called _Ins. Fortunæ_, 14, 27, 47;
known to the Carthaginians, 25.
_See_ Fortunate Islands.
Known to the Arabs, 47;
island seen from, 48;
_Noticias_ by Viera y Clavijo, 48;
in the Bianco map, 50, 54;
in Sanuto’s map, 53;
in Pizigani’s map, 54;
relations with America, 116.
_See_ Guanches.

Canas, 226.

Candolle, De, _Géog. botanique_, 212.

Canepa map, 58.

Cañete, 275.

Canfield, W. H., _Sauk County_, 409.

Cannon, C. L., 397.

Canoes, 420; drifting, 78.

Canstadt, race of, 377.

Cantino map (1501-3), 53, 120.

Canto, Ernesto do, _Archivo des Açores_, xix;
_Os Corte-Reaes_, xix.

Cape Cod, map of, 100;
ancient hearth on, 105;
map of shell heaps, 393.

Cape Prince of Wales, 77.

Cape de Verde islands known to the ancients, 14, 25.

Capel, _Vorstellungen des Norden_, xxxiv, 111.

Capella, Marcianus, _De Nuptiis_, etc., 36.

Caradoc, 109.

Cardiff giant a fraud, 41.

Carelloy Ancona C., _La lengua Maya_, 427.

Carette, E., _Les temps antéhistoriques_, 421.

Carey, _Amer. Museum_, 110.

Cari, 229.

Caribs, origin of, 117;
descendants of the Chichimecs, 136.

Carignano map (xiv. cent.), 53.

Carleton, J. H., 397.

Carli, Count Carlo, _Briefe über Amerika_, 20;
controverts DePauw, 370;
_Delle Lettere Amer._, 43, 44, 370.

Carlson, F. F., 84.

Carolina, Indians of, 325.
_See_ North Carolina.

Carolus, J., map of Greenland, 131.

Carr, Lucien, 412;
on the position of Indian women, 328;
_Crania of No. Amer. Indians_, 356;
on the study of skulls, 373;
on the Trenton implements, 337, 388;
_Mounds of the Mississippi Valley_, 402;
on Virginia mounds, 410.

Carrasco, C., _Ollanta_, 281.

Carrenza, L., 282.

Carrera, F. de, _Yunca Grammar_, 274, 279, 280.

Carreri, G. F. G., _Giro del Mondo_, 138, 158;
attacked by Robertson and defended by Clavigero, 158.

Carriedo, J. B., on Oajaca, 168;
_Los Palacios antiquos de Mitla_, 184.

Carrillo, Canon (now Bishop), Crescencio, his collection of MSS., 163;
on Zumárraga, 203;
_Yucatan_, 164, 166;
_Geog. Maya_, 188;
_La langua Maya_, 164.

Carrington, Margaret J., _Absaraka_, 327.

Cartailhac, E., 411, 442;
_L’age de pierre_, 387.

Carter-Brown. _See_ Brown, J. C.

Carver, Jona., on the mounds, 398.

Carthaginian discoveries, 14, 25.

Casa Blanca, 395.

Casa Grande of the Gila Valley, 395, 397.

Casas Grandes, 395.

Caspari, Otto, _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, 81, 383.

Caspi, Marquis de, 205.

Cass, Lewis, on Heckewelder, 398.

Casselius, _De nav. fortuitis in Americam_, 75.

Cassell, J. P., _Observatio hist._, 92.

Cassino, _Standard Nat. History_, 34, 412.

Castaing, Alphonse, _Les fêtes dans l’antiq. peruvienne_, 238;
_Système relig. dans l’antiq. peruvienne_, 241.

Castañeda, drawings of Palenqué, 191, 192.

Castell, _America_, xxxiv.

Castelnau, F. de, _Expédition_, 271;
on the antiquities of the Incas, 271.

Castillo, G., _Dict. de Yucatan_, 166.

Castillo y Orozco, E., _Vocab. Paéz-Castellano_, 425.

Cat, Edouard, _Découvertes Maritimes_, xxxvii.

Catalan map (1375), 49;
cut, 55 (xiv. cent.), 53;
carta nautica (1487), 58.

Catcott, A., _Deluge_, 370.

_Catecismo de la doctrina Cristiana_ vii.

Catherwood, Frederick, _Anc. Mts. in Cent. Amer._, 176.

Catlin, Geo., on the Welsh Indians, iii;
finds analogies to Hebrew customs in the Indians, 116;
_Lifted and subsided rocks_, 46;
_Life among the Indians_, 369;
_Last Rambles_, 369;
_North American Indians_, 320;
bibliog., 320;
his _Indian Gallery_, 320;
_Illustrations of the Manners_, etc., 320;
portraits, 320;
map of the Indian tribes, 321.

Cauchis, 226.

Cavate dwellings, 395.

Cave-bear epoch, 377.

Cave man, 377, 390;
held to be speechless, 377;
represented to-day by the Eskimos, 377;
drawings of, 382.

Cavendish, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi;
in _De Bry_, xxxii;
in _Claesz_, xxxiii.

Caves in America, 389.

Caxamarca, 231.

Cayaron, _Chaumont_, 321;
_Autobiographie_, 321.

Celedon, R., _Lengua gocejra_, 425.

Cellarius, _Notit. orb. antiq._, 37, 45.

Céloron, 286, 310.

Cenecu, 394.

Central America, Scandinavians in, 99;
map of, by Malte-Brun, 151;
notes on the ruins, 176.
_See_ Yucatan, Guatemala, Nicaragua.

Central Ohio Scientific Assoc., 407.

_Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, xvii.

Ceramic art. _See_ Pottery.

Chac-Mool, statue, 180, 190, 434.

Chaca, 224;
ruins, 224;
described by Squier, 224.

Chaco Cañon, 395, 396.

Chadbourne, P. A., on shell heaps, 392.

Chahta, 402.

Chalcedony, 417.

Chalco conquered, 147.

Challenger ridge in the Atlantic, 44.

Chalmers, interpreting the geological record, 383.

Chama, 428.

Chamberlin, T. C., _Our glacial drift_, 332.

Champlain, his friendship with the Hurons, 285.

Chancas, 210, 227, 230.

Chanes, 135.

Changos, 275.

Chapultepec, Aztecs at, 142;
sculptured likeness on its cliff, 148.

Charencey, H. de, _Mélanges_, vii;
_La langue Basque_, 75;
_Mythe de Votan_, 81;
_Djemschid et Quetzalcohuatl_, 81;
_Myth d’Imos_, 134;
_Civilisation du Méxique_, 176;
on the Maya hieroglyphics, 195;
_Fragment d’inscription palenquéens_, 201;
his linguistic studies, 425;
_Mélanges_, 426, 427;
_Chrestomathie de la langue Maya_, 427;
_Des mots en lengua Maya_, 427;
_Le Déluge_, 431.

Charlevoix, _Nouv. France_, ii;
on Amer. linguistics, 424.

Charnay, Désiré, finds Buddhist traces in Mexico, 81;
on the Toltecs, 141;
_Cités et Ruines Amér._, 176, 186, 195;
_Le Méxique_, 176;
papers in _No. Amer. Rev._, 177;
in _Tour du Monde_, 177;
_Les Anc. Villes_, 177, 186, 195;
_Ancient Cities_, 177;
in Yucatan, 186;
portrait, 187;
his route in Yucatan, 188;
at Chichen-Itza, 190;
at Palenqué, 195.

Charton, Ed., _Voyageurs_, xxxvii.

Chase, A. W., 409.

Chata-mus-ko-kee tribes, 326.

Chatinos, 136.

Chautre, 442.

Chavanne, _Lit. Polar Regions_, 78.

Chavero, A., _Sahagún_, 157;
_México á través de los Siglos_, 172;
on the Calendar Stone, 179;
his old view of Mexico, 182;
_La Piedra del Sol_, 431.

Chaves, Francisco de, in Peru, 260.

Chekilli, 326.

Chellean period, 377.

Chelly, Cañon, cliff-houses, 395.

Cheney, T. A., 405.

Chenooks, 99.
_See_ Chinook.

Cherbonneau on Arab geographers, 48.

Cherokees, Timberlake on, 83;
_Enquiry into the origin_, 370;
held to be moundbuilders, 402;
council-house, 402;
sources of their history, 326;
their case with Georgia, 326.

Cherry, P. P., 403.

Chert, 417.

Chesapeake Bay, shell heaps, 392.

Chevalier, Michel, _Du Méxique avant et pendant la Conquête_,
172, 176;
_Le Méxique_, 172.

Chiapaneca language, 425.

Chiapas, 433;
MS. concerning, 168;
sources of its history, 168;
map, 188;
ruins in, 191.

Chibchas, 282, 428;
their language, 425;
origin of, 80;
position of, 210.

Chicama, 276.

Chi-Chen, 186.

Chichimecs, barbarians or a tribe, 136;
etymology, 136;
in Mexico, 139;
invade Anáhuac, 142;
their stock, 142;
adopt the Nahua tongue, 142;
form alliances, 142;
authorities, 147;
anc. MS. on, 157;
MS. annals, 162;
genealogy of their chiefs, 162;
their language, 426.

Chichen-Itza, 434;
position of, 151, 188;
Charnay at, 186;
Le Plongeon at, 186, 190;
accounts of, 190;
ornaments, 190;
statue of Chac-Mool, 190;
wall paintings, 190;
hieroglyphics at, 200.

Chiclayo, 276.

Chicomoztoc, 138.

Chil, Dr., on Atlantis, 46.

Chilca, 277.

Chillicothe, map, 406.

Chimalpain, Domingo, notes on Mexican history, 162.

Chimalpain, A. M., _Crónica Méx._, 164.

Chimborazo, 275.

Chimus, 227, 275;
burial habits, 276;
character of the people, 277.

Chinantecs, 136.

Chinchas, 227, 277.

Chinese emigration, 369;
in Peru, 82.
_See_ Fousang.

_Chinese Recorder_, 80.

Chinook jargon and language, 422, 425.

Chippewas, 326.

Chiquimala, 168.

Chiquita language, 425.

Christianity introduced into Greenland, 62.

Christy collection, 444.

Chocope, 276.

Cholula, temple built by the Olmecs, 137;
a shrine, 140;
views, 177, 178;
account of, 178;
when built, 178;
dimensions, 178;
arms of, 178;
restorations, 178;
early mentions, 180;
maps, 180;
communal house at, 175.

Chontales, 136.

Chucuito, ruins at, 245.

Chumeto language, 426.

Chun-kal-cin, 187.

Chuquisaca, 278.

Churchhill’s _Voyages_, xxxiv.

Cibola, seven cities of, 138, 396;
held to be Fousang, 80;
map of, 394.

Cicero, 7;
_Tusculan Disputations_, 9;
_Respublica_, 9;
on geog. questions, 36;
dream of Scipio, 36.

Cicogna, _Bibl. Veneziana_, xxix.

Cicuye (Pecos), 396.

Cieza de Leon, P., as an authority on anc. Peruvian history, xxxv,
259.

Cimmerians, 13.

Cincinnati, Nat. Hist. Soc., 407, 438.

Cincinnati tablet, 404;
cut, 404;
mounds, 408.

Circleville, Ohio, mounds, 407.

Cisneros, Garcia de, 155, 276.

Cisternay du Fay, xxxii.

Ciudad Rodrigo, A. de, 155.

Civilization of the ancient nations of middle America, 173;
bibliog., 176.

Claesz, C., coll. of voyages, xxxiii.

Clallam language, 425.

Clark, Gen. J. S., map of the Iroquois country, 323.

Clark, J. V. H., _Onondaga_, 325.

Clark, W. P., _Indian Sign-language_, 422.

Clarke, Hyde, _Legend of Atlantis_, 43, 383;
_Khita-Peruvian Epoch_, 82;
_Researches_, 369.

Clarke, P. D., _Wyandotts_, 327.

Clarke, Robt., his book-lists, xv;
on the Cincinnati tablet, 404.

Clarke County, Ohio, mounds, 408.

Claus, C., _Den Grölandske Chronica_, 85.

Clavigero, _Storia del Messico_, ii;
his beginning of Mexican hist., 155;
on the sources of Mexican history, 158;
describes the material, 158;
belittled by Robertson, 158;
portrait, 159;
his bibliog., 413.

Clavus, Claudius, his map, 114, 117;
facs., 118, 119.

Clay, moulding in, 419;
masks of, 419.

Claymont, Del., deposits, 342.

Cleomedes, 4.

Cleomedes, _De sublimibus circulis_, 8, 35.

Clermont, college of, ii.

Cliff-dwellers’ pottery, 419;
their houses, 395.

Climate, influence on man, 372, 378;
theories of changes in, 387.

Clint, Wm., 322.

Clinton, De Witt, on the Northmen remains, 102;
on mounds, 398;
_Antiq. of Western N. Y._, 414.

Clodd, Edw., 387;
_Childhood of the world_, 412.

Cloth. _See_ Textile arts.

Cluverius, 43;
_Introd. in univ. geog._, 40.

Coahuila cave, 390.

Coate, B. H., _Discourse_, 369.

Cobo, B., _Lima_, 274.

Cochrane, J., 408.

Cocomes, 152.

_Codex Chimalpopoca_, 135;
named by Brasseur, 158;
acc. of, 158;
copies, 158;
_Hist. de los Reynos de Colhuacan_, 158;
_Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, 158;
owned by Aubin, 162.

_Codex Cortesianus_, 206, 207.

_Codex Flatoyensis_, 88, 92.

_Codex Gondra_, 158.

_Codex Mendoza_, 203.

_Codex Mexicanus_, 162, 207.

_Codex Perezianus_, 207;
cut, 207.

_Codex Troano_, 205;
ed. by Brasseur, 207.

Cogulludo, _Yucathan_, 165;
_Los tres Siglos en Yucatan_, 165.

Cohn, Albert, xxxii.

Cohuixcas, 136.

Coins, Roman, found in America, 41.

Colaeus at Gades, 25.

Colden, Cadwallader, among the Mohawks, 289;
_Five Indian Nations_, 324;
editions, 324;
his career, 324.

Colhuacan, founded, 139;
seat of power, 139;
its league, 140.

Colhuas, 136, 139;
vassals of the Chichimecs, 142.

Colijn, M., _Journalen_, xxxiv.

Collahuaso, J., _Inca Atahualpa_, 268.

Collas, 226.

Collingwood, J. F., 443.

Colorado Cañon, explored by Powell, 396.

Colorado caves, 391.

Colorado, expeditions in, 395.

Columbia River Valley, centre of migrations, 381.

Columbus, Christopher, acc. of his voyages, xix, xxiv, xxxiv, xxxvi;
believed he found Asia, 1;
inherited the idea of the sphericity of the earth, 31;
inspired by anc. writers, 40;
his idea of the width of the Atlantic, 51;
Toscanelli’s letter to him, 51;
in Iceland, 61;
_Tratado de las cinco zonas_, 61;
supposed knowledge of the Norse discoveries, 96;
efforts to canonize him, 96;
attacks on his character, 96;
meets a Maya vessel, 173;
his Garden of Eden, 372.

Columbus, Ferd., his library, vi;
life of C. Columbus, xxxiv.

Comanches, 327;
vocabulary, 440.

Comfort, A. J., 409.

Comité d’Archéologie Américaine, its members, 441;
_Annuaire_, 441;
_Actes_, 441;
_Mémoires_, 441.

Commelin, Isaac, _Oost-Indische Compagnie_, xxxiv.

Communal customs, 420;
life, 175, 176.

Conant, A. J., 409;
_Footprints of a vanished race_, 400.

Conant, H. S., 177.

Concacha, ruins, 220, 221.

Conchucus, 227.

Condamine, C. M. la, _Voyage_, 271;
on Peruvian monuments, 271.

Congrès International des Américanistes, 442;
its sessions and _Comptes rendus_, 442.

Congrès Internat. d’Anthropologie, 442.

Connecticut Acad. of Arts, etc., 438.

Connecticut Indians, 323.

Conover, G. S., on the Seneca burial mound, 405.

Contractus, H., _De util. astrolabii_, 37.

Conybeare, C. A. V., _Place of Iceland_, 85.

Cook, G. H., _Reports_, 388.

Cooke, J. J., his library, xii.

Cooley, W. D., _Maritime Discovery_, 72, 93.

Copan (ruins), 135;
position of, 151;
plan, 194;
statues, 196;
early accounts, 196;
seen by Stephens, 196;
plans, 197.

Copan (town), 196.

Cope, Edw. D., Mesozoic and Cænozoic of N. America, 353;
on cave deposits, 390.

Copenhagen, Royal Soc. of Northern Antiquities, 93;
its publications, 94.

Copper, mining, 417;
tools of, 417, 418;
moundbuilders’ use of, 408.

Copway, Geo., _Ojibway nation_, 327.

Cora, Guido, 444;
_Precursori di Colombo_, 115.

Coras, 136.

Cordeiro, L., _Les Portugais dans la découverte de l’Amérique_, xix.

Cordoba, Andrés de, 155.

Cordova, H. de, first sees the Yucatan ruins, 173.

Cordova y Salinas, D. de, 264.

Coreal, François, _Voyages_, 145.

Corlear, 289.

Cornelius E., 410.

Cornell University, Sparks’s library at, vi.

Corni, C. M., 263.

Corroy, F., 193.

Cortambert, Richard, _Voyages_, xxxvii.

Cortereal, John Vas Costá, at Newfoundland, 75, 125.

Cortereal, Gasper, xix, xxxiv.

Cortereals, the, xix, xxxiv.

Cortés, his lost first letter, xxi;
his letters, xxv;
sought a passage to Asia, 1;
arrives on the coast (1579), 149;
hailed as Quetzalcoatl, 149;
his statements about the native displays, 173;
his knowledge of Palenqué, 191;
sends feather work to Charles V, 420.

Coruña, Martin de, 155.

Corvo, equestrian statue, 49.

Coryat, _Crudities_, 32.

Cosmas, 30, 38.

Cosmogonists, 383.

Cosmology of the Middle Ages, 36.

Coursey, Col. Henry, 304.

Court, Dr. J., his library, xiii.

Cousin, on the So. Amer. coast, 76.

Cowles, Henry, _Pentateuch_, 374.

Cox, _Mythology of the Aryan nations_, 430.

Coxe, Daniel, _Voyages_, xxxv;
_Carolana_, 326.

Cozumel, ruins in, 185, 188, 434.

Cozzen, _Marvellous Country_, 396.

Craniology, diversified in America, 356;
science of, 373;
capacity no sure guide to intelligence, 373;
kinds of, 375;
long-headed, or dolichocephalic, 375;
short-headed, or brachycephalic, 375;
medium, or mesocephalic, 375;
Cro-magnon skull, 377, 389;
Calaveras skull, 384, 385;
Trenton gravel skulls, 388;
Enghis skull, 389;
Neanderthal skull, 389, 390;
Hochelagan skull, 389;
moundbuilders’ skulls, 399, 400, 403.

Crantor, commentator on Plato, 41.

Crantz, David, _Grönland_, 86;
editions, 86;
on Hans Egede, 108.

Crates of Mallus, 7;
his globe, 9.

Crawford, Chas., _Indians descended from the Ten Tribes_, 116.

Crawford and Balcarres on De Bry, xxxiii.

Crawfordville, mounds, 400.

Cresson, H. T., finds palæolithic implements, 341;
discoveries at Naaman’s Creek, Del., 363;
finds piles, 364, 395;
_Aztec music_, 420.

Crevaux, J. (with P. Sagot and L. Adam), _Langues de la région des
Guyanes_, 425.

Croghan, Col. George, 318.

Croll, James, _Climate and Cosmology_, 383, 387;
his theory of climatic changes, 387;
_Climate and Time_, 387;
controversy with Newcomb, 387.

Cro-magnon skull, 377, 389;
cut of, 377;
of the cave race, 377.

Cromlechs in Peru, 214.

Crook, G., on making arrow-heads, 417.

Crosby, Dr. Howard, on Geo. H. Moore, xii.

Cross, the, among the Mayas and Nahuas, 195;
held to be a symbolized fire drill, 195;
the symbol of life, 195.

Crow Indians, 327.

Crowninshield, E. A., his library, xii.

Ctesias, _India_, 39.

Cuella, Juan de, 265.

Cuesta, Fernandez, _Enciclopedia de viajes_, xxxvii.

Cuextecas, 136.

Cuitatecs, 136.

Cuitlahuac conquered, 147.

Cukulcan, 434.

Cumanagota, 428.

Cuming, F., _Tour_, 398.

Cumming, Thos., 306.

Cuoq, J. A., on the Algonquin dialects, 425;
_Etudes_, 425;
_La langue Iroquoise_, 425.

Currency. _See_ Money.

Cuscatlan, 168.

Cushing, F. H., on the habitation of man as affected by surroundings,
378;
on the Pueblo architecture, 395;
on the Zuñi, 396;
on N. Y. mounds, 405;
_Pueblo pottery_, 419, 440;
_Zuñi fetiches_, 440.

Cushites of Egypt, 41.

Cusick, David, _Anc. History of the Six Nations_, 325.

Cutler, Manasseh, on the Ohio mounds, 407.

Cutter, Chas. A., edits Sparks’s Catalogue, vii;
on bibliog. of De Bry, xxxii.

Cutts, J. B., 409.

Cuvier opposes Lamarck, 383.

Cuyahoga Valley mounds, 408.

Cuzco, great wall in, 220;
its fortress, 220;
plans of, 229;
old view, 229;
zodiac of gold found at, 235;
foundation of the city, 246.

D’ARBOIS DE JUBAINVILLE, H., _Litt. Celtique_, 50;
_Litt. Epique d’Irlande_, 50.

D’Autun, Honoré, _Imago Mundi_, 48.

D’Avalos y Figueroa, Diego, _Miscelanea Austral_, 280.

D’Avezac, _Iles d’Afrique_, 43, 47;
_Les iles de St. Brandan_, 47;
_Les iles fantastiques_, 43, 47;
on the Laon globe, 56.

Da Gama, xxviii.

Dabry de Thiersant, _Origine des Indiens_, 77, 176.

Dacotahs, 327;
bibliog., 424;
mythology, 431;
mounds, 409;
linguistic connection with Asia, 77.
_See_ Sioux.

Dahlman, F. C., _Dänemark_, 84.

Dahlmann, _Forschungen_, 99.

Dalin, Olaf von, _Svearikes Hist._, 84.

Dall, W. H., on the peopling of America, 76, 77, 78;
on the Polynesians, 82;
on the Eskimos, 107, 437;
_Alaska_, 107;
on the origin of the Americans, 369;
against the autochthonous theory, 375;
on Alaska caves, 391;
on shell heaps, 393;
on Aleutian islands, 393;
edits Nadaillac, 412, 415;
on prehistoric man, 412;
on Indian masks, 419;
on the Alaska tribes, 328, 437.

Dallas, W. S., 383.

Dalrymple, Alex., _Voyages_, xxxv.

Dalrymple, _Bibl. Amer._, ii.

Daly, D., 432.

Damariscotta, Me., shell heap, 392.

Dammartin, _La Pierre de Taunston_, 104.

Danforth, Dr., on Dighton Rock, 103.

Danilsen, A. F., 410.

Danish peat beds, man of, 395.

Danmar, 31, 47, 49.

Dapper’s collection, xxxiv.

Daremburg and Saglio, _Dict. de l’Antiq._, 36.

Dartmouth College founded, 322.

Darwin, Chas., _Descent of Man_, 375;
on the degeneracy of the savage, 381.

Darwinism, 383.

Dasent, G. W., _Burnt Njal_, 85;
_Norsemen in Iceland_, 85;
introd. to Vigfusson’s _Icelandic Dict._, 88.

Daux, A., _Etudes préhistoriques_, 416.

Davenport Academy of Sciences, 438.

Davenport tablets, 404;
controversy, 404.

Davilla Padilla, _Prov. de Santiago_, 156;
_Varia hist._, 156.

Davis, Asahel, _Antiq. of Cent. Amer._, 176.

Davis, A. C., 418.

Davis, And. McF., on Indian games, 328.

Davis, E. H. _See_ Squier, E. G.

Davis, Horace, _Japanese blood on our N. W. coast_, 78.

Davis, John (navigator), xxxiv;
in Davis Straits, 107.

Davis, John (Judge), on the Dighton Rock, 104.

Dawkins, W. B., on the Basques, 75;
on the Eskimos, 105;
on the tertiary man, 353;
_Early man in No. America_, 353;
_Early man in Britain_, 356;
on prehistoric study, 376;
on the antiquity of man, 383;
on the Calaveras skull, 385;
on man and extinct animals, 388;
_Cave Hunting_, 390.

Dawson, Sir J. W., on the Skrælings, 105;
on the early migrations, 138;
follows Morgan in his communal theory, 176;
on the unity of the human race, 374;
believes the biblical account literally, 375;
portrait, 380;
on No. Amer. migrations, 381;
_Fossil Men_, 382, 383, 416;
advocates the theory of degeneracy, 382;
_Nature and the Bible_, 382;
_Story of the Earth_, 382, 386;
_Origin of the World_, 382;
on the Calaveras skull, 385;
on the moundbuilders, 401.

Day, St. John V., _Prehistoric Use of Iron_, 41, 418.

Dayton, E. A., 410.

De Brosses, _Hist. des Navigations_, xxxv.

De Bry, Theodore, portrait, xxx;
_Voyages_, xxxi;
his heirs, xxxi;
_Collectiones peregrinationum_, xxxi;
bibliog., xxxii;
_Elenchus_, xxxii;
counterfeit eds., xxxii;
his other publications, xxxiii;
abridgments, xxxiii;
original Wyth drawings, xxxiii.

De Bure on De Bry, xxxii.

De Candolle, _Géog. botanique_, 117.
_See_ Candolle.

De Costa, B. F., _Pre-Columbian Discovery_, 97;
_Notes on a Review_, 97;
_Northmen in Maine_, 97;
_Sailing Directions of Hudson_, 97;
_Columbus and the geographers of the North_, 97;
on Dighton Rock, 104;
on the Eskimos, 105;
on the Zeni, 115.

De Courcy, _Hist. Chh. in America_, 69.

De Ferry, H., _Le Maconnais préhistorique_, 357.

De Forest, _Indians of Conn._, 323.

De Haas, W., _Archæology of the Mississippi Valley_, 437.

De Hart, J. D., 408.

De Hart, J. M., 409.

De la Porte, Abbé, _Voyageur Français_, xxxvi.

De Laet, on Madoc, 109;
on the Zeni, 111.
_See_ Laet.

De Leyre, xxxv.

De Pauw, C., his depreciation of American products, 370;
_Recherches Philos._, 370;
editions, 370;
_Defenses_, 370.

De Tocqueville on the Indians, 320.

Dean, C. K., 409.

Deane, Chas., his library, x;
his likeness, xi;
on James Lenox, xi;
on E. A. Crowninshield, xiii;
on the Northmen, 98.

Degrees, length of, 32.

Delafield, John, _Antiq. of Amer._, 372.

Delamar, island, 49.

Delaware River gravels, 360, 361, 388.
_See_ Trenton.

Delawares, in Penna., 306;
in Pontiac’s conspiracy, 316;
sources of their history, 325;
their language, 423;
their legends, 431.

Deluge, myths of the, 431.

Deman, island, 49.

Demmin, A., _La Céramique_, 419.

Demons, isles of, 32.

Denis, Ferd., _Arte plumaria_, 420.

Dennie, _Portfolio_, on the mounds, 398.

Denton, _Desc. of N. Y._, vi.

Derby, J. C., _Fifty years_, viii.

Desimoni, Cornelio, on the Atlantic islands, 47;
_Le carte nautiche del medio evo_, 55;
on the Zeni, 113.

Desjardins, Ernest, _Rapport sur Harrisse_, v;
_Pérou avant la conquête_, 270.

Desnoyers on tertiary man, 387.

Desor, Ed., _Palafittes_, 395.

Deuber, F. X. A., _Gesch. der Schiffahrt im Atl. Ozean_, 60.

Deutsch, Manuel, xxvii.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, 443;
_Correspondenzblatt_, 443;
_Allgemeine Versammlung_, 443.

Devaux, V., 442.

Devereux on Arkansas pottery, 419.

Dewitt, S., 405.

Dexter, Henry M., his library, xvii;
his bibliog. of Congregationalism, xvii.

Dhoulcarnain, 49.

Dialects, 422.
_See_ Linguistics.

Diaz, Bernal, his stories of regal pomp, 173;
as a chronicler, 153;
facs. of his MS., 154.

Dibden on De Bry, xxxii.

Didron, Aîné, _Annales Archéologiques_, 441.

Dieskau, Baron, on his Indian allies, 296.

Dighton Rock, held to be Phœnician, 41, 104;
Rafn’s view of it, 101;
various drafts of its inscription, 103;
account of, 104;
work of the Indians, 104;
of Siberians, 104;
of Northmen, 104;
of Roman Catholics, 104.

Dille, I., 407, 410.

Diman, J. L., on the unhistoric quality of the sagas, 97.

Dimning, E. O., 408.

Dinwiddie, Gov., on the Indians as allies, 296.

Dionne, N. E., 317.

Diodorus Siculus, 14.

Diogenes Laertius, 3.

District Historical Soc., 407.

D’Orbigny, A., _L’homme Americain_, 412;
on the religion of the Quichuas, 436.

Doddridge, Jos., _Settlement and Indian wars_, 319;
his career, 319.

Dodge, David, 347.

Dodge, J. R., _Red Man_, 326.

Dodge, Wm. (Cincinnati), xv.

Dodsley, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Dolfus, Montserrat and Pavie, _Mémoires_, 170.

Dolphin ridge in the Atlantic, 44.

Domenech, Abbé, _Seven years’ residence_, 80;
_Manuscrit pictographique_, 163;
on the American man, 369.

Donaldson, Thomas, _Geo. Catlin’s Indian Gallery_, 320.

Doncker, H., map of Greenland, 131.

Dongan, Gov., 304.

Donis, his Ptolemy map, 114;
sketch of northern parts, 122.

Donnelly, Ignatius, _Atlantis_, 16, 45, 46.

Dorman, R. M., _Primitive Superstition_, 431.

Dörpfeld, _Metrologie_, 5.

Dorr, H. C., 327.

Dorsey, J. O., 423;
on the Omahas, 327.

Douglass, A. E., 393.

Doutrelaine, _Mitla_, 170, 185.

Doyle, _English in America_, 325.

Drake, Daniel, _Cincinnati_, 398.

Drake, E. C., _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Drake, Sir Francis, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii;
on De Bry, xxxii;
on Claesz, xxxiii.

Drake, F. S., his deceptive _Indian Tribes_, 320, 441.

Drake, Samuel G., dealer in Americana, xv;
dies, xv;
his library, xv;
sold to Conn. Hist. Soc., xv;
sold coll. of school-books to the Brit. Mus. xv;
his books on the Indians, 318;
_Aborig. Races of No. America_, 318.

Draper, _Intellectual development of Europe_, 176.

Draudius, _Bibl. Classica_, i.

_Dresden Codex_, 204, 205;
ed. by Förstemann, 205.

Drogeo, 72, 128.

D’Urban, 43.

Du Perier, _Voyages_, xxxv.

Du Pré, L. J., on a prehistoric threshing floor, 210.

Ducatel, J. T., on shell heaps, 392.

Duchateau, Julien, _L’écriture calculiforme des Mayas_, 201.

Dufossé, _Americana_, xvi.

Dunbar, Jas., _Hist. of Markland_, 398.

Dunbar, J. B., 327.

Dunbar, W., on the Indian sign language, 437.

Dunn, Oscar, 60.

Dunning, E. O., 410.

Dupaix, on Mitla and Palenqué, 192;
_Antiq. Méxicaines_, 192;
on the monuments of New Spain, 203.

Duponceau, P. E., 423;
_Mém. sur le système grammatical_, 425.

Durán, Diego, _Las Indias_, 155.

Duro, C. F., 444.

Duro, Ferd., _Disquis. Nauticas_, 75.

Dury, John, 115.

Dussieux, L., _Hist. de la Géog._, 94.

Dutch, early, in Newfoundland, 75.

Dwight, Theo. F., xv.

EAMES, WILBERFORCE, vi; bibliog. of Ptolemy, 35;
continues _Sabin’s Dictionary_, 414.

Earl, title of, 61.

Earth, spherical theory, 2;
the ancients’ notion of its size, 4, 8;
measured, 4;
distribution of land and sea, 6;
shape of the part known, 8;
notions respecting the unknown parts, 8;
a supposed southern continent, 9;
size supposed in the Middle Ages, 30;
rectangular map of, 30;
sphericity taught in the Middle Ages, 31;
the word “rotundus” as applied, 36;
its sphericity ignored by the Church Fathers, 37;
acknowledged by others, 37;
theories respecting its form, 38;
a plane in Homer, 39.

Easter Island, 81.

Eastman, Mrs. Mary, _Dacotah_, 327, 431.

Ebeling, Professor, his likeness, iii;
library, iii;
his own books on Amer. history, iii.

Ebn Sáyd, 47.

Ecker, _Archiv_, 443.

Ecuador, map, 200.

Eden, Richard, _Decades_, xxiii;
_Hist. of Travayle_, xxiii.

Eden, Garden of, 372.

Edkins, J., 78.

Edrisi, _Geography_, 33, 48, 72;
on Arab voyages on the Atlantic, 72;
his map, 72.

Edwards, Jona., on the lost tribes, 116;
on linguistic traces, 116;
_Muhhekaneew Indians_, 116;
on the Mohegan language, 423.

Effigy mounds, 408.

Egede, Hans, in Greenland, 69, 107;
_Grönland_, 107;
facs. of its title, 108;
bibliog. 108;
his map, 131.

Egede, Paul, in Greenland, 69;
_Grönland_, 108, 131;
his map in facs., 131;
acc. of, 131.

Eggers, H. P. von, _Om Grönlands österbygds_, 108;
_Ueber die wahre Lage des Ostgrönlands_, 108;
on the Zeni, 111.

_Egils saga_, 88.

Eguiara y Eguren, _Bibl. Mex._ 413.

Egyptian migrations, 372;
visits to America, 41;
analogies in Mexico, 183;
built the mounds, 405.

Eichthal, Gustave de, on Fousang, 80;
_Les origins Bouddhiques de la civilisation Amér._, 80;
_Races océaniennes_, 82.

El-Ghanam, 47.

Elephant mound, 409.

Eliot, John, apostle, on Jews in America, 115;
his letters, 322;
_Brief Narration_, 322;
_Grammar Mass. Indian Language_, 423.

Eliot, Samuel, _Early relations with the Indians_, 323.

Eliot, Samuel A., iii.

Ellicott, Andrew, on mounds near Natchez, 398.

Elliott, C. W., _New England_, 96.

Elliott, E. T., 391.

Ellis, F. S., _Americana_, xvi.

Ellis, Geo. E., on Sparks, vii;
“The Red Indian of North America”, 283;
_Red Man and White Man_, 322;
on the Indians of Mass., 323.

Ellis, Robt., _Peruvia Scythica_, 82, 241, 281.

Ellis and White, xvi.

Elton, C. A., _Remains of Hesiod_, 2.

Elysian Fields, 12, 13.

Emblematic mounds, 400
Emerson, Ellen R., _Indian Myths_, 431.

Emery, Geo. E., on the Zeno map, 115.

Emory, W. H., _Mil. Reconnoissance_, 327, 396;
on the Mexican boundary survey, 396, 440.

Enciso, M. F. d’, _Suma de Geog._, 173.

Engel, E. B. d’, _Essai_, 370.

Enghis skull, 389.

England, archæological studies in, 442.

English colonists in North America, their treatment of the Indians,
283;
compared with the French, 298;
exceed the French in number, 299;
number of, 310.

Engroneland, 72.
_See_ Greenland.

Engronelant sometimes made distinct from Greenland, 121, 122.

Enriques, Martin, tries to gather Mexican relics, 155.

Ens, Gasper, _West-und-Ost Indischer Lustgart_, xxxiii.

Eocene man, 387.

Epstein, I., 426.

Equinoxes, precession of, 387.

Eratosthenes, on the form of the earth, 3;
measured it, 4;
_Hermes_, 7;
his view of the habitable earth, 9;
and the western passage, 27;
his age, 34.

Eric Upsi, Bishop, 65.

Eric the Red, his career, 61;
saga, 85, 90, 94.

Erizzo, _Le Scoperte Artiche_, 127.

Erslef, Ed., on the Zeni, 114.

Erytheia, 14.

Escoma (Bolivia) ruins, 250.

Escudero, _Chihuahua_, 396.

Eskimos, their boats drift to Europe, 61;
appear in Greenland, 68, 107;
near Behring’s Straits, 78;
described by La Peyrère, 86;
known to the Northmen as Skrælings, 105;
bibliog., 105, 108;
their former southern range, 106, 336;
their intellectual char., 106;
their migrations, 106, 321;
their skulls, 106, 377;
bone implements, 106;
their linguistic differences, 107, 425;
missions among, 108;
De Pauw on, 370;
allied to the cave race of Europe, 377, 390;
of the primitive race of America, 336, 367;
their stone implements, 336.

Esparza, M. de, _Informe_, 183.

Espinosa, J. D., 427.

Essex Institute, 438.

Estes, L. C., 409.

Estete, M., 277.

Estienne, Jean d’, on Atlantis, 45.

Estotiland, 72, 128;
identification of, 114;
not America, 111, 115;
was America, 114, 115.

Eten, 277.

Eternal Islands, 47.

Ethnographical collections, 412.

_Ethnological Journal_, 442.

Ethnological Society, _Journal_, 442;
_Transactions_, 442.

Etowah valley mounds, 410.

Ettwein, _Traditions of the Indians_, 325.

Etzel, Anton von, _Grönland_, 107.

Eudoxus, 35.

Eumenius, 47.

Euphemus in the Atlantic, 26.

Euripides, _Helena_, 13;
_Hippolytus_, 14.

Euseues, 22.

Euthymemes, 26.

Evans, John, _Anc. stone implements_, 384.

Evans, A. S., _Our Sister Republic_, 180.

Everett, Alex. H., in Spain, iii;
on the Norse voyages, 94.

Everett, Edw., on the Norse voyages, 94.

Everett, Wm., on the Northmen, 98.

Evers, E., _Archæology of Missouri_, 419.

Ewbank, T., _Rock-writing_, 105;
_Indian Antiq. and Arts_, 416.

Eyrbyggja Saga, 83.

FABRICIUS, _Dissert. Crit._, 372.

Fabulous islands, 46.
_See_ Atlantic islands.

Faidherbe, Gen., 25.

Fairfield County, Ohio, mounds, 408.

Falb, R., _Land der Inca_, 275.

Falconer, Hugh, _Palæontol. Memoirs_, 384;
_Primeval Man_, 390.

Falconer, Richard, _Voyages_, 318.

Faliès, L., _Populations primitives de l’Amérique_, 415.

Fall River, “Skeleton in Armor” found, 105.

Fancourt, C. G., _Yucatan_, 188.

Farcy, Ch., 192;
_Antiq. de l’Amérique_, 77.

Faria y Sousa, _Hist. Portuguezas_, 49.

Faribault, G. B., _Catalogue_, iv.

Farnham, Luther, _Private Libraries of Boston_, x, xvii.

Farnum, Alex., _Northmen in Rhode Island_, 102.

Faroe Islands, 114.

Farquharson, R. J., 404.

Farrar, _Families of Speech_, 75.

Farrer, J. A., _Primitive Manners_, 379.

Favyn, Andre, _Navarre_, 75.

Fay, Jos. S., 99.

Fay, S. L., 403.

Feather work, 420.

Fechner, _Centralblatt_, 443.

Fegeux, _Quemada_, 183.

_Fejérvary Codex_, 205.

Fernandez, Melchior, 279.

Ferrer de Conto, José, _La Marina real_, xxxvii.

Feudal system in anc. Mexico, 173.

Feyerabend, Sigmund, portrait, xxxi.

Field, Thomas W., _Ind. Bibliog._, xiii, 414;
his _Catalogue_, xiii, 414.

Field of Delight, 32.

Fifteenth-century maps, 53, 57.

Figueredo, J. de, 279.

Figuier, Louis, _L’homme primitif_, 388, 412;
_Human Race_, 412;
_World before the Deluge_, 375, 412.

Finæus, Orontius, his map, xxiv.

Finlay, J. B., _Wyandotte Mission_, 116.

Finley, E. B., 403.

Finley, I. J., _Ross County, Ohio_, 408.

Finns build the mounds, 405.

Fiorin, Nic., his map, 58.

Fischer, Abbé, edits Ramirez’s Catalogue, 414;
_Bibl. Mejicana_, xiii, 414.

Fischer, Theobald, edits Ongania maps, 47.

Fischer, _Origin des Américaines_, 76.

Fish-hooks of bone, 417.

Fish-spears, 360.

Fish-weirs, 365.

Fiske, Moses, 371.

Fiske, Willard, _Bibliog. Notices_, 93.

Fitch, John, his map on the mounds, 398.

Fitzer, W., xxxi;
_Orient. Indian_, xxxiii.

Five Nations. _See_ Iroquois.

Flat-heads, 425.

Flath Inis, 32.

_Flatoyensis Codex_, 99.

Fleming, Abraham, _Registre of Hystorie_, 21.

Fletcher, Alice C., _Indian Education and Civilization_, 321;
her studies on the Sioux, 327;
_Omaha Tribe_, 327.

Fletcher, Robt., _Prehist. trephining_, 440.

Flint, Earl, on the Nicaragua footprints, 385;
on Palenqué, 191.

Flint chips, 388.
_See_ Stone.

Flint folk, 416;
in America, 417.

Flora, that of South America connected with Polynesia, 82.

Flores, I. J., _La lengua del Regno Cakchiquel_, 427.

Florida, calcareous conglomerate, reported human remains in, 389;
migration from, to Mexico, 136;
mounds, 410;
pile-houses in, 393;
pottery, 419;
shell heaps, 393.

Flower, W. H., 106;
on the study of skulls, 373.

Folsom, Geo., on the Northmen, 96;
on the Zeni, 112.

Fondouce, C. de, _Les temps préhistoriques_, 390.

Fontaine, Edw., _How the World was Peopled_, 374;
on the recent origin of man, 382.

Fontpertuis, A. F. de, _Canaries_, 116;
on the mounds, 403.

Footprints in geological times, 385;
cut of one, 386.

Forbes, D., 442.

Forbiger, _Handbuch der Alten Geog._, 4, 36.

Force, M. F., on the mounds, 402.

Force, Col. Peter, his library, vi, 171;
dies, vi;
tributes to, vii.

Forged relics made in Mexico, 180.

Formaleoni, _Saggio sulla Nautica Ant. dei Veneziani_, 47.

Forrey, Samuel, 374.

Forshey, C. G., 409.

Förstemann, Ed., edits the _Dresden Codex_, 205;
_Die Maya Handschrift_, 205;
_Der Maya Apparat in Dresden_, 205;
_Erläuterungen zur Mayahandschrift_, 202, 205.

Forster, J. R., _Geschichte der Entd. und Schifffahrten_ xxxvi;
_Entdeckungen im Norden_, 92;
on the Zeni, 111.

Fort Ancient, Ohio, 408.

Fort Chartres, last French flag at, 316.

Fort Duquesne, 310.

Fortia, 43.

Fortunate Islands, 15, 22, 27, 47, 48.
_See_ Canaries.

Fossey, M., _Le Méxique_, 180, 184.

Foster, G. E., _Se-quo-yah_, 326.

Foster, J. W., _Prehistoric Races_, 401, 412;
on the moundbuilders, 401, 409;
(with Whitney), _Geology of Lake Superior_, 418.

Four Worlds, doctrine of, 11.

Fourteenth-century maps, 55.

Fousang, in Buache’s map, 79;
discussions on, 81;
voyage to, 78.

Fox, A. L., on early navigation, 81.

Fox, Luke, on the Zeni, 111.

Fraggia, _Coleccion de MSS._, ii.

Frampton, John, translates Monardes, xxix.

France, archæological efforts in, 441;
Congrès archéologique, 441;
Société Américaine, 441;
_Annuaire_, 441;
_Archives_, 441;
_Revue Américaine_, 441;
_Actes de la Soc. d’Ethnographie_, 441.

Franciscans in Mexico, 154.

Franciscus, E., _Ost- und West-Indischer Lustgarten_, 370.

Francisque, Michel, _Le Pays Basque_, 75.

Franco, Alonzo, 162.

Franco, P., _Indios de Veragua_, 425.

Franklin, B., his papers in Henry Stevens’s hands, xv;
on the Norse voyages, 92;
on the mounds, 398.

Franklin Co., Ohio, mounds, 408.

Frantzius, A. von, _San Salvador_, etc., 196.

Fraser, W., 51.

Frassus, _Regio_, etc., ii.

Frauds, archæological, 403.

Frazier, J. G., 328.

French colonists in North America, their treatment of the Indians,
283, 297;
compared with the English, 299;
aim to possess the Western country, 301, 302;
their forts along the lakes, 302;
their use of Indian lands, 303;
numbers, 310; the testimony of their early explorers, 318;
their manœuvres to monopolize the fur trade, 324.

Fresnoy, Lenglet du, _Méthode_, xxxii.

Fréville, _Cosmog. du Moyen Age_, 38, 76;
_Commerce de Rouen_, 76.

Frey, S. L., 405.

Frezier, A. F., _Voyage_, 243, 271.

Friederichsthal, Baron von, in Yucatan, 186.

Friends. _See_ Quakers.

Frisch, E. F., _Wikingzüge_, 85.

Frisius, Laurentius, map, 114.

Frislanda, 72;
name used by Columbus, 73;
“Fixlanda”, 73;
in maps, 73;
in the Zeno map, 114;
different identifications, 114, 115;
in Stephanus’s map, 130.

Fritsch, J. G., _Disputatio_, 93, 371.

Frobisher, xxxiv;
and the island of Bus, 51.

Frode, Are, 84.

Froebel, _Seven Years’ Travel_, 410.

Fry, J. B., _Army Sacrifices_, 319.

Fuenleal, Bishop, 155.

Fuensalida, Luis de, 155.

Fuentes y Guzman, F. A. de, _Guatemala_, 167, 196;
_Recordacion Florida_, 168, 444.

Fuhlrott, Dr., 390.

Fur trade, 302.

Fusang. _See_ Fousang.

Fustér, _Bibl. Valenciana_, ii.

GABRIAC, CTE. DE, _Promenade à travers l’Amérique du Sud_, 231.

_Gacetas de Literatura_, 180.

Gadé, G., on an ancient Norse ship, 62.

Gades (Cadiz), 13, 24.

Gaffarel, Paul, _L’Atlantide_, 16;
_Les isles fantastiques_, 31, 47;
_Relations entre l’anc. monde et l’Amérique_, 38, 60;
_Etude sur les rapports de l’Amérique_, 40;
_Les Grecs ont-ils connu l’Amérique?_ 40;
on the Phœnician visits to America, 41;
on Roman inscriptions in America, 41;
_Rapports de l’Atlantis_, 44, 46;
his later studies of it, 44, 46;
bibliog. of Atlantis, 46;
_Voyages de St. Brandan_, 48;
his map (_fac-simile_) of the Atlantic islands, 52;
on the Arab voyages, 72;
on Vinland, 97;
on the Newport mill, 105;
on the Zeno voyage, 115;
on the lost tribes of Hebrews, 116;
on blackamoors in America, 117.

Galapagos, 81.

Gale, G., _Upper Mississippi_, 327;
his annotations on Lapham’s _Antiq. of Wisconsin_, 408.

Galibi, 428.

Galicia, F. C., 171.

Gallindo, J., 193.

Gallæus, Ph., _Enchiridion_, 129; map, in facs., 129.

Gallatin, Albert, on Polynesian connections of the American man, 82;
on pre-Spanish migrations, 138;
on the Toltecs, 141;
_Notes on the semi-civilized nations of Mexico_, 169, 424;
_Synopsis of the Indian Tribes_, 320;
his map of the Indian tribes,321;
a student of ethnology, 376;
on the pueblos, 396;
on American languages, 320, 422, 424;
review of Hale’s work on the Wilkes Exped., 424;
on Teoyaomiqui, 435;
founds the American Ethnological Society, 437;
commends the work of Squier and Davis, 439.

Galloway, W. B., _Science and Geology_, 387.

Galvano, xxxvi; on the seven cities, 75.

Gannett, H., 397.

Gante, Pedro de, 156;
_Chronica Compend._, 156.

Garcia y Cubas, _Ensayo_, 41;
_Atlas de la Republica Mejicana_, 139;
_Pirámides_, 183.

Garcia, Gregorio, _Origen de los Indios_, i, 116, 264, 369;
his _Monarquia de los Incas_ lost, 264.

Gardar, Cathedral, 108.

Garden beds, 410.

Garden of Eden, 372.

Gardner, Job, on Dighton Rock, 103, 104.

Gardner, J. S., _Eocenes of England_, 44.

Garnier, Jules, _Les migrations polynésiennes_, 82.

Garnier, J. L., 172.

Garrigue and Christern, _Livres curieux_, xv.

Gass, Rev. J., 404.

Gatschet, A. S., on the Beothuks, 321;
_Migration legend of the Creeks_, 326, 425, 426;
his linguistic studies, 423, 426.

Gavarrete, Juan, 167.

Gavilan, A. R., _Hist. de Copacabana_, 264.

Gay, Sydney H., on the Norse voyages, 97.

Gebelin, Count, 104;
_Monde primitif_, 41, 424.

Geiger, Lazarus, _Development of the human race_, 200.

Geijer, E. J., _Hist. of Sweden_, 84.

Geikie, A., _Search for Atlantis_, 45.

Geikie, Jas., _Great Ice Age_, 332, 386.

Gelcich, E., _Fischgang des Gascogner_, 75.

Geminus, _Isagoge_, 7;
_Elementa astron._ or _Isagoge_, 35.

Gendron, _Pays des Hurons_, 321.

Genesis, a record of the Jews only, 372.

_Genesis of Earth and Man_, 373.

_Geografisk Tidsskrift_, 113.

_Geographi Græci minores_, 25.

Geographical Society of the Pacific, 438.

Geological Society, _Quarterly Journal_, 443.

Geology as controverting theology, 383.

George, Wm., xvi.

Georgia, case with the Cherokees, 326;
mounds in, 410;
Reck in, 326;
shell heaps, 393.

Germany, archæological studies in, 443.

Gesner, W., 416.

Gesture-language, 422.

Ghetel, Henning, xx.

Gheysmer abridges Saxo, 92.

Giants in Mexico, 133;
references, 133;
their bones proved to be mastodon’s, 133;
the Toltecs, 141.

Gibbs, Geo., 409, 422;
on the Oregon tribes, 328;
_Chinook Dict._, 423;
his linguistic studies, 424;
memoir of, 424;
_Vocabularies of the Clallam and Lummi_, 425;
_Chinook jargon_, 425;
_Chinook language_, 425.

Gila Valley, 395.

Gilbert, J. K., _Niagara falls_, 333.

Gillies, John, _Hist. Collections_, 322.

Gilliss, G. M., 275.

Gillman, H., _Anc. men of the great lakes_, 403;
papers on the mounds, 408;
_Anc. works at Isle Royale_, 418.

Giroldi map (1426), 53.

Gist, Christopher, 287.

Glacial age, how long ago, 333, 382, 386;
in America, 332, 386;
man in the, 343, 387.

Glacial gravels, 387.
_See_ Trenton.

Gladiatorial stone, 182.

Gladstone, W. E., _Homer_, 12, 39.

Glareanus, revised Strabo, 34;
on early references to America, 40.

Glass in pre-Spanish times, 177.

Gleeson, _Cath. Chh. in California_, 409.

Gliddon, Geo. R. _See_ Nott, J. C.

_Glorias del segundo siglo de la compañia de Jesus_, 317.

Goajira, 428.

Goajira language, 425.

Gobineau, _Moral Diversity of Races_, 374.

Godron, A., on Fousang, 80.

Godthaab, 69.

Gold found in the mounds, 418.

Goldsmidt, Edmund, 370.

Gomez, Estevan, his voyage, xxxvi.

Gomme, G. L., 443.

Gonçalvez de Mattos Corrêa, _Descobertas_, xix.

Gondra, Padre, 170, 444.

Gonino, J., 177.

Goodell, A. C., jr., on the Norse voyages, 98.

Gooding, Jos., 103, 104.

Goodnow, I. P., 390.

Goodrich, Aaron, _The So-called Columbus_, 97.

Goodrich, S. G., 328.

Goodson, _Straits of Anian_, 110.

Gookin, Daniel, 322.

Goranson, 92.

Gorgon islands, 13.

Gosnold found metal in use in New England, 417.

Gosse, L. A., _Déformations du crane_, 373.

Gosselin, P. F. J., _Géog. des Grecs_, 36;
_Recherches sur la géog._, 36;
_Iles de l’océan_, 46;
on Atlantis, 46.

Gottfried, J. L., _Neue Welt_, xxxiii.

Göttingen, Anthropol. Verein, 443;
Americana in, iii.

Götz, _Dresdener Bibliothek_, 205.

Goupil, René, 323.

Gowans, Wm., bookseller, vi;
dealer in Americana, xv.

Graah, W. A., _Reise till ostkysten af Gronland_, 109.

Grammar as an ethnical test, 421, 422.

Granados y Galvez, J. J., _Tardes Américanas_, 172.

Grant, E. M., 410.

Gratacap, L. P., 177, 377.

Grave Creek mound, 403;
alleged Scandinavian inscription in, 102, 403.

Gravier, Gabriel, _Les Normands_, 76, 97;
_Découverte de l’Amérique_, 97;
on Norse civilization among the Aztecs, 99;
on the Dighton Rock, 104;
_Le Roc de Dighton_, 104;
on the Newport mill, 105.

Gray, Asa, on the flora of Japan, 44;
in _Darwiniana_, 60;
on Jeffries Wyman, 392.

Gray, D., 325.

Gray, Thomas, his copy of the _Novus Orbis_, xxv.

Greek allied to the Maya, 427.

Greeks, cosmography among, 2;
in the Atlantic, 26.

Green, John, xxxv.

Green, Dr. S. A., 102.

Green rock (in the Atlantic), 51.

Greene, Albert G., his books, xiii.

Greenland, in the Ptolemy of 1482, xii;
its name, 61;
earliest people there, 61;
its folk lore, 61;
Norse visits in eighth century, 61;
churches in, 63, 86;
East and West Bygd, 63, 108;
Norse occupation, 68;
bishops of, 68;
extinction of the colonists, 68, 69;
efforts to learn their fate, 69;
climatic changes, 69;
its colonists perhaps merged in the Eskimos, 69;
ancient bishopric, 85;
its ruins, 85;
bibliog., 85;
runes in, 87;
seals of the bishops, 87;
voyages hence to Vinland, 87;
_Antiq. Amer._, 94;
map, 95;
a prolongation of Europe, 99, 122, 125. _See_ Eskimos.
Sometimes confounded with Spitzbergen, 107;
bibliog. of the lost colonies, 107;
voyages to discover them, 107, 109;
Hans Egede on, 107;
sites of the colonies disputed, 108, 109;
scant population on east coast, 109;
the Zeni in, 114;
cartography of, 117, 132;
oldest map yet found, 117;
in the Genovese portolano, 117;
in the _Tab. Reg. Sept._, 117, 121;
maps by Hans Egede, 108;
by G. Fries, 108;
by Paul Egede, 108;
by Anderson, 108;
by Rafn, 109;
by Claudius Clavus, 117, 118;
by Fra Mauro, 117;
by Behaim, 120;
by Sylvanus, 120;
by Waldseemüller, 122;
by Apian, 122;
by Frisius, 122;
by Olaus Magnus, 123, 125;
by Münster, 126;
by Bordone, 126;
by Vopellio, 126;
by Gallæus, 129;
notions of Greenland in Columbus’ time, 120;
in Portuguese chart (1503), 120;
Ruysch made it a part of Asia, 120;
made to stretch northerly from Europe, 125;
to connect Europe with America, 126;
called Labrador by Rotz, 126;
severed from Europe in the alteration of the Zeno map (1561), 128,
129;
made an island by Mercator and others, 129;
earliest Scandinavian maps to illustrate the sagas, 129;
maps of xvith cent., 130;
Moll’s confusion, 131;
maps by Hans Egede, 131;
by Paul Egede, in facs., 131;
by Jovis Carolus, 131;
by H. Doncker, 131;
by J. Meyer, 131;
De la Martinière connects it with northern Asia, 132;
La Peyrère’s map in facs., 132.

Greenwood, Dr. Isaac, on Dighton Rock, 103, 104.

Greg, R. P., _Fret ornament_, 176.

Gregg, _Commerce des Prairies_, 396.

Gregory IV., his bull, 61.

Grenville, Thos., _Bibl. Grenvil._, iv.

Griffis, W. E., _Arent van Curler_, 323.

Grijalva, Juan de, on the Mexican coast (1518), xxi, 149.

Grimm’s Law, 421.

Grinlandia. _See_ Greenland.

Griswold, Almon W., his library, xiii.

Grocland, a geographical misapprehension, 129;
on maps, 129.

Gronland, or Gronlandia. _See_ Greenland.

Gros, _Sur les Monuments de Mexico_, 170.

Grossmann, F. E., 397.

Grote, A. R., 369;
on the Eskimos, 105.

Grote, _Greece_, 28.

Grotius, Hugo, on Scandinavia blood in Central America, 99;
_De Origine Americanarum_, 369;
his controversies, 370.

Grotlandia. _See_ Greenland.

Gruppe, _Die Kosmischen Systeme der Griechen_, 39.

Grynæus, Simon, portrait, xxiv;
_Novus Orbis_, xxiv;
_Die neue Welt_, xxv;
map (1532), 114.

Guajiquero Indians, 169.

Guanches in the Canaries, 25, 116, 377.

Guano, 253.

Guaranis, 136.

Guarini language, 278.

Guatemala, linguistic evidence of Norse influence in, 99;
early hist. of, 135, 150;
the ethnological connection of its people in dispute, 150;
native sources, 166;
_Popul Vuh_, 166;
_Memorial de Tecpan Atitlan_, 166;
bibliog., 166.
_See_ Quichés, Cakchiquels.

Guatusos, 169.

Guaxtecas, 136.

Guazucupan, 168.

Gucumatz, 135, 435.

Gudmund, Jonas, his Vinland map, 130.

Gudrid, 65.

Guerrero, ruins in, 184.

Guerrero, Lobo, _Constituciones Synodales_, 268.

Guest, Dr., _Origines Celticæ_, 45.

Guest, W. E., 410.

Guignes, on the Arab voyages, 72;
_Les navigations des Chinois_, 78.

Guillot, Paul, 93.

Guimet, Emile, _Anc. peuples de Méxique_, 81.

Guiyard, _Géog. d’Abul-Fada_, 47.

Gumilla, 75.

Gunnbiorn, his voyage, 61;
his Skerries, 109.

Günther, Siegmund, _Hypothèse_, 37;
_Die Lehre von der Erdrundung_, 38.

Gurnet Head, 102.

Gutierrez, Manuel, 183.

HAAS, WILLS DE, on the moundbuilders, 401, 403.

Habel, S., on sculptures in Guatemala, 197.

Haeckel, _Hist. of Creation_, 375;
_Natürl. Schöpfungsgesch._, 383.

Hakluyt, Richard, edits Peter Martyr, xxiii;
used by Lok, xxiii;
_Divers Voyages_, xxix;
_Principall Navigations_, xxix;
on Madoc, 109;
on the Zeni, 111.

Hakluyt Soc. publications, xxxvii, 443.

Haldeman, S. S., 437;
discovers rude implements, 347;
on a Rock shelter, in Penna., 416.

Hale, Capt. Chas. R., on the Dighton Rock, 102.

Hale, E. E., on the Madoc voyage, 111.

Hale, Horatio, _Iroquois Book of Rites_, 325, 425;
on the tribes of the N. W. coast, 328;
_Origin of Language_, 377, 421;
on the Cherokees, 402;
_Primitive money_, 420;
_Indian migrations_, 403, 422;
in Wilkes’ Exploring Exped., 423, 424;
his linguistic studies, 424.

Hale, Nathan, 320.

Haliburton, R. G., on Bjarni’s voyage, 63;
on the Norse voyages, 98.

Hall, Jacob, 107.

Hall, James, _Indian Tribes_, 320.

Hall, Joshua, 410.

Hamconius, _Frisia_, 75.

Hamlin, A. C., 102.

Hampstead, G. S. B., _Portsmouth_, Ohio, 408.

Hamor in De Bry, xxxii.

Hamy, E. T., on a Chinese inscription at Copan, 81;
_Crania Ethica_, 373;
_Précis de paléontologie humaine_, 383.

Hanno, on the coast of Africa, 25;
_Periplus_, 34;
his voyage, 45.

Hanson, _Gardiner, Me._, 322;
_Norridgewock_, 322.

Happel, _Thesaurus_, 320.

Hardiman, _Irish minstrelsy_, 50.

Hardin Co., Ohio, mounds, 408.

Hardy, Michel, _Les Scandinaves_, 97.

Hariot, _Virginia_, xxxi.

Harrassowitz, Otto, xvi, xvii.

Harris, G. H., _Lower Genesee County_, 323.

Harris, John, _Voyages_, xxxiv.

Harris, T. M., on the mounds, 398;
_Tour_, 405.

Harrison, Gen. W. H., on the mounds, 407.

Harrison, _John Howard Payne_, 326.

Harrisse, Henry, _Bibl. Am. Vet._, v, 414;
_Notes on Columbus_, v;
controversy with Henry Stevens, v;
_Sur la nouvelle France_, v;
_Additions_, v;
_La Colombine_, v;
_Les Cortereal_, xix;
on Peter Martyr, xx;
on early Basque voyages to America, 75.

Hartgers, Joost, _Voyagien_, xxxiv.

Hartman cave, 391.

Harvard College library, rich in Americana, iii;
Sparks MSS. in, vii;
its catalogue, xvii.

Hassaurek, F., _Spanish Americans_, 272.

Hassler, _Buchdruckergeschichte Ulms_, 118.

Hatfield, R. G., on the Newport mill, 105.

Hatun-runas, 226.

Haumonté, J. D., _La Langue Taensa_, 425.

Harard, V., 328.

Haven, S. F., on the Northmen, 96;
portrait, 374;
his _Reports_, 374;
his career, 376;
_Archæology of the United States_, 376;
revises Lapham’s _Antiq. of Wisconsin_, 400;
on mound exploration, 400;
believes in their Indian origin, 400;
_Prehist. Amer. Civilization_, 412.

Haven, S. F., jr., bibliography, ii.

Hawkins, Benj., _Creek Country_, 326, 429.

Hawkins, _Voyage_, xxxvi.

Hay, _Texcoco_, 170.

Hayden, F. V., _Ethnography and Philology of the Missouri Valley_,
424;
_Survey of the territories_, 440;
among the cliff houses, 395.

Hayes, I. I., _Land of Desolation_, 69, 98.

Haynes, H. W., on runic frauds, 97;
on Vinland, 98;
on the Monhegan runes, 102;
“The prehistoric Archæology of North America”, 329;
discovers rude implements in N. E., 347, 363;
_Bow and arrow unknown to the palæolithic man_, 355;
believes in interglacial man, 355;
at Solutré, 357;
on the Eng. trans. of Grotius, 370;
on the Trenton implements, 388;
_Copper implements_, 418;
on the Taensa fraud, 426.

Hayti held to be Ophir, 82.

Haywood, John, _Tennessee_, 372.

Headlee, S. H., 409.

Heart, Maj. Jona., _Ancient Mounds_, 398, 410.

Heaviside, J. T. C., _Amer. Antiquities_, 41.

Hecatæus, 34.

Heckewelder, J., on Delaware names, 437;
on the mounds, 398;
on the Delaware language, 423;
correspondence with Duponceau, 425.

Heer, _Flora tert. Helv._, 44;
_Urwelt der Schweitz_, 44.

Hegewisch, Prof., iii.

Heidenheimer, H., _Petrus Martyr_, xx.

_Heimskringla_, 83.

Heller, C. B., on Uxmal, 189;
_Reisen_, 189.

Helluland, 63, 130.

Hellwald, F. von, on Amer. migrations, 139;
on the autochthonous theory, 375;
_Naturgeschichte des Menschen_, 412;
on Mexican mining, 418.

Helps, Sir Arthur, xii;
gives the first English condensation of the _Popul Vuh_, 166;
on Zumárraga, 203;
_Spanish Conquest_, 269;
on Peru, 269;
_Realmah_, 379.

Henao, G. de, _Antig. de Cantabria_, 75.

Henderson, Ebenezer, _Iceland_, 93.

Henderson, Geo. F., _The Republic of Mexico_, 427.

Henotheism, 430.

Henry, Alex., _Travels_, 318;
mentions copper mines, 417.

Henry, David, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Henry, Joseph, 139;
on Lake Superior mining, 418.

Henshaw, H. W., on the mounds, 401;
_Animal carvings_, 404;
on sinkers, 351, 417.

Herbert, Sir Thomas, _Travaile into Africa_, 109.

Herbrüger, E., _Album de Mitla_, 185.

Herckmann, _Der Zeevaert_, etc., xxxiv.

Hercules’ twelve labors, 13.

Heredra, J. M. de, ed. Bernal Diaz, 154.

Heremite, J. d’, _Journael_, 271.

Herjulfson, Bjarni, his voyage, 63.

Hermes, K. H., _Entdeckung von America_, 96.

Herodotus, 39.

Herr, Michael, _Die neue Welt_, xxv.

Herrera, H. A. de, _Disputatio_, xx.

Herrera in De Bry, xxxii;
made use of the _Relaciones descriptivas_, 266;
title-page of his fifth book, showing portraits of Incas, 267;
_Historia_, 1, 155.

Hervai, ruins, 271, 277.

Hervas, L., _Lenguas y naciones Americanas_, 422;
_Catálogo de las Lenguas_, 422.

Hervey de St. Denis, _Fou-Sang_, 80.

Hesiod, _Theogony_, 2;
on the Elysian Fields, 13;
_Works and Days_, 13.

Hesperides, 14.

Heve language, 425.

Heynig, _Psychologisches Magazin_, 443.

Hidatsa language, 425.

Hieroglyphics, invented, 152;
of Yucatan, attempts to decipher, 195;
by Charencey, 195;
used by Spaniards in relig. instruction, 197;
stages of, 197;
color and forms, elements, 197;
not easily read even by natives, 198;
Mrs. Nuttall’s complemental signs, 198;
phonetic scale, 198, 200;
Landa’s Alphabet, 198;
general references, 198;
on a Yucatan statue, 199;
early descriptions, 200;
sculptured in wood, 200;
inscription on the Palenqué tablet, 200;
cut of the same, 201;
comparative age of those on stone and in MS., 202;
rebus character, 202;
_Codex Mendoza_, 203;
tribute rolls, 203, 205;
_Dresden Codex_, plate of, 204;
explained, 205;
_Codex Telleriano-Remensis_, 205;
_Codex Vaticanus_, 205;
_Fejérvary Codex_, 205;
other Maya MSS., 205;
_Codex Troano_, 205, 207;
_Codex Cortesianus_, 207;
facs. of plate, 206;
_Codex Perezianus_, 207.

Higginson, T. W., _Larger Hist. U. S._, 98, 176.

Higginson, Waldo, _Memorials of Class of 1833_, H. C., 439.

Highland County, Ohio, mounds, 408.

Hildebrand, H. O. H., _Island_, 85.

Hilder, F. F., 409.

Hildreth, Richard, on the Northmen, 96.

Hildreth, Dr. S. P., _Pioneer History_, 319;
_Pioneer Settlers_, 319.

Hilgard, E. W., 386.

Hill, G. W., 408.

Hill, Horatio, iii.

Hill, Ira, _Antiq. of America_, 104, 415.

Hill, S. S., _Peru and Mexico_, 272.

Himilko on the ocean, 25.

Hindoos, migrations, 371, 372.

Hipkins, A. J., _Musical instruments_, 420.

Hipparchus, 34;
on the form of the earth, 3;
on the oceans, 7.

_Hispanicarum rerum, Scriptores_, xxix.

Historical societies, their libraries, xviii.

Hobbs, James, _Wild life_, 327.

Hochelagan skull, 377.

Hochstetter, F. von, _Ueber Mex. Reliquien_, 420.

Hodgson, Adam, _Letters_, 76.

Hoei Shin, 78, 80.

Hoffman, W. J., 347.

Holden, Edw. S., _Cent. Amer. Picture-writing_, 201, 202, 440.

Holden, Mrs. H. M., on Atlantis, 45.

Hole, the Norse Holl, 99.

Holguin, D. G., his grammar, 279.

Holm, Lieut., on the Greenland ruins, 86.

Holmberg, A. E., _Nordbon_, etc., 85.

Holmes, O. W., on Jeffries Wyman, 392.

Holmes, W. H., on the sacrificial stone of Teotihuacan, 183;
on the cliff houses, 395;
survey of the serpent mound, 401;
on shell work, 417;
_Use of gold in Chiriqui_, 418;
on textile art, 419;
_Ceramic art_, 419;
on pottery in the Mississippi Valley, 419;
_Pueblo Pottery_, 419, 440.

Homer, Arthur, _Bibl. Amer._, ii.

Homer, his World, 6;
his ideas of the earth, 38;
his geography, 39.

Hondt, F. de, xxxv.

Honduras Indians, 169.

Hooker, J. D., _Botany of the Voyage of the Erebus_, etc., 82;
_Flora of Tasmania_, 82.

Hopkins, A. G., 323.

Hopkins, Samuel, _Housatunnuk Indians_, 323.

Horace, and Atlantic islands, 27.

Horn, F. W., _Lit. of the Scandinavian North_, 84, 98.

Horn (Hornius), Geo., _Responsio ad diss. H. Grotii_, 370;
on the Zeni, 111;
on Madoc, 109.

Hornstone, 417.

Horsford, E. N., _Disc. of America by Northmen_, 98;
edits Zeisberger’s _Dictionary_, 424.

Hosea, L. M., 408.

Hospitality, laws of, 175.

Hotchkiss, T. P., 409.

Hotten, J. C., xvi.

Hough, F. B., on the N. Y. Indians, 325;
on mound in N. Y. State, 405.

Houghton, Jacob, _Copper mines of Lake Superior_, 418.

Housatonics, 323.

Houses of the American aborigines, 420.

Howard, Lord, gov. of Virginia, 304.

Howe, _Hist. Coll. Ohio_, 407.

Howell, G. R., on Munsell, xv.

Howells, Jas., _Fam. letters_, 109.

Howgate polar exped., 106.

Howland, H. R., 408.

Howley, M. F., _Eccles. Hist. Newfoundland_, 69.

Howorth, H. H., _Irish monks and Northmen_, 61;
_Mammoth and the Flood_, 45, 382;
on Genesis, 384.

Hoy, P. R., 402;
_Copper implements_, 418.

Hoyt, Epaphas, _Antiq. Researches_, 323.

Huacabamba, 276.

Huacrachucus, 227.

Hualli, 275.

Huamachuchus, 227.

Huanacauri hill, 224.

Huanaco, 213.

Huanapu, 275.

Huancas, 227;
allies of the Chancas, 230.

Huanuco el viejo, 247.

Huaraz, ruins, 220.

Huarcu, 277.

Huarochiri, 277, 436.

Huascar, 231.

Huastecs, 136.

Huayna Ccapac, 231.

Hubbard, Bela, _Mem. of half century_, 408.

Hudson, Hendrick, voyage, xxxiv.

Hudson Bay connected with the Great Lakes, 79.

Hudson Bay Company, its relations with the Indians, 297.

Hudson Bay Indians, 321.

Hudson, _Geog. vet. script. Græci minores_, 34.

Hudson River Indians, 325.

Huebbe and Azuar, map of Yucatan, 188.

Huehue-Tlapallan, 136, 137.

Huemac, 140, 432.

Huerta, Alonso de, 279.

Huiñaque, ruins, 220.

Huitramannaland, 82.

Huitzillopochtli, 148, 432, 435.

Hulsius, bibliog., xii.

Hultsch, _Metrologie_, 4, 5.

Human sacrifices, 140, 145, 147, 148, 185;
in Peru, 237, 238;
in Mexico, 431.

Humboldt, Alex. von, his library, vi;
_Examen Critique_, vi, 40;
_Crit. Untersuchungen_, vi;
_Géog. du nouveau monde_, vi;
_Cosmos_, vi;
his MSS., vi;
on early mentions of America, 40;
on Atlantis, 46;
on the fabulous islands, 47;
on the Arab voyages in the Atlantic, 72;
on the Asiatic origin of Americans, 76;
on the Icelandic sagas, 94;
on the Norse discovery, 96;
on the Dighton Rock, 104;
on the Eskimos, 105;
on the Zeni, 115;
on the Aztec wanderings, 138;
on their migration maps, 139;
on Carreri, 158;
buys some part of the Boturini collection, 160, 162;
on the ruins of Middle America, 176;
on the Cholula mound, 180;
on Mitla, 184;
describes Aztec MSS., 203;
on the _Codex Telleriano_, 205;
in South America, 270;
_Vues de Cordillères_, 271, 371;
Eng. transl., 271;
_Voyage au régions équinoxiales_, 271;
_Ansichten der Natur_, 271;
_Aspects of Nature_, 271;
_Views of Nature_, 271;
on the Chibchas, 282;
on the origin of Mexicans, 371;
his bibliog. in his _Vues_, 413;
on arts in America, 416;
(with Bonpland) _Voyage_, 426.

Humboldt, Wm. von, his linguistic studies, 426.

Humphrey, D., _Soc. for propagating the Gospel_, 323.

Humphrey and Abbott, _Physics of the Mississippi Valley_, 393.

Hunt, Jas., 443.

Hurakan, 435.

Huron River, Ohio, mounds near, 408.

Hurons, 321;
their language, 423.

Hutchinson, Thos., his library, i.

Hutchinson, T. J., on Peruvian skulls, 244;
_Two years in Peru_, 272;
_Some fallacies about the Incas_, 272.

Huttich, John, _Novus Orbis_, xxiv.

Huxley, on cataclysmic force, 382;
_Distribution of Races_, 383;
_Man’s place in nature_, 390.

Hygden maps (1350), 55, 117; Polychronicon, 117.

Hyginus, on the form of the earth, 3;
_Poeticon astron._, 36.

Hyperboreans, 12.

Hyrcanian ocean, 382.

ICAZA, Father, 444.

Icazbalceta, J. G., on Indian languages, vii;
_Don Fray Zumárraga_, 155, 156, 203;
on Sahagún, 157;
ed. Mendieta, 157;
_Apuntes_, 157;
portrait, 163;
prints the_Hist. de los Méxicanos por sus Pinturas_, 164;
defends Zumárraga, 203;
_Destruccion de Antigüedades_, 203;
_Las bibliotecas de Eguiara y de Beristain_, 413;
_Cat. de escritores en lenguas indígenas_, 414;
_Bibl. Amér. del Siglo xvi._, 157, 414, 426;
his MSS., 427.

Iceland, visited by King Arthur, 60;
by Irish, 60, 82;
by the Norse, 83;
bibliog., 84;
millennial celebration, 85;
books printed in, 93, 94;
_Antiq. Amer._, 94;
map, by Rafn, 95;
by Claudius Clavus, 117, 118;
other maps, 118;
in Mauro’s map, 120;
in map (1467), 121;
in Martellus’ map, 122;
Olaus Magnus, 123, 124, 125;
Seb. Münster, 126;
Zeno map, 127, 128;
by Gallæus, 129.

Icelandic language, 66.

Icelandic sagas. _See_ Saga.

Ideler, J. I., vi.

Idols still preserved in Mexico, 180.

Igh, 134.

_Il genio vagante_, xxxiv.

Illinois, Indians, 327;
mounds, 408.

_Ilustracion Mexicana_, 184.

Imlay, G., _Western Territory_, 398.

Imox, 134.

Inca civilization. _See_ Peru.

India, supposed westerly route to, 27.

Indian languages. _See_ Linguistics.

Indian Ocean once dry land, 383.

Indian summer, origin of the term, 319.

Indians, variety of complexion among, 111, 370;
Morgan on their houses, 175;
their contact with the French and English, 283;
their feuds, 284;
acquire firearms, 285, 301;
deed lands, 286, 296;
trade with the whites, 286;
lose skill with the bow, 287;
adoption of prisoners, 287;
sell them for ransoms, 287, 289;
treatment of captives, 290;
captives cling to them, 291;
life of, 293;
trails, 294;
traders among, 294, 297;
as allies, 295;
treaties with the English, 300, 304, 305;
French missionaries among, 301;
fur-hunters, 301;
attempts to christianize, 307;
the French instigations, 313;
number of souls, 315;
bibliog., 316;
character in war, 318;
government publications on, 320, 321;
their shifting locations, 321;
reservations for, 321;
life of, as depicted by Morgan, 325;
tribal society, 328;
position of women, 328;
medicine, 328;
mortuary rites, 328;
their games, 328;
their mental capacity, 328;
myths, 429;
non-pastoral, 379;
map of tribes, 381;
decay of tradition among them, 400;
degraded descendants of the higher races of middle America, 415;
industries and trade, 416;
lost arts, 416;
copper mining, 418;
influence of missions, 430;
belief in a future life, 431;
scope of Schoolcraft’s work, 441.

Indiana, _Geol. Report_, 393;
Indians, 327; mounds, 408.

Indianapolis Acad. of Sciences, 438.

Indio triste, statue, 183.

Industries of the Amer. aborigines, 416.

Ingersoll, Ernest, 440;
_Village Indians_, 396;
on Indian money, 420.

Ingolf in Iceland, 61.

Ingolfshofdi, 61.

Ingram, Robert, 115.

Institut Archéologique, _Annales_, 441.

Institution Ethnographique, 442;
_Rapport_, 442.

_Insulae Fortunatae_, 14.
_See_ Fortunate Islands, Canaries.

Interglacial man, 334, 355.

International Congress of Prehistoric Archæology, _Trans._, 443.

Inwards, Richard, _Temple of the Andes_, 219, 273.

Iowa mounds, 409.

Ireland the Great, 61;
references, 82;
variously placed, 82, 83;
Rafn’s map, 95.

Ireland, early map of, 118

Irish legends about the island Brazil, 50.

Irish in Iceland, 60, 61, 82.

Irland it Mikla, 82.
_See_ Ireland the Great.

Irminger, Admiral, on the Zeni, 114.

Iron, meteoric, found in the mounds, 418.

Iroquois, held to be Turks, 82;
Sir Wm. Johnson breaks their league,
284, 300;
attacked by the French, 300;
extend their hunting grounds, 303;
war against the Illinois, etc., 303;
addicted to rum, 303;
treaty with the English (1764), 304;
sources of their history, 323;
map of their country, 323;
in Colden’s _Five Nations_, 324;
their cession of western lands to the English in 1726, 324;
sacrifice of the white dog, 325;
build the mounds in New York, 402, 405;
their arts, 416;
hero-gods, 430;
their monotheism, 430;
myths, 431;
language, 425.

Irving, Washington, on O. Rich, iii;
on the Norse voyages, 93, 96.

Isla Verde, 31, 47, 51.

Islands of the Blest, 13, 15.
_See_ Canaries, Fortunate Islands.

Isle Royale, copper mines, 418.

_Islenzkir Annáler_, 83.

Israel, lost tribes. _See_ Jews.

Italy, anthropological studies in, 444.

Itzamná, 434.

Itzcohuatl, 203.

Ivory workers, 417.

Ixtlilxochitl (ruler), 146.

Ixtlilxochitl (writer), 148;
beginning of Mexican history, 155;
gathers records, 157;
his character, 157;
his MS. material, 157;
part secured by Aubin, 162;
_Hist. Chichimeca_, 162;
chief instigator of the feudal view of Mexican life, 173;
his illusive character, 174.

Izalco, 168.

Izamal, 186, 188, 434.

Iztachnexuca, 139.

Iztcoatl, 146.

JACKER, E., 327, 328.

Jackson, C. T., _Geol. Report_, 418.

Jackson, Jas., _Liste de bibliog. géog._, i, xvii.

Jackson, W. H., among the cliff dwellings, 395;
in the Chaco cañon, 396;
_Photographs of N. Am. Indians_, 440.

Jacobs-Beeckmans, _Les iles Atlantique_, 53.

Jacobs, _Praying Indians_, 322.

Jacquet Island, 53.

Jade, 417;
in Asia and America, 81.

Jadite, 417.

_Jahrbücher für Anthropologie_, 443.

Jalisco, 139, 433.

James, Capt. Thomas, his voyage, xxxv.

Japan discovered, 32;
held to be Fusang, 78.

Jargons, 422.

Jarl, 61.

Jarvis, S. F., 381;
_Religion of the Indian Tribes_, 429.

Jarz, K., on the Homeric islands, 40.

Jasper, 417.

Jaubert, trans. of _Edrisi_, 48.

Jay, John, early navigator, 50.

Jefferson, Thos., his anthropological collections, 371;
on the mounds, 398;
on Amer. linguistics, 424;
his MSS. burned, 424;
_Notes on Va._, ii.

Jeffreys, _French Dominion_, 326.

Jemez, 394.

Jeremias, _Die Babylon.—Assyr. Vorstellungen_, 13.

Jesuits, their _Relations_ as a source of Indian history, 316;
their bibliog., xii;
their missions, 317;
travels of their missionaries, 318;
in Peru, 262.

Jewitt, J. R., _Journal at Nootka Sound_, 327.

Jews, Grave Creek tablet, 404;
migrations to America, 115.

Jiménes de la Espada, Márcos, _Biblioteca Hispano-ultramarina_, 260;
edits Santillan, 261;
edits Montesinos, 263;
edits the _Relacion_ of the Anonymous Jesuit, 263;
_Coleccion de libros Españoles raros_, 263;
_Tres Relaciones_, 263;
edits Salcamayhua, 266;
edits the _Informaciones por mandado de Don F. de Toledo_, 268;
his editorial labors, 274;
edits Cieza de Léon, 274;
edits Betanzos, 274;
portrait, 274.

Jogues, the missionary, 323;
sources, 323.

Johannes, Count. _See_ Jones, George.

Johnson, Elias, _Six Nations_, 325.

Johnson, G. H. M., 325.

Johnson, Sir William, and the Iroquois, 284;
on his influence among the Indians, 318.

Jolibois, Abbé, on the anc. Mexicans, 81.

Joly, _L’homme avant métaux_, 383;
_Man before metals_, 383;
on the moundbuilders, 403.

Jomard, _Les Antiq. Amér._, 80;
_Une pierre gravée_, 404.

Jones, C. C., _Tomo-chi-chi_, 326;
finds rude stone implements in Georgia, 344;
_Antiq. of No. Amer. Indians_, 344;
on the making of arrow-heads, 417;
on the Georgia mounds, 410;
_Indian Remains_, 410;
_Anc. tumuli_, 410;
_Antiq. of Southern Indians_, 293, 410;
on effigy mounds, 410;
on bird-shaped mounds, 410;
on rock inscriptions, 411.

Jones, David, _Two visits_, 110, 326, 398.

Jones, Geo., _Orig. Hist. of Ancient America_, 41, 190.

Jones, H. G., on Madoc’s voyage, 110.

Jones, Jos., 419; on the mounds, 410.

Jones, J. M., on shell heaps, 392.

Jones, Morgan, on the Tuscaroras, 109.

Jones, Peter, _Ojibway Indians_, 327.

Jones, _Oneida County_, 323.

Jones, _Stockbridge_, 323.

Jónsson, Arngrimur, 84;
_Grönlandia_, 85.

Jordan, Francis, _Aboriginal Encampment at Rehoboth, Del._, 393.

Jordan, Fr., jr., 419.

Jorell, Otto, _Navires du Nord_, 62.

Jotunheimer, 130.

Jourdain, A., _Traductions d’Aristote_, 37.

Jourdain, Ch., _Influence d’Aristote_, 37, 38.

_Journal of American Folk Lore_, 438.

_Journal of Anthropology_, 442.

Jowett, B., _Dialogues of Plato_, 46.

Joyce, _Old Celtic Romances_, 33, 50.

Juarros, Domingo, _Guatemala_, 168, 196.

Jubinal, _Légendes de S. Brandaines_, 48.

Julianehaab district, maps, 87, 89.

Junks, drifting of, 78.

Junquera, S. P., 115.

Justiniani, Dr. Pablo, 281.

KABAH, 188, 200.

Kabah-Zayi, 186.

Kakortok, 86, 88.

Kalbfleisch, C. H., his library, xviii.

Kalm, Peter, on the Norse voyages, 92;
_Travels_, 325;
on the mounds, 398;
on the formation of soil, 361.

Kames, Lord, _Hist. of Man_, 380.

Kan-ay-ko, 394.

Kane, Paul, _Wanderings_, 321.

Kansas Academy of Sciences, 438.

_Kansas City Review_, 439.

Kansas mounds, 409.

Keane, A. H., 273, 410;
_Ethnology of America_, 412, 422.

Keary, C. F., _Dawn of History_, 412, 415.

Keller, Dr., on the Swiss lake dwellings, 395.

Kelley, O. H., 409.

Kemp’s discovery in London, 388.

Kendall, E. A., 104;
_Travels_, 104.

Kennebecs, 322.

Kennedy, James, _Origin Amer. Indians_, 117.

Kennedy, J., _Probable origin of the Amer. Indians_, 369;
_Essays_, 369.

Kennett, White, _Bibl. Amer. Prim._, i;
his library, i.

Kennon, B., 78.

Kentucky caves, 390.

Kentucky mounds, 409.

Keppel, Gestalt, _Grösse, and Weltstellung der Erde_, 39.

Kerr, Henry, _Travels_, 111.

Kerr, Robert, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Keyport, N. Jersey, 363, 393.

Keyser, J. R., _Private life of the old Northmen_, 85;
_Religion of the Northmen_, 85.

Keyser, K., _Norges Hist._, 85.

Kich-Moo, 187.

Kiché, Brinton’s spelling of Quiché, 167.

Kidder, F., 325.

King, Richard, 106.

Kingektorsoak stone, 66.

Kingsborough, Edward, Lord, his belief in the lost-tribe theory, 116;
acc. of, 203;
his MSS. in Rich’s hands, 203;
in Sir Thomas Philipps’, 203;
_Antiq. of Mexico_, 203;
copies, 203;
finds no MSS. in Spain, 203.

Kingsley, Chas., _Lectures_, 98.

Kingsley, J. S., _Standard Nat. Hist._, 356.

Kino, Padre, 396.

Kircher, A., _Mundus Subterraneus_, 9, 43;
_Œdipus Ægypticus_, 204.

Kiriri, 428.

Kirkland, the missionary, on the mounds, 399.

Kitchen-middens. _See_ Shell heaps.

Kittanning, 312.

Klaproth, J. H. von, _Fousang_, 78.

Klee, _Le Déluge_, 390.

Klemm, _Allgem. Culturgesch. der Menschheit_, 377, 431;
_Allgem. Culturwissenschaft_, 377.

Kneeland, Samuel, _Amer. in Iceland_, 85;
on the skeleton in armor, 105.

Kneip, C. H., iii.

Knight, Mrs. A. A., 45.

Knox, Robert, _Races of Men_, 369.

Knox, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Koch and the Missouri mastodon, 388.

Kohl, J. G., on the Northmen voyages, 97;
on Frislanda, 114;
_Kitchi-Gami_, 327.

Kolaos, voyage, 40.

Kollmann, Dr., 384.

_Kosmos_, 438.

Koriaks, 77.

Kramer, J., ed. Strabo, 34.

Krarup, F., on the Zeni, 113.

Krause, E., _Northwest Coast of America_, 328.

Kristni Saga, 85.

Krossanes, 101, 102.

Kublai Khan, 82.

Kukulcan, 152.
_See_ Cukulcan.

Kumlein, L., _Nat. Hist. Arctic America_, 106.

Kunstmann, _Mémoires_, 53.

LA BORDE, _Mer du Sud_, 43;
_L’origine des Caraibes_, xxxiv, 117.

La Harpe, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

La Mothe Cadillac at Detroit, 303.

La Peyrère, map of Greenland, 132;
_Relation du Groenland_, 132.

La Roquette on the Zeni, 112.

La Salle and the Indians, 318.

Labarthe, Charles, _La civilisation péruvienne_, 275;
_Doc. inédits sur l’Empire des Incas_, 275.

Labat, _Nouveau Voyage_, 117.

Labrador, name of, 31, 74.

Lacandons, 188.

Lacerda, José de, _Doutor Livingstone_, 114.

Lachmann, _Sagenbibliothek_, 91.

Lacustrine deposits, 347;
habitations, 393.

Laet, Joannes de, _Nieuwe Wereldt_, i;
_Notæ ad diss. H. Grotii_, 370;
further controversy with Grotius, 370.

Lafieri, Geografia, 125.

Lafitau, on the Asiatic origin of Americans, 76;
_Mœurs des Sauvages_, 317;
on the Tartar origin of Americans, 371.

Lagerbring, Sven, 84.

Laguna, Col. de la, 184.

Laing, Ed., _Heimskringla_, 92;
on the sagas, 99.

Lake Bonneville, 347.

Lake Lahontan, 347.

Lake Superior, copper mines, 417.

Lamarck, J. B. A., his transformation theory, 383;
_Philosophie Zool._, 383.

Lambayeque, 275.

Lancaster, Pa., treaty at, 305.

Landa, Bishop, _Relacion_, 164, 200;
edited by Brasseur, 164;
by Rada y Delgado, 165;
critical account of editions by Brinton, 165;
his alphabet, 198;
facs. of part of it, 198;
exists only in a copy, 198;
pronounced a fabrication, 200, 202;
analysis of, 201;
misleading, 202;
his destruction of MSS., 203.

Landino, 35.

_Landnamabók_, 83; editions, 83.

Landry, S. F., _Moundbuilder’s Brain_, 403.

Lands, tenure of, 175.

Lang, A., 281.

Lang, J. D., _Polynesian Nations_, 82.

Langdon, F. W., 408.

Langebek, Jacobus, _Scriptores rerum Danicarum_, 83.

Langius, _Med. Epist. Misc._, 41.

Langlet du Fresnoy, _Méthode_, i.

Language, as a test of race, 421, 422;
failed in the palæolithic man, 421.
_See_ Linguistics.

Laon globe (1486), 119; cut, 56.

Lapham, I. A., on the Indians of Wisconsin, 327;
_Antiq. of Wisconsin_, 400, 408.

Lappawinzo, 325.

Larenaudière, _Méxique_, 190.

Larkin, F., _Anc. man in America_, 384, 405, 415.

Larrabure y Unanue, E., on the Ollantay drama, 282.

Larrainzar, M., _Estudios sobre la hist. de America_, 172, 195;
on Palenqué, 195.

Lartet, Ed., _Nouvelles Recherches_, 388;
_Annales des Sciences_, 441.

Lartet and Christy, _Reliq. Aquitanicæ_, 389.

Las Casas, _Narratio_, xxxiii;
_Apolog. hist._, 155.

Latham, _Nat. Hist. of Man_, 374;
_Man and his migrations_, 381.

Latreille, 16.

Latrobe, C. J., _Rambles in Mexico_, 180.

Laud, Archbp., 205.

Laurentian hills, 384.

Laurenziano-Gaddiano portolano, 55.

Law, A. E., 410.

Lawson, _Carolina_, xxxv.

L’Estrange, Sir H., _Americans no Jewes_, 115.

Le Beau, _Voyage_, 321.

Le Hon, H., _Influence des lois Cosmiques_, 387;
_L’homme fossile_, 383.

Le Moyne, _Florida_, xxxii.

Le Noir on the _Dresden Codex_, 205.

Le Plongeon, Dr., on Atlantis, 44;
on the connection of the Maya and Asiatic races, 81;
on traces of the Guanches in Yucatan, 117;
his studies in Yucatan, 166, 186;
his discovery of the Chac-mool, 180, 181, 190;
_Sacred Mysteries_, 180, 187;
his over-confidence, 187, 200;
controversies, 187;
at Chichen-Itza, 187, 190;
on the Maya tongue, 427.

Le Plongeon, Mrs. Alice, her studies on the Mayas, 166, 169, 187;
_Vestiges of the Mayas_, 187;
_Here and There in Yucatan_, 187.

Leardo, Giovanni, map (1448), 56;
(1452), 53, 56, 115.

Leclerc, Ch., _Bibl. Amer._, vii, xvi, 413, 423.

Leclercq, _Gaspésie_, 321.

Leconte, J. L., on the California Indians, 437.

Lee, Arthur, on the mounds, 398.

Lee, J. C. Y., 397.

Lee, J. E., _Lake dwellings of Switzerland_, 395.

Leffler, O. P., 84.

Legendre, Napoleon, _Races de l’Amérique_, 369.

Legis-Glueckselig, _Die Runen_, 66.

Legrand d’Aussy, _Image du monde_, 37.

Leibnitz, _Opera philol._, 40.

Leidy, Jos., 374;
discovers rude implements in lacustrine deposits, 347;
on a mustang skull found in the California gravels, 353;
_Extinct mammalia_, 388;
on shell-heaps, 393;
on the Hartman cave, 391.

Leif Ericson, his career, 62;
his voyage to Vinland, 63;
described, 90;
statue in Boston, 98.

Leipzig, Museum für Völkerkunde, _Bericht_, 443;
_Verein für Anthropologie_, 443.

Leland, Ch. G., C_alifornia and Mexico in the Fift. Cent._, 80;
_Fusang_, 80;
_Mythology of the Algonquins_, 99;
_Algonquin legends_, 99, 431;
on the Norse spirit in Algonquin myths, 99.

Lelewel, on the Arab voyages, 72;
on Frislanda, 114.

Lemoine, J. M., on the Hurons, 321;
on Indian mortuary rites, 328.

Lemuria, 383.

Lenape stone, 405.

Lenni Lenape, 325, 437.
_See_ Delawares.

Lenoir, A., on Egyptian traces in America, 41;
compares Palenqué with Egyptian remains, 192.

Lenox Library, xi;
its bibliographical contributions, xi.

Lenox, Jas., his library, xi;
_Recollections_ by Stevens, xi;
his De Brys, xxxiii.

Léon y Gama, A. de, _Desc. de las Dos Piedras_, 159, 182;
chronol. tables of Mexico, 133.

Léon y Pinelo, _Epitome_, i.

Leone, Giovan, _Viaggio_, xxix.

Lepsius, _Das Stadium_, 4.

Lesage, S., 317.

Lesley, J. P., _Origin and Destiny of Man_, 379, 383;
his independent views, 384.

Lesson and Martinet, _Les Polynésiens_, 82.

Letheman on the Navajos, 327.

Letronne, on the size of the earth, 5;
on the views of the extension of Africa, 7;
_Opinions Cosmog. des Pères_, 38.

Levinus printed with Martyr, xxiii.

Lévy-Bing on the Grave Creek mound tablet, 404.

Lewis, Sir Geo. C., _Astron. of the Ancients_, 36.

Lewis, H. C., _Geol. Survey of Penna._, 388;
_Trenton gravels_, 337, 388.

Lewis, T. H., on the mounds, 400, 403;
on a snake mound, 401;
on Iowa mounds, 409;
on Kentucky mounds, 409;
on Red River mounds, 410;
on Rock inscriptions, 410.

Lewis and Clarke, on the Indians, 320;
discover mounds, 409;
their Indian vocabularies lost, 424.

Lexington, Ky., Indian fort, 437.

Li Yan Tcheou, 80.

Libraries, American, i;
in New England, i;
private, of Americana, vi.

_Libretto de tutta la navigazione_, etc., xix.

Libyan relic in America, 404.

Lick Creek mound, 408.

Lima, audience of, 211.

Linares on Teotihuacan, 182.

Lindenow, G., voyage to Greenland, 107.

Linguistics, American, bibliog. of, vii, 421, 423;
affiliations with Asia, 77;
with China, 81;
used in studying ethnical relations, 421;
number of stocks, 422, 424;
dialects, 422;
maps of America, by languages, 422;
polysynthesis, 422;
collections, 425;
vocabularies in Wheeler’s Survey, 440.

Linschoten, xxxvii.

Lisbon Academy, _Memorias da Litteratura_, xix.

Little, Wm., _Warren_, 322.

Little Falls, Minn., 346.

Little Miami valley, mounds in, 403, 408.

Littlefield, Geo. E., xv.

Livermore, Geo., on Henry Stevens, xiv.

Lizana, B., 165.

Ljung, E. P., _Dissertatio_, 370.

Llamas of Peru, 213, 253; cut of, 213.

Llanos, Adolfo, _Sahagún_, 157.

Lloyd, Humphrey, _Cambria_, 109.

Lloyd, H. E., 108.

Lloyd, T. G. B., 321.

Loaysa, 162.

Locke, Caleb, _Hist. de la navigation_, xxxiv.

Locke, John, on the Wisconsin mounds, 400;
_Mineral Lands_, 400.

Locket, S. H., 409.

Lockwood, Rev. Samuel, 363;
collection, 393.

Lodge, Henry Cabot, review of Gravier’s _Découverte par les Normands_,
97.

Loess, 332, 348;
of the Mississippi Valley, 388.

Loew, O., 394.

Löffler, E., on Vinland, 98.

Logan, James, his position in Penna., 308.

Logstown, 287.

London Anthropological Society, _Memoirs_, 442;
_Trans._ and _Journals_, 442.

London Society of Antiquaries, _Archæologia_, 442.

Long, R. C., _Anc. Arch. of America_, 176.

Long, _Bibl. Amer._, ii.

Longfellow, H. W., _Skeleton in Armor_, 105.

Longperier, A. de, _Notice des Monuments_, 444;
_Bronzes Antiques_, 26.

Loo-choo Islands, 80.

Lopez, V. F., on Quichua roots, 280;
_Les Races Aryennes du Pérou_, 82, 241, 281;
on the Ollantay drama, 282,

Lorente, S., _Hist. Antiq. del Peru_, 270;
papers in the _Revista Peruana_, 270;
_Revista de Lima_, 270.

Lorenzana, _Hist. Nueva España_, 203.

Lorillard, Pierre, 177.

Lorillard City, 177;
situation, 188.

Lort, Michael, 104.

Loskiel, G. H., _Mission_, 371, 429.

Lothrop, S. K., _Kirkland_, 323.

Loudon, Archibald, _Selection of narratives_, 319.

Louisiana, missions in, 326;
mounds, 409.

Löw, Conrad, _Meer Buch_, xxxiii.

Löwenstern, _Le Méxique_, 182.

Lowndes, the bibliographer, xvi.

Lubbock, Sir John, _Origin of Civilization_, 377, 380;
as an anthropologist, 379;
portrait, 379;
_Prehistoric Times_, 379;
on _No. Amer. Archæology_, 379;
on the degeneracy of the savage, 381;
_Early Condition of Man_, 381;
_Scientific Lectures_, 387;
on prehistoric archæology, 412.

Lucy-Fossarieu, P. de, _Ethnographie de l’Amérique Antarctique_, 442.

Ludewig, Hermann E., _Amer. local History_, v;
_Amer. Aborig. Linguistics_, v;
_Lit. of Amer. Aborig. Language_, vii, 423.

Lule, 428.

Lummi language, 425.

Lumnius, J. F., _De Extremo Dei Judicio_, 115.

Lunarejo, Dr., 280.

Lund, Dr., on caves in Brazil, 390.

Lurin, 277.

Lyctonia, 46.

Lydius, B., xxv.

Lyell, Sir Charles, on Atlantis, 44;
_Antiquity of Man_, 384;
eds., 384;
_Second Visit_, 393;
on the moundbuilders, 402.

Lykins, W. H. R., 409.

Lyman, Theodore, 3, 412.

Lyó-Baa, 184.

Lyon, G. F., _Journal_, 170;
_Mexico_, 183.

Lyon, S. S., 410;
_Antiquities from Kentucky_, 439.

Lyon, W. B., 397.

MACCAULEY, CLAY, on the Seminole Indians, 326.

Macedo, Dr., on Inca and Aztec civilizations, 275.

Machimus, 22.

Maciana library (Venice), vi.

Mackenna, B. V., his books, xiii.

Maclean, J. P., on Atlantis, 45;
_Mastodon, Mammoth and Man_, 388;
_Moundbuilders_, 401;
on the serpent mound, 401;
on the Grave Creek tablet, 404;
mounds in Butler County, 408.

Maclovius, Bishop of Aleth, 48.

Macomb, J. N., _Exploring Exped. from Santa Fé_, 440.

Macrobius, 13, 31;
_Comm. in Somn. Scip._, 9, 10, 11, 36;
his maps, 10, 11, 12.

Madeira, 48;
known to the ancients, 15, 25, 27;
in the Bianco map, 50.

Madier de Montjau, _Chronol. hiérog._, 133;
on Mexican MSS., 163;
_Chronol. des rois Aztéques_, 200.

Madison, Bishop J., on the mounds, 398;
on fortifications in the West, 437.

Madisonville, Ohio, Archæolog. Soc., 407;
mounds, 408.

Madoc, Prince, his voyage, 71;
bibliog., 109, 110, 111;
linguistic traces of the Welsh in America, 109;
English eagerness to substantiate his voyage, 109;
some believe he went to Spain, 111;
his people are the Mandans, 111;
possible, but not probable, 111.

Madriga, P. de, 271; voyage to Peru, xxxiv.

Madrinanus, A., xx.

Maelduin, 33, 50.

Mag Mell, 32.

_Magazin für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen_, 443.

Magellan, xxviii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii.

Magio, Ant., _Lengua de los Indios Baures_, 425.

Magnus, Olaus, _Hist. of the Goths_, 84;
maps (1539), 123;
(1555), 124;
(1567), 125;
_Historia_, 125;
_Von dem alten Goettenreich_, 125.

Magnusen, Finn, 86, 96;
on _Scand. divisions of time_, 99;
an instance of his over-eagerness, 102.

Magnussen, Arne, 88.

Magrurin, 33.

Mahudel on stone implements, 387.

Mailduin, 33, 50.

Maillard, Abbé, _Miconaque language_, 425.

Maine Indians, 322;
Indian missions, 322;
shell heaps, 392.

Maisonneuve, _Bibl. Amer._, xiv, xvi;
_Collection linguistique_, 425.

Maisonneuve. _See_ Leclerc.

Maize in Peru, 213.

Major, R. H., on the Atlantic islands, 47;
on Arab voyages in the Atlantic, 72;
on the Northmen, 96;
on the sites of the Greenland colonies, 109, 113;
on the Madoc voyage, 111;
advocates the Zeni story, 112;
portrait, 112.

Mala, 277.

Malay emigration to America, 60.

Malay stock in America, 81, 82.

Mallery, Col. Garrick, on the Dighton Rock, 103;
on Indian inscriptions, 104;
on pictographs, 410;
on gesture language, 422;
_Study of Sign language_, 422, 440.

Mallet, P. H., _Dannemark_, 92;
_Northern Antiq._, 84, 92.

Malte-Brun, _Annales des Voyages_, xxxvi, 441;
_Nouvelles Annales_, xxxvi, 441;
on the Arab voyagers, 72;
on the sagas, 92;
on the Zeni, 112;
_Précis de la géog._, 112;
map of Central America, 151;
map of Yucatan, 188;
_L’époque des monumens de l’Ohio_, 398;
_Nations et langues au Méxique_, 427.

Mame-Huastèque language, 426.

Mamertinus, 47.

Mammoth, 388.

Man Satanaxio, 31, 47, 49, 54.

Man, origin and antiquity of, in America, 330, 369;
bibliog., 369;
plurality of origin, 372;
autochthonous, in America, 372;
references on, 375;
prehistoric, 377;
stages of prehistoric existence, 377;
his progress from barbarism to civilization, 378;
influenced by climate, 378;
degenerate in the modern savage, 380;
controversy on this point, 381;
arguments against his antiquity, 382;
for it, 383;
English, French, and German schools of opinion, 383;
original home in the Indian Ocean, 383;
his geological remoteness in Europe, 330, 384;
references on his antiquity in America, 384;
in the Glacial age, 387;
existence with extinct animals, 388;
in American caves, 389;
scarcity of human remains of the palæolithic era, 390;
early man in So. America, 390;
as lake dweller, 395;
of the Danish peat beds, 395;
general references on prehistoric man, 412, 415;
as a speaking animal, 421;
unity of the American race, 429;
the thoughts of early man, 429.
_See_ Anthropology.

Manasseh Ben Israel, 115.

Manchester Geographical Society, _Journal_, 442.

Manco Ccapac, origin of, 225;
at Cuzco, 224;
portrait, 228.

Mancos River, 395.

Mandans, 111.

Mange, Padre, 396.

Mangue dialect, 428.

Mangues, 169.

Mani, 153;
archives, 189.

Manilius, on the form of the earth, 3;
_Astronomicon_, 36.

Manitoba Hist. Society, _Trans._, 410;
mounds, 410.

_Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco_, 180.

Marana, J. P., _Turkish Spy_, 110.

Marçay, De, _Découvertes de l’Amérique_, 45.

Marceau, E., _Les anc. peuples d’Amérique_, 412.

Marcel de Serre, _Cosmog. de Moise_, 41.

Marcellus, _Ethiopic History_, 41.

March y Labores, José, xxxvii.

Marcoy, _Travels in So. Amer._, 209;
_Voyage_, 272.

Marcy, R. B., _Border Reminiscences_, 319;
(with G. B. McClellan) _Exploration of the Red River_, 327, 440.

Margry, Pierre, _Mémoires_, 302, 317.

Maricheets, 321.

Marietta, mounds, plan of, by W. Sargent, 437;
Harris, view of the mounds, 405;
mounds at, discovered, 407.

Marinelli, G., _Erdkunde bei den Kirchen-Vätern_, 30, 38.

Marinus of Tyre, 34;
on the size of the known earth, 8.

Markham, C. R., on the Eskimos, 107;
“The Inca civilization in Peru”, 209;
translates Report of Ondegardo, 261;
Molina’s _Rites of the Incas_, 262, 436;
translates Avila’s narrative, 264;
edits Salcamayhua, 266;
_Cuzco and Lima_, 271;
_Travels in Peru and India_, 271;
_Peru_, 271;
portrait, 272;
on Tiahuanacu, 273;
his editorial work, 274;
on the Quichua language, 280;
_Ollanta_, 281;
reply to Mitre, 282;
_Ocean Highways_, 442;
_Geog. Review_, 442;
_Geog. Mag._, 442.

Markland, 63, 130.

Marmier, X., _Island_, 84.

Marmocchi, F. C., _Viaggi_, xxxvii, 163.

Marquesas islands, 81.

Marquez, P., _Antichi mon. de Arch. Messicana_, 180.

Marriott mound, 408.

Marryat’s _Travels_, 321.

Marsh, Geo. P., 84, 439.

Marsh, O. C., on the Newark mounds, 408.

Marshall, O. H., _Hist. Writings_, 323;
on the Ohio Valley Indians, 326.

Marson, Arc, 82.

Martellus, H., _Insularium illustratum_, 114, 119;
map sketched, 122.

Marten, _Voyage to Greenland_, xxxiv.

Martha’s Vineyard, tracts on the conversion of the Indians, 322.

Martin, Félix, _Hurons et Iroquois_, 321;
_Jogues_, 323.

Martin, Gabriel, xxxii.

Martin, Henri, _Dissertation sur l’Atlantide_, 46;
_Timée de Platon_, 46.

Martin, Luis, 184.

Martin, T. H., his astron. papers, 36;
_Cosmog. Grecque_, 39;
_Sur le Timée_, 42.

Martin of Valencia, 156.

Martinez, J., Quichua vocabulary, 279.

Martinière, map of Greenland, 132;
_Voyages_, 132.

Martius, F. P. von, _Sprachenkunde Amerikas_, 428;
_Glossaria_, 428;
_Beiträge_, 136.

Martyr, Peter, bibliog., xx;
his first decade, xx;
_Legatio Babylonica_, xx;
acc. by Harrisse, xx;
by Schumacher, xx;
by Heidenheimer, xx;
_Die Schiffung_, xxi;
Poemata, xxi;
_De Nuper sub D. Carolo repertis insulis_, xxi;
facs. of title, xxii;
_De orbe novo_, xxi;
_Extrait ou Recueil_, xxi;
_De rebus oceanicis_, xxiii;
_Summario_, xxiii;
joined with Oviedo, xxiii;
Eden’s _Decades_, xxiii;
Willes’ _Hist. of Travayle_, xxiii;
edited by Hakluyt, xxiii;
by Lok, xxiii;
_Opus Epistolarum_, xxiv;
on the Ethiopian origin of the tribes of Yucatan, 117;
describes the Maya and Nahua picture-writings, 203.

Maryland, docs. in her Archives, xiv;
Hist. Soc., xviii; Indians, 325.

Masks, Mexican, 419.

Mason, Geo. C., on the Newport mill, 105;
_Rem. of Newport_, 105.

Mason, O. T., on the mounds, 402;
bibliog. of anthropology, 411;
on anthropology in the U. S., 411;
his anthropolog. papers, 439.

Massachusetts Bay map, 100.

Massachusetts Hist. Soc., Library Catalogue, xvii;
on the statue of Leif Ericson, 98;
on Rafn’s over-confidence, 100.

Massachusetts Indians, 323.

_Massachusetts Quart. Rev._, 96.

Massachusetts State Library, xvii.

Massilia founded, 26.

Mastodon, carvings of, 405;
mound, 409;
remains of man associated with the, 388;
how long disappeared, 389.

_Materiaux pour l’histoire primitive_, 411.

Mather, Cotton, on Dighton Rock, 103, 104;
_Wonderful works of God_, 104;
on Jews in New England, 115;
on supposed remains of a giant, 389;
and the Royal Society, 442.

Mather, Increase, his letter to Leusden, 322.

Mather, Saml., _America known to the ancients_, 40.

Mathers, their library, i.

Matienzo, Juan de, _Gobierno de el Peru_, 261.

Matlaltzinca, 148.

Matthews, W., _Language of the Hidatsa_, 425;
_Hidatsa Indians_, 440.

Maudsley, A. P., _Guatemala_, 197.

Maurault, _Abenakis_, 322.

Maurer, Konrad, _Altnord. Sprache_, 84;
_Island_, 85;
_Isländische Volkssagen_, 85;
on the Zeni, 113;
_Rechtgesch. des Nordens_, 85.

Mauro, Fra, map (1457), 53, 117;
facs. of northern parts, 120.

Maury, Alfred, 374.

Mavor, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico, his library, viii.

Maximilian, Prince, _Reise_, 319;
_Travels_, 392.

Maxtla, 146.

Maya d’Ahkuil-Chel, 426.

Mayapan, 152; deserted, 153.

Mayas, origin of, 134, 152;
name first heard, 135;
nations comprised, 135;
acc. of, 152;
hieroglyphics, 152, 426;
Katunes, 152;
calendar, 152;
manuscripts, 162;
Chilan Balam, 164;
_Popul Vuh_, their sacred book, 166;
their last pueblo, 175;
picture-writing, 197;
metals among, 418;
languages of, 427;
dialects, 427;
allied to the Greek, 427;
general references, 427;
religion of, 433;
hero-gods, 430, 434.

Mayberry, S. P., on Florida shell heaps, 393.

Mayda, 31, 47, 51, 53.

Mayer, Brantz, on Sparks, vii;
_Mexico_, 170;
_Observations on Mex. hist._, 184.

Mayhews, the Indian missionaries, 322.

Mayta, Ccapac, Inca, 229.

Mazahuas, 136.

Mazetecs, 136.

McAdams, W., 409;
_Anc. Races in the Mississippi Valley_, 403, 410;
_Cahokia_, 408.

McCaul, John, 99.

McCharles, A., 410.

McClellan, G. B., 440.

McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclop. bibl. lit._, 384.

McClure and Parish, _Mem. of Wheeloch_, 322.

McCoy, Isaac, _Baptist Indian missions_, 369.

McCulloh, James H., _Researches on America_, 169, 372;
on the mounds, 399.

McCullough, John, captive to the Indians, 292, 319.

McElmo cañon, 395.

McFarland, R. W., 408.

McGee, W. J., 377;
on glacial man, 330, 343;
on the Columbia period, 343;
his lacustrine explorations, 349;
on Iowa mounds, 409.

McIntosh, John, _Disc. of America_, 372.

McKenney, T. L., _Memoirs_, 320;
his career, 320;
(with James Hall) _Indian Tribes_, 320.

McKinley, Wm., 410.

McKinney, W. A., 41.

McLennan, J. F., _Primitive Marriage_, 380;
_Studies in Anc. Hist._, 380.

McMaster, S. Y., 111.

McParlin, J. A., 397.

McWhorter, T., 408.

Measures of length used by the Mexicans, 420.

_Meddelelser om Grönland_, 86.

Medel on the Mex. hieroglyphics, 200.

Megatherium, 389.

Megiser, H., _Sept. Novantiquus_, xxxiv, 111.

Meigs, J. A., on Morton’s collection, 372;
_Catal. human crania_, 372;
_Obs. on the cranial forms_, 374;
_Form of the occiput_, 375.

Meineke, A., ed. Strabo, 34.

Mela, Pomponius, his views of the extension of Africa, 10;
relations with Ptolemy, 10;
on men supposed to be carried from America to Europe, 26;
_De Situ Orbis_, 36.

Melgar, E. S. de, 279.

Melgar, J. M., _De las Teogonias en los manuscritos Méxicanos_, 431.

Melgar, Señor, 116.

Melkarth, 24.

Melo, Garcia de, 260.

Menana, 102.

Mendieta, _Hist. Eçcles. Ind._, 157.

Mendoza, Gumesindo, 155;
curator of Museo Nacional in Mexico, 444.

Menendez, _Geog. del Peru_, 212.

Mengarini, G., _Flat-head Grammar_, 425.

Mentone caves, 390.

Menzel, _Bibl. Hist._, ii.

Menzies, Wm., his library and catalogue, xii.

Mer de l’Ouest, 79.

Mercator map (1538), 125.

Mercer, H. G., 405.

_Mercurio Peruano_, 276.

Meredith, a Welsh bard, 109.

Merian, M., xxxi.

Merida, 188.

Meridian, the first, where placed by the ancients, 8.

Merivale, C., _Conversion of the Northern Nations_, 85.

Merom, Ohio, 408.

Meropes, 22.

Merry Meeting Bay, 102.

Mesa, Alonso de, 260;
_Anales del Cuzco_, 270.

Metal, use of, 418;
working in Peru, 256;
among the early Americans, 417.

Metz, Dr. C. L., finds palæolithic implements in Ohio, 340, 341;
_Prehist. Mts. Little Miami Valley_, 408.

Meunier, V., _Les ancêtres d’Adam_, 383.

Mexia y Ocon, J. R., 279.

Mexico (country), linguistics of, viii;
held to be Fousang, 78, 80, 81;
correspondences in languages with Chinese, 81;
with Sanskrit, 81;
Asiatic origin of games, 81;
jade ornaments in, 81;
Asiatic origin, references on, 81;
obscurities of its pre-Spanish history, 133;
early race of giants, 133;
chronologies, 133;
the Toltecs arrive, 139;
the confederacy growing, 147;
its nature, 147;
portraits of the kings, 148;
sources of pre-Spanish history, 153;
the early Spanish writers, 153;
the courts and the natives, 160;
MS. annals, 162;
general accounts in English, 169;
_Archives de la Com. Scient. du Méxique_, 270;
ethnology of, 172;
character of its civilization, 173, 176;
the confederacy, 173;
diverse views of the extent of the population, 174;
disappearance of their architecture, 174;
map by Santa Cruz, 174;
mode of government, 174, 175;
their palaces, 175, 176;
notes on the ruins, 176;
astronomy in, 179;
idols still preserved, 180;
superstitions for writings, 180;
origin of the people, 375;
copper, use of, 418;
variety of tongues in, 426;
culture, 329, 330.
_See_ Toltecs, Nahuas, Anahuac, Aztecs, Chichimecs.

Mexico (city), founded, 133, 144;
Clavigero’s map in facs., 143;
its lakes, 143;
other maps, 143;
facs. of the map in Coreal’s _Voyages_, 145;
a native acc. of the capture, 162;
calendar stone, 179;
used to regulate market days, 179;
Museo Nacional, 419, 444;
its _Anales_, 444;
view of, 180, 181;
forgeries in, 180;
no architectural remains, 182;
the city gradually sinking, 182;
relics still beneath the soil, 182;
Bandelier’s notes, 182;
old view of the city, 182;
early descriptions, 182;
its military aspect, 182;
relics unearthed, 182;
temple of (views), 433, 434.

Meye, Heinrich, _Copan und Quiriguá_, 196, 197.

Meyer, A. B., 417.

Meyer, J., map of Greenland, 131.

Mica, 416.

Michel, Francisque, _Saint Brandan_, 48.

Michigan mounds, 408.

Michinacas, 136.

Michoacan, 149, 433.

Micmacs, 321;
language, 425;
legends, 431;
missions, 321;
traditions of white comers among, 99.

Mictlan, 184, 435.

Mictlantecutli, 435.

Middle Ages, geographical notions, 30.

Miedna, 78.

Migration of nations in pre-Spanish times, 137, 139, 369;
disputes over, 138;
Gallatin’s view, 138;
bibliog., 139;
Dawson’s map of those in North America, 381;
generally from the north, 381.

Mil, A., _De origine Animalium_, 370.

Milfort, a creek, 326.

Miller, J., _Modocs_, 327.

Miller, W. J., _Wampanoags_, 102.

Mindeleff, V., on Pueblo architecture, 395.

Minnesota mounds, 409.

Minutoli, J. H. von, on Palenqué, 191;
_Stadt in Guatemala_, 195.

Miocene man, 387.

Miquitlan, 184.

_Mirror of Literature_, 110.

_Mission Scientifique au Méxique, Ouvrages_, 207.

Missions’ effect on the Indians, 318.

Mississippi Valley, loess of, 388;
mounds, 410.

Missouri, mounds, 409;
pottery, 419.

Missouri River, lacustrine age, 348.

Mitchell, S. L., on the Asiatic origin of the Americans, 76, 371;
on the Northmen, 102.

Mitchell, A., 410.

Mitchell, W. S., on Atlantis, 44.

Mitchener, C. H., _Ohio Annals_, 407.

Mitla, ruins of, 184;
plan, 184.

Mitre, Gen. B., _Ollantay_, 282.

Miztecs, 136;
subjugated, 149.

Mochica language, 227, 275, 276.

Modocs, 327.

Mohawks put English arms on their castles, 304, 324.

Mohegan Indians, their language, 423.

Moke, H. T., _Hist. des peuples Américains_, 172.

Moletta (Moletius) on the Zeno map, 129.

Molina, Alonzo de, 156.

Molina, Christoval de, in Peru, 262;
_Fables and Rites of the Incas_, 262;
on the Incas, 436.

Molina, _Vocabulario_, viii;
_Arte de la lengua Méx._, viii.

Möllhausen, Reisen, 396;
_Tagebuch_, 396.

Moluccan migration to South America, 370.

Monardes, _Dos Libros_, xxix;
_Hist. Medicinal_, xxix;
likeness, xxix;
_Joyfull Newes_, xxix.

Monboddo, Lord, on Irish linguistic traces in America, 83.

Moncacht-Ape, 77.

Money, 420.

Mongolian stock on the Pacific coast, 82.

Mongols in Peru, 82.

Monhegan, alleged runes on, 102.

Monogenism, 374.

Monotheism in America, 430.

Monro, R., _Anc. Scotch lake dwelling_, 393.

Montalboddo, _Paesi Nov._, xix.

Montana mounds, 409.

Montanus, _Nieuwe Weereld_, i;
on the Zeni, 111;
_America_, xxxiv;
on the sagas, 92;
on the Madoc voyage, 109.

Monte Alban, 184.

Montelius, O., _Bibliog. de l’archéol. de la Suède_, 444.

Montémont, A., Voyages, xxxvii.

Montesinos, F., in Peru, 263;
_Memorias antiguas_, 82, 263;
_Anales_, 263;
_Mémoire historique_, 263;
on Jews in Peru, 115;
_Mémoires_, 273.

Montesquieu, _Esprit des Lois_, 380.

Montezuma (hero-god), 147, 150.

Montezuma (first of the name), 146;
in power, 147;
various spelling of the name, 147;
dies, 148.

Montezuma (the last of the name), 148;
forebodings of his fall, 148;
hears of the coming of the Spaniards, 149;
his “Dinner”, 174, 175.

Montfaucon, _Collectio_, 30.

Montgomery, James, _Greenland_, 69.

Moore, Dr. Geo. H., at the Lenox Library, xii;
account of, xii.

Moore, Martin, 322.

Moore, M. V., 41.

Moore, Thos., _Hist. Ireland_, 61.

Moosmüller, P. O., _Europäer in America_, 88, 90.

Moquegua, 277.

Moqui Indians, 397, 429;
representatives of the cliff dwellers, 395.

Moravian missions, 308, 318.

_Moravian Quarterly_, 109.

Morellet, Arthur, _Voyage_, 194;
_Travels_, 195.

Morgan, Col. Geo., 319.

Morgan, L. H., his _Montezuma’s dinner_, ix, 174;
attacked by H. H. Bancroft, ix, 174;
on the cradle of the Mexicans, 138;
his exaggerated depreciation of the Mexican civilization, 173, 174;
his relations with the Iroquois, 174;
_Houses and House life_, 175, 420;
_Ancient Society_, 175, 382;
controverted, 380;
his publications, 175;
his death, 175;
on Rau’s views as respects the Tablet of the Cross, 195;
on centres of migrations, 381;
on human progress, 382;
on the Pueblo race, 395;
on the ruins of the Chaco cañon, 396;
on the ruins on the Animas River, 396;
on the social condition of the Pueblos, 397;
on the moundbuilders, 401;
finds their life communal, 402;
on their houses, 402;
_League of the Iroquois_, 325, 416;
on bone implements, 417;
on linguistic divisions, 422;
on Indian life, 325;
_Iroquois laws of descent_, 437;
_Bestowing of Indian names_, 437;
_Houses of American Aborigines_, 437.

Morgan, Thomas, on Vinland, 98.

Morillot, Abbé, _Esquimaux_, 105.

Morisotus, C., _Epist. Cent. duæ_, 370.

Morlot, A., 395; on the Phœnicians in America, 41.

Mormon bible, its reference to the lost tribes, 116.

Morris, C., 403.

Morse, Abner, _Anc. Northmen_, 105.

Morse, Edw. S., _Arrow Release_, 69;
on the tertiary man, 387;
on prehistoric times, 412.

Morse, Jed., _Report on Indian affairs_, 320.

Mortillet, G. de, _Le Signe de la Cross_, 196;
_Antiq. de l’homme_, 383;
founds the _Materiaux_, etc., 411, 442;
_L’homme_, 442;
_Dict. des Sciences Anthropologique_, 442.

Morton, S. G., _Inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of the
aborig. race_, 437;
_Crania Amer._, 372;
his collection of skulls, 372;
_Physical type of the American Indian_, 372;
_Aboriginal Race of America_, 372;
_Some observations_, 372;
on the moundbuilders’ skulls, 399, 403.

Morton, Thomas, _New English Canaan_, 369.

Mossi, H., on the Quichua language, 280.

Motolinía, _Historia_, 156.

Motupé, 276.

Moulton, J. W., _New York_, 93.

Moulton, M. W., 409.

Moundbuilders, connected with the Irish, 83;
with the Welsh, 111;
with the Jews, 116;
with the later peoples of Mexico, 136, 137;
Morgan on their houses, 175;
Haynes’s views, 367;
literature of, 397;
early Spanish and French notices of, 398;
accounts by travellers, 398, 402;
held to be ancestors of the Aztecs and other southern peoples, 398;
emblematic mounds, 400;
the most ancient, 402;
believed to be of the Indian race, 400, 401, 402;
earliest advocates of this view, 400;
vanished race view, 400, 401, 402;
Great Serpent mound, 401;
no clue to their language, 401;
mounds in New York built by the Iroquois, 402;
date of their living, 402;
divisions of the United States by their characteristics, 402;
held to be Cherokees, 402;
agriculturalists, 402, 410;
sun-worshippers, 402;
age of, 403;
contents of the mounds, 403;
fraudulent relics, 403;
geographical distribution of their works, 404;
built by Finns, 405;
by Egyptians, 405;
maps, 406;
use of copper, 408;
pipes, 409;
military character, 409;
turned hunters, 410;
their textile arts, 419;
cloth found, 419;
pottery, 419.

Movers, _Die Phoenizier_, 24.

Mowquas, 111.

Moxa, 428.

M’Quy, Dr., 191.

Mudge, B. F., 409.

Muellenhof, _Alterthumskunde_, 4.

Muhkekaneew Indians, 116.

Mühlenpfordt, E. L., _Versuch_, 184.

Muiscas. _See_ Muyscas.

Mujica, M. A., 282.

Müller, C., _Geog. Græci_, 34.

Müller, F., _Allgemeine Ethnographie_, 375.

Müller, J. G., on the Peruvian religion, 270;
_Amer. Urreligionen_, 380, 430;
on Quetzalcoatl, 433.

Müller, J. W. von, _Reisen_, 185.

Müller, Max, on early Mexican history, 133;
on Ixtlilxochitl, 157;
on the _Popul Vuh_, 167;
on E. B. Tylor, 377;
on American monotheism, 430.

Müller, P. E., _Icelandic Hist. Lit._, 84;
(with Velchow, J.) ed. _Saxo Gram._, 92;
_Sagenbibliothek_, 85.

Müller, _Handbuch des klas. Alterth._, 5.

Muller, Frederik, xvi.

Mummies, in American caves, 391;
of Incas, 234, 235;
Peruvian, 276, 277.

Munch, P. A., _Det Norske Folks Hist._, 84;
_Olaf Tryggvesön_, 90;
_Norges Konge-Sagaer_, 90.

Munich, Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, 443.

Muñoz, J. B., 191; _Historia_, ii; on the Norse voyages, 92.

Munsell, Frank, xv.

Munsell, Joel, xv;
his publications, xv;
sketch by G. R. Howell, xv.

Münster, Sebastian, his map, xxv;
_Cosmographia_, xxv;
likeness, xxvi, xxvii;
_Kosmograffia_, xxviii;
translations, xxviii;
on the Greenland geography, 126.

Murphy, H. C., his library, ix;
his _Catalogue_, ix;
dies, ix.

Murray, Andrew, _Geog. Distrib. Mammals_, 82, 106.

Murray, Hugh, _Travels_, 93, 111;
_Disc. in No. America_, 72;
on the Northmen, 93.

Múrua, M. de, _Hist. gen. del Peru_, 264.

_Museo Erudico_, 276.

_Museo Guatemalteco_, 168.

_Museo Mexicano_, 444.

Music, 420.

Musical instruments, 420.

Mutsun language, 425.

Muyscas, myths of, 436;
idol, 281;
origin of, 80.

Myths, not the reflex of history, 429;
literature of American, 429.

NAAMAN CREEK, rock shelter at, 365.

Nachan, 135.

Nadaillac, Marquis de, _L’Amérique préhistorique_, 369, 412, 415;
_Prehistoric America_, 415;
on the autochthonous theory, 375;
_De la période glaciaire_, 388;
_Les prem. hommes_, 369, 412;
_Mœurs des peuples préhistorique_, 412;
_Les pipes et le tabac_, 416;
_L’art préhist. en Amérique_, 419.

Nahuas, origin of, 134;
direction of their migration controverted, 134, 136, 137, 138;
earliest comers, 137;
from the N. W., 137;
date disputed, 137;
their governmental organizations, 174;
places of their kings, 174;
their buildings, 182;
picture-writing, 197;
myths, 431.
_See_ Aztecs, Mexico.

Narborough, _Magellan Straits_, xxxiv.

Narragansetts, 323.

Nasca, Peru, 271, 277.

Nasmyth, J., 50.

Natchez Indians, 326;
supposed descendants of Votanites, 134.

Natchez, relics at, 389.

Natick language, 423.

National Geographic Society, 438.

Natural Hist. Soc. of Montreal, 438.

_Nature_, 443.

Naugatuck valley, 323.

Naulette cave, 377.

Nauset, 102.

Navajos, 327;
expedition against, 396;
weaving among, 420.

Neanderthal, race, 377;
skull, 377, 389.

Nebel, Carlos, _Viaje pintoresco_, 179, 180.

Negro race, as primal stock, 373;
of a stock earlier than Adam, 384.

Nehring, A., on animals found in Peruvian graves, 273.

Neill, E. D., on the Ojibways, 327.

Neolithic Age, 377;
implements of, 377.
_See_ Stone Age.

Nepeña, 276.

_Neue Berlinische Monatsschrift_, 371.

Neumann, K. F., _Amerika nach Chinesischen Quellen_, 78, 80.

Névome language, 425.

New Brunswick shell heaps, 392.

New England Hist. Geneal. Society, xvii.

New England Indians, 322;
mounds in, 404;
visited by the Northmen, 94, 95, 96;
shell heaps, 392.

New Grenada, map, 209;
tribes of, 282.

New Hampshire, bibliog., xv;
Indians, 322.

New Jersey, copies of docs. in her Archives, xiv;
Indians, 325;
shell heaps, 393.

New Mexico, map of ruins in, 397.

New Orleans, human skeleton found near, 389.

New York Acad. of Science, 438.

New York city, as a centre for the study of Amer. hist., xvii;
its Hist. Soc. library, xvii;
Astor Library, xvii;
private libraries, x, xviii.

New York State, local history in, v;
its library at Albany, xviii;
the French import goods into, for the Indian trade, 311;
its trade with the Indians, 311;
Indians, 323;
missions, 323;
mounds, 404.

Newark, Ohio, map of mounds at, 407;
described, 408.

Newcomb, Simon, opposes Croll’s theory, 387.

Newfoundland, early visited by the Basques, 75;
in the early maps, 74;
Eskimos in, 106;
Indians of, 321.

Newman, J. B., _Red Men_, 46.

Newport stone tower claimed to be Norse, 105.

Nezahualcoyotl, 146, 147;
dies, 148.

Nezahualpilli, 148.

Nicaragua, early footprint in, 385;
explorers of, 197;
mythology, 434;
sources of its history, 169.

Nicholas V, alleged bull about Greenland, 69.

Nicholls and Taylor, _Bristol_, 50.

Nienhof, _Brasil. Zee-en Lantreize_, xxxiv.

Nijhoff, Martin, xvii.

Nilsson, _Stone Age_, 412.

Niza, Marco de, _Quito_, 268.

Noah, M. M., _American Indians descendants of the Lost tribes_, 116.

Nodal, J. F., on the Quichua tongue, 280;
_Ollanta_, 281.

Nonohualcas, 136.

Nordenskjöld, A. E., _Exped. till Grönland_, 86;
his belief in a colony on east coast of Greenland, 109;
portrait, 113;
on the Zeni, 114;
_Bröderna Zenos_, 114;
_Trois Cartes précolumbiennes_, 114, 117;
_Studienund Forschungen_, 114;
finds the oldest maps of Greenland, 117;
his projected _Atlas_, 125;
on the Olaus Magnus map (1567), 125.

Norman, B. M., _Rambles in Yucatan_, 186.

Norman sailors on the American coasts, 97.

Norris, P. W., 409.

Norse. _See_ Northmen.

North Carolina, antiquities, 410;
rock inscriptions, 411.

Northmen, cut of their ship, 62;
plan of same, 63;
ship discovered at Gokstad, 62;
another at Tune, 62;
one used as a house, 64;
depicted in the Bayeux tapestry, 64;
flags, 64;
weapons, 64;
characteristics, 67;
in Greenland, 68;
in Iceland, 83;
alleged visits to America, 98;
their voyages seldom recognized in the maps of the xvth cent., 117.

Northwest coast, the Berlin Museum’s _Nordwest Küste_, 76.

Nortmanus, R. C., _De origine gent. Amer._, 370.

Norton, Charles B., his _Lit. Letter_, xv.

Norumbega held to be a corruption of Norvegia, 98.

Norway, early map, 118;
in Fra Mauro’s map, 120;
in Olaus Magnus, 124, 125;
by Bordone, 126;
in Gallæus, 129.

Nott, J. C. (with Gliddon), _Types of Mankind_, 372;
_Physical Hist. of the Jews_, 373;
_Indigenous Races_, 374.

Nova Scotia, Indians, 321;
shell-heaps, 392.

Nova Scotia Institute of Nat. Science, 438.

Novo y Colson, D. P. de, and Atlantis, 45.

Noyes, _New England’s Duty_, 322.

Noymlap, 275.

Numismatic and Antiq. Soc. of Philadelphia, 438.

Nuttall, Thomas, _Arkansa Territory_, 326.

Nuttall, Mrs. Zelia, on Mexican communal life, 175;
on the so-called Sacrificial Stone, 185;
on complemental signs in the Mexican graphic system, 198;
on Mexican feather-work, 420;
on terra cottas from Teotihuacan, 182.

Nyantics, 323.

O’BRIEN, M. C., grammatical sketch of the Abnake, 423.

O’Curry, Eugene, _Anc. Irish history_, 50.

O’Flaherty, _Islands of Arran_, 50;
_Ogygia_, 51.

Oajaca, 149, 433;
sources of its history, 168;
ruins in, 184;
teocalli at (view), 436.

Obando, Juan de, his Quichua dictionary, 279;
grammar, 279.

Ober, F. A., _Travels in Mexico_, 170;
_Anc. Cities of America_, 177.

Obsidian, 417;
implements, 358.

Ocean, ancient views of the, 7;
depth of, 383.

_Ocean Highways_, 442.

Ococingo, 135.

Odysseus, voyage of, 6;
his wanderings, 40.

Ogallala Sioux, 327.

Ogilby, _America_, i, xxxiv.

Ogygia, 12, 13, 23.

_Ohio Archæological and Hist. Quarterly_, 407.

Ohio Land Company (1748), formation of the, 309.

Ohio, mounds in, 405;
bibliog. and hist., 406;
_Centennial Report_, 406;
pictographs, 410;
State Board of Centennial managers, _Final Report_, 407.

Ohio Valley, ancient man in, 341;
ancient hearths in, 389;
caves, 391;
English attempts to occupy, 312;
frontier life, 319; Indians, 326.

Ojeda, A. de, describes pile dwellings, 364.

Ojibways, 327.

Olaf, Tryggvesson, 62;
saga, 90;
editions, 90.

Olaus Magnus, 65;
_Hist. de Gentibus Septent_, 67.

Olivarez, A. F., 282.

_Ollantai_ or _Ollantay_, 425;
drama, 274, 242, 281;
different texts, 281;
its age, 282.

Ollantay-tampu _or_ tambo, ruins, 220, 221, 271.

Olmecs, migration of, 135;
earliest comers, 135;
overcame the giants, 137.

Olmos, A. de, 156, 276, 279.

Olosingo, 196.

Omahas, 327.

Onas, 289.

Ondegardo, Polo de, in Peru, 260, 261;
_Relaciones_, 261.

Onderdonk, J. L., 412.

Ongania, _Sammlung_, 47, 53.

Onondaga language, 424.

Onontio, 289.

Ophir of Solomon, 82, 369;
found in Palenqué, 191.

Orbigny, A. d’, _L’homme Américain_, 271;
_Voyages_, 271;
his ethnographical map of South America, 271.

Orcutt, S., _Indians_, 323;
_Stratford_, 323.

Ordoñez, Ramon de, _La Creacion del Cielo_, etc., 168;
_Palenqué_, 191.

Oré, L. G. de, _Rituale_, 227, 280.

Oregon, Indians, 328;
mounds, 409;
shell heaps, 393.

Orozco y Berra, helped by the collections of Icazbalceta and Ramirez,
163;
_Geog. de las lenguas de México_, 135, 172, 427;
_Dic. Universal de Hist_., 172;
_Mexico_, 172;
_El Cuauhxicalli de Tizoc_, 185;
_Códice Mendozino_, 200.

Orrio, F. X. de, _Solution_, _del gran problema_, 76.

Ortega, C. F., ed. Veytia, 159.

Ortelius, on the Zeni, 111;
holds Plutarch’s continent to be America, 40;
believed Atlantis to be America, 43;
map of the Atlantic Ocean (1587), 58;
map of Scandia, 129;
and the sagas, 92.

Otomis, 136, 424;
their language, 81.

Otompan, 140.

Otté, E. C., 271.

Otumba, fight at, 175.

Ovid, _Fasti_, 3.

Oviedo y Baños, J. de, _Venezuela_, 444.

_Oxford Voyages_, xxxiv.

Oztotlan, 139.

PACCARI-TAMPU, 223.

Pachacamac, 234, 277.

Pachicuti, J. de S. C., _Reyno del Piru_, 436.

Pachacutec, Inca, 230, 277.

Pacific Ocean, great Japanese current, 78;
its islands in geol. times, 383;
long voyages upon, in canoes, 81.

Pacific Railroad surveys, 440.

Packard, A. S., on the Eskimos, 105.

Padoucas, 110.

_Pæsi Novamente_, xix;
_Newe unbek. landte_, xx;
fac-simile of title, xxi;
_Nye unbek. lande_, xx;
_Itinerariū Portugal_, xx;
_Sensuyt le nouveau monde_, xx;
_Le nouv. monde_, xxi.

Paez, 428.

Paéz-Castellano language, 425.

Page, J. R., 410.

Paijkull, C. W., _Summer in Iceland_, 83.

Paint Creek, map, 406.

Painter, C. C., _Mission Indians_, 328.

Palacio, Diego Garcia de, _Carta_, 168, 427.

Palacio, M., 281.

Palæolithic age, named by Lubbock, 377;
its implements, 331;
cut of, 331;
man in America, 357, 358;
could he talk? 421;
developments towards the neolithic state, 365.
_See_ Stone Age.

Palenqué, position of, 151;
ruins described, 191;
first discovered, 191;
age of, 191;
restorations, 192;
tablet, 193;
sculptures from the Temple of the Cross, 193, 195;
seen by Waldeck, 194;
plans, 195;
views, 195;
statues, 196.

Palfrey, J. G., on the Northmen, 96;
on the Newport tower, 105;
on the Indians, 323.

Palin, Du, _Study of hieroglyphics_, 204.

Pallas, _Vocab. comparativa_, 424.

Palmer, Edw., 409;
on a cave in Utah, 390.

Palmer, Geo., _Migrations from Shinar_, 374.

Palomino, 260.

Palos, Juan de, 155.

Palszky, F., 374.

Panchæa, 12.

Pandosy, M. C., _Yahama language_, 425.

Papabucos, 136.

Papantla, 178.

Paracelsus, Theoph., on the plurality of the human race, 372.

Paradise, position of, 31, 47.

Paraguay, 370.

Paravey, C. H. de, _Fou-Sang_, 80;
_Nouvelles preuves_, 80;
_Plateau de Bogota_, 80;
replies to Jomard, 80.

Pareja, F., _La Lengua Timuquana_, 425.

Pareto, Bart. de, his map (1455), 56.

Paris, peace of (1763), 312, 313;
Société de Géographie founded, 441;
_Recueil de Voyages_, 441;
_Bulletin_, 441.

Parkman, F., _California and the Oregon trail_, 327;
_France and England in North America_, 316;
on the Indian character, 317;
_La Salle_, 318.

Parmenides, 3.

Parmentier, Col., 81.

Parmunca, 275.

Parsons, S. H., 437.

Parsons, Usher, on the Nyantics, 323.

Passamaquoddy legends, 431.

Patin, Ch., xxiv.

Pattison, S. R., _Age of Man_, 387;
_Earth and the Word_, 383.

Patton, A., 408.

Pauw., De, _Recherches_, 173.
_See_ De Pauw.

Pawnees, 327.

Paynal, 432.

Payta, 275.

Pazos-kanki, V., his Quichua work, 280.

Peabody, Geo., 439.

Peabody Academy of Science, 438.

Peabody Institute (Balt.), xviii.

Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, 439;
_Reports_, 439;
_Special Papers_, 439.

Peale, T. R., 409, 410.

Pech, Nakuk, 164.

Peck, W. F., _Rochester_, 323.

Pecos, ruins, 396.

Pederson, Christiern, ed. of Saxo, 92.

Peet, S. D., _The Pyramid in America_, 177;
on Pueblo architecture, 395;
on the serpent symbol, 401;
on the moundbuilders, 403, 408, 409;
on mounds as totems, 408;
on the Saint Louis mounds, 409;
on early agriculture, 417;
human faces in American art, 420;
_Religious beliefs of the Aborigines_, 431;
_Animal worship and Sun worship_, 431;
_Religion of the Moundbuilders_, 431;
edits _Amer. Antiquarian_, 439.

Pégot-Ogier, E., _Archipel des Canaries_, 48.

Peirce, C. S., on the Newport mill, 105.

Pelaez, Paula G., _Guatemala_, 168.

Pemicooks, 323.

Pemigewassets, 322.

Penafiel, Antonio, _Nombres géog. de México_, 427.

Penn, Wm., on Jews in America, 115.

Pennant, _Tour of Wales_, iii.

Pennock, B., 85.

Pennsylvania, Indians in, 306, 325;
mounds, 405;
settlers of, 307;
their treatment of the Indians, 309.

Penobscots, 322;
their legends, 431.

Pentland, J. B., map of Lake Titicaca, 246.

Pequods, 323.

Percy, Bishop, ed. Mallet’s _Northern Antiquities_, 91.

Perdita, island, 48.

Perez, José, 77, 117, 404;
preserver of Maya MSS., 163.

Perez, Pio, _Chron. Yucateca_, 164;
his notes, 164.

Periegetes, D., _Periplus_, 39.

Peringskiöld, ed. _Heimskringla_, 91.

Perizonius, 22, 40.

Perkins, Fred. B., his sketch of Gowans, xv;
_Scrope_, xv.

Pernetty, D., controverts De Pauw, 370;
_Examen_, 370;
_De l’Amérique_, 370.

Perrine, T. M., 408.

Perrot, Nic., _Mémoires_, 429.

Pertuiset, E., _Le Trésor des Incas_, 272.

Pertz, G. H., _Mon. Germ. Hist._, 88.

Peru, Mongols in, 82;
giants in, 82;
the Ophir of Solomon, 82;
Chinese in, 82;
Jews in, 115;
Votanites in, 134;
civilization in, 209;
evidences of it, 209;
maps, 210, 211;
bounds, 212;
length of the settled condition of the Inca race, 212;
plants and animals domesticated, 212;
ancient burial-places, 214;
pre-Inca people, 214;
cyclopean remains, 220;
water sacrifices, 221;
deity of, 222;
Pirua dynasty, 223, 225;
its people, 227;
Tampu Tocco, 223;
Inca dynasty, 223;
its duration, 225;
list of the kings, 223;
origin of the Incas, 223;
their rise under Manco, 225;
their original home, 226;
their subjugation of the earlier peoples, 227;
establish their power at Cuzco, 228;
portraits of the Incas, 228, 267;
picture of warriors, 230;
Chanca war, 230;
Inca Yupanqui, 230;
war between Huascar and Atahualpa, 231, 262;
names of the Incas, 231;
succession of the Incas, 231, 232;
their religion, 232;
belief in a Supreme Being, 233;
sun-worship, 233;
plan of the Temple of the Sun, 234;
religious ceremonials, 236, 240;
astronomical knowledge, 236;
their months, 236;
festivals, 237;
human sacrifices, 237, 238;
learned men, 241;
the Quichua language, 241;
the court language, 241;
references on the Inca civilization, 241;
their bards, 242;
dances, 242;
musical instruments, 242;
dramas, 242;
quipus records, 242;
healing art, 243;
the central sovereign, 244;
tributes, 245;
the Inca insignia, 245;
their architecture, 247;
two stages of it, 247;
their thatching, 247;
ruins, 247;
social polity, 249;
the Inca family, 249;
divisions of the empire, 249;
provinces, 250;
ruins of a village, 251;
laborers, 251;
bringing up of children, 251;
land measure, 251;
their agriculture, 252;
hanging gardens, 252;
irrigation, 253;
peculiar products, 253;
their flocks, 253;
their roads, 254, 261;
travelling, 254;
map of roads, 254;
colonial system, 255;
military system, 255;
arts, 255;
metal-workers, 256;
pottery, 256, 257, 258;
weapons, 257;
spinning, weaving, and dyeing, 257;
cloth-making, 258;
authorities on ancient Peruvian history, 259;
the conquerors as authors, 260;
lawyers and priests, 261;
poetry, 262;
chronology, 262;
efforts to extirpate idolatry, 264;
native writers, 265;
_Relaciones descriptivas_ filled out in Peru, 266;
the _Informaciones_ respecting the usurpation of the Incas, 268;
pedigrees of the Incas, 268;
ordinances, 268;
works of travellers, 270, 272;
origin of its civilization, 273;
the great work of Raimondi, 273;
on the geography, 273;
editors of old works, 273;
songs of the Incas, 274;
ancient people of the coasts, 275;
native language, 278;
iron in, 418;
cloths of, 420;
mythology of, 436.

Peschel, O., _Gesch. der Erdkunde_, 36;
_Erd- und Völkerkunde_, 48;
on the Arab voyages, 72;
_Gesch. des Zeitalters der Entdeck._, 96;
portrait, 391;
_Abhandlungen_, 391;
acc. of, 391;
on the Polynesians, 82;
_Races of Men_, 381;
on Orozco y Berra, 427.

Petavius, Dionysius, _Uranologion_, 6, 8, 35.

Peter, R., 410.

Peter of Ghent. _See_ Gante.

Peters, Richard, on the lost tribes, 116.

Petersen, N. M., _Danmarks Hist._, 84.

Peterson, J. G., 84.

Peterson, _Rhode Island_, 105.

Petit Anse Island, basket-work discovered at, 348, 386.

Pettitot, P. E., _Langue Dènè-Dindjie_, 425;
_Vocab. Français-Esquimau_, 425.

Petzholdt, _Bibl. Bibliog._, xvii.

Peyrère, Isaac de la, _Groenland_, 85;
editions and translations, 86;
_Præadamitæ_, 384;
_Man before Adam_, 384.

Peyster, J. W. de, _Miscellanies by an officer_, 321.

Phallic symbols, 81, 195, 429.

Philadelphia libraries, xviii.

Philip, King, his war, 297;
prisoners in, 289.

Phillips, H., jr., 155, 444;
on the alleged Nova Scotia runes, 102.

Phillips, J. S., 372.

Phillipps, Sir. Thomas, 155;
receives some of Kingsborough’s MSS., 203;
_Catalogue_, 203;
his copy of Kingsborough’s book, 203.

Philoponus, _Nova typis transacta navigatio_, 48.

Phœnicians and maritime discovery, 23, 29.

Photography of the Yucatan ruins, 186.

Picard, _Peuples idolatres_, xxxiii.

Pichardo, J. A., and the Boturini collection, 160.

Pickering, Chas., his ethnolog. map, 82;
_Races of Man_, 374;
_Men and their geog. distribution_, 381.

Pickering, John, 423.

Pickett, E., _Testimony of the Rocks_, 403, 409.

Pictographs, 105, 410.

Picture-writing, notes on, 197;
that of the Aztecs and Mayas early confounded, 197, 205 (_see_
Hieroglyphics);
recent sales of MSS., 200;
Maya method, 202;
P. Martyr’s descriptions, 203;
in Kingsborough’s work, 203.

Pidgeon, Wm., _Traditions of De-coo-dah_, 400;
on Fort Azatlan, 408.

Piedrahita, _Granada_, 436.

Pierre, Henry, xxviii.

Pile dwellings, 364.

Pillars of Hercules, 25.

Pilling, Jas. C., _Bibliog. Indian Languages, Proof-sheets_, vii, 414,
423;
on linguistic MSS., 423.

Pim, Bedford, _Dottings_, 197.

Pima language, 425.

Pimentel, Antonio, _Relaciones_, 164.

Pimentel, F., _Lenguas indigenas de México_, viii, 142, 425, 426.

Pinart, Alphonse, _Les Aléoutes_, 78;
_Catalogue_, 414, 423, 425;
_Coleccion de linguistica_, vii;
_Bibl. de linguistique Amér._, 425.

_Pinart-Brasseur Catalogue_, vii, xiii.

Pindar on the Atlantic Ocean, 28.

Pinelo, Ant. de Léon, _Biblioteca_, 413;
Barcia’s ed., 413.

Pinelo. _See_ Léon y Pinelo.

Pinkerton, John, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Pinzon’s voyages, acc. of, xxiv.

Pipart, Abbé J., 200;
_Astronomie des Méxicaines_, 179.

Pipe-stone quarries, 416.

Piquet, Father, 308.

Pirinda-Othomi language, 426.

Piruas, 222.

Pisco, valley, 277;
mummy from, 277.

Pissac, 236.

Pizarro, Pedro, 260.

Pizigani, Fr., map (1367), 50, 55;
cut of, 54;
(1373), 53, 55.

Plato, on the form of the earth, 3;
_Phaedo_, 3;
_Timaeus_, 3, 15, 42;
on the Atlantis story, 15, 41;
his works, 34;
editions, 42.

Platzmann, Julius, _Grammatiken_, vii.

Pleistocene man in America, 329, 357.
_See_ Tertiary and Quaternary man.

Pliny on the form of the earth, 3;
_Nat. Hist._, 15, 35, 42;
his _Atlantis_, 42.

Pliocene man, 385.
_See_ Pleistocene.

Plummets, 417.

Plurality of races, 372.

Plutarch, _De Placitis Philosophorum_, 3;
his Saturnian continent, 23;
_Moralia_, 35;
on Solon, 42.

Poinsett, J. R., _Notes on Mexico_, 180.

Poisson, J. B., _Animadversiones_, 370.

Polo, Marco, xxiv, xxviii, xxxv, xxxvi.

Polybius, 34; on the branches of the ocean, 7.

Polynesians, their relations to the Malays, 81;
their route to America, 81;
migrations, 82, 376.

Pomar, J. B., _Antigüedades de los Indios_, 164;
_Memorias históricas_, 164;
on a Mexican house, 420.

Ponce, Father Alonzo, 197.

Pontanus, _Rerum et urbis Amst. hist._, xxxiii;
on the Zeni, 111.

Pontiac’s conspiracy, 284, 314;
number of warriors, 315;
posts captured, 316.

Pontoppidan, _Norway_, 92.

Poole, W. F., 43;
on Donnelly’s _Atlantis_, 45;
on Weise’s _Disc. of America_, 45.

_Popular Mag. of Anthropology_, 442.

_Popular Science Monthly_, 439.

_Popular Science Review_, 443.

Porcelain in pre-Spanish times, 177.

Porcupine bank, 51.

Portuguese discoveries in America, bibliog., xix;
the first explorers of the African coast, 38;
early views of the American coast, 120.

Posidonius, 5, 34.

Post, C. F., in Ohio, 311.

Potato in Peru, 213.

Potter, W. P., 409.

Potter, _Early Hist. Narragansett_, 323.

Potter’s wheel, 419.

Pottery, collections of, 418, 419;
paper on, 419;
in Peru, 256, 257.

Pourtalès, Count, on human remains in Florida, 389.

Powell, David, 109.

Powell, Maj. J. W., in the Colorado cañon, 396;
portrait, 411;
_Survey of the Rocky Mt. region_, 412;
_Ann. Reports Bur. Ethnol._, 412;
on the moundbuilders, 401;
views on language, 423;
_Evolution of language_, 423, 440;
on the Wyandots, 327, 440;
on tribal society, 328;
_Philosophy of the No. Amer. Indians_, 431;
_Mythology of the No. Amer. Indians_, 431, 440;
director of Bureau of Ethnology, 439;
his linguistic studies, 439;
edits _Contributions to Ethnology_, 440.

Powers, Stephen, on the California Indians, 81;
_Tribes of California_, 81, 328.

Pownal, Gov. Thomas, suggests the cranial test of race, 372.

Prantl, _Aristoteles_, 7;
_Himmelsgebäude_, 7.

Pratt, W. H., 408.

Praying Indians, 309.

Preadamites, 384.

Preble, G. H., on Norse ships, 62.

Precession of the equinoxes, 387.

Prehistoric archæology, canons of, 329;
Internat. Congresses, 411.

Prehistoric time, usual divisions of, 377;
stages of development not decided by time, 377.

Prescott, W. H., on the Northmen, 96;
_Mexico_, 163;
notes on it by Ramirez, 163;
on the Mexican civilization, 174;
his relative use of early Spanish writers in his _Peru_, 263, 269;
his library, 269;
on the Mexican connection with Asia, 375.

Prestwich, on cataclysmic force, 382;
on the age of man, 384;
_On the drift containing implements_, 384;
_Flint-implement-bearing beds_, 386.

Prevost, Abbé, _Voyages_, xxxv.

Price, E., 403.

Price, J. E., 258.

Prichard, J. C., _Researches_, 320, 412.

Priest, Josiah, _Amer. Antiq._, 372.

Prime, W. C., on Gowans, xv.

Prince, Thos., his library, i.

Prinz, R., _De Solonis Plutarchi fontibus_, 42.

Pritt, Jos., _Olden Time_, 319.

Proclus, comment on Plato, 35;
_Comment. in Timaeum_, 41.

Proudfit, S. V., 347.

Prunières, 357.

Ptolemy, on the form of the earth, 3;
on the size of the known earth, 8;
his system revived, 32;
his influence, 34;
editions, 34;
bibliog., 35;
_Almagest_, 35;
on the Atlantic islands, 47.

Pueblo Indians, arts of, 416;
pottery, 419;
connection with the Aztecs, 427;
general references, 397;
their race, 395;
ruins among them, 395;
their connection with the moundbuilders, 395.
_See_ Zuñi, Moqui, etc.

Pueblo region, maps of, 394, 397.

Pulgar, Fernando del, xxiv.

Pullen, Clarence, 397.

Pulszky, F., _Human races and their art_, 420.

Pumpelly, R., _Across America_, 327.

Puquina, 274; language, 226, 280.

Purchas, Samuel, xxxiii;
on the Zeni, 111;
buys the _Codex Mendoza_, 204.

Purpurariæ, 14.

Putnam, C. E., 404;
_Authenticity of the elephant pipes_, 404.

Putnam, F. W., on the California Indians, 328;
on the origin of Americans, 375;
on the Trenton implements, 334, 337, 388;
_Palæolithic implements_, 388;
on Kentucky caves, 390;
on shell heaps, 392;
on Jeffries Wyman, 392;
on the Great Serpent mound, 401;
his position on the question of moundbuilders, 402;
on their skulls, 403;
on Fort Ancient, 408;
in the Little Miami Valley, 408;
on Fort Azatlan, 408;
on stone graves in Tennessee, 410;
on the Kentucky mounds, 410;
in Cassino’s _Standard Nat. Hist._, 412;
on the arts of Southern California, 416;
edits the archæological part of _Wheeler’s Survey_, 416, 440;
on soap-stone quarries, 416;
on traces of stone-working, 417;
on jade in America, 417;
on the melting of metal, 417;
finds meteoric iron in the mounds, 418;
silver, 418;
gold, 418;
on copper objects, 418;
in Mexico, 418;
on moundbuilders’ pottery, 419;
on Tennessee pottery, 419;
_Conventionalism in Anc. Amer. art_, 420;
on cloth in the mounds, 420;
as curator of Peabody Museum, 439;
on Amer. archæological collections, 440;
his comments on the relics of the Naaman Creek rock shelter, 367.

Putnam, Rufus, _Ross County, Ohio_, 408.

Pyramids in America, 177.

Pythagoras, 3.

Pytheas, 34; on the Atlantic, 28;
at Thule, 28.

QUAKERS, bibliog., xvii;
in Pennsylvania, oppose resistance to Indians, 308;
relation to the Indians, 325.

Quaritch, Bernard, the London bookseller, xvi;
his _Museum_, xvi;
his _General Catalogues_, xvi;
in the “Sett of Odd Volumes”, xvi;
sketch by W. H. Wyman, xvi.

Quarry of pipe-stones, 416.

Quarrying stone, 416.

Quartz, 417.

Quartzite, 417.

Quaternary man, the earliest, 387.

Quatrefages de Bréan, A. de, _Les Polynésiens_, 82;
_Crania Ethica_, 373;
_Unité de l’espèce humaine_, 374;
_Races humaines_, 374, 387;
_Human Species_, 374;
_Nat. Hist. of Man_, 374, 387, 411;
_Les progrès de l’Anthropologie_, 378;
_Hommes fossiles_, 359, 411;
_Rapport sur le progrès de l’Anthropologie_, 411.

Quauhnahuac conquered, 147.

Quauhtlatohuatzin, 146.

Queh, F. G., 167.

Quellenata, ruins, 249.

Quemada, ruins, 183.

Querez, 394.

Querlon, xxxv.

Quetzalcoatl (a king), 140;
discredited by Brinton, 141.

Quetzalcoatl (a divinity), a white-bearded man, 137;
the myth, 137;
identified with Cortés, 149;
Bastian on, 172;
his mound, 179;
oppressed by Tezcatlipoca, 431;
references, 432;
historical basis of his story, 432;
effigy, 432;
under other names, 434.

Quiahuiztlan, 164.

Quiché-Cakchiquel peoples of Guatemala, 135;
their geog. position, 151.

Quichés, language, 427;
myths, 435;
origin of, 134;
traditions, 135;
their power in Guatemala, 150;
warned of the Spaniards’ coming, 151;
their geog. position, 151.

Quichuas, their language and literature, 82, 241, 278;
grammars, 278;
vocabularies, 278;
myths of, 436;
original home, 226.

Quignon, Mount, human jaw found at, 390.

Quinames, 133, 136.

Quinantzin, 142.

Quincy, Josiah, _Hist. Harvard University_, iii.

Quinsai, 51.

Quinté Bay mounds, 410.

Quipus, 242; cut, 243.

Quiriguá, ruins, 196;
plan, 196;
references, 197.

Quito, Hassaurek on, 272;
map, 211;
early accounts lost, 268;
later histories, 268.

Quitus, 227.

Quivira, 394.

RACES, unity or plurality of, bibliog., 372.

Rada, De la, on Rosny, 201;
_Les Vases péruviennes_, 257.

Rada y Delgado, J. D. de la, publishes Landa’s _Relacion_, 165.

Radisson, P. E., _Voyages_, 318.

Rae, John, 106.

Rafinesque, C. S., on Atlantis, 46;
on the Delawares, 325;
_Anc. Mts. of America_, 372;
on the mounds, 409;
his character, 424;
introd. to Marshall’s _Kentucky_, 424;
_Ancient History_, 424;
_The American Nations_, 424.

Rafn, C. C., _Grönlands Hist. Mindesmaerker_, 86;
autog., 87;
_Americas Geog._, 87;
ed. Olaf Tryggvesson’s Saga, 90;
portrait, 90;
his career, 93;
_Cabinet d’Antiq. Amér._, 93;
_Antiq. Americanæ_, 94;
bibliog., 94;
his lesser statements about the Northmen, 94;
_L’ancienne géog. des régions arctiques_, 94;
_Antiq. Américaines_, 94;
influence of Rafn, 96.

Ragine, A., _Découv. de l’Amérique_, 78.

Raimondi, Ant., _El Peru_, 273.

Rain-god, 180.

Raleigh, Sir Walter, on De Bry, xxxii.

Ramirez, José F., edits Duran’s _Historia_, 155;
on Sahagún, 157;
his collection of MSS., 157, 163;
notes on Prescott, 163;
_Bibl. Mex._, 414.

Ramirez de Fuenleal, _Hist. de los Méxicanos por sus Pinturas_, 431.

Ramon de Ordoñez, _Hist. del Cielo_, 134.
_See_ Ordoñez.

Ramusio, edits P. Martyr and Oviedo, xxiii;
_Navigazioni_, xxiii, xxviii;
on the Zeni, 111.

Randolph, J. W., xv.

Ranking, John, _Conquest of Peru by the Mongols_, 82.

Rask, Erasmus, 88;
on the Irish discovery of America, 83.

Rasle, S., _Abnake language_, 423.

Rau, Chas., on Dighton Rock, 104;
on the Palenqué Tablet, 195;
on the progress of study in the hieroglyphics, 202;
_Catal. Nat. Museum_, 403;
on Illinois mounds, 408;
_Articles_, etc., 411;
on the aboriginal implements of agriculture, 417;
_Prehistoric fishing_, 417;
on the stock in trade of an aboriginal lapidary, 417;
various papers on stone implements, 417;
on Amer. pottery, 419;
_Aboriginal Trade_, 420;
thought the earliest man could not talk, 421;
_Articles on Anthropol. Subjects_, 439;
_Archæolog. Coll. of the U. S._, 440;
_Lapidarian Sculpture_, 440.

Rawlinson, Geo., _Antiq. of Man_, 381, 382.

Rawlinson, Sir H. C., on the Zeni, 113.

Ray, Luzerne, 323.

Rea, A. de la, _Mechoacan_, 168.

Read, Harvey, 418.

Read, M. C., 407;
_Archæology of Ohio_, 407;
on the Tennessee mounds, 410.

Reade, John, 328.

Reck, P. G. F. von, _Diarium_, 326.

Recollects, missions, 317.

_Recueil de Voyages_, etc., xix.

Red River of Louisiana, 440.

Red River of the North, mounds, 410.

Red pipe-stone quarry, 416.

_Registro Yucatéco_, 444.

Reynolds, E. R., 416;
_Shell-heaps at Newburg, Md._, 393.

Reynolds, H. L., jr., _Metal Art of Anc. Mexico_, 418.

Reid, _Bibl. Amer._, ii.

Reikjavik, 61.

Reillo, island, 49.

Reinaud, _Relations de l’Empire Romaine avec l’Asie_, 11;
_Géog. d’Abul-Fada_, 47.

Reindeer Period, 339, 377.

Reisch’s map, 122.

Reiss, W., and A. Stübel, _Necropolis of Ancon_, 273.

Relics, spurious, 180.

Remesal, Ant. de, _Hist. gen. de las Indias_, 168;
praised by Helps, 168.

Renard, on St. Paul’s Rocks in the Atlantic Ocean, 45.

Repartimientos, 174.

Retzius, A., _Present state of Ethnology_, 44;
on the human skull, 373;
on the unity of man, 374;
on the Guanche skulls, 116, 117.

Reusner, _Icones_, xxiv.

Réville, Albert, _Origin and growth of religion_, 241, 431.

_Revista Méxicana_, 444.

_Revista Peruana_, 276.

_Revue Américaine_, 441.

_Revue d’Anthropologie_, 442.

_Revue d’Architecture_, 217.

_Revue Ethnographique_, 441.

_Revue des Soc. Savantes_, 38.

Rhees, W. J., _History of the Smithsonian Institution_, 439.

Rhode Island, docs. in her Archives, xiv;
Indians, 323.

Rialle, G. de, _La Mythologie_, 430.

Ribas, Juan de, 155.

Ricardo, Ant., 278.

Riccioli, _Geog._, 5.

Rice, A. T., _Essays from No. Amer. Rev._, 92.

Rich, Obadiah, his career, iii;
dies, iv;
his catalogues, iv;
assists Kingsborough, 203;
obtains his MSS., 203;
helped Prescott, 260.

Richarderie. _See_ Boucher.

Richardson, J. M., 408.

Richardson, _Voyages_, xxxvi.

Riggs, R. S., 423;
_Dacota language_, 424;
on the Dacotah myths, 431.

Rigollet, convinced by De Perthes, 390.

Rikardsen, K., 107.

Rimac, 277.

Rink, Hinrich, _Eskimoiske Eventyr_, 70;
portrait, 106;
best authority on the Eskimos, 106;
his publications, 106;
_Tales of the Eskimo_, 107;
_Danish Greenland_, 107;
_Eskimo Tribes_, 107;
on their dialects, 107;
their origin and descent, 107;
their primitive abode, 107;
their traditions, 107;
_Ostgrönländerne_, 131.
_See_ Greenland.

Rio, Ant. del, at Palenqué, 191;
_Ruins of an anc. city_, 191.

Rio de Janeiro, Nat. Museum, 444;
_Mémoires_, 444.

Rios, P. de los, 205.

Riseland, 130.

River drift, man of, 377.

Rivero, M. E. de, _Antigüedades Peruanas_, 270;
translations, 270.

Rivera, P., 183.

Rivière, E., in the Mentone caves, 390;
_Un Squelette humain_, 390.

Robertson, D. A., 403, 405.

Robertson, R. S., 401, 403, 408.

Robertson, Samuel, 74.

Robertson, Wm., _America_, ii., 169;
on the Norse voyages, 92;
his nearly correct view of the anc. Mexican civilization, 173;
severe on Clavigero, 158;
disbelieved in pre-Spanish ruins, 176;
on the Incas, 269;
portrait, 269;
on the Amer. Indians, 320;
on seventeenth-century literature of Americana, 413;
his bibliog., 413.

Robin, _Louisiane_, 398.

Robinson, Conway, _Disc. in the West_, 93.

Robinson, Edw., 439.

Robinson, _Life in California_, 328.

Rocca, inca, 229.

Rock inscriptions of the Indians, 104, 105, 410, 411.

Rock shelter at Naaman’s Creek, 365.

Rock-writing, 105.

Rocks, cup-like cavities in, 417.

Rockall, 51.

Rockford tablet, 404.

Roehrig on the Sioux, 77.

Rogers, Horatio, _Private libraries of Providence_, xvii.

Roisel, _Etudes ante-historiques_, 46.

Rojas, _Cholula_, 180.

Roman, G., 265.

Roman, H., _Republica de las Indias_, 434.

Roman coins, in the Danish shell-heaps, 382;
found in America, 41.

Romans, Bernard, _Florida_, 326, 372;
on the autochthonous Amer. man, 372.

Romans in the Atlantic, 26.

Rome, _Società Geog. Ital., Bollettino_, 444.

Romero on Mexican languages, vii.

Roquefeuil, de, Voyage, 78.

Rosa, Gonzalez de la, 274, 280.

Rosas, Dr., 281.

Rosny, Léon de, _L’Atlantide_, 46;
on Fousang, 80;
_Variétés Orientales_, 80;
_Les doc. écrit. de l’antiq. Amér._, 139, 201, 207, 442;
on Sahagún, 157;
gives fac. of Aztec map, 163;
_Essai sur le déchiffrement_, etc. 163, 198, 201, 207;
on Landa’s Alphabet, 200;
_Les écritures figuratives_, 201;
_Archives paléographiques_, 201, 442;
_Anc. textes Mayas_, 201;
_Nouvelles Recherches_, 201;
his studies on Spain and Portugal, 201;
_Les Sources d’histoire anté-Columbienne_, 201, 413;
bibliog. 201;
portrait, 202;
on the _Codex Telleriano-Remensis_, 205;
on Brasseur’s ed. of the _Codex Troano_, 207;
discovers the _Codex Perezianus_, 207;
_Manuscrit dit Méxicain, No. 2 de la bibl. impériale_, 207;
his works on Amer. archæology, 207;
on jade industries, 417;
_Revue Orientale et Américaine_, 441.

Rosny, Lucien de, _Les Antilles_, 412, 442;
_Le tabac_, 416;
_La Céramique_, 419.

Ross, Thomasina, 271.

Rosse, Irving C., 106.

Rothelin, Abbé, De Bry, xxxii.

Rotz, his map of Greenland, 126.

Roujow, _Races humaines_, 390.

Rowbotham, J. F., _Hist. of Music_, 420.

Royal Geographical Society and its publications, 442.

Royal Historical Soc. _Trans._, 443.

Royal Society of Canada, 438.

Royal Society, 442.

Royce, C. C., on the Cherokees, 326;
_Indian Cessions of land_, 440;
on the Shawanees, 326.

Royllo, island, 49.

Rucharner, _Newe unbek. landte_, xx.

Rudbeck, on Atlantis, 16.

Ruffner, E. H., _Ute Country_, 327.

Ruge, _Der Chaldäer Selenkos_, 7.

Ruins in Middle America, notes on, 176.

Runes, alleged ones in Nova Scotia, 102;
cuts of, 66, 67;
age of, 66;
references, 66;
in Greenland, 87.

Runnels, M. T., _Sanbornton, N. H._, 404.

Rupertus, _Dissertationes_, 40.

Russell, I. C., _Lake Lahontan_, 349.

Ruttenber, E. M., _Hudson River Indians_, 325.

Ruxton, _Life in Far West_, 111, 327.

Ruysch’s map, 120, 122.

SAABYE, HANS E., 108.

Sabin, Jos., his publications, vi;
_Amer. Bibliopolist_, vi;
_Dictionary_, vi, 414;
_Squier Catal._, viii, 414;
_Menzies Catal._, xii.

Sabine, Lorenzo, on the Indians in Maine, 322.

Sac and Fox tribes, 327.

Sacrificial Stone in Mexico, 180, 181, 185.

Sacsahuaman, ruins, 220, 221.

Sagard, _Canada_, 429;
reference to copper mines, 417.

Sagas, when written, 84;
credibility of, 87, 98, 99;
fac-simile of script, 87;
largely myths, 88;
when put in writing, 88;
_Codex Flatoyensis_, 88, 99;
bibliog., 91;
absurdities in, 99;
oldest maps in accordance with, 129.
_See_ Northmen, Iceland, etc.

Saghalien, 80.

Sagot, P., 425.

Sahagún, Father, as linguistic student, 156;
portrait, 156;
his true name, 156;
bibliog., 157.

Sahuaraura, inca, Dr. J., 281;
_Recuerdos de la Monarquia Peruana_, 270.

Saint. _See_ St.

Sails used by the Peruvians, 420.

Salcamayhua, J. de, S. P. Y., _Relacion_, 266.

Saldamando, E. T., _Los Antiquos Jesuitas del Peru_, 223, 262.

Sale, Ant. de la, _La Salade_, 85.

Salisbury, Stephen, jr., 137;
assists Le Plongeon, 186, 187;
_The Mayas_, 187;
_Terra Cottas of Isla Mujeres_, 187.

Salone on Atlantis, 46.

Salter, John, 328.

San Juan, cliff houses on the, 395;
pueblo, 396.

San Miguel, 49.

San Tomas, his grammar, 278.

Sana, 276.

Sanborn, J. W., _Seneca Indians_, 323.

Sanbornton, N. H., Indian fortification, 404.

Sanford, Ezekiel, _Hist. United States_, 320.

Sans, R., 264.

Sanskrit roots in Mexican, 81.

Sanson, Guillaume, on Atlantis, 16;
his map, 18.

Santa, 275.

Santarem, _Hist. de la Cosmog._, 38;
his atlas, 53.

Santillan, Fernando de, Relacion, 261.

Sanuto, Marino, his map (1306), 53;
acc. of, 53 (1320), 55.

Saravia, B. de, _Antig. del Peru_, 261, 268.

Sargasso Sea, 25.

Sargent, Winthrop, on the Cincinnati mounds, 398, 437;
plan of the Marietta mounds, 405.

Sarmiento de Gamboa, P., discovers islands, 268;
_Viage al estrecho de Magellanes_, 268.

Sars, J. E., _Norske Hist._, 85.

Satanagio. _See_ Man Satanaxio.

Satanaxio. _See_ Man.

Saunders, Trelawny, map of Peru, 211.

Saussure, H. de, _Ruines d’une anc. ville_, 182.

Savage, a.d., 196.

Savage, Jos., 409.

Sawkins, J. G., 184.

Saxe-Eisenach, Duke of, 205.

Saxenburg, island, 47.

Saxo-Grammaticus, _Hist. Danica_, 91.

Scandinavia. _See_ Northmen, Norway, Sweden, Iceland.

Schaefer, _Entwicklung, etc._, 3;
_Gestalt und Grösse der Erde_, 39;
_Philologus_, 5.

Schaghticoke Indians, 324.

Schellhas, _Die Mayahandschrift_, 205.

Scherer, J. B., _Recherches_, 76, 424, 445.

Scherzer, K., _Wanderungen_, 166;
_Las Hist. del Origen de los Indios_, 166;
_Quiriguá_, 197.

Schiern, F., _Un Enigme_, 26.

Schlagintweit, 412.

Schmerling, Dr., _Recherches sur les ossemens_, 390.

Schmidel, Brazil, xxxii.

Schmidt, E., 402;
_Dissert. de America_, 40;
_Die ältesten Spuren des Menschen_, 384;
_Anthropol. Methoden_, 411.

Schmidt, Julius, _Copan and Quiriguá_, 196, 197.

Schneider, C. E. C., 41.

Schoebel, C., among the pueblos, 397.

Schöning, Gerhard, _Norges Rigens Hist._, 92.

Schonlandia, 129.

Schoolcraft, H. R., _Books in the Indian tongues_, vii;
on the Northmen, 96;
on the Grave Creek inscription, 102;
on the Dighton Rock, 102, 104;
_Indian Tribes_, 320, 376, 430, 441;
opinions of it, 320, 441;
otherwise called _Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge_, 441;
and _Ethnological Researches_, 441;
F. S. Drake’s ed., 441;
his notes on antiquities, 376;
_Grave Creek Mound_, 403;
_Report on Iroquois_, 324, 405;
_Notes on the Iroquois_, 324, 405;
on Virginia mounds, 410;
on Florida pottery, 419;
his linguistic studies, 424;
dies, 441;
rivalry of Catlin, 441.

Schouten in De Bry, xxxii.

Schrader, _Namen der Meere_, 13.

Schultz-Sellack, Carl, _Die Amer. Götter_, 202, 434.

Schultz, _Travels_, 405.

Schumacher, H. A., _Petrus Martyr_, xx.

Schumacher, P., 393; on pottery making, 419.

Schwab, Moïse, 404.

Schwatka, F., on the Eskimos, 107.

_Science_, 439.

Scioto Valley, map of mounds, 406.

Scipio’s dream, 9, 11.

Scoffern, John, _Stray leaves_, 383.

Scolvus, Jac., his landfall, 129.
_See_ Skolno.

Scott, P. A., 350.

Scott, Sir Walter, on the Sagas, 83.

Scotland, early map of, 118.

Scudder, S. H., _Catal. of Scientific Serials_, 438, 441.

Scull, G. D., edits Radisson, 318.

Scylax on the Atlantic, 28;
_Periplus_, 28.

Scythian migration to America, 370.

Sea of Darkness, 32, 74.

Seager, his drawing of the Dighton Rock, 102.

Sebillot, Paul, _Légendes_, 47.

Seeman, B., _Dottings_, 197.

Selden collection, 205.

Selish grammar, 425.

Sellers, on arrow points, 417.

Seminole Indians, 326.

Semites, 25.

Seneca, L. A., _Questionum Nat._, 35;
works, 35;
on the westward passage, 27;
his prophecy, 29;
his “Ultima Thule”, 29;
his _Medea_, 29.

Seneca Indians, 323;
origin of the name, 323;
their burial mound, 405.
_See_ Iroquois.

Septon, J., 85.

Se-quo-yah, 326.

Serpent mound, 401.

Serpent symbol, 401.

Serpent, worship of, 429.

Sertorius, 14, 26.

Seven Caves, 138.

Seven Cities, island of, 31, 47, 48.

Sewall, Samuel, on Hornius, 370;
_Phænomena_, 115.

Sewell, Stephen, on Dighton Rock, 103, 104.

Shaler, N. S., on the New Jersey gravels, 334;
their implements, 388;
on the disappearance of the mastodon, 389;
on Ohio Valley caves, 391;
_Kentucky Survey_, 402;
on the mounds, 410.

Shaw, J., 408.

Shawanees, 307, 326;
in Pontiac’s conspiracy, 316.

Shea, J. G., _Library of Amer. Linguistics_, vii;
_Catholic Missions_, 318;
on the Indians of Nova Scotia, 321;
translates Martin’s _Jogues_, 323;
on the Wisconsin Indians, 327;
_Dict. Français-Onontagué_, 424;
_Lib. of Amer. Linguistics_, 425;
its contents, 425;
_French Onondaga Dict._, 425.

Shell-heaps, 391;
contemporary with the cave-men, 391;
contents of those in No. America, 392;
general references, 392, 393.

Shell-money, 420.

Shell-work, 417.

Shepard, H. A., Antiq. of Ohio, 405, 407.

Sherman, D., 325.

Sherwood, J. D., 403.

Sherwood, R. H., 322.

Shetimasha Indians, 426.

Ships, speed of ancient, 24;
of the fifteenth century, 73;
a British ship, 110.
_See_ Northmen.

Short, C. W., 437.

Short, J. T., _No. Amer. of Antiq._, vii, 412, 415;
on Fousang, 81;
on the antiquity of man in America, 330.

Shoshones, arts of, 416;
their migrations, 381.

Sierra, Justo, 165.

Sign-language. _See_ Gesture language.

Sigüenza y Gongora, C. de, his chronology of Mexico, 133;
collection of, 158.

Silenus, 21.

Silliman, _Journal of Arts_, 371.
See _Amer. Journal of Science and Arts_.

Sillustani, 236;
Chulpas at, 248;
cut, 250.

Silver, 418.

Silvestre, _Paléographie_, 205.

Siméon, Rémi, _Les Annales Méxicaines_, 164;
_La langue Méxicaine_, 427;
_Sur la numération_, 170.

Simms, _Views and Reviews_, 328.

Simon, Mrs. B. A., _Hope of Israel_, 116;
_Ten Tribes_, 116.

Simonin, L., _L’homme Américain_, 375, 381.

Simpson, H. F. M., _Prehist. of the North_, 85.

Simpson, J. H., _Navajo Country_, 327;
_Mil. Reconnaissance_, 395, 396;
_Explorations of Utah_, 440.

Sinding, Paul K., _Scandinavia_, 96;
_Scandin. Races_, 96.

Sinkers, 417.

Sioux, 327.
_See_ Dacotahs.

Sitgreave, Capt. L., _Expedition_, 396.

Sitjav, B., language of the San Antonio Mission, 425.

Six Nations. _See_ Iroquois.

Skeleton in armor, 105.

Skertchly, S. B. J., 352.

Skolno on the Labrador coast, 76.
_See_ Scolvus.

Skrælings, 68, 105.
_See_ Eskimos.

Skulls, trepanned, 244;
deforming of, 244.
_See_ Craniology.

Sladen, Von, _Brazil_, xxxii.

Slafter, E. F., _Voyages of the Northmen_, 76.

Small, John, on Thule, 118.

Smedt, C. de, 48.

Smith, Alf. R., xvi.

Smith, B., 169;
on the Dighton Rock, 104;
_Heve language_, 425;
_Pima language_, 425.

Smith, C. D., 416.

Smith, C. H., 369;
_Human Species_, 374.

Smith, Ethan, _View of the Hebrews_, 116.

Smith, Mrs. E. A., on the Iroquois, 425;
_Myths of the Iroquois_, 431.

Smith, Col. James, 292, 319;
_Captivity_, 288.

Smith, John, in De Bry, xxxii.

Smith, J. G., _Atla_, 45.

Smith, John Russell, xvi.

Smith, J. T., _Northmen in New England_, 96;
_Disc. of America by the Northmen_, 96.

Smith, J. W. C., 410.

Smith, J. Y., 369.

Smith, Jos., _Friends’ books_, xvii;
_Anti-quakeriana_, xvii;
_Bibl. Quakeristica_, xvii.

Smith, Wm., _New York_, 324.

Smithsonian Institution, 439;
its publications, 439.

Smucker, Isaac, 403;
archæology in Ohio, 406;
on the Newark mounds, 408;
on the Alligator mound, 409.

Smyth, Thos., _Unity of the Human Race_, 374.

Snorre Sturleson, _Heimskringla_, 83.

Snorre, ancestor of Thorwaldsen, the Danish sculptor, 65.

Soap-stone quarries, 416.

Sobolewski, S., his catalogue, xiii;
his De Bry, xxxii.

Sobron, F. C. Y., _Los idiomas_, vii.

Société Americaine de France, 176, 441.

Société d’Anthropologie, 390;
_Bulletin_ and _Mémoires_, 442.

Société d’Ethnographie, _Mémoires_,442;
_Les Documents écrits de l’Antiquité Amér._, 442.

Société Ethnographique, _Bulletin_ and _Mémoires_, 441.

Soil formation in America, 461.

Solberg, Th., bibliog. of Scandinavia, 98.

Soldan, Paz., _Geog. del Peru_, 212.

Soligo, Christ., map (1487?), 58.

Solinus, _Polyhistor._, 35.

Sollars, W. J., 106.

Solomon, his Ophir, 82.
_See_ Ophir.

Solon and Atlantis, 15, 42.

Solorano, Juan de, _Politica Indiana_, 268.

Soloutre, village, 357, 377.

Soltecos, 136.

Soto, Francis de, 155;
on the mounds, 397.

South America, flora corresponds with African, 117;
prehistoric man in, 412;
languages, 428.

Southall, Jas. C., on the Unity of Races, 374;
believes in the theory of degeneracy, 382;
_Recent origin of Man_, 382, 384;
biblical trust, 382;
_Epoch of the Mammoth_, 382;
his views, 382;
controversy with the archæologists, 382;
on his opponents, 382.

Southern States, Indians of, 326.

Southey, Robert, _Madoc_, 111.

Spain, arms of, 267;
hieroglyphic MSS. in, 203;
Sociedad Anthropológica Española, 444;
_Revista_, 444.

Spainhour, J. M., 410.

Spanish America, writers of, ii.

Sparks, Jared, his library, vi;
his MSS., vii;
dies, vii.

_Speaker’s Commentary_, 383.

Speech wanting in the palæolithic man, 377.

Speer, Wm., 81.

Spilbergen on De Bry, xxxii.

Spilsbury, J. H. G., his Quichua work, 280.

Spineto, _Hieroglyphics_, 205.

Spitzbergen sometimes called Greenland in early accounts, 107.

Spizelius, Theoph., _Elevatio_, 115.

_Sporting Review_, 213.

Spotswood, Gov., on the frontier posts, 309.

Sprengel, M. C., _Europäer in Nord Amerika_, 92.

Squier, E. G., on Zestermann’s _Colonization of America_, 60;
his publications and library, vii, viii, 169, 272, 414;
_Serpent Symbol_, 76;
notes on Zestermann, 83;
on the Grave Creek inscription, 102;
_Catalogue of his library_, 169;
_Central America_, 169;
_Collection of Docs._, 169;
_The Great Calendar Stone_, 179;
introd. to Morellet’s _Travels_, 195;
on the Central America ruins and their relative age, 196;
_Nicaragua_, 197;
on Tenampua, 197;
criticised by Bovallius, 197;
on a defect in the signatures of Kingsborough’s book, 203;
in Peru, 224;
at Chacha, 224;
at Lake Titicaca, 247;
_La géog. du Pérou_, 247;
_Primeval monuments of Peru_, 249;
_Peru, incidents of Travel_, 272;
his mission and studies in Peru, 272;
_Les monuments du Pérou_, 272;
death, 272;
_Traditions of the Algonquins_, 325;
on early notices of the Pueblo race, 395;
_Semi-civilized Nations of New Mexico and California_, 396;
(with Davis), _Anc. Mts. of the Mississippi Valley_, 399;
commended by Gallatin and others, 439;
on the New York mounds, 399;
_Observations onmounds_, 399;
doubts the Grave Creek tablet, 404;
_Aborig. Mts. State of N. Y._, 405;
_Antiq. of N. Y. State_, 405;
_Monograph of Authors_, 427;
_Serpent Symbol_, 429.

Squier, Mrs. M. F., 195.

St. Bonaventure, G. de, 427; _Grammaire Maya_, 200.

St. Brandan, island of, 32;
his story, 48;
his island, 48.

St. Clement, 37.

St. Lawrence Island, 77.

St. Louis Academy of Science, 438;
mounds near, 409.

St. Malo, legend of, 48.

St. Patrick, 83.

St. Petersburg, Museum of Ethnography, 443.

St. Thomas in Central America, 137;
connected with Quetzalcoatl, 432.

Stadium, length of, 4.

Stallbaum, ed. of Plato, 43;
on Phœnician knowledge of America, 43.

Stanford, _Compend. of Geog._, 412.

Stanley, J. M., _Portraits of No. Amer. Indians_, 439.

Steenstrup, Japetus, on the Zeni, 114.

Steenstrup, K., on Scandinavian ruins, 86;
_Osterbygden_, 131;
on the Greenland colonies, 109.

Steffen, Max, _Landwirtschaft_, 253, 417.

Stein, Gerard, _Die Entdeckungsreisen_, 72.

Steiner, Abraham G., 408.

Steinthal, H., _Ursprung der Sprache_, 421.

Stelle, J. P., 410.

Stenstrom, H., _De America_, 93.

Stephens, Geo., _Oldest Doc. in Danish_, 66;
_No. Runic Mts._, 66;
_Runic Mts. of Scandinavia_, 66.

Stephens, J. L., _Yucatan_, 164, 176, 186;
prints a Maya doc., 164;
held responsible by Morgan for exaggerated notions of the Maya
splendor, 176;
_Central America_, 176, 186, 194;
in Yucatan, 185, 186; map, 188;
at Uxmal, 189;
at Chichen-Itza, 190;
his results in Yucatan, 190;
at Palenqué, 194;
at Copan, 196.

Stephens, _Lit. of the Cymry_, 111.

Stephenson, Geo., 410.

Stephenson, M. F., 410.

Sterling, H. H., _Irish Minstrelsy_, 50.

Stevens, E. T., _Flint Chips_, 392, 444.

Stevens, Henry, controversy with Harisse, v;
buys Humboldt’s library, vi;
on Humboldt, vi;
_Recoll. of Lenox_, xi;
bought Crowninshield library, xii;
dealer in Americana, xiii;
_Schedule of Nuggets_, xiii, xiv;
_Bibl. Hist._, xiii, xiv;
dies, xiii;
on De Bry, xxxii;
proposed _Bibl. Americana_, xiv;
his transcripts of MSS., xiv;
agent of the Smithsonian Inst., the British Museum, the Bodleian,
xiv;
his _English Library_, xiv;
_Amer. Bibliographer_, xiv;
_Books in the Brit. Mus._, xiv;
_Hist. Nuggets_, xiv;
_Bibl. Amér._, xiv;
_Hist. and Geog. Notes_, xiv;
_Bibl. Geog. et Hist._, xiv;
_Amer. books with tails_, xv;
_Hist. Collections_, xv;
owns Franklin MSS., xv;
list of his own publications, xv;
_Bibliog. of New Hampshire_, xv;
buys the Brockhaus collection, xvii;
Zeni map, 113.

Stevens, H. N., xiv.

Stevens, John, _Voyages_, xxxv.

Stevens, J. A., _Geo. Gibbs_, 424.

Stevens, Simon, xiv.

Stevenson, Jas., on the cliff houses, 395;
_Anc. habitations of the Southwest_, 397;
catalogue of pottery, 419;
researches among the Pueblos, 439.

Stevenson, J. E., 403; _Zuñi_, 396.

Stevenson, Mrs. T. E., _Religious life of the Zuñi child_, 440.

Stevenson, W., on navigation, xxxvi.

Stickney, C. E., _Minisink Region_, 323.

Stiles, Dr. Ezra, on the Dighton Rock, 104;
_The United States elevated to glory_, 371;
on the origin of the American, 371;
on an Indian idol, 437.

Stockbridge Indians, 323.

Stoddard, Amos, _Louisiana_, 110.

Stoddard, _Louisiana_, 398.

Stoll, O., _Republik Guatemala_, 428.

Stone, O. M., _Teneriffe_, 48.

Stone, W. L., on the moundbuilders, 41;
_Uncas and Miantonomoh_, 323;
his lives of Johnson, Brant, and Red Jacket, 325;
on the N. Y. mounds, 405.

Stone Age in America, oldest implements yet found, 343;
different stones used, 362.
_See_ Palæolithic, Neolithic.

Stone, artificial cleavages of, 388;
chipping, the process, 417;
work in, 416.

Strabo, on the size of the known world, 8;
his views of habitable parts, 9;
_Geographia_, 5, 34;
editions, 34;
translations, 34;
Gosselin’s French transl., 34;
translated by order of Nicholas V, 37.

Strebel, H., _Alt-Mexico_, 172, 420.

Strinhold, A. M., 85.

Stroll, Otto, _Guatemala_, 141.

Strong, Moses, 409.

Strutt, _Dict. Engravers_, xxvii.

Stuart and Kuyper, _De Mensch_, 320.

Stübel, A., _Necropolis of Ancon_, 273;
_Ueber Altperuvianische Gewebemuster_, 273.

Studley, Cordelia A., 390.

Sturleson, Snorro, _Heimskringla_, 91.

Sulte, B., on the Iroquois, 321.

Sumner, Chas., _Prophetic voices concerning America_, 40.

Sun, worship of, 429.

Sunderland library, xiii.

Susquehanna Valley Indians, 325.

Sutcliffe, Thomas, _Chili and Peru_, 272.

Sutherland, P. C., 106.

Sweden, anthropological studies in, 444.

Sweden, early map, 119, 124, 125, 129.

Swedes, their blinding patriotism, 88;
on the Delaware, 307.

Sweetzer, Seth, on prehist. man, 412.

Swinford, _Mineral Resources of Lake Superior_, 418.

Swiss lake dwellings, 395;
relics from, 395;
general references, 395.

Switzler, W. F., _Missouri_, 409.

Sylvester, _Northern New York_, 323.

TACITUS, _Germania_, 28.

Tacna, 277.

Tamana, idol from, 281.

Tamoanchar, 135;
geog. position, 151.

Tanmar. _See_ Danmar.

Tanos, 394.

Taos, 394, 396.

Tapenecs. _See_ Tepanecs.

Tapijulapane-Mixe, 426.

Tarapaca, 270, 275.

Tarascos, 136.

Tarayre, G., _L’Exploration mineralogique_, 170.

Targe, xxxvi.

Tartar migrations to America, 369, 370;
traces in N. W. America, 78.

Tassin, French geographer, 51.

Tayasàl, 175.

Taylor, A. S., bibliog. of California, ix.

Taylor, Isaac, _Alphabets_, 200.

Taylor, Jeremy, _Dissuasive from Popery_, 51.

Taylor, John, on the N. Y. mounds, 404.

Taylor, R. C., on the Wisconsin mounds, 400.

Taylor, S., 400.

Taylor, Thomas, 41;
_Commentaries of Proclus_, 35.

Taylor, W. M., on mounds, 405.

Techotl, 146.

Tecpan, 175.

Tecpaneca conquered, 147.

Tehna, 394.

Tehuelhet, 428.

_Telleriano-Remensis Codex_, 205.

Temple, Edw., _Travels in Peru_, 272.

Temple, _No. Brookfield_, 323.

Tempsky, G. F. von, _Mitla_, 184.

Ten Kate, H. F. C., 356;
_Reizen_, 395.

Tenampua, 197.

Tenayocan, 142.

Tennessee, aborig. remains, 410;
pottery, 419;
stone graves, 410.

Tenochtitlan. _See_ Mexico (city).

Teoamoxtli, 158, 167.

Teoculcuacan, 138.

Teotihuacan, Olmecs at, 135;
a religious shrine, 140;
ruins, 182.

Teoyaomiqui, effigy, 182, 435.

Tepanecs, 136, 146.

Tepechpan, 162.

Tepeu, 435.

Tepeyahualco, 173.

Terceira, 49.

Ternaux-Compans, H., his library, iv;
_Bibl. Amér._, iv;
_Voyages_, xxxvii, 273;
his studies of Peru, 273;
_La theogonie Méxicaine_, 431.

Terra cotta, 420.

Tertiary man, 387;
evidences, 353, 385, 387.

Tertullian, _De Pallio_, 42.

Teruel, Luis de, 264;
MSS. on the Peruvians, 264.

Textile arts, 419;
impression preserved in pottery, 419;
of the moundbuilders, 419.

Tezcatlipoca, 431;
oppressor of Quetzalcoatl, 431.

Tezcuco, growth of, 140, 142;
alleged empire at, 173;
old bridge near, 182;
old buildings, 182.

Tezozomoc, H. de A., 146;
_Crónica Méx._, 155, 163;
MSS. on Mexican history, 162.

Theopompus of Chios, 21;
his continent, 21.

Thévenot, bibliog., xii, xxxiv;
_Voyages_, 204.

Thévet, A., on the Jewish migration to America, 115.

Thiersant, Dabry de, _Origine des Indiens_, 369.

Thomas, Cyrus, on Mexican MSS., 163;
on the Mexican astronomy, 179;
on Landa’s alphabet, 200;
_MS. Troano_, 201, 207, his course of study, 201;
on Maya numerical signs, 205;
on the mounds, 401;
_Work on Mound Exploration_, 401;
_Burial Mounds_, 401;
disputes Putnam’s view of the mounds, 402;
presentations of his views on the moundbuilders, 402;
on the elephant pipes, 404;
on the builders of the mounds, 407;
on the effigy mounds, 408, 409;
on the stone graves of Tennessee, 410;
on the Etowah mounds, 410;
conducts mound explorations, 439;
_Maya and Mexican MSS._, 440.

Thomas, Mrs. Cyrus, bibliog. of Ohio mounds, 406.

Thomas, David, _Travels_, 405.

Thomas, Isaiah, founds Amer. Antiq. Soc., 437.

Thompson, E. H., _Atlantis not a Myth_, 44;
on Yucatan, 187;
on the “Elephants’ trunks”, 188.

Thompson, G. A., _New Theory_, 76.

Thompson, J., translates De Pauw, 370.

Thompson, T. P., _Knot Records of Peru_, 243;
_Hist. of the Quipus_, 243.

Thompson, Waddy, _Recoll. of Mexico_, 180.

Thomson, Chas., _Enquiry_, 325.

Thorfinn Karlsefne, in Vinland, 65;
Saga, 90.

Thorlacius, G., his map of Vinland, 130, 131.

Thorlacius, Theod., 130, 131.

Thorlakssen. _See_ Thorlacius.

Thorndike, Col., Israel, iii.

Thorne, Robt., his map, 125.

Thornton, J. W., 102.

Thoron, Onffroy de, 82.

Thorowgood, Thomas, _Jewes in America_,115;
_Vindiciæ Jud._, 115;
_Digitus Dei_, 115.

Thorwald on Vinland, 65.

Three Chimneys (islands), 53.

Thule, 117; discovered, 26;
in Seneca, 29;
varying position, 118.

Thurston, G. P., 81, 402.

Thyle, on Macrobius’ map, 10.
_See_ Thule.

Tiahuanacu, position, 210;
architectural details, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218;
ruins restored, 219;
ruins described, 215;
doorway, 216, 218;
seen by D’Orbigny, 271;
various descriptions, 272, 273;
by Bollaert, 273;
by Basadie, 273;
by Inwards, 273.

Tibullus, _Elegies_, 7.

Tides, Macrobius’ view of, 11.

Tiele, P. A., xxxiii.

Tiguex, 394.

Tikal, 200.

Tilantongo, 148.

Tillinghast, W. H., “Geog. Knowledge of the Ancients”, 1.

Timagenes, 42.

Timber brought from Vinland, 65.

Timberlake, Henry, on the Cherokees, 83.

Timucua language, 426.

Timuquana language, 425.

Tin mines, early, 24.

Tinneh, 77.

Tishcoban, 325.

Titicaca, lake, seat of worship, 222;
its myth, 222;
seat of the Piruas, 223;
connected with the Inca myths, 224;
dwellers near, 226;
views of lake and ruins, 246;
Squier’s Explorations, 246;
surveyed by J. B. Pentland, 246;
Inca palace, 247;
map, 248.

Tizoc, 148.

Tlacatecuhtli, 173.

Tlacopan forms a confederacy, 147.

Tlacutzin, 139.

Tlaloc, 435;
rain-god, 180.

Tlapallan, 137, 139.

Tlapallanco, 139.

Tlascalans, 149.

Tobacco, mortars for pounding it, 416.

Tobar, Juan de, _Codex Ramirez_, 155;
_Relacion_, 155;
printed by Sir Thos. Phillipps, 155;
_Hist. de los Indios_, 155.

To-carryhogan, 289.

Tollan, 137, 139.

Tollatzinco, 139.

Toloom, 190.

Toltecs, descendants of the Atlantides, 44;
origin of, 135, 141;
from Tollan, 137;
their appearance in Mexico, 139;
end of their power, 140;
a nation or a dynasty, 140;
their story, 140;
their later migrations, 140;
Brinton and Charnay disagree on their status, 141;
Bandelier considers them Maya, 141;
Sahagún the “giants”, 141;
Bandelier’s view, 141;
sources of their history, 141;
MS. annals, 162;
their astronomical ideas, 179;
build the ruins of Yucatan, 191.

Tomo-chi-chi, 326.

Tomlinson, A. B., 403.

Tonocote, 428.

Topinard on the jaw-bone from the Naulette Cave, 377.

Torfæus, _Hist. Gronlandiæ_, 85;
his character, 88;
_Hist. Vinlandiæ_, 92;
facs. of title, 91;
places Vinland in Newfoundland, 99;
gives maps, 129.

Toribio de Benevente, 155.

Torquemada, instructed by Ixtlilxochitl, 173;
on the origin of Americans, 369;
MS. used by him, 162;
_Monarchia Ind._, 157.

Torres Rubio, Irego de, in Peru, 279;
his Quichua grammar, 278.

Torrid zone, notions regarding it, 6;
they check exploration, 6.

Toscanelli on Antillia, 49;
his ideas of the Atlantic ocean, 51;
letter to Columbus, 51;
different texts of it, 51, 52;
his working papers, 52;
his map, 56.

Totems, 408.

Totemism, 328.

Totonacs, 136.

Totul Xius, 152; sources, 153.

Toulmin, Harry, 110.

Tovar, _See_ Tobar.

Trabega, 205.

Trade of the Amer. Aborigines, 416;
no good acc. of, 420.

Traffic, intertribal, 420.

Treaties with the Indians, methods of, 305.

Trees, rings of, as signs of age, 191, 403.

Trenton gravel bluff, view of, 335;
the deposits described, 338;
skulls found in, 356;
gravels, 388;
traces of man in, 388.
_See_ Delaware, New Jersey.

Trepanning in Peru, 244.

Trephining, 244.

Trigoso, S. F. M., _Descob. e Commercio dos Portuguezes_, xix.

Triquis, 136.

Tritemius, Joannes, _De Scriptoribus_, xx.

Trivizano, _Libretto_, xx.

Trivulgiana library (Milan), vi.

Tro y Ortolano, J., 205.

Trocadero Museum in Paris, 177.

Troil, _Lettres sur l’Islande_, 84.

Trojans, ancestors of the Indians, 369.

Trömel, Paul, _Bibl. Amér._, xvii, 413.

Troost, G., on Tennessee archeol. remains, 410.

Tross, Edwin, catalogues, xvi.

Trowbridge, D., 405.

Troyon, Prof., _Habitations lacustres_, 395.

Trübner, K. J., xvi.

Trübner, Nic., _Bibl. Hisp. Amer._, xvi;
dies, xvi.

Trumbull, J. H., on Indian languages, vii;
edits the Brinley library catalogue, xii;
_Indian Missions in New England_, 322;
his studies in the Indian languages, 322, 423.

Trutat, E., 411.

Trutot, 442.

Truxillo, Diego de, _Relacion_, 260.

Truxillo, ruins near, 275.

Tschudi, J. D. von, on the llamas, 213;
_Antig. Peruanas_, 270;
_Reisen_, 270;
_Travels_, 270;
_Ollanta_, 281;
on the Quichua language, 280;
his grammar, 280.

Tula, 137;
ruin at, 177.

Tulan, 135.

Tulan, Zuiva, 139.

Tumbez, 277.

Tungus, 77.

Tupac Inca Yupanqui, 230.

Tupis of South America, 136, 428.

Turnefort, 43.

Turner, G., 437.

Turner, Sharon, _Anglo-Saxons_, 88.

Turner, W., 423.

Turner, W. W., vii, 424, 440;
_Indian Philology_, 439.

Tusayan, 394.

Tuscaroras, 310.

Tuttle, C. W., 102.

Two Sorcerers, island, 47.

Tylor, E. B., on Egyptian hieroglyphics, 41;
_Scandin. civilization among Eskimaux_, 70;
on connection of Asia and Mexico, 77;
_Anáhuac_, 170, 174;
applauds Prescott’s view, 174;
portrait, 376;
his rank as an anthropologist, 377;
_Early Hist. of Mankind_, 377, 380;
_Early Mental Condition of Man_, 378;
_Condition of Prehist. Races_, 378;
on man’s progress from barbarism to civilization, 378;
_Primitive Culture_, 378;
_Anthropology_, 378;
_Amer. aspects of Anthropology_, 379;
acc. of, 379;
on the degeneracy of the savage, 381.

Tyrians on the Atlantic, 24.

Tzendal language, 427.

Tzequiles, 135.

Tzetzes, _Scholia in Lycophron_, 15.

UA CORRA, 50.

Uhde collection, 444.

Uhle, Max, 404.

Uira-cocha, 222, 229.

Ukert, _Geog. der Griechen_, 28, 36, 46.

Ule, Otto, _Die Erde_, 44.

Ulloa, A., _Mémoires_, 271;
_Voyage historique_, 271;
_Not. Amer._, 370.

Ulloa, J. J., _Voyage_, 271.

Ulloa, _Relacion Hist._, 228.

Ulpius globe, 126.

Uncpapas, 327.

Unger, F., _Insel Atlantis_, 44.

United States Army, _Reports of Chief Engineer_, 396;
geological survey, _Reports_, 396;
National Museum, 440.

Upham, Warren, 333; _Recession of the ice sheet in Minnesota_, 346;
_Ohio gravel beds_, 388.

Urcavilca, 230.

Urco, 229.

Uricoechea, E., _Memorias_, 282;
_Lengua Chibcha_, 425.

Urlsperger Tracts, 326.

Urrabieta, xxxvii.

Ursel, Comte d’, _Sud Amérique_, 272.

Ursúa, M., 175.

Urus, 226, 280.

Utah mounds, 409.

Utes, 327.

Utlatlan, position of, 151, 152.

Uxmal, position of, 151, 188;
Totul Xius in, 153;
communal house near, 175;
seen by Zavala, 186;
by Waldeck, 186;
by Charnay, 186, 188;
descriptions, 188; so-called elephants’ trunks, 189;
early accounts, 189;
view of ruined temple, 189;
seen by Brasseur, 189;
inhabited when the Spaniards came, 190;
plans, 190.

Uzielli, G., on Toscanelli, 51.

VALADES, DIDACUS, _Rhetorica Christ._, 154.

Valdemar-Schmidt, _Voyages au Groenland_, 109.

Valdez, Ant., 281.

Valencia, Martin de, 155.

Valentini, P. J. J., _Olmecas and Tultecas_, 137;
on the Calendar Stone, 179;
on Landa’s alphabet, 200;
_Mexican copper tools_, 418;
_Katunes of Maya Hist._, 152, 164.

Valera, Blas, his work lost, 209;
his career, 261;
his MSS. used by Garcilasso, 262.

Valera, Luis, 260.

Vallancey, Chas., 104.

Valmy, Duc de, 171.

Valpy, _Panegyrici veteres_, 47.

Valsequa, Gabriell de, his map (1439), 56.

Vancouver’s Island, 81, 393.

Van den Bergh, L. P. C., _Amerika voor Columbus_, 75.

Van den Bos, Lambert, _Zee-helden_, xxxiv.

Van der Aa. _See_ Aa.

Van Noort, Olivier, xxxiii.

Vanuxem, Professor, on shell heaps, 392.

Varnhagen, F. de, _L’Origine touranienne des Américains_, 41, 117.

Vasquez, Francisco, _Guatemala_, 168.

Vasquez, T., 260.

Vater, J. S., _Ueber Amerikas Bevölkerung_, 60;
(with Adelung), _Mithridates_, 422;
_Analekten der Sprachenkunde_, 422.

Vaugondy, _Atlantis_, 16.

Veer, G. de, _Voyages_, 85.

Vega, Father, his collection of MSS., 157.

Vega, F. Nuñez de la, knew the Book of Votan, 134;
_Obispado de Chiappas_, 134.

Vega, Garcilasso de la, in Peru, 265;
house in which he was born, 265;
son of an Inca princess, 265;
his expedition of De Soto, 265;
_Commentarios Reales_, 265, 266;
used Blas Valera, 265;
wrote on Spain thirty years after leaving Peru, 266;
corrects Acosta, 266;
critics of, 266;
dies, 266.

Velasco, Juan de, 279;
_Reino de Quito_, 268, 273.

Ventancurt, _Teatro Mex._, 171.

Vera, F. H., 413.

Vera Cruz, ruins near, 178.

Verneau, _Dans l’Archipel Canarienne_, 25.

Verreau, Abbé, on the beginnings of the Church in Canada, 317.

Vertuch, _Archiv für Ethnographie_, 443.

Vespucius in De Bry, xxxii;
voyages, acc. of, xxiv;
mentioned, xxviii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi;
map owned by him, 56.

Vetanzos, Juan de, used by Garcia, 369.
_See_ Betanzos.

Vetromile, _Abnakis and their history_, 466.

Veytia, on the Toltecs, 141;
_Hist. Antiq. de Mejico_, 141, 159;
better on the Tezcucans than on the Mexicans, 150;
begins Mexican history at A.D. 697, 155;
used Boturini’s collection, 159;
annotates Ixtlilxochitl’s MSS., 162;
continues Boturini’s labors, 162.

Vicary, J. F., _Saga time_, 92.

Victor, J. D., _Disput. de America_, 40, 370.

Vicuña, 213.

Vienna, Anthropologische Gesellschaft, 443;
Prähist. Commission, 443.

Viera y Clavijo, J. de, _Islas de Canaria_, 48.

Vigfússon, G., _Icelandic Eng. Dict._, 85;
_Icelandic Sagas_, 90.

Vigil, José M., 155.

Vikings, burial of, 62.

Vilcashuaman, ruins, 247, 271.

Villacastin, F. de, 260.

Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, _Conquista de Itza_, 165.

Villar, Dr., 282;
_Uira-cocha_, 271.

Villar, Leonardo, 266.

Villebrune, J. B. L., 370.

Vincent, _Commerce of the Ancients_, 117.

Vining, E. P., _An inglorious Columbus_, 80.

Vinland, found and named, 64;
attempted identification, 65;
last ship to, 65;
probability of voyages to, 67;
bibliog., 87, 98;
the sagas, 87, 88;
put in writing, 88;
situated in Labrador, 92, 93, 96, 99;
in Newfoundland, 92, 93, 94, 96, 99;
in Greenland, 92, 98;
in New York, 93, 102;
not in America, 93;
in New England, 93;
in Maine, 102;
in Massachusetts, 94, 99;
in Rhode Island, 94, 96, 99, 102;
in Africa, 100;
maps, 94;
those of Rafn reproduced, 95, 100;
probability of the voyages to, 98;
linguistic proofs of, 98;
ethnographical proofs, 99;
physical and geographical proofs, 99;
tides in, 99;
length of summer day in, 99;
Rafn’s attempts to identify it, 100;
his map, 100;
held to be a prolongation of Africa, 100;
monumental proofs, 102;
has no frost, 102;
natives called Skrælings, 105;
held to be north of Davis’s Straits by the oldest Norse maps, 130;
that by Stephanius (1570) in facs., 130;
separated from America, 130.

Vinson, Julien, _La langue basque_, 75.

Viollet-le-Duc, _Habitation humaine_, 64, 176;
belief in a yellow race in Central America, 81;
on Norse ceremonials in the south, 99;
his text to Charnay, 176;
a restoration of Palenqué, 192.

Viracocha, 436.

Virchow, R., on Peruvian skulls, 244;
on human remains found in Peruvian graves, 273.

Virgil, _Georgics_, 6;
prophecy of Anchises, 27.

Virginia, docs. in her Archives, xiv;
Indian conspiracy of. 1622, 284;
Indians, 325;
mounds in, 410;
graves, 410.

Visconti, 33;
map (1311), 53;
(1318), 53.

Vitalis, Ordericus, _Hist. Eccles._, 88.

Vitziliputzli, 432.

Vivien de St. Martin, _Hist. de la Géog._, 36;
on Fousang, 80.

Vocabularies, numerous, 421;
tests of ethnical relations, 421;
formed as tests, 424.
_See_ Linguistics.

Vogel, Theo., xxxvii.

Vogeler, A. W., 393, 403.

Vogt, Carl, _Vorlesungen_, 369;
_Lectures on Man_, 369, 443.

Völcker, _Homersch. Geog._, 39.

Volney on the mounds, 398.

Von Baer, K. E., _Fahrten des Odysseus_, 40.

Voss, _Die Gestalt der Erde_, 39.

Votan, and his followers, 133, 141;
_Book of Votan_, 134;
dim connection with Guatemala, 150;
with Yucatan, 152;
myth of, 433.

Voyages, collections of, xxxiv;
early ones to America, bibliog., xix.

Vreeland, C. E., _Antiquities at Pantaleon_, 197.

Vries, voyage to Virginia, xxxiv.

WADSWORTH, M. E., 334;
_Microscopic evidence of a lost continent_, 45.

Wagner, G., _De originibus Amer._, 370;
_Beiträge zur Anthropologie_, 443.

Wahlstedt, J. J., _Iter in Americam_, 92.

Waiknas, 136.

Waitz, T., on Peruvian anthropology, 270;
_Naturvölker_, 369, 430, 443;
_Anthropologie_, 378, 430;
portrait, 378;
_Die Amerikaner_, 172, 378;
_Introd. to Anthropology_, 370, 378, 443.

Wake, C. S., _Chapters on Man_, 82;
_Serpent Worship_, 429.

Walam-Olum, 325.

Waldeck, Frederic de, buys some of the Boturini collection, 162;
_Voyage pittoresque_, 186;
at Uxmal, 186, 188;
portrait, 186;
map of Yucatan, 188;
in Yucatan, 194;
_Monuments Anc. du Méxique_, 194;
liberties of his drawings, 202;
_Coleccion de las Antig. Mex._, 444.

Walkenaer, C. A., _Voyages_, xxxvii.

Walkendorf, Bishop Eric, 107.

Walker, S. T., on Tampa Bay shell-heaps, 393.

Walker, _Athens County, Ohio_, 408.

Walker River cañon, 350.

Wallace, A. R., _Antiq. of Man in America_, 330;
on climate and its influence on races, 378;
_Tropical Nature_, 383;
does not believe in sunken continents, 383;
_Geog. Distribution of Animals_, 383;
_Malay Archipelago_, 383;
on the antiq. of man, 330, 384;
_Island life_, 387.

Wallace, C. M., _Flint implements_, 345.

Wallace, Jas., _Orkney Islands_, 118.

Wallbridge, T. C., 410.

Wampanoag Indians, 102, 323.

Wampum, 420;
belts, 420.

Ward, H. G., _Mexico_, 180.

Warden, David B., his library, iii;
_Art de vérifier des dates_, iii;
dies, iii;
translates Rio on Palenqué, 191;
on the origin of Americans, 192;
on the mounds, 399;
_Recherches_, 415.

Warner, J., 409.

Warren, Dr. J. C., on the mounds, 400.

Warren, W. F., _Key to Anc. Cosmologies_, 12;
on Homer’s earth, 39;
_True Key_, 39;
_Paradise Found_, 39, 47.

Warren, W. W., 327.

Washington, Col., expedition against Navajos, 396.

Washington, Geo., on the Dighton Rock, 104.

Washington, D. C., as a centre of study in Amer. history, xvii.

Water, proportion of, on the globe, 383.

Watkinson Library, xii.

Watrin, F., 326.

Watson, P. B., _Bibliog. of Pre-Columbian Discoveries_, 98.

Watts, Robt., i.

Weaving, art of, 420.

Webb, Daniel, 370.

Webb, Dr. T. H., 94.

Webster, Noah, on the mounds, 398.

Wedgwood, _Origin of language_, 422.

Weeden, W. B., _Indian money_, 420.

Wegner, G., _De Nav. Solomonæis_, 82.

Weigel, T. O., xvii;
on De Bry, xxxii.

Weights used by the Peruvians, 420.

Weise, A. J., _Disc. of America_, 45, 98;
on Atlantis, 45.

Weiser, Conrad, interpreter, 305;
his career, 305;
his papers, 305.

Welch, L. B., _Prehistoric Relics_, 408.

Welsh in America, 72.
_See_ Madoc.

West India Island, Malay stock in, 82.

Western Reserve Historical Soc., 407.

Westropp, H. M., _Prehistoric Phases_, 412.

Whately, Richard, _Polit. Economy_, 381;
_Origin of Civilization_, 381.

Wheaton, Henry, _Northmen_, 93;
French version, 93.

Wheeler, G. M., on the _Pueblos_, 395;
_U. S. Geol. Survey_, 396, 440.

Wheelock, Eleazer, his charity school, 322;
founds Dartmouth College, 322;
_Indian Charity School_, 322;
memoir, 322.

Whipple, Report on the Indian tribes, in _Pacific R. R. Repts._, 396.

White’s drawings in Hariot’s _Virginia_, xxxiii.

White, John S., 62.

Whitney, J. D., _Climatic Changes_, 69, 383;
searches in the Trenton gravels, 337;
on the neolithic man in the tertiary gravels, 350;
views the Calaveras skull, 385;
his accounts of it, 385;
_Auriferous Gravels_, 385;
_Human remains of the Gravel series_, 385;
disbelieves the precession of the equinoxes as affecting climate,
387;
on the Trenton implements, 388;
_Geol. of Lake Superior_, 418.

Whitney, W. D., _Language_, 74;
_Bearing of language on the Unity of Man_, 372;
_Testimony of language respecting the unity of the human race_, 422.

Whitney, W. F., _Bones of the native races_, 373.

Whittlesey, Col. Chas., on anc. hearths in the Ohio Valley, 389;
_Antiquity of Man in the U. S._, 391;
portraits, 399;
_Ancient Works in Ohio_, 399;
_Weapons of the Race of the Mounds_, 400;
on the Grave Creek tablet, 404;
on the Cincinnati tablet, 404;
surveys the Marietta mounds, 405;
on the Ohio mounds, 407, 408;
_Report_ on the archæology of Ohio, 407;
_Fugitive Essays_, 407;
surveys the Newark mounds, 408;
on Rock inscriptions, 410;
_Anc. mining at Lake Superior_, 418;
on anc. human remains in Ohio, 437.

Wicksteed, P. H., 241, 431.

Wiener, Charles, _Pérou et Bolivie_, 271;
_Le communisme des Incas_, 271;
_Les institutions de l’Empire des Incas_, 82, 271.

Wieser, F., on Zoana Mela, 122.

Wilde, Sir W. R., on lacustrine dwellings, 393.

Wilder, B. G., on Jeffries Wyman, 392.

Wilhelmi, K., _Island_, etc., 83, 96.

Willes, Richard, edits Eden, xxiii.

William of Worcester, 50.

Williams, C. M., 80.

Williams, G., _Guatemala_, 197.

Williams, H. C., 410.

Williams, H. L., 318.

Williams, Helen M., translates Humboldt’s _Vues_, 271.

Williams, Isaac, memoir, 319.

Williams, John, _Prince Madog_, 110.

Williams, Roger, on the Jews in America, 115;
_Key_, 423.

Williams, S. W., on Fousang, 80.

Williamson, Jos., on the Northmen in Maine, 97.

Williamson, Peter, _Sufferings_, 318.

Williamson on the Asiatic origin of Americans, 371.

Williamson, _No. Carolina_, 93.

Willson, Marcus, _American History_, 415.

Wilson, Sir Daniel, _Lost Atlantis_, 46;
on Vinland, 97;
_Historic Footprints in America_, 97;
on Dighton Rock, 104;
on the exaggeration of Mexican splendor, 174;
on picture-writing, 198;
on the Huron-Iroquois, 322;
on the Canada tribes, 322;
_Certain Cranial Forms_, 373;
on the unity of man, 374;
_American Cranial Type_, 374;
portrait, 375;
_Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, 376;
first used the word “prehistoric”, 376;
_Prehistoric Man_, 376, 379, 415;
_Pre-Aryan Amer. Man_, 377;
_Unwritten History_, 377;
_Interglacial Man_, 388;
on the moundbuilders, 402;
on the Grave Creek tablet, 404;
accepts the Cincinnati tablet, 404;
on Canadian mounds, 410;
on bone and ivory work, 417;
on American pottery, 419;
_Artistic faculty in the aborig. races_, 419;
_American Crania_, 437.

Wilson, R. A., _New Conquest of Mexico_, 41, 174, 203.

Wimmer, L. F. A., _Runenskriftens_, etc., 66.

Winchell, Alex., on Atlantis, 45;
on the retrocession of the falls of St. Anthony, 382;
_Preadamites_, 379, 384.

Winchell, N. H., _Geol. of Minnesota_, 333;
discovers rude implements, 345;
on copper mining, 418.

Winsor, Justin, “Americana”, i;
“Early Descriptions of America”, etc., xix;
_Ptolemy’s Geography_, xxv;
“Pre-Columbian Explorations”, 59;
“Cartography of Greenland”, 117;
“Mexico and Central America”, 133;
sources of the history of the modern Indians, 316;
“Progress of Opinion respecting the Origin and Antiquity of Man in
America”, 369;
“Bibliog. of Aboriginal America”, 413;
“Comprehensive treatises on Amer. Antiquities”, 415;
“Industries and Trade of the American Aborigines”, 416;
“American Linguistics”, 421;
“American Myths and Religions”, 429;
“Archæological Museums and Periodicals”, 437;
_Calendar of the Sparks MSS._, 423.

Winthrop, Jas., on Dighton Rock, 103, 104.

Winthrop, John, the younger, 442.

Winthrop, R. C., 437.

Wisconsin Academy of Science, 438.

Wisconsin, Indians, 327;
mounds in, 400, 408.

Wiseman, Cardinal, _Lectures_, 372.

Witchitas, vocabulary, 440.

Withrow, W. H., on the last of the Hurons, 322;
on Jogues, 323.

Witsen, Nic., _Tartarye_, 123, 370.

Wittmack, L., on Peruvian plants found on graves, 273.

Wollheim, A. E., _Nat. lit. der Scand._, 66, 88.

Woodward, Ashbel, _Wampum_, 420.

Workshops of stone chipping, 417.

Wormskiold on the sites of the Greenland colonies, 108.

Worsaae, J. A., _Vorgesch. des Nordens_, 85;
acc. of, 85;
_Prehistory of the North_, 62;
_L’organisation des Musées_, 444;
_Danes in England_, 61.

Worsley, Israel, _View of the Amer. Indians_, 116.

Worthen, A. H., 388.

Wright, B. M., _Gold ornaments from the graves_, etc., 273.

Wright, D. F., 410.

Wright, Geo. F., on the antiq. of man in America, 340;
examines deposits in Delaware, 342;
_Man and the glacial period_, 388;
_Preglacial man in Ohio_, 388;
_Ohio gravel beds_, 388.

Wright, Thomas, _St. Brandan_, 48.

Wureland, 117.

Wuttke, H., _Erdkunde_, 38, 49;
on the Atlantic islands, 47.

Wuttke, _Gesch. der Schrift_, 205.

Wyandots, 327.

Wyhlandia, 117.

Wyman, Jeffries, 439; on the Calaveras skull, 353;
portrait, 392;
investigates shell-heaps, 392;
death, 392; accounts of, 392;
on the Florida shell heaps, 393;
on the St. John River, 393.

Wyman, W. H., on Quaritch, xvi;
_Bibliog. of Printing_, xvi.

Wynne, _Private Libraries of N. Y._, x, xviii.

Wyoming Hist. and Geol. Soc., 438.

XAHILA, F. E. A., 167.

Xenophanes, 6.

Xeres, on Peru, xxxvii.

Xibalba, 134; held to be Palenqué, 135;
Brinton’s view, 135.

Xicalancas, 136.

Xicaques, 169.

Ximenes, Francisco, 155;
finds the _Popul Vuh_, 166.

Ximenes, _Gnomone fioretino_, 51.

Xinca Indians, 428.

Xochicalco, 180.

Xochimilca conquered, 147.

Xoloc founded, 142.

Xolotl, 162.

Xuares, Juan, 155.

YAHAMA LANGUAGE, 425.

Yahuar-huaccac, 229.

Yaqui, 135.

Yarrow, H. C., _Mortuary Customs_, 328, 440;
on mound-burials, 408.

Yates and Moulton, _New York_, 104.

Yca, 277.

Youmans, Eliza H., 411.

Yucatan.
_See_ Mayas;
difficulty of the chronology, 152;
the Perez MS., 153;
sources, 164;
scant material, 164;
Barendt’s collection, 164;
ruins, 185;
early described, 186;
seen by Stephens, 186;
ancient records, 187;
architecture, 188;
Charnay’s map, 188;
other maps, 188;
age of the ruins, 191;
types of heads, 195;
bas-relief, 208;
had an Ethiopian stock, 370;
crucible for melting copper used, 418;
folk-lore, 434.

Yucay, 247.

Yuma language, 426.

Yuncas, 227;
grammar of, 280.

Yupanqui, Inca, his portrait, 228;
in power, 230;
called Pachacutec, 230.

ZABOROWSKI, _L’homme préhistorique_, 412.

Zacatecas, 183.

Zach, _Correspondenz_, 41.

Zachila, 184.

Zahrtmann on the Zeni, 112.

Zamná, 152, 434.

Zani, Count V., 205.

Zapaña, 229.

Zapata, MS. Hist. of Tlaxcalla, 162;
_Cronica de Tlaxcallan_, 164.

Zapotecs, 146, 149.

Zaragoza, Justo, 167, 444.

Zarate, Augustin de, _Prov. del Peru_, 261.

Zavala, L. de, on Uxmal, 186.

Zayi, ruins, 188.

Zegarra, G. P., _Ollantay_, 281, 282.

Zegarra, Pedro, 281;
_Ollantay_, 425.

Zeisberger, David, missionary, 423;
_Indian Dictionary_, 423;
on a Delaware grammar, 437.

_Zeitschrift für die Anthropologie_, 443.

_Zeitschrift für physische Aerzte_, 443.

Zeller, _Gesch. der Griech. Philosophie_, 36.

Zeni, brothers, xxviii, xxxiv, xxxvi;
northern voyage, 72, 111;
bibliog., 115;
_Dei Commentarii del Viaggio_, 73;
fac-simile of title, etc., 70, 71;
their map perhaps used by Bordone, 73;
it made an impression, 74, 128;
history of the belief in their voyage, 111;
the map, 111, 112, 114;
fac-simile of, 11, 127;
altered in Ptolemy, 111, 114;
facsimiles of this alteration, 111, 128;
maps possibly to be used by the young Zeno, 114, 126;
map compared with that of Olaus Magnus, 126;
condition of northern cartography at the date of the Zeno
publication, 126, 127.

Zerffi, _Hist. development of art_, 416.

Zestermann, C. A. A., _Colonization of America_, 60, 83.

Ziegler, America, xxxiii, 125.

Zoana Mela, 122.

Zorzi, Pæsi Nov., xix.

Zumárraga, Bp., orders a collection of traditions, 164;
_Hist. de los Mexicanos_, 164;
_Codex Zumárraga_, 164;
his alleged destruction of MSS., 203.

Zuñi, representatives of the cliff dwellers, 395;
references on, 396;
visits to, 396.

Zurita, A. de, on the Quiches, 168;
_Rapport_, 153;
character of, 153.

Zurla, Cardinal, on the Zeni, 112;
_Dissertazione_, 112;
_Di Marco Polo_, 47, 112;
_Fra Mauro_, 47.

Zutigils, 152.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Herrera failed to add a list of authors to the original edition of
his _Historia_ (1601-1615), but one of about thirty-three entries is
found in later editions.

[2] See Vol. IV. p. 417.

[3] Sabin, vol. x. no. 40,053; Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no. 347;
Rich (1832), no. 188; Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide to American
Literature_, p. viii; Murphy, no. 1,471.

[4] _Dictionary_, vol. ii. no. 5,102.

[5] For an account of a likeness, see J. C. Smith’s _British Mezzotint
Portraits_, iv. no. 1,694.

[6] The book, of which 250 copies only were printed, is rare, and
Quaritch prices it at £3 (Sabin, vol. ix. no. 37,447). It preserves
some titles which are not otherwise known; and represents a library
which Kennett had gathered for presentation to the Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Rich (_Bibl. Amer. nova_,
i. 21) says the index was made by Robert Watts. Although Stevens
(Historical Collections, i. 142) says that the books were dispersed,
the library is still in existence in London, though it lacks many
titles given in the printed catalogue, and shows others not in that
volume. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xx. 274; Allibone, ii. 1020;
James Jackson’s _Bibliographies géographiques_ (Paris, 1881), no. 606;
Trübner’s _Bibliographical Guide_, p. ix; Sabin, _Bibliography of
Bibliographies_, p. lxxxvii.

[7] _Memorial History of Boston_, vol. i. pp. xviii, xix; vol. ii. pp.
221, 426.

[8] The original edition was Valencia, 1607. Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no.
52.

[9] _Catalogue_ (1832), no. 188. Cf. Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 568;
Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p. ix; Sabin, vol. i. no. 3,349. The
portion on America is in vol. ii.

[10] For example, the Champlain of 1613, 3 fr.; that of 1632, 4 fr.; 21
volumes of the _Relations_ of the Jesuits, 18 fr.

[11] Sabin, _Dictionary_, vol. ii. no. 5,198; and _Bibliography of
Bibliographies_, p. xviii; _Hist. Mag._, i. 57; and Allibone, ii. 1764,
who calls him Reid, an American resident in London, and says he issued
the bibliography as preparatory to a history of America. Jackson’s
_Bibliographies géographiques_, no. 611, and Trübner, _Bibliographical
Guide_, p. x, call it by the name of the publisher, Debrett.

[12] Jackson’s _Bibliographies géographiques_, no. 621.

[13] Jackson, _Bibliographies géographiques_, no. 612; _Serapeum_
(1845), p. 223; Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p. xxv.

[14] Sparks, _Catalogue_, no. 1,635; Jackson’s _Bibliographies
géographiques_, no. 613; Trübner, p. xxv.

[15] _History of Mexico_, iii. 512, where is an account of Alcedo’s
historical labors.

[16] Sparks, _Catalogue_, no. 1,635 _a_, and p. 230.

[17] Sabin, _Bibliography of Bibliographies_, p. xxiv; H. H. Bancroft,
_Central America_, ii. 700, 760.

[18] Quincy’s _Harvard University_, ii. 413, 596. It is noteworthy,
in view of so rich an accession coming from Germany, that Grahame,
the historian of our colonial period, says that in 1825 he found the
University Library at Göttingen richer in books for his purpose than
all the libraries of Britain joined together.

[19] This collection is also embraced in the Catalogue of the College
Library already referred to. Mr. Warden began the collection of
another library, which he used while writing the American part (10
vols.) of the _Art de vérifier des Dates_, Paris, 1826-1844, and which
(1,118 works) was afterward sold to the State Library at Albany for
$4,000. Dr. Henry A. Homes, the librarian at Albany, informs me that
when arranged it made twenty-one hundred and twenty-three volumes.
Warden’s _Bibliotheca Americana_, Paris, 1831, reprinted at Paris in
1840, is a catalogue of this collection. Mr. Warden died in 1845,
aged 67. Cf. Ludewig in the _Serapeum_, 1845, p. 209; Muller, _Books
on America_ (1872), no. 1734; Allibone, iii. 2,579; S. G. Goodrich,
_Recollections_, ii. 243; Jackson’s _Bibl. Géog._, nos. 617, 618;
Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p. xiv. There was a final sale of Mr.
Warden’s books by Horatio Hill, in New York, in 1846.

[20] This portrait of one of the earliest contributors to the
bibliography of American history follows an engraving in the
_Allgemeine geographische Ephemeriden_, May, 1800, p. 395. Ebeling was
born Nov. 20, 1741, and died June 30, 1817, and his own contributions
to American History were—

(_a_) _Amerikanische Bibliothek_ (Zwei Stücke), Leipzig, 1777.

(_b_) _Erdbescreibung und Geschichte von America_, Hamburg, 1795-1816,
in seven vols.; the author’s interleaved copy, with manuscript notes,
is in Harvard College Library.

(_c_) With Professor Hegewisch, _Americanisches Magazin_, Hamburg, 1797.

There are other likenesses,—one a large lithograph published at
Hamburgh; the other a small profile by C. H. Kniep. Both are in the
collection of the American Antiquarian Society.

[21] This collection was offered to Congress for purchase through
Edward Everett in December, 1827. The printed list, with nearly a
hundred entries for manuscripts and three hundred and eighty-nine for
printed books, covering the years 1506-1825, was printed as Document
37 of the 1st session of the 20th Congress. The sale was not effected.
Rich had been able to gather the books at moderate cost because of the
troubled political state of the peninsula. Trübner, _Bibliographical
Guide_, p. xv.

[22] _Dictionary_, ii. 1788.

[23] _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, p. xxix.

[24] Dibdin (_Library Companion_, edition 1825, p. 467) refers to
this spirit, hoping it would lead to a new edition of White Kennett,
perfected to date.

[25] _Bibliotheca Grenvilliana_ (London, 1842), now a part of the
British Museum.

[26] Sabin, _Bibliog. of Bibliog._, p. cxxi; Allibone, _Dictionary_,
p. 1787; Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide to American Literature_,
Introduction, p. xiv; Jackson’s _Bibl. Géog._, no. 623, etc.; _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, i. 395; _Historical Magazine_, iii. 75; _Menzies
Catalogue_, no. 1,690; Ternaux-Compans, _Bibliothèque Américaine_,
Preface. Puttick and Simpson’s _Catalogues_, London, June 25, 1850, and
March, April, and May, 1872, note some of his books, besides manuscript
bibliographies.

After Mr. Rich’s death Mr. Edward G. Allen took the business, and
issued various catalogues of books on America in 1857-1871. Cf.
Jackson’s _Bibliog. Géog._, nos. 677-682.

[27] See Vol. III. p. 159. The catalogue, being without date, is
sometimes given later than 1833. Cf. Jackson, _Bibliog. Géog._, no.
636; and no. 690. A new _Rough List_ of the Barlow Collection was
printed in 1885.

[28] _Magazine of American History_, iii. 177. This library was sold in
November, 1836, as Raetzel’s; the numbers 908-2,117 concerned America.
Trübner (_Bibliographical Guide_, p. xviii) says the collection was
formed by Ternaux probably with an ultimate view to sale. Ternaux did
not die till December, 1864.

[29] Now worth 40 or 50 francs.

[30] Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p. xvi.

[31] See Vol. IV. p. 367. Cf. also Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_,
p. xviii; and Daniel’s _Nos Gloires Nationales_, where will be found a
portrait of Faribault.

[32] Sabin, x. nos. 42, 644-42, 645.

[33] Sabin, x. 42, 643; Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p. xxi.

[34] _Historical Magazine_, xii. 145; Allibone, ii. p. 1142. The sale
of Mr. Ludewig’s library (1,380 entries) took place in New York in 1858.

[35] In his _Verrazano_, p. 5.

[36] Cf. also D’Avezac in his _Waltzemüller_, p. 4.

[37] Sabin, viii. p. 107; Jackson, _Bibliog. Géog._, no. 696. The
edition was four hundred copies.

[38] An error traced to the proof-reader, it is said in Sabin’s
_Bibliog. of Bibliog._, p. lxxiv.

[39] Stevens noticed this defence by reiterating his charges in a note
in his _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870, no. 860.

[40] Vol. IV. p. 366.

[41] Sabin, _Bibliography of Bibliographies_, p. lxxv.

[42] _Grandeur et décadence de la Colombine_, Paris, 1885.

[43] _J. J. Cooke Catalogue_, no. 2,214; _Griswold Catalogue_, nos.
730, 731. The editions were fifty copies on large paper, two hundred
on small. It may be worth record that Gowan, a publisher in New York,
was the earliest (1846) to instigate a taste for large paper copies
among American collectors, by printing in that style Furman’s edition
of Denton’s _Description of New York_, after the manner of the English
purveyors to book-fancying.

[44] See _Proceedings of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society_,
Philadelphia, 1881, p. 28.

[45] Mr. Wilberforce Eames is the new editor. A list of the catalogues
prepared by Mr. Sabin is given in his _Bibliography of Bibliographies_,
p. cxxiv, etc.

[46] The German translation, _Kritische Untersuchungen_, was made by J.
I. Ideler, Berlin, 1852, in 3 vols. It has an index, which the French
edition lacks.

[47] Sabin, viii. 539. The edition of Paris, without date, called
_Histoire de la géographie du nouveau continent_, is the same, with
a new title and an introduction of four pages, La Cosa’s map being
omitted.

[48] _Verrazano_, p. 4.

[49] In his _Cosmos_ Humboldt gives results, which he says are reached
in his unpublished sixth volume of the _Examen critique_.

[50] The Humboldt Library was burned in London in June, 1865. Nearly
all of the catalogues were destroyed at the same time; but a few large
paper copies were saved, which, being perfected with a new title
(London, 1878), have since been offered by Stevens for sale. Portions
of the introduction to it are also used in an article by Stevens on
Humboldt, in the _Journal of Sciences and Arts_ January, 1870. Various
of Humboldt’s manuscripts on American matters are advertised in
Stargardt’s _Amerika und Orient_, no. 135, p. 3 (Berlin, 1881).

[51] Cf. _Historical Magazine_, vol. ix. no. 335; _Magazine of American
History_, vol. ii. pp. 193, 221, 565; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April,
1868. Colonel Force died in January, 1868.

[52] Mr. Sparks died March 14, 1866. Tributes were paid to his memory
by distinguished associates in the Massachusetts Historical Society
(_Proceedings_, ix. 157), and Dr. George E. Ellis reported to them a
full and appreciative memoir (_Proceedings_, x. 211). Cf. also _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc._, March, 1866; _Historical Magazine_, May, 1866;
Brantz Mayer before the Maryland Historical Society, 1867, etc.

[53] Cf. _Historical Magazine_, vol. ix. p. 137.

[54] The principal interpreter of the Indian languages of the temperate
parts of North America has been Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, of Hartford,
for whose labor in the bibliography of the subject see a chapter in
vol i. of the _Memorial History of Boston_. There is also a collection
edited by him, of books in and upon the Indian languages, in the
_Brinley Catalogue_, iii. 123-145. He gave in the _Proceedings_ of
the American Antiquarian Society, and also separately in 1874, a list
of books in the Indian languages, printed at Cambridge and Boston,
1653-1721 (Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no. 1,571). Cf. also Ludewig’s
_Literature of American Aboriginal Languages_, mentioned on an
earlier page. It was edited and corrected by William W. Turner. (Cf.
_Pinart-Brasseur Catalogue_, no. 565; Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no.
959).

Icazbalceta published in 1866, at Mexico, a list of the writers on the
languages of America; and Romero made a similar enumeration of those of
Mexico, in 1862, in the _Boletin de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografia_,
vol. viii. Dr. Daniel G. Brinton has made a good introduction to the
literary history of the native Americans in his _Aboriginal American
Authors_, published by him at Philadelphia in 1883. For his own
linguistic contributions, see Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no. 187,
etc. One of the earliest enumerations of linguistic titles can be
picked out of the list which Boturini Benaduci, in 1746, appended to
his _Idea de una nueva historia general de la America septentrional_.

The most extensive enumeration of the literature of all the North
American tongues is doubtless to be the _Bibliography of North American
Linguistics_, which is preparing by Mr. James C. Pilling of the Bureau
of Ethnology in Washington, and which will be published in due time
by that bureau. A preliminary issue (100 copies) for corrections is
called _Proof-sheets of a Bibliography of the Indian Languages of North
America_ (pp. xl, 1135).

The _Bibliotheca Americana_ of Leclerc (Paris, 1879) affords many
titles to which a preliminary “Table des Divisions” affords an index,
and most of them are grouped under the heading “Linguistique,” p. 537,
etc. The third volume of H. H. Bancroft’s Native Races, particularly
in its notes, is a necessary aid in this study; and a convenient
summary of the whole subject will be found in chapter x. of John T.
Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_. J. C. E. Buschmann has been
an ardent laborer in this field; the bibliographies give his printed
works (Field’s _Indian Bibliography_, p. 208, etc.), and Stargardt’s
_Catalogue_ (no. 135, p. 6) shows some of his manuscripts. The Comte
Hyacinthe de Charencey has for some years, from time to time, printed
various minor monographs on these subjects; and in 1883 he collected
his views in a volume of _Mélanges de philologie et de paléographie
Américaines_.

The Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, in his _Bibliothèque
Mexico-Guatemalienne_ (Leclerc, nos. 81, 1,084), has given for
Central America a very excellent list of the works on the linguistics
of the natives, which are all contained also in the _Catalogue_
of the Pinart-Brasseur sale, which took place in Paris in January
and February, 1884. Cf. the paper on Brasseur by Dr. Brinton, in
_Lippincott’s Magazine_, vol. i.; and the enumeration of his numerous
writings in Sabin’s _Dictionary_, ii. 7,420; also Leclerc, Field, and
Bancroft.

Dr. Félix C. Y. Sobron’s _Los Idiomas de la America Latina,—Estudios
Biografico-bibliograficos_, published a few years since at Madrid,
gives, according to Dr. Brinton, extended notices of several rare
volumes; but on the whole the book is neither exhaustive nor very
accurate.

Julius Platzmann’s _Verzeichniss einer Auswahl Amerikanischer
Grammatiken_, etc. (Leipsic, 1876), is a small but excellent list, with
proper notes. These bibliographies will show the now numerous works
upon the aboriginal tongues, their construction and their fruits.

There are several important series interesting to the student, which
are found in the catalogues. Such are the _Bibliothèque linguistique
Américaine_, published in seven volumes by Maisonneuve in Paris
(Leclerc, no. 2,674); the _Coleccion de linguistica y etnografía
Americanas_, or _Bibliothèque de linguistique et d’Ethnographie
Américaines_, 1875, etc., edited by A. L. Pinart; the _Library of
American Linguistics_, in thirteen volumes, edited by Dr. John G. Shea
(Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, vol. iii. no. 5,631; Field, no. 1,396);
_Brinton’s Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, published by Dr.
D. G. Brinton in Philadelphia; and Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Collection
de documents dans les langues indigènes_, Paris, 1861-1864, in four
volumes (cf. Field, p. 175).

The earliest work printed exclusively in a native language was the
_Catecismo de la Doctrina Cristiana en lengua Timuiquana_, published at
Mexico in 1617 (cf. Sabin, vol. xiv. no. 58,580; Finotti, p. 14). This
is the statement often made; but Mr. Pilling refers me to references
in Icazbalceta’s _Zumárraga_ (vol. 1. p. 200) to an earlier edition
of about 1547; and in the same author’s _Bibliografia Mexicana_ (p.
32), to one of 1553. Molina’s _Vocabulario de la lengua Castellana y
Mexicana_, placing the Nahuatl and Castilian in connection, was printed
at Mexico in 1555. The book is very rare, five or six copies only being
known; and Quaritch has priced an imperfect copy at £72 (Quaritch,
_Bibliog. Géog. linguistica_, 1879, no. 12,616; Carter-Brown, vol. i.
no. 206; _Brinley Catalogue_, vol. iii. no, 5,771). The edition of 1571
is also rare (_Pinart-Brasseur Catalogue_, no. 630; Carter-Brown, vol.
i. nos. 285, 286; Quaritch, 1879, no. 12,617). The first edition of
Molina’s Aztec grammar, _Arte de la lengua Mexicana y Castellana_, was
published the same year (1571). Quaritch (1879, no. 12,615) prices this
at £52 10_s._ Cf. also Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 284. One of the chief
of the more recent studies of the linguistics of Mexico is Francisco
Pimentel’s _Cuadro descriptivo y comparativo de las lenguas indigenas
de México_, Mexico, 1862-1865; and second edition in 1874-1875.

This subject has other treatment later in the present volume.

[55] It included two thousand and thirty-four items, ninety-four of
which were Mr. Squier’s own works.

[56] Vol. II. p. 578.

[57] He says that up to 1881 he had gathered 35,000 volumes, at a cost
of $300,000, exclusive of time and travelling expenses. His manuscripts
embraced 1,200 volumes. The annual growth of his library is still 1,000
volumes.

[58] One twelfth of the earth’s surface, as he says.

[59] Cf. account of Maximilian’s library in the _Bookworm_ (1869), p.
14.

[60] These biographical data are derived from a tract given out by
himself which he calls _A brief account of the literary undertakings
of Hubert Howe Bancroft_ (San Francisco, A. L. Bancroft & Co. [his own
business house], 1882, 8vo, pp. 12). Other accounts of his library will
be found in the _American Bibliopolist_, vii. 44; and in Apponyi’s
_Libraries of California_, 1878. Descriptions of the library and of the
brick building (built in 1881) which holds it, and of his organized
methods, have occasionally appeared in the _Overland Monthly_ and in
other serial issues of California, as well as in those of the Atlantic
cities. He has been free to make public the most which is known
regarding his work. He says that the grouping and separating of his
material has been done mostly by others, who have also written fully
one half of the text of what he does not hesitate to call _The Works
of Hubert Howe Bancroft_; and he leaves the reader to derive a correct
understanding of the case from his prefaces and illustrative tracts.
Cf. J. C. Derby’s _Fifty Years among authors, books, and publishers_
(New York, 1884), p. 31.

[61] Averaging twelve from that time to this; a hundred persons were
tried for every one ultimately retained as a valuable assistant,—is his
own statement.

[62] At a cost, as he says, of $80,000 to 1882.

[63] They appeared in _The Nation_ and in the _New York Independent_
early in 1883. The first aimed to show that there were substantial
grounds for dissent from Mr. Bancroft’s views regarding the Aztec
civilization. The second ignored that point in controversy, and merely
proposed, as was stated, to test the “bibliographic value” which Mr.
Bancroft had claimed for his book, and to point out the failures of the
index plan and the vicarious system as employed by him.

[64] Seemingly intended to make part of one of the later volumes of his
series, to be called _Essays and Miscellanies_.

[65] With a general title (as following his _Native Races_) of _The
History of the Pacific States_, we are to have in twenty-eight volumes
the history of Central America, Mexico, North Mexico, New Mexico,
Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Northwest Coast, Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, and Alaska,—to be followed by six
volumes of allied subjects, not easily interwoven in the general
narrative, making thirty-nine volumes for the entire work. The volumes
are now appearing at the rate of three or four a year.

[66] The list which is prefixed to the first volume of the _History
of California_, forming vol. xiii. of his Pacific States series, is
particularly indicative of the rich stores of his library, and greatly
eclipses the previous lists of Mr. A. S. Taylor, which appeared in
the _Sacramento Daily Union_, June 25, 1863 and March 13, 1866. Cf.
Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, p. xxxix. A copy of Taylor’s pioneer
work, with his own corrections, is in Harvard College Library. Mr.
Bancroft speaks very ungraciously of it.

[67] See Vol. IV., chap. i. p. 19.

[68] Jackson, _Bibl. Géog._, no. 639; _Menzies Catalogue_, nos. 1,459,
1,460; Wynne’s _Private Libraries of New York_, p. 335. Mr. Murphy
died Dec. 1, 1882, aged seventy-two; and his collection, then very
much enlarged, was sold in March, 1884. Its _Catalogue_, edited by Mr.
John Russell Bartlett, shows one of the richest libraries of Americana
which has been given to public sale in America. It is accompanied by a
biographical sketch of its collector. Cf. Vol. IV. p. 22.

[69] Cf. Wynne’s _Private Libraries of New York_, p. 106. Mr. Brevoort
died December 7, 1887.

[70] Cf. Sabin, v. 283; Farnham’s _Private Libraries of Boston_.

[71] February, 1880, aged eighty years. His father was Robert Lenox,
a Scotchman, who began business in New York in 1783, and retired in
1812 with a large fortune, including a farm of thirty acres, worth
then about $6,000, and to-day $10,000,000,—if such figures can be made
accurate. Cf. also Charles Deane in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April,
1880. Henry Stevens’s _Recoll. of Lenox_ is conspicuous for what it
does not reveal.

[72] The Lenox Library is now under the direction of the distinguished
American historical student, Dr. George H. Moore, so long in charge of
the New York Historical Society’s library. Cf. an account of Dr. Moore
by Howard Crosby in the _Historical Magazine_, vol. xvii. (January,
1870). The officer in immediate charge of the library is Dr. S. Austin
Allibone, well known for his _Dictionary of Authors_.

[73] Mr. Bartlett was early in life a dealer in books in New York; and
the Americana catalogues of Bartlett and Welford, forty years ago, were
among the best of dealers’ lists. Jackson’s _Bibl. Géog._, no. 641.

[74] The field of Americana before 1800 has been so nearly exhausted
in its composition, that recent purchases have been made in other
departments, particularly of costly books on the fine arts.

[75] Cf. Vol. III. p. 380.

[76] Because Greenland in the map of the Ptolemy of this year is laid
down. The slightest reference to America in books of the sixteenth
century have entitled them to admission.

[77] The book purports to have been printed in one hundred copies; but
not more than half that number, it is said, have been distributed.
Some copies have a title reading, _Bibliographical notices of rare
and curious books relating to America, printed in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries, in the library of the late John Carter Brown, by
John Russell Bartlett_.

[78] Sir Arthur Helps, in referring to the assistance he had got from
books sent to him from America, and from this library in particular,
says: “As far as I have been able to judge, the American collectors of
books are exceedingly liberal and courteous in the use of them, and
seem really to understand what the object should be in forming a great
library.” _Spanish Conquest_, American edition, p. 122.

[79] Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, October, 1875.

[80] Dr. Trumbull himself has been a keen collector of books on
American history, particularly in illustration of his special study
of aboriginal linguistics; while his influence has not been unfelt in
the forming of the Watkinson Library, and of that of the Connecticut
Historical Society, both at Hartford.

[81] The first sale—there are to be four—took place in March, 1878,
and illustrated a new device in testamentary bequests. Mr. Brinley
devised to certain libraries the sum of several thousand dollars each,
to be used to their credit for purchases made at the public sale of his
books. The result was a competition that carried the aggregate of the
sales, it is computed, as much beyond the sum which might otherwise
have been obtained, as was the amount devised,—thus impairing in
no degree the estate for the heirs, and securing credit for public
bequests. The scheme has been followed in the sale of the library (the
third part of which was Americana, largely from the Menzies library) of
the late J. J. Cooke, of Providence, with an equivalent appreciation
of the prices of the books. It is a question if the interests of the
libraries benefited are advanced by such artificial stimulation of
prices, which a factitious competition helps to make permanent.

[82] _American Bibliopolist_, viii. 128; Wynne’s _Private Libraries of
New York_, p. 318. The collection was not exclusively American.

[83] Memoir of Mr. Crowninshield, by Charles Deane, in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xvii. 356. Mr. Stevens is said to have given about $9,500
for the library. It was sold in various parts, the more extensive
portion in July, 1860. Allibone, vol. ii. p. 2,248.

[84] This collection—which Mr. Allan is said to have held at
$15,000—brought $39,000 at auction after his death.

[85] Another catalogue rich in pamphlets relating to America is that of
Albert G. Greene, New York, 18339.

[86] The _Catalogue_ is more correctly printed than the _Essay_. Sabin,
_Bibliog. of Bibliog._, p. cxxv.

[87] _Bibliotheca Mejicana, a collection of books relating to Mexico,
and North and South America_; sold by Puttick & Simpson in London,
June, 1869. (About 3,000 titles.)

[88] Jackson, _Bibl. Géog._, nos. 844, 845.

[89] _Catalogue de la collection précieuse de livres anciens et
modernes formant la Bibliothèque de feu M. Serge Sobolewski (de
Moscou)_ Leipsic, 1873.

[90] _Bibliotheca Sunderlandiana. Sale Catalogue of the Sunderland or
Blenheim Library. Five Parts._ London, 1881-1883. (13,858 nos.)

[91] _Catalogue de livres rares et précieux, manuscrits et imprimés,
principalement sur l’Amérique et sur les langues du monde entier,
composant la bibliothèque de Alphonse L. Pinart, et comprenant en
totalité la bibliothèque Mexico-Guatémalienne de M. l’abbé Brasseur de
Bourbourg._ Paris, 1883. viii. 248 pp. 8º.

[92] _Catalogue de la précieuse bibliothèque de feu M. le Docteur J.
Court, comprenant une collection unique de voyageurs et d’historiens
relatifs à l’Amérique. Première partie._ Paris, 1884. (458 nos.)

[93] There is an account of his family antecedents, well spiced as his
wont is, in the introduction to his _Bibliotheca Historica_, 1870.

[94] Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide to American Literature_ (1859), p.
iv.; _North American Review_, July, 1850, p. 205, by George Livermore.

[95] Allibone, ii. 2247-2248.

[96] Sabin, vol. xii. no. 49,961.

[97] Stevens, _Historical Collections_, i. 874. It was ostensibly made
in preparation for his projected _Bibliographia Americana_.

[98] _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 90; Allibone, vol. ii. p.
2248.

[99] Allibone, ii. 2248; _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 875;
_Bibliotheca Historica_ (1870), no. 1,974.

[100] Allibone, ii. 2248; _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 878.

[101] It was first published, less perfectly, in the _American
Journal of Science_, vol. xcviii. p. 299; and of the separate issue
seventy-five copies only were printed. _Bibliotheca Historica_ (1870),
no. 1,976. It was also issued as a part of a volume on the proposed
_Tehuantepec Railway_, prepared by his brother, Simon Stevens, and
published by the Appletons of New York the same year. _Ibid._ no.
1,977; _Historical Collections_, vol. i. nos. 894-895; Allibone, vol.
ii. p. 2348, nos. 17, 18, 19.

[102] _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 897.

[103] It is a droll fancy of his to call his bookshop the “Nuggetory;”
to append to his name “G. M. B.,” for Green Mountain Boy; and even
to parade in a similar titular fashion his rejection at a London
Club,—“Bk-bld—Ath.-Cl.”

[104] _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 898.

[105] _Historical Collections_, vol. i. no. 899.

[106] The public is largely indebted to the efforts of Mr. Theodore F.
Dwight, the librarian and keeper of the Archives of the Department of
State at Washington, for the ultimate success of the endeavor to secure
these manuscripts to the nation. Mr. Stevens had lately (1885) formed a
copartnership with his son, Mr. Henry N. Stevens, and had begun a new
series of Catalogues, of which No. 1 gives his own publications, and
No. 2 is a bibliography of New Hampshire History. He died in London,
February 28, 1886.

[107] _N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1863, p. 203. Dr. Homes, of
Albany, is confident Joseph Bumstead was earlier in Boston than Mr.
Drake. The _Boston Directory_ represents him as a printer in 1800, and
as a bookseller after 1816.

[108] His earliest catalogue appeared in 1842, as of his private
library. Sabin’s _Bibl. of Bibl._, p. xlix. A collection announced for
sale in Boston in 1845 was withdrawn after the catalogue was printed,
having been sold to the Connecticut Historical Society for $4,000.
At one time he amassed a large collection of American school-books
to illustrate our educational history. They were bought (about four
hundred in all) by the British Museum.

[109] Cf. Jackson’s _Bibl. Géog._, no. 684, and pp. 185, 199. Also see
Vol. III. 361.

[110] His catalogues are spiced with annotations signed “Western
Memorabilia.” Sabin (_Dictionary_, vii. 369) quotes the saying
of a rival regarding Gowans’s catalogues, that their notes “were
distinguished by much originality, some personality, and not a little
bad grammar.” His shop and its master are drawn in F. B. Perkins’s
_Scrope, or the Lost Library_. _A Novel_. Mr. Gowans died in November,
1870, at sixty-seven, leaving a stock, it is said, of 250,000 bound
volumes, besides a pamphlet collection of enormous extent. Mr. W. C.
Prime told the story of his life, genially, in _Harper’s Magazine_
(1872), in an article on “Old Books in New York.” Speaking of his
stock, Mr. Prime says: “There were many more valuable collections in
the hands of booksellers, but none so large, and probably none so
wholly without arrangement.” Mr. Gowans was a Scotchman by birth, and
came to America in 1821. After a varied experience on a Mississippi
flat-boat, he came to New York, and in 1827 began life afresh as a
bookseller’s clerk. Cf. _American Bibliopolist_, January, 1871, p. 5.

[111] Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, p. xxx.

[112] Jackson, _Bibl. Géog._, nos. 670-676.

[113] Jackson, no. 687. See Vol. IV. p. 435. Munsell issued privately,
in 1872, a catalogue of the works printed by him. Sabin, _Bibl. of
Bibl._, p. cv. Cf. a _Biographical Sketch of Joel Munsell, by George
R. Howell, with a Genealogy of the Munsell Family, by Frank Munsell_.
Boston, 1880. This was printed (16 pp.) for the New England Historic
Genealogical Society.

[114] Jackson, no. 669.

[115] They have been issued in 1869, 1871, 1873, 1876, 1877, 1878,
1879, 1883. Jackson, nos. 705-711. Lesser lists have been issued
in Cincinnati by William Dodge. The chief dealer in Americana in
Boston, who issues catalogues, is, at the present time, Mr. George E.
Littlefield.

[116] Another is now in progress.

[117] With these canons Mr. Quaritch’s prices can be understood. The
extent and character of his stock can be inferred from the fact that
his purchases at the Perkins sale (1873) amounted to £11,000; at the
Tite sale (1874), £9,500; at the Didot sales (1878-1879), £11,600; and
at the Sunderland sales (1883), £32,650, out of a total of £56,851.
At the recent sales of the Beckford and Hamilton collections, which
produced £86,444, over one half, or £44,105, went to Mr. Quaritch.
These figures enable one to understand how, in a sense, Mr. Quaritch
commands the world’s market of choice books. A sketch, _B. Q., a
biographical and bibliographical Fragment_ (1880, 25 copies), in the
privately printed series of monographs issued to a club in London, of
which Mr. Quaritch is president, called “The Sette of Odd Volumes,”
has supplied the above data. The sketch is by C. W. H. Wyman, and
is also reprinted in his _Bibliography of Printing_, and in the
_Antiquarian Magazine and Bibliographer_, November, 1882. One of the
club’s “opuscula” (no. iii.) has an excellent likeness of Mr. Quaritch
prefixed. Cf. also the memoir and portrait in Bigmore and Wyman’s
_Bibliography of Printing_, ii. 230.

[118] Jackson, nos. 643-649; Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p. xix.

[119] Mr. Trübner died in London March 30, 1884. Cf. memorial in
_The Library Chronicle_, April, 1884, p. 43, by W. E. A. Axon;
also a “Nekrolog” by Karl J. Trübner in the _Centralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen_, June, 1884, p. 240.

[120] Cf. notice by Mr. Brevoort in _Magazine of American History_, iv.
230.

[121] There is a paper on “Edwin Tross et ses publications relatives
à l’Amérique” in _Miscellanées bibliographiques_, Paris, 1878, p. 53,
giving a list of his imprints which concern America.

[122] Jackson, nos. 689, 703, 717.

[123] Vol. IV. chap. viii. editorial note. There is an account
of Muller and his bibliographical work in the _Centralblatt für
Bibliothekswesen_, November, 1884.

[124] Jackson, nos. 650-654; Trübner, _Bibliographical Guide_, p.
xix; Sabin, _Bibliog. of Bibliog._, p. cv; Petzholdt, _Bibliotheca
Bibliographica_.

[125] More or less help will be derived from the American portion of
the _Liste provisoire de bibliographies géographiques spéciales, par
James Jackson_, published in 1881 by the Société de Géographie de
Paris,—a book of which use has been made in the preceding pages.

[126] See the chapter on the libraries of Boston in the _Memorial
History of Boston_, vol. iv.

[127] The extent of Dr. Dexter’s library is evident from the signs
of possession which are so numerously scattered through the 7,250
titles that constitute the exhaustive and very careful bibliography of
Congregationalism and the allied phases of religious history, which
forms an appendix to his _Congregationalism as seen in its Literature_,
New York, 1880. He explains in the Introduction to his volume the
wide scope which he intended to give to this list; and to show how
poorly off our largest public libraries in America are in the earliest
books illustrating this movement, he says that of the 1,000 earliest
titles which he gives, and which bear date between 1546 and 1644, he
found only 208 in American libraries. His arrangement of titles is
chronological, but he has a full name-index.

The students of the early English colonies cannot fail to find
for certain phases of their history much help from Joseph
Smith’s _Descriptive Catalogue of Friends’ Books_, London, 1867;
his _Bibliotheca Anti-Quakeriana_, 1873; and his _Bibliotheca
Quakeristica_, a bibliography of miscellaneous literature relating to
the Friends, of which Part I. was issued in London in 1883.

[128] The private library of George Bancroft is in Washington. It is
described as it existed some years ago in Wynne’s _Private Libraries of
New York_.

[129] A book on the private libraries of San Francisco by Apponyi was
issued in 1878.

[130] An account of the libraries of the various historical societies
in the United States is given in the _Public Libraries of the United
States_, issued by the Bureau of Education at Washington in 1876.

[131] The title is quoted differently by different authorities.
Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 32, and _Additions_, no. 16; his
_Christophe Colomb_, i. 89; Humboldt, _Examen critique_, iv. 67;
Sabin, _Dictionary of Books relating to America_, x. 327; D’Avezac,
_Waltzemüller_, p. 79; Varnhagen, _Nouvelles Recherches_, p. 17;
Irving’s _Columbus_, app. ix.

[132] See Vol. IV. p. 12. The editorship is in dispute,—whether Zorzi
or Montalboddo. The better opinion seems to be that Humboldt erred in
assigning it to Zorzi rather than to Montalboddo. Cf. Humboldt, _Examen
critique_; Brunet, v. 1155, 1158; Sabin, _Dictionary_, vol. xii. no.
50,050; D’Avezac, _Waltzemüller_, p. 80; Graesse, _Trésor_; Harrisse,
_Bibl. Amer. Vet._, nos. 48, 109, app. p. 469, and _Additions_, no.
26; _Bulletin de la Société de Géographie_, October, 1857, p. 312;
Santarem’s _Vespucius_, Eng. tr., p. 73; Irving’s _Columbus_, app.
xxx.; Navarrete, _Opúsculos_, i. 101; Harrisse, _Christophe Colomb_, i.
89. There are copies of this 1507 edition in the Lenox and Carter-Brown
libraries, and in the Grenville Library; and one in the Beckford
sale, 1882 (no. 186), brought £270. Cf. also _Murphy Catalogue_,
no. 2,612[A], and _Catalogue de la précicuse bibliothèque de feu M.
le Docteur F. Court_ (Paris, 1884), no. 262. The _Paesi novamente
retrovati_ is shown in the chapter on the Cortereals in Vol. IV. to
be of importance in elucidating the somewhat obscure story of that
portion of the early Portuguese discoveries in North America. Since
Vol. IV. was printed, two important contributions to this study have
been made. One is the monograph of Henry Harrisse, _Les Cortereal et
leur voyages au Nouveau-monde. D’après des documents nouveaux ou peu
connus tirés des archives de Lisbonne et de Modène. Suivi du texte
inédit d’un recit de la troisième expédition de Gasper Cortereal et
d’une carte nautique portugaise de 1502 reproduite ici pour la première
jois. Mémoire lu à l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres
dans sa séance du 1er juin, 1883_, and published in Paris in 1883,
as Vol. III. of the _Recueil de voyages et de documents pour servir
à l’histoire de la géographie depuis le XIIIe jusqu’à la fin du XVIe
siècle_. The other is the excerpt from the _Archivo des Açores_,
which was drawn from that work by the editor, Ernesto do Canto, and
printed separately at Ponta Delgarda (S. Miguel) in an edition of one
hundred copies, under the title of _Os Corte-Reaes, memoria historica
accompanhada de muitos documentos ineditos_. Do Canto refers (p. 34) to
other monographs on the Portuguese discoveries in America as follows:
Sebastião Francisco Mendo Trigoso,—_Ensaio sobre os Descobrimentos e
Commercio dos Portuguezes em as Terras Septentrionaes da America_,
presented to the Lisbon Academy (1813), and published in their
_Memorias da Litteratura_, viii. 305. Joaquim José Gonçalves de Mattos
Corrêa,—_Acerca da prioridade das Descobertas feitas pelos portuguezes
nas costas orientaes da America do norte_, which was printed in
_Annaes maritimos e Coloniaes_, Lisbon, 1841, pp. 269-423. Luciano
Cordeiro,—_De la part prise par les Portugais dans le découverte de
l’Amerique_, Lisbon, 1876. This was a communication made to the Congrès
des Américanistes in 1875. Cf. Vol. IV. p. 15.

[133] Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 55; D’Avezac, _Waltzemüller_,
p. 80; Wieser, _Magalhâes-Strasse_, pp. 15, 17. There are copies in the
Lenox, Carter-Brown, Harvard College, and Cincinnati Public libraries.
The Beckford copy brought, in 1882, £78. Quaritch offered a copy in
1883 for £45. At the Potier sale, in 1870 (no. 1,791), a copy brought
2,015 francs; the same had brought 389 francs in 1844 at the Nodier
sale. _Livres payés en vente publique 1,000 francs et au dessus_, 1877,
p. 77. Cf. also Court, no. 263.

[134] Only one copy in the United States, says Sabin.

[135] In Carter-Brown and Lenox libraries; also in the Marciana and
Brera libraries. Leclerc in 1878 priced a copy at 1,000 francs. Cf.
Harrisse, no. 90, also p. 463, and _Additions_, no. 52; Sobolewski, no.
4,130; Brunet, v. 1158; Court, no. 264.

[136] Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,054; Leclerc, no. 2,583 (500 francs).
A copy was sold in London in March, 1883. There is a copy in the
Cincinnati Public Library.

[137] Harrisse, no. 109; Sobolewski, no. 4,131; Carter-Brown, vol. i.
no. 68; Murphy, no. 2,617.

[138] _Newe unbekanthe landte_ (Nuremberg, 1508), by Ruchamer; copies
are in the Lenox, Carter-Brown, Congress, and Cincinnati Public
libraries. Cf. Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,056; Carter-Brown, vol. i.
no. 36; Harrisse, no. 57; Murphy, no. 2,613; Sobolewski, no. 4,069;
D’Avezac, _Waltzemüller_, p. 83; Rosenthal, _Catalogue_ (1884), no. 67,
at 1,000 marks.

[139] _Nye unbekande Lande_ (1508), in Platt-Deutsch, by Henning
Ghetel, of Lubeck, following the German. Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,057;
Harrisse, _Additions_, no. 29. The Carter-Brown copy (_Catalogue_,
vol. i. no. 37) cost about 1,000 marks at the Sobolewski (no. 4,070)
sale, when it was described as an “édition absolument inconnu jusqu’au
présent.” Mr. C. H. Kalbfleisch has since secured a copy at 3,000
marks,—probably the copy advertised “as the second copy known,” by
Albert Cohn, of Berlin, in 1881, in his _Katalog_, vol. cxxxix. no. 27.
Cf. _Studi biografici e bibliografici della Società Italiana_, i. 219.

[140] _Itinerariū Portugallēsiū e Lusitania in Indiā_ (Milan, 1508),
a Latin version by Archangelus Madrinanus, of Milan. Cf. D’Avezac,
_Waltzemüller_, p. 82; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,058; Harrisse, no. 58;
Sobolewski, no. 4,128; Muller (1870), no. 1,844. There are copies in
the Lenox, Barlow, Harvard College, Carter-Brown (_Catalogue_, vol. i.
no. 35), and Congressional libraries. The Beckford copy (no. 1,081)
brought £78. Sabin quotes Bolton Corney’s copy at £137. Copies have
been recently priced at £30, £36, and £45. A copy noted in the _Court
Catalogue_ (no. 177) differs from Harrisse’s collation.

[141] _Sensuyt le nouveau mōde_, supposed to be 1515; some copies vary
in text. The Lenox Library has two varieties. Cf. Sabin, vol. xii. nos.
50,059, 50,061; Harrisse, no. 83, and _Additions_, no. 46; D’Avezac,
_Waltzemüller_, p. 84. An edition of 1516 (_Le nouveau monde_) is in
the Carter-Brown and Lenox libraries (Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,062;
Court, no. 248; Harrisse, no. 86; Sobolewski, no. 4,129). One placed
in 1521 (_Sensuyt le nouveau mōde_) is in Harvard College Library
(Harrisse, no. 111; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,063). Another (_Sensuyt
le nouveau monde_) is placed under 1528 (Sabin, vol. xii. no. 50,064;
Harrisse, no. 146, and _Additions_, no. 87).

[142] _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 50. Harrisse also gives a chapter to
Peter Martyr in his _Christophe Colomb_, i. 85.

[143] See also the reference in Joannes Tritemius’ _De scriptoribus
ecclesiasticis_ (Cologne, 1546), pp. 481-482. There have been within
a few years two monographs upon Martyr:(1) Hermann A. Schumacher’s
_Petrus Martyr, der Geschichtsschreiber des Weltmeeres_ (New York,
1879); (2) Dr. Heinrich Heidenheimer’s _Petrus Martyr Anglerius und
sein Opus epistolarum_ (Berlin, 1881). This last writer gives a section
to his geographical studies.

[144] Humboldt, _Examen critique_, ii. 279; Irving, _Columbus_, app.;
Prescott, _Ferdinand and Isabella_ (1873), ii. 74, and _Mexico_,
ii. 96; H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, i. 312; Helps, _Spanish
Conquest_. Cf. Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, nos. 66 and 160.

[145] Morelli’s edition of _Letter of Columbus_, 1810.

[146] There is an examination of this edition on page 109 of Vol. II.

[147] Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 88; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_,
vol. i. no. 50; Huth, p. 920; Brunet, i. 293; Murphy, no. 1,606;
Leclerc, no. 2,647 (600 francs); Stevens, _Nuggets_, £10 10_s._;
_Bibliotheca Grenvilliana_. There is a copy in Charles Deane’s
collection. Tross priced a copy in 1873 at 900 francs.

[148] _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 61; Graesse, _Trésor_, i.
130; Sabin, i. 201, who says Rich put it under 1560.

[149] _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 62; _Additions_, p. 78.

[150] _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 110.

[151] There are copies in Harvard College and Carter-Brown libraries.
Cf. Sabin, i. 199; Leclerc, no. 24 (150 francs); Court, no. 13;
Murphy, no. 1,606[A]; Stevens, _Historical Collection_, i. 48; his
_Nuggets_, £2 2_s._ But recent prices have been £20 and £25; Brunet,
i. 294; Ternaux, no. 24; Sunderland, vol. iv. no. 8,173. This tract
was reprinted in the _Novus orbis_ (Basle, 1532), and was appended
to the Antwerp edition (1536) of Brocard’s _Descriptio terræ sanctæ_
(Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 218; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 117).
It is also in the _Novus orbis_ of Rotterdam, 1596 (Carter-Brown, vol.
i. no. 505).

[152] There are copies in the Harvard College, Lenox, and Carter-Brown
libraries. It is very rare; a fair copy was priced in London, in 1881,
at £62. Cf. Brunet, i. 293; _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 94;
Sabin, i. 198; Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 154; Murphy, no.
1,607; Court, no. 14.

[153] The book is very rare. There is a copy in Harvard College
Library. A copy was priced in London at £36; but Quaritch holds
the Beckford copy (no. 2,275), in fine binding, at £148. Harrisse
(_Bill. Amer. Vet._, no. 167) errs in his description. Cf. Brunet,
i. 294; Sobolewski, no. 3,667; Sabin, i. 199; Huth, p. 920; Stevens,
_Historical Collections_, i. 48; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 99; Murphy,
no. 3,002; Court, no. 124.

[154] Richard Eden’s copy of this book, with his annotations,
apparently used in making his translation of 1555, was sold in the
Brinley sale, no. 40, having been earlier in the Judge Davis sale in
1847 (no. 1,352). The first of the Stevens copies, in his sale of 1870
(nos. 75, 1,234), is now in Mr. Deane’s library. There are also copies
in the Force (Library of Congress), Carter-Brown (_Catalogue_, vol. i.
no. 104), and Ticknor (_Catalogue_, p. 14) collections, and in Harvard
College Library. Cf. Sabin, i.; Stevens’s _Nuggets_, £1 11_s._ 6_d._;
Ternaux, no. 47; Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 176; Muller (1877),
no. 2,031; Court, no. 15; Murphy, no. 1,608; Leclerc (1878), no. 25 (80
francs); Quaritch, no. 11,628 (£3 10_s._; again, £5 5_s._); Sunderland,
vol. iv. no. 8,176 (£50). Priced in Germany at 60 and 100 marks.

[155] Ramusio’s name does not appear, but D’Avezac thinks his
editorship is probable; cf. _Bulletin de la Société de Géographie_
(1872), p. 11. There are copies in Harvard College, Carter-Brown, J.
C. Brevoort, H. C. Murphy, and Lenox libraries. For an account of a
map said to belong to it, see Winsor’s _Bibliography of Ptolemy_,
sub anno 1540. Cf. _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 190; Stevens, _Historical
Collections_, vol. i. no. 344, and _Nuggets_, vol. ii. no. 1,808;
Murphy, no. 1,609; Sunderland, vol. iv. no. 8,177; Carter-Brown, vol.
i. no. 107; Ternaux, no. 43; Court, no. 213. Ramusio also included
Martyr in the third volume of his _Navigationi_. Cf. the opinions of
Mr. Deane and Mr. Brevoort on the _Summario_ as given in Vol. III. p.
20.

[156] Brunet, Graesse, Ternaux.

[157] Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 214.

[158] Vol. i. p. 199.

[159] See Vol. III. p. 200; Murphy, no. 1,610.

[160] The book is rare; the copy in the Menzies sale (no. 1,332)
brought $42.50. Cf. further in Vol. III. p. 204; also Cooke, no. 1,642.

[161] It has three decades and three books of the “De Babylonica
legatione.” There are copies in Harvard College and the Carter-Brown
libraries. Cf. Rich (1832), no. 52; _Nuggets_, £1 10_s._ 6_d._; Sabin,
i. 201; Muller, (1877), no. 2,031; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 295;
Leclerc, no. 26 (80 francs); Harrassowitz, 35 marks; Quaritch, £1 5s.
and £1 16s.; Sunderland, vol. iv. no. 8,178; O’Callaghan, no. 1,479;
Cooke, no. 1,641; Court, no. 16; Murphy, no. 1,611.

[162] Graesse, i. 130; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 344; Stevens (1870),
no. 1,235.

[163] The Sunderland copy (vol. iv. no. 8,179), with the map, brought
£24; a French catalogue advertised one with the map for 250 francs.
Without the map it is worth about $25. See further in Vol. III. p. 42;
also Murphy, no. 1,612; Cooke, no. 1,643; Court, no. 17. Hakluyt’s text
was used by Lok in making an English version (he adopted, however,
Eden’s text of the first three decades), which was printed as _De Novo
Orbe; or, the Historie of the West Indies_. Bibliographers differ about
the editions. One without date is held by some to have been printed in
1597 (White-Kennett; Field, _Indian Bibliography_, no. 1,013; Menzies,
no. 1,333, $35; Huth, p. 923); but others consider it the sheets of
the 1612 edition with a new title (see Vol. III. p. 47, Field, no.
1,014; Stevens, 1870, no. 1,236; Harrisse, _Notes on Columbus_, p.
10; O’Callaghan, no. 1,481; Murphy, no. 1,612*; Carter-Brown, vol. i.
nos. 129, 130). There are copies of this 1612 edition in the Boston
Athenæum, Harvard College, Carter-Brown, and Massachusetts Historical
Society libraries; it is worth from $30 to $40. Mr. Deane’s edition of
1612 has a dedication to Julius Cæsar, the English jurist of that day,
which is not in the edition without date. See Vol. III. p. 47. The same
was reissued as a “second edition,” with a title dated 1628, of which
there is a copy in Harvard College Library (Field, no. 1,015; Stevens,
_Nuggets_, £4 14_s._ 6_d._; Menzies, no. 1,334; Griswold, no. 475;
Quaritch, £9 and £12).

[164] Brunet, i. 294; Harrisse, _Notes on Columbus_, p. 10; _Bibl.
Amer. Vet._, no. 160; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 93; Sunderland, vol.
iv. no. 8,174, (£61). There is also a copy in Harvard College Library.

[165] Sabin, i. 200. Copy in Harvard College Library; it was printed at
the Elzevir Press (Harrisse, _Notes on Columbus_, p. 11; Carter-Brown,
vol. ii. no. 1,036; Sunderland, vol. iv. no. 8,175).

[166] Prescott’s copy is in Harvard College Library (_Ferdinand and
Isabella_, 1873, ii. 76).

[167] Cf. Arana, _Bibliog. de obras anon._ (1882), no. 373.

[168] There are copies of this Basle edition in the Boston Public,
Harvard College, Carter-Brown, Lenox, Astor, and Barlow libraries.
Münster’s map, of which an account is given elsewhere, is often
wanting; the price for a copy with the map has risen from a guinea
in Rich’s day (1832), to £5. Cf. Harrisse, no. 171; Leclerc, no.
411; Muller (1877), no. 1,301; Ternaux, no. 38; Sabin, vol. ix. no.
34,100; Court, no. 249. The Paris edition has the Orontius Finæus map
properly, though others are sometimes found in it. Cf. Harrisse, nos.
172, 173; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 102; Sabin, vol. ix. nos. 34,101,
34,102; Leclerc, nos. 412 (150 francs), 2,769; Stevens, _Bibliotheca
geographica_, p. 124; Cooke, no. 2,879; Court, no. 250; Sunderland,
no. 263; Muller (1872), no. 1,847; Quaritch (1883) £12 16_s._ The
Lenox Library has copies of different imprints,—“apud Galeotum” and
“apud Parvum.” There are other copies in the Barlow and Carter-Brown
libraries. Good copies are worth about £10.

[169] Sabin (vol. ix. p. 30) says it is rarer than the original Latin.
There are copies in Harvard College, Congressional, and Carter-Brown
libraries. Cf. Rich (1832), £1 1_s._; Ternaux, no. 45; Sabin, vol. ix.
no. 34,106; Grenville, p. 498; Harrisse, no. 188, with references;
Stevens (1870), no. 1,419; Muller (1872), no. 1,853, and (1877) no.
1,309 (40 florins), with corrections of Harrisse; Sobolewski, no.
3,857; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 110; Huth, vol. iii. nos. 1,050-1,051.
Quaritch and others of late price it at £3. It was from this German
edition of the _Novus orbis_ that the collection, often quoted as that
of Cornelis Albyn, and called _Nieuwe Weerelt_, was made up in 1563,
with some additional matter. It is in the dialect of Brabant, and
Muller (_Books on America_, 1872, no. 1,854) says it is “exceedingly
rare, even in Holland;” he prices it at 50 florins. Cf. Leclerc, no.
2,579 (250 francs); Sabin, vol. ix. no. 34,107; Carter-Brown, vol. i.
no. 240; Huth, vol. iii. no. 1,051; A. R. Smith’s Catalogue (1874), no.
8 (£2 2_s._); Pinart, no. 668.

[170] It has pp. 585-600 in addition to the edition of 1532. There
are copies in the Cornell University (_Sparks Catalogue_, no. 1,107),
Lenox, Carter-Brown, Barlow, J. C. Brevoort, and American Antiquarian
Society libraries. One of the two copies in Harvard College Library
belonged at different times to Charles Sumner, E. A. Crowninshield
(no. 796), and the poet Thomas Gray, and has Gray’s annotations, and a
record that it cost him one shilling and ninepence. The map of the 1532
Basle edition belongs to this 1537 edition; but it is often wanting.
The _Huth Catalogue_ (vol. iii. p. 1050) calls the map of “extreme
rarity;” and Quaritch has pointed out that the larger names in the map
being set in type in the block, there is some variation in the style
of these inscriptions belonging to the different issues. Cf. Sabin,
vol. ix. no. 34,103; Harrisse, no. 223; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 123;
Leclerc, no. 413, with map (100 francs); Stevens (_Nuggets_) does not
mention the map, but his _Bibliotheca historica_ (1870), no. 1,455, and
_Historical Collections_, p. 66, give it; Muller (1872), no. 1,850 and
(1877) no. 1,306. Recent prices of good copies with the map are quoted
at £4 4_s._, 57 marks, and 70 francs; without the map it brings about
$4.00. Grolier’s copy was in the Beckford sale (1882), no. 187.

[171] There are copies in the Boston Public (two copies), Boston
Athenæum, Harvard College, Carter-Brown (no. 202), and American
Antiquarian Society libraries. The map is repeated from the earlier
Basle editions. Cf. _Brinley Catalogue_, no. 50; _Huth Catalogue_
(without map), iii. 1,050; Harrisse, no. 171; Stevens, _Historical
Collection_, vol. i. no. 501; Cooke, no. 1,064; Sabin, vol. ix. no.
34,104. Rich, in 1832, priced it with map at £2 2_s._; recent prices
are £4 4_s._ and £5 5_s._

[172] Edited by Balthazar Lydius. Cf. Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no. 182;
Graesse, iv. 699; Brunet, iv. 132; Sabin, vol. ix. no. 34,105; Huth,
iii. 1051; Leclerc, no. 414 (40 francs); Stevens, _Nuggets_, £2 2_s._;
Court, no. 251; Muller (1872), no. 1,870. There are copies in Harvard
College Library and Boston Athenæum.

[173] The editions of Ptolemy recording or affecting the progress of
geography in respect to the New World are noted severally elsewhere
in the present work; but the whole series is viewed together in the
_Bibliography of Ptolemy’s Geography_, by Justin Winsor, which,
after appearing serially in the _Harvard University Bulletin_, was
issued separately by the University Library in 1884 as no. 18 of its
_Bibliographical Contributions_.

[174] H. H. Bancroft, _Mexico_, i. 258. Harrisse (_Bibl. Amer. Vet._,
no. 237) gives the date 1541 as apparently the first edition. His
authority is the _Labanoff Catalogue_; but the date therein is probably
an error (Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,384). The _Athenæ Rauricæ_ cites a
Latin edition of 1543,—it is supposed without warrant, though it is
also mentioned in Poggendorff’s _Biog.-liter. Handwörterbuch_, ii. 234.

[175] Harrisse (_Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 258), describing a copy in the
Lenox Library. The map of America in this edition is given by Santarem,
and much reduced in Lelewel. There are twenty-four maps in it in all
(Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,385).

[176] Also published at Basle (Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer. Vet., Additions_,
no. 152; Weigel, 1877, _Catalogue_; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,386). It
has twenty-eight maps. There is a copy in the Royal Library at Munich.

[177] The third and later German editions were as follows: 1546.
According to the _Athenæ Rauricæ_.—1550. Basle, 1,233 pages, woodcuts,
with views of towns added for the first time, and fourteen folios
of maps. Harrisse (no. 294) quotes the description in Ebert’s
_Dictionary_, no. 14,500. Cf. Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,387; Leclerc,
no. 396; Rosenthal (Munich, 1884), no. 52, at 80 marks. Harrisse
(_Additions_, no. 179) says the Royal Library at Munich has three
different German editions of 1550.—1553. Basle. Muller (_Books on
America_, 1872, no. 1,020; 1877, no. 2,203) cites a copy, with
twenty-six maps; also Sabin (vol. xii. no. 51,388).—1556. Cited by
Sabin, vol. xii. no. 53,389.—1561. Basle. Cf. Rosenthal, _Catalogue_
(1884), no. 53.—1564. Basle. Cf. Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,390;
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i. 598. It has fourteen maps, the last being
of the New World.—1569, 1574, 1578. Basle. All are cited by Ebert and
Harrisse, who give them twenty-six maps, and say that the cuts are poor
impressions.—1574, 1578, 1588. Undated; but cited by Sabin, vol. xii.
no. 51,391-51,393.—1592, 1598. In these editions the twenty-six maps
and the woodcuts are engraved after new drawings. That of 1592 is in the
Boston Athenæum; that of 1598 is in Harvard College Library. The likeness
of Münster on the title is inscribed: “Seins alters lx jar.” America
is shown in the general mappemonde, and in map no. xxvi., “Die Newe
Welt.” Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,394-51,395.—1614, 1628. These Basle
editions reproduced the engravings of the 1592 and 1598 editions, and
are considered the completest issues of the German text. They are worth
from 30 to 40 marks each. Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,396.

[178] The _Athenæ Rauricæ_ gives a Latin edition of 1545.

[179] This 1550 Latin edition has fourteen maps, and copies are worth
from $12 to $15. Cf. _Bibl. Amer. Vet._, no. 300; _Huth Catalogue_,
iii. 1,009; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,379; Strutt, _Dictionary of
Engravers_.

[180] The title of the 1554 edition as shown in the copy in the Boston
Public Library reads as follows: _Cosmo | graphiae | uniuersalis
Lib. VI. in | quibus iuxta certioris fidei scriptorum | traditionem
describuntur, | Omnium habitabilis orbis partium situs, pro- | priæq’
dotes. | Regionum Topographicæ effigies. | Terræ ingenia, quibus sit
ut tam differentes & ua | rias specie res, & animatas, & inanimatas,
ferat. | Animalium peregrinorum naturæ & picturæ. | Nobiliorum
ciuitatum icones & descriptiones. | Regnorum initia, incrementa &
translationes. | Regum & principum genealogiæ. | Item omnium gentium
mores, leges, religio, mu- | tationes: atq’ memorabilium in hunc
usque an- | num 1554. gestarum rerum Historia. | Autore Sebast.
Munstero._ The same edition is in the Harvard College Library; but
the title varies, and reads thus: _Cosmo | graphiæ | uniuersalis
Lib. VI. in | quibus, iuxta certioris fidei scriptorum | traditionem
describuntur, | Omniū habitabilis orbis partiū situs, propriæq’ dotes.
| Regionum Topographicæ effigies. | Terræ ingenia, quibus sit ut tam
differentes & uarias | specie res, & animatas & inanimatas, ferat. |
Animalium peregrinorum naturæ & picturæ. Nobiliorum ciuitatum icones &
descriptiones. | Regnorum initia, incrementa & translationes. | Omnium
gentium mores, leges, religio, res gestæ, mu- | tationes: Item regum
& principum genealogiæ. | Autore Sebast. Munstero. | The colophon in
both reads: | Basileæ Apud Henrichum Petri, | Mense Septemb. Anno Sa |
lvtis M.D.LIIII._ | This copy belonged to Dr. Mather Byles, and has his
autograph; the title is mounted, and may have belonged to some other
one of the several “title-editions” which appeared about this time. Cf.
_Harvard University Bulletin_, ii. 285; _Carter-Brown_, vol. i. no.
194; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,380-51,381. The account of America is on
pages 1,099-1,113. These editions have been bought of late years for
about $4; but Rosenthal (Munich, 1884) prices a copy of 1552 at 130
marks, and one of 1554 at 150 marks.

[181] Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,382; Muller, _Books on America_ (1872),
p. 11.

[182] Some copies have nineteen maps, others twenty-two in all. Cf.
Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 291; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,383. Some
passages displeasing to the Catholics are said to have been omitted in
this edition. It is worth about $12 or $15.

[183] _Supplément_, col. 1,129; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,397.

[184] That of Basle, 1556, has on pp. 1,353-1,374, “Des nouvelles
ilsles: comment, quand et par qui elles ont esté trouvées,” with a map
and fourteen woodcuts. It is usually priced at about $20; the copies
are commonly worn (Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,398). The same publisher,
Henry Pierre, reissued it (without date) in 1568, with twelve folding
woodcut maps, the first of which pertains to America (Carter-Brown,
vol. i. no. 271; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,399). In 1575 a new French
edition, with the cuts reduced, was issued in three volumes, folio,
edited by Belleforest and others; it gives 101 pages to America. Cf.
Brunet, col. 1,945; _Supplément_, col. 1,129; Stevens (1870), p. 121;
Sunderland, no. 8,722 (£18 10_s._); Porquet (1884), no. 1,673, (150
francs); Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,400.

[185] Cf. Vol. III. of the present _History_, pp. 200, 201.

[186] Weigel (1877), p. 96; Sabin, vol. xii. no. 51,401.

[187] _Supplément_, col. 1,129. Cf. also Weigel (1877), p. 96;
Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no. 1,132; Sabin, vol. xii. nos. 51,402-51,403.

[188] _Terzo volume delle navigationi et viaggi_, etc., Venice, 1556.
His name is, Latinized, Ramusius.

[189] Harrisse, _Notes on Columbus_, p. 46. A list of the Contents is
given in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (vol. i. p. 181), and in Leclerc
(no. 484), where a set (1554, 1583, 1565) is priced at 250 francs. Of
interest in connection with the present History, there are in the first
volume of Ramusio the voyages of Da Gama, Vespucius, and Magellan, as
well as matter of interest in connection with Cabot (see Vol. III. p.
24); in the second volume (1559), the travels of Marco Polo, the voyage
of the Zeni and of Cabot. The first edition of the first volume was
published in 1550; Ramusio’s name does not appear. A second edition
came out in 1554. Cf. _Murphy Catalogue_, nos. 2,096-2,098; Cooke, no.
2,117.

[190] Born in 1485-1486; died in 1557. There is an alleged portrait
of Ramusio in the new edition of _Il viaggio di Giovan Leone_, etc.
(Venice, 1857), the only volume of it published. The portrait of him by
Paul Veronese in the hall of the Great Council was burned in 1557; and
Cicogna (_Biblioteca Veneziana_, ii. 310) says that the likeness now in
the Sala dello Scudo is imaginary.

[191] Cf. also Camus, _Mémoire sur De Bry_, p. 8; Humboldt, _Examen
critique_; Hallam, _Literature of Europe_; Harrisse, _Bibl. Amer.
Vet._, no. 304; Brunet, vol. iv. col. 1100; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no.
195 Clarke’s _Maritime Discovery_, p. x, where Tiraboschi’s account of
Ramusio is translated; and H. H. Bancroft, _Mexico_, i. 282. Ternaux
mentions a second edition in 1564; but Harrisse could find no evidence
of it (_Bibl. Amer. Vet._, p. xxxiii). There was a well-known second
edition of the third volume in 1565 (differing in title only from the
1556 edition), which, with a first volume of 1588 and a second volume
of 1583, is thought to make up the most desirable copy; though there
are some qualifications in the case, since the 1606 edition of the
third volume is really more complete.

[192] Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 275.

[193] Cf. Carter-Brown, vol. i. nos. 287, 288, 299, 337; Sunderland,
nos. 8,569, 8,570; Brinley, no. 44; Murphy, no. 1,709; Court, no. 241.

[194] Court, no. 242.

[195] Carter-Brown, i. 386; ii. 12; Brinley, no. 45.

[196] The different editions in the various languages are given in
Sabin, xii. 282.

[197] Sabin, vol. viii. no. 32,004.

[198] A complete reprint of all of Hakluyt’s publications, in fourteen
or fifteen volumes, is announced (1884) by E. and G. Goldsmid, of
Edinburgh.

[199] The title, however, as given in catalogues generally, runs:
_Collectiones peregrinationum in Indiam orientalem et Indiam
occidentalem, XXV partibus comprehensæ a Theodoro, Joan-Theodoro De
Bry, et a Matheo Merian publicatæ. Francofurti ad Mænum_, 1590-1634.

[200] This part is of extreme rarity, and Dibdin says that Lord Oxford
bought the copy in the Grenville Library in 1740 for £140. Cf. Vol. III.

[201] The earliest description of a set of De Bry of any
bibliographical moment is that of the Abbé de Rothelin, _Observations
et détails sur la collection des voyages_, etc. (Paris, 1742), pp.
44 (Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 473), which is reprinted in Lenglet du
Fresnoy’s _Méthode pour étudier la géographie_ (1768), i. 324. Gabriel
Martin, in his catalogue of the library of M. Cisternay du Fay, had
somewhat earlier announced that collector’s triumph in calling a set in
his catalogue (no. 2,825) “exemplum omni genere perfectum,” when his
copy brought 450 francs. The Abbé de Rothelin aimed to exceed Cisternay
du Fay, and did in the varieties which he brought together. The next
description was that of De Bure in his _Bibliographie instructive_
(vol. i. p. 67), printed 1763-1768; but the German editions were
overlooked by De Bure, as they had been by his predecessors. The
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (vol. i. no. 473) shows Sobolewski’s copy of
De Bure with manuscript notes. A lifetime later, in 1802, A. G. Camus
printed at Paris his _Mémoire sur les grands et petits voyages_ [de De
Bry] _et les voyages de Thevenot_. As a careful and critical piece of
work, this collation of Camus was superior to De Bure’s. A description
of a copy belonging to the Duke of Bedford was printed in Paris in
1836 (6 pp.). Weigel, in the _Serapeum_ (1845), pp. 65-89, printed his
“Bibliographische Mittheilungen über die deutschen Ausgaben von De
Bry,” which was also printed separately. It described a copy now owned
in New York. Muller, in his _Catalogue_ (1872), p. 217, indicates some
differences from Weigel’s collations. The copy formed by De Bure fell
into Mr. Grenville’s hands, and was largely improved by him before he
left it, with his library, to the British Museum. The _Bibliotheca
Grenvilliana_ describes it, and Bartlett (_Carter-Brown Catalogue_, i.
321) thinks it the finest in Europe. Cf. Dibdin’s description, which
is copied in the _American Bibliopolist_ (1872), p. 13. The standard
collation at present is probably that of Brunet, in his _Manuel du
libraire_, vol. i. (1860), which was also printed separately; in this
he follows Weigel for the German texts. This account is followed by
Sabin in his _Dictionary_ (vol. iii. p. 20), whose article, prepared
by Charles A. Cutter, of the Boston Athenæum, has also been printed
separately. The Brunet account is accompanied by a valuable note
(also in Sabin, iii. 59), by Sobolewski, whose best set (reaching one
hundred and seventy parts) was a wonderful one, though he lacked the
English Hariot. This set came to this country through Muller (cf.
his _Catalogue_, 1875, p. 387), and is now in the Lenox Library.
Sobolewski’s second set went into the Field Collection, and was sold
in 1875; and again in the J. J. Cooke sale (_Catalogue_, iii. 297) in
1883. Cf. _Catalogue de la collection de feu M. Serge Sobolewski de
Moscou_, prepared by Albert Cohn. The sale took place in Leipsic in
July, 1873. Brunet and Sobolewski both point out the great difficulties
of a satisfactory collation, arising from the publisher’s habit of
mixing the sheets of the various editions, forming varieties almost
beyond the acquisition of the most enthusiastic collector, “so that,”
says Brunet, “perhaps no two copies of this work are exactly alike.”
“No man ever yet,” says Henry Stevens (_Historical Collections_, vol.
i. no. 179), “made up his De Bry perfect, if one may count on the three
great De Bry witnesses,—the Right Honorable Thomas Grenville, the
Russian prince Sobolewski, and the American Mr. Lenox,—who all went far
beyond De Bure, yet fell far short of attaining all the variations they
had heard of.” The collector will value various other collations now
accessible, like that in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, vol. i. no. 396
(also printed separately, twenty-five copies, in 1875); that printed by
Quaritch, confined to the German texts; that in the _Huth Catalogue_,
ii. 404; and that in the _Sunderland Catalogue_, nos. 2,052, 2,053.

[202] There are lists of the sets which have been sold since 1709 given
in Sabin (vol. iii. p. 47), from Brunet, and in the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_ (vol. i. p. 408). The Rothelin copy, then esteemed the best
known, brought, in 1746, 750 francs. At a later day, with additions
secured under better knowledge, it again changed hands at 2,551 francs,
and once more, in 1855 (described in the _Bulletin du bibliophile_,
1855, pp. 38-41), Mr. Lenox bought it for 12,000 francs; and in 1873
Mr. Lenox also bought the best Sobolewski copy (fifty-five volumes) for
5,050 thalers. With these and other parts, procured elsewhere, this
library is supposed to lead all others in the facilities for a De Bry
bibliography. Fair copies of the _Grands voyages_ in Latin, in first or
second editions, are usually sold for about £100, and for both voyages
for £150, and sometimes £200. Muller, in 1872, held the fourteen parts,
in German, of the _Grands voyages_, at 1,000 florins. Fragmentary sets
are frequently in the Catalogues, but bring proportionately much less
prices. In unusually full sets the appreciation of value is rapid with
every additional part. Most large American libraries have sets of more
or less completeness. Besides those in the Carter-Brown (which took
thirty years to make, besides a duplicate set from the Sobolewski sale)
and Lenox libraries, there are others in the Boston Public, Harvard
College, Astor, and Long Island Historical Society libraries,—all of
fair proportions, and not unfrequently in duplicate and complemental
sets. The copy of the Great Voyages, in Latin (all first editions), in
the Murphy Library (_Catalogue_, no. 379), was gathered for Mr. Murphy
by Obadiah Rich. The Murphy Library also contained the German text in
first editions. In 1884 Quaritch offered the fine set from the Hamilton
Library (twenty-five parts), “presumed to be quite perfect,” for £670.
The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres is about publishing his bibliography
of De Bry.

[203] There are somewhat diverse views on this point expressed by
Brunet and in the Grenville Catalogue.

[204] Reference has been made elsewhere (Vol. III. pp. 123, 164) to
sketches, now preserved as a part of the Grenville copy of De Bry in
the British Museum, which seem to have been the originals from which De
Bry engraved the pictures in Hariot’s _Virginia_, etc. These were drawn
by Wyth, or White. A collection of twenty-four plates of such, from De
Bry, were published in New York in 1841 (_Field’s Indian Bibliography_,
no. 1,701). Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 20, 1866, for other of
De Bry’s drawings in the British Museum. De Bry’s engravings have been
since copied by Picard in his _Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses des
peuples idolatres_ (Amsterdam, 1723), and by others. Exception is taken
to the fidelity of De Bry’s engravings in the parts on Columbus; cf.
Navarrete, French translation, i. 320.

[205] Carter-Brown, vol. i. nos. 453, 454, 455.

[206] Rich (1832), £5 5_s._ Cf. P. A. Tiele’s _Mémoire bibliographique
sur les journaux des navigateurs Néerlandais réimprimés dans les
collections de De Bry et de Hulsius_, Amsterdam, 1867.

[207] Stevens (1870), no. 668; Sabin, vi. 211.

[208] Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 456; vol. ii. no. 198; Muller (1875),
p. 389.

[209] Carter-Brown, vol. i. nos. 457, 458; vol. ii. nos. 373, 791.
There was a second edition in 1655. Cf. Muller (1872), no. 636;
Sabin, vol. i. no. 50; iii. 59; Huth, ii. 612. Abelin also edited the
first four volumes (covering 1617-1643) of the _Theatrum Europeum_
(Frankfort, 1635), etc., which pertains incidentally to American
affairs (Muller, 1872, no. 1,514). Fitzer’s _Orientalische Indien_
(1628) and Arthus’s _Historia Indiæ orientalis_ (1608) are abridgments
of the _Small Voyages_.

[210] Vol. IV. p. 442.

[211] Sabin, vol. x. no. 42,392; Carter-Brown, vol. i. no. 530.

[212] Muller (1872), no. 1,867.

[213] Vol. III. p. 47. Cf. Carter-Brown, vol. ii. nos. 159, 169, 189,
223, 308, 330, 397. Sobolewski’s copy was in the Menzies sale (no.
1,649). Quaritch’s price is from £75 to £100, according to condition,
which is the price of good copies in recent sales.

[214] Muller (1872), no. 2,067.

[215] _Catalogue_ (1875), no. 3,284; (1877), no. 1,627; Tiele, no. 1.

[216] Muller (1872), no. 1,837.

[217] This collection also includes the voyages of Barentz, and of
Hudson, as well as several through Magellan’s Straits, with Madriga’s
voyage to Peru and Chili.

[218] The collection, as it is known, is sometimes dated 1644 and
1645, but usually 1646 (Muller, 1872, no. 1,871; Tiele, _Mémoire
bibliographique_, p. 9; Carter-Brown, vol. ii. nos. 567, 586; Sabin,
iv. 315, 316). A partial English translation appeared in London in 1703
(Muller, 1872, no. 1,886). The _Oost-Indische Voyagien_, issued at
Amsterdam in 1648 by Joost Hartgers, is a reprint of part of Commelin,
with some additions. Only one volume was printed; but Muller thinks
(1872 _Catalogue_, no. 1877) that some separate issues (1649-1651),
including Vries’s voyage to Virginia and New Netherland, were intended
to make part of a second volume. Cf. Sabin, viii. 118; Stevens,
_Nuggets_, no. 1,339.

[219] Vol. IV. p. 219.

[220] The original of Ogilby’s _America_: cf. Vol. III. p. 416.

[221] Muller (1872), no. 1,884. Another Dutch publication, deserving
of a passing notice, which, though not a collection of voyages,
enlarges upon the heroes of such voyages, is the _Leeven en Daden
der doorluchtigste Zee-helden_ (Amsterdam, 1676), by Lambert van den
Bos, which gives accounts of Columbus, Vespucius, Magellan, Drake,
Cavendish, the Zeni, Cabot, Cortereal, Frobisher, and Davis. There was
a German translation at Nuremberg in 1681 (Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no.
1,149; Stevens, 1870, no. 231).

[222] Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no. 1,111. A second edition was printed by
the widow Cellier in Paris in 1683 (Muller, 1875, p. 395), containing
the same matter differently arranged.

[223] An earlier edition (1667) did not have them (Muller, 1875, p.
394). Capel’s _Vorstellungen des Norden_ (Hamburg, 1676) summarizes the
voyages of the Zeni, Hudson, and others to the Arctic regions.

[224] Sabin, iv. 68; Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 50. It includes in
the later editions Castell’s description of America, with other of the
Harleian manuscripts, and gives Ferdinand Columbus’ life of his father.

[225] _Historical Magazine_, i. 125.

[226] Allibone; Bohn’s _Lowndes_, etc.

[227] Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 1,400; Sabin, viii. 92; Muller
(1872), no. 1,901.

[228] H. H. Bancroft, Central America, ii. 745, who errs somewhat in
his statements; _Murphy Catalogue_, no. 1,074; Carter-Brown, vol. iii.
no. 88, with full table of contents. The best description is in Muller
(1872), no. 1,887. Although Vander Aa says, in the title of the folio
edition, that it is based on the Gottfriedt-Abelin _Newe Welt_, this
new collection is at least four times as extensive.

[229] Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 96.

[230] Carter-Brown, iii. 110.

[231] Carter-Brown, iii. 150.

[232] The publication began in numbers in 1708, and some copies are
dated 1710 (Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 158).

[233] Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 208, in ten vols., 1715-1718. H. H.
Bancroft (_Central America_, ii. 749), cites an edition (1715-1727)
in nine vols. Muller (1870, no. 2,021) cites an edition, ten vols.,
1731-1738.

[234] Sabin, vol. i. no. 1,250.

[235] Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 792; H. H. Bancroft, _Central
America_, ii. 747.

[236] Volumes xii. to xv. are given to America; the later volumes were
compiled by Querlon and De Leyre.

[237] Different sets vary in the number of volumes.

[238] Muller (1872), nos. 1,895-1,900; Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no.
831; H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 746. A German translation
appeared at Leipsic in 1747 in twenty-one volumes.

[239] H. H. Bancroft, Central America, ii. 750.

[240] Muller (1872), nos. 1,980, 1,981. There was a German translation,
with enlargements, by J. C. Adelung, Halle, 1767; an English
translation is also cited. A similar range was taken in Alexander
Dalrymple’s _Historical Collection of Voyages_ in the South Pacific
Ocean (London, 1770), of which there was a French translation in 1774
(Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 1,730). The most important contribution
in English on this subject, however, is in Dr. James Burney’s
_Chronological History of Discovery in the South Sea_ (1803-1817), five
volumes quarto.

[241] Dr. Johnson wrote the Introduction; there was a third edition in
1767 (Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 2994).

[242] H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 750.

[243] H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 754.

[244] Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 1,494.

[245] Sabin, v. 473; H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 750.

[246] Sabin, ix. 529; Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 1,602; H. H.
Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 750.

[247] Carter-Brown, vol. iii. no. 1,733; H. H. Bancroft, _Central
America_, ii. 751.

[248] H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 751; Allibone.

[249] H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 749.

[250] H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 752.

[251] There was a quarto reprint in Philadelphia of a part of it in
1810-1812.

[252] There is a catalogue of voyages and an index in vol. xvii. Cf.
Allibone’s _Dictionary_.

[253] Stevens, _Bibliotheca geographica_, no. 317.

[254] Muller (1872), no. 1,842.

[255] Muller (1875), no. 3,303.

[256] Complete sets are sometimes offered by dealers at £30 to £35.

[257] H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii. 757.

[258] A Spanish translation of the modern voyages by Urrabieta was
published in Paris in 1860-1861. The Spanish _Enciclopedia de viajes
modernos_ (Madrid, 1859), five volumes, edited by Fernandez Cuesta,
refers to the later periods (H. H. Bancroft, _Central America_, ii.
758).

[259] The plane earth cut the cosmic sphere like a diaphragm, shutting
the light from Tartarus.

_ἀυτὰρ ὕπερθεν_ _γῆς ῥίζαι πεφύασι καὶ ἀτρυγέτοιο θαλάσσης._ (Hesiod,
_Theog._ 727.)

“and above Impend the roots of earth and barren sea.”

(_The remains of Hesiod the Ascræan_, etc., translated by C. A. Elton,
2d ed. London, 1815.)

Critics differ as to the age of the vivid description of Tartarus in
the Theogony.

[260] Pythagoras has left no writings; Aristotle speaks only of his
school; Diogenes Laertius in one passage (_Vitae_, viii. 1 (Pythag.),
25) quotes an authority to the effect that Pythagoras asserted the
earth to be spherical and inhabited all over, so that there were
antipodes, to whom that is _over_ which to us is _under_. As all his
disciples agreed on the spherical form of the earth while differing
as to its position and motion, it is probable that they took the idea
of its form from him. Diogenes Laertius states that Parmenides called
the earth round (_στρογγύλη_, viii. 48), and also that he spoke of it
as spherical (_σφαιροειδῆ_, ix. 3); the passages are not, as has been
sometimes assumed, contradictory. The enunciation of the doctrine is
often attributed to Thales and to Anaximander, on the authority of
Plutarch, _De placitis philosophorum_, iii. 10, and Diogenes Laertius,
ii. 1, respectively; but the evidence is conflicting (Simplicius,
_Ad Aristot._, p. 506^b. ed. Brandis; Aristot., _De caelo_, ii. 13;
Plutarch, _De plac. phil._ iii., xv. 9).

[261] Plato, _Phaedo_, 109. Schaefer is in error when he asserts
(_Entwicklung der Ansichten der Alten ueber Gestalt and Grösse der
Erde_, 16) that Plato in the _Timaeus_ (55, 56) assigns a cubical form
to the earth. The question there is not of the shape of the earth, the
planet, but of the form of the constituent atoms of the element earth.

[262]

Terra pilae similis, nullo fulcimine nixa, Aëre subjecto tam grave
pendet onus. [Ipsa volubilitas libratum sustinet orbem: Quique premit
partes, angulus omnis abest. Cumque sit in media rerum regione locata,
Et tangat nullum plusve minusve latus; Ni convexa foret, parti vicinior
esset, Nec medium terram mundus haberet onus.] Arte Syracosia suspensus
in aëre clauso Stat globus, immensi parva figura poli; Et quantum a
summis, tantum secessit ab imis Terra. Quod ut fiat, forma rotunda
facit. (Ovid, _Fasti_, vi. 269-280.)

The bracketed lines are found in but a few MSS. The last lines refer to
a globe said to have been constructed by Archimedes.

[263] Plato makes Socrates say that he took up the works of Anaxagoras,
hoping to learn whether the earth was round or flat (_Phaedo_, 46,
Stallb. i. 176). In Plutarch’s dialogue “_On the face appearing in the
orb of the moon_,” one of the characters is lavish in his ridicule of
the sphericity of the earth and of the theory of antipodes. See also
Lucretius, _De rerum nat._, i. 1052, etc., v. 650; Virgil, _Georgics_,
i. 247; Tacitus, _Germania_, 45.

[264] That extraordinary picture could, however, hardly have been
intended for an exposition of the actual physical geography of the
globe.

[265] Aristotle, _De caelo_, ii. 15.

[266] Archimedes, _Arenarius_, i. 1, ed. Helbig. Leipsic, 1881, vol.
ii. p. 243.

[267] The logical basis of Eratosthenes’s work was sound, but the
result was vitiated by errors of fact in his assumptions, which,
however, to some extent counterbalanced one another. The majority of
ancient writers who treat of the matter give 252,000 stadia as the
result, but Cleomedes (_Circ. doctr. de subl._, i. 10) gives 250,000.
It is surmised that the former number originated in a desire to assign
in round numbers 700 stadia to a degree. Forbiger, _Handbuch der alten
Geographie_, i. 180, n. 27.

[268] The stadium comprised six hundred feet, but the length of the
Greek foot is uncertain; indeed, there were at least two varieties, the
Olympic and the Attic, as in Egypt there was a royal and a common ell,
and a much larger number of supposititious feet (and, consequently,
stadia) have been discovered or invented by metrologists. Early French
scholars, like Ramé de l’Isle, D’Anville, Gosselin, supposed the true
length of the earth’s circumference to be known to the Greeks, and held
that all the estimates which have come down to us were expressions
of the same value in different stadia. It is now generally agreed
that these estimates really denote different conceptions of the size
of the earth, but opinions still differ widely as to the length of
the stadium used by the geographers. The value selected by Peschel
(_Geschichte der Erdkunde_, 2d ed., p. 46) is that likewise adopted
by Hultsch (_Griechische und Römische Metrologie_, 2d ed., 1882) and
Muellenhof (_Deutsche Alterthumskunde_, 2d ed., vol. i.). According to
these writers, Eratosthenes is supposed to have devised as a standard
geographical measure a stadium composed of feet equal to one half
the royal Egyptian ell. According to Pliny (_Hist. Nat._, xii. 14, §
5), Eratosthenes allowed forty stadia to the Egyptian schonus; if we
reckon the schonus at 12,000 royal ells, we have stadium = 12,000/40
× .525^m = 157.5^m. This would give a degree equal to 110,250^m, the
true value being, according to Peschel, 110,808^m. To this conclusion
Lepsius (_Das Stadium und die Gradmessung des Eratosthenes auf
Grundlage der Aegyptischen Masse_, in _Zeitschrift für Aegypt. Sprache
u. Alterthumskunde_, xv. [1877]. See also _Die Längenmasse der Alten_.
Berlin, 1884) objects that the royal ell was never used in composition,
and that the schonus was valued in different parts of Egypt at 12,000,
16,000, 24,000, _small_ ells. He believes that the schonus referred to
by Pliny contained 16,000 small ells, so that Eratosthenes’s stadium =
16,000/40 × .450^m = 180^m.

It is possible, however, that Eratosthenes did not devise a new
stadium, but adopted that in current use among the Greeks, the Athenian
stadium. (I have seen no evidence that the long Olympic stadium was
in common use.) This stadium is based on the Athenian foot, which,
according to the investigations of Stuart, has been reckoned at
.3081^m, being to the Roman foot as 25 to 24. This would give a stadium
of 184.8^m, and a degree of 129,500^m. Now Strabo, in the passage where
he says that people commonly estimated eight stadia to the mile, adds
that Polybius allowed 8⅓ stadia to the mile (_Geogr._, vii. 7, § 4),
and in the fragment known as the Table of Julian of Ascalon (Hultsch,
_Metrolog. script. reliq._, Lips., 1864, i. 201) it is distinctly
stated that Eratosthenes and Strabo reckoned 8⅓ stadia to the mile. In
the opinion of Hultsch, this table probably belonged to an official
compilation made under the emperor Julian. Very recently W. Dörpfeld
has revised the work of Stuart, and by a series of measurements of the
smaller architectural features in Athenian remains has made it appear
that the Athenian foot equalled .2957^m (instead of .3081^m), which
is almost precisely the Roman foot, and gives a stadium of 177.4^m,
which runs 8⅓ to the Roman mile. If this revision is trustworthy,—and
it has been accepted by Lepsius and by Nissel (who contributes
the article on metrology to Mueller’s _Handbuch der klassischen
Alterthumswissenschaft_, Nordlingen, 1886, etc.),—it seems to me
probable that we have here the stadium used by Eratosthenes, and that
his degree has a value of 124,180^m (Dörpfeld, _Beiträge zur antiken
Metrologie, in Mittheilungen des deutschen Archaeolog. Instituts zu
Athen_, vii. (1882), 277).

[269] Strabo, _Geogr._, ii. 5, § 7; the estimate of Posidonius is only
quoted hypothetically by Strabo (ii. 2, § 2).

[270] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ ii. 112, 113. There is apparently some
misunderstanding, either on the part of Pliny or his copyists, in the
subsequent proposition to increase this estimate by 12,000 stadia.
Schaefer’s (_Philologus_, xxviii. 187) readjustment of the text is
rather audacious. Pliny’s statement that Hipparchus estimated the
circumference at 275,000 stadia does not agree with Strabo (i. 4, § 1).

[271] The discrepancy is variously explained. Riccioli, in his
_Geographia et hydrographia reformata_, 1661, first suggested the more
commonly received solution. Posidonius, he thought, having calculated
the arc between Rhodes and Alexandria at 1-48 of the circumference, at
first assumed 5,000 stadia as the distance between these places: 5,000
× 48 = 240,000. Later he adopted a revised estimate of the distance
(Strabo, ii, ch. v. § 24), 3,750 stadia: 3,750 × 48 = 180,000. Letronne
(_Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscr. et Belles-Lettres_, vi., 1822) prefers
to regard both numbers as merely hypothetical illustrations of the
processes. Hultsch (_Griechische u. Römische Metrologie_, 1882, p. 63)
follows Fréret and Gosselin in regarding both numbers as expressing
the same value in stadia of different length (Forbiger, _Handbuch der
alten Geographie_, i. 360, n. 29). The last explanation is barred by
the positive statement of Strabo, who can hardly be thought not to have
known what he was talking about: _κἄν τῶν νεωτέρων δὲ ἀναμετρήσεων
εἰσάγηται ἡ ἐλαχίστην ποιόυσα τὴν γῆν, οἵαν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος ἐγκρίνει περὶ
ὀκτωκαίδεκα μυριάδας οὖσαν_, (_Geogr._, ii. 2, § 2.)

[272] _Geographia_, vii. 5.

[273] 1° = 500 stadia = 88,700^m, which is about one fifth smaller than
the truth.

[274] Xenophanes is to be excepted, if, as M. Martin supposes, his
doctrine of the infinite extent of the earth applied to its extent
horizontally as well as downward.

[275] The domain of early Greek geography has not escaped the
incursions of unbalanced investigators. The Greeks themselves allowed
the Argonauts an ocean voyage: Crates and Strabo did valiant battle for
the universal wisdom of Homer; nor are scholars lacking to-day who will
demonstrate that Odysseus had circumnavigated Africa, floated in the
shadow of Teneriffe—Horace to the contrary notwithstanding,—or sought
and found the north pole. The evidence is against such vain imaginings.
The world of Homer is a narrow world; to him the earth and the Ægean
Sea are alike boundless, and in his thought fairy-land could begin west
of the Lotos-eaters, and one could there forget the things of this
life. There is little doubt that the author of the Odyssey considered
Greece an island, and Asia and Africa another, and thought the great
ocean eddied around the north of Hellas to a union with the Euxine.

[276]

Quinque tenent caelum zonae: quarum una corusco Semper sole rubens, et
torrida semper ab igni; Quam circum extremae dextra laevaque trahuntur
Caeruleae glacie concretae atque imbribus atris; Has inter mediam duae
mortalibus aegris Munere concessae divom.

(Virgil, _Georg._ i. 233.)

The passage appears to be paraphrased from similar lines which are
preserved in Achilles Tatius (_Isag. in Phænom. Arat._; Petavius,
_Uranolog._ p. 153), and by him attributed to the _Hermes_ of
Eratosthenes. See also Tibullus, _Eleg._ iv., Ovid, and among the men
of science, Aristotle, _Meteorol._, ii. 5, §§ 11, 13, 15; Strabo,
_Geogr._, i. 2, § 24; ii. 5, § 3; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, ii. ch. 68;
Mela, _De chorographia_, i. 1; Cicero, _Republ._, vi. 16; _Tusc.
Disp._, i. 28.

[277] Aristotle, _Meteorol._, ii. 1, § 10; ii. 5, § 15; _De caelo_,
ii. 14 _ad fin_. Letronne, finding the latter passage inconvenient,
reversed the meaning by the arbitrary insertion of a negative
(_Discussion de l’opinion d’Hipparque sur le prolongement de l’Afrique
au sud de l’Equator_ in _Journal des Savans_, 1831, pp. 476, 545). The
theory which he built upon this reconstructed foundation so impressed
Humboldt that he changed his opinion as to the views of Aristotle on
this point (_Examen critique_, ii. 373). Such an emendation is only
justifiable by the sternest necessity, and it has been shown by Ruge
(_Der Chaldäer Seleukos_, Dresden, 1865), and Prantl (_Werke des
Aristoteles uebersetzt und erläutert_, Bd. ii.; _Die Himmelsgebäude_,
note 61), that neither sense nor consistency requires the change.

[278] Herodotus, ii. 23; iii. 115; iv. 36, 40, 45.

[279] Geminus, _Isagoge_. Polybius’s work on this question is lost,
and his own expressions as we have them in his history are more
conservative. It is, he says, unknown, whether Africa is a continent
extending toward the south, or is surrounded by the sea. Polib. _Hist._
iii. 38; Hampton’s translation (London, 1757), i. 334.

[280] Ptolemy, _Geogr._, vii. 3, 5.

[281] The circumnavigation of Africa by Phœnicians at the command of
Necho, though described and accepted by Herodotus, can hardly be called
an established fact, in spite of all that has been written in its
favor. The story, whether true or false, had, like others of its kind,
little influence upon the belief in the impassable tropic zone, because
most of those who accepted it supposed that the continent terminated
north of the equator.

[282] Ptolemy, _Geogr._, i. 11-14. Eratosthenes and Strabo located
their first meridian at Cape St. Vincent; Marinus and Ptolemy placed it
in the Canary group. See Vol. II. p. 95.

[283] Geminus, _Isagoge_, ch. 13; Achilles Tatius, _Isagoge in Phænom.
Arati;_ Cleomedes, _De circulis sublimis_, i. 2. The first two are
given in the _Uranologion_ of Petavius, Lond., Paris, 1630, pp. 56, 155.

The classes were always divided on the same principle, and each
contained two groups so related that they could apply to one another
reciprocally the name by which the whole class was designed. These
names, however, are not always applied to the same classes by different
writers. 1. The first class embraced the people who lived in the same
half of the same temperate zone; to them all it was day or night,
summer or winter, at the same time. They were called _σύνοικοι_ by
Cleomedes, but _περίοκοι_ by Achilles Tatius. 2. The second class
included such peoples as lived in the same temperate zone, but were
divided by half the circumference of that zone; so that while they
all had summer or winter at the same time, the one group had day when
the other had night, and _vice versa_. These groups could call one
another _περίοικοι_ according to Cleomedes, but _ἀντίχθονες_ according
to Tatius. 3. The third class included those who were divided by the
torrid zone, so that part lived in the northern temperate zone and part
in the southern, but yet so that all were in the same half of their
respective zones; _i. e._, all were in either the eastern or western,
upper or lower, hemisphere. Day and night were shared by the whole
class at once, but not the seasons, the northern group having summer
when the southern had winter, and _vice versa_. These groups could call
one another _ἄντοικοι_. 4. The fourth class comprised the groups which
we know as antipodes, dwelling with regard to one another in different
halves of the two temperate zones, so that they had neither seasons nor
day or night in common, but stood upon the globe diametrically opposed
to one another. All writers agree in calling these groups _ἀντίποδες_.
The introduction of the word _antichthones_ in place of _perioeci_ was
due, apparently, to a misunderstanding of the Pythagorean _antichthon_.
This name was properly applied to the imaginary planet invented by the
early Pythagoreans to bring the number of the spheres up to ten; it
was located between the earth and the central fire, and had the same
period of revolution as the earth, from the outer, Grecian, side of
which it was never visible. This “opposite earth,” _Gegenerde_, was
later confused with the other, western, or lower hemisphere of the
earth itself. It was also sometimes applied to the inhabitants of the
southern hemisphere, as by Cicero in the _Tusculan Disputations_ (i.
28), “duabus oris distantibus habitabilem et cultum; quarum altera quam
nos incolimus,

Sub axe posita ad stellas septem unde horrifer
Aquiloni stridor gelidas molitur nives,

altera australis, ignota nobis, _quam vocant Græci_ _ἀντίχθονα_.” Mela
has the same usage (i. 4, 5), as quoted below. Macrobius, _Comm. in
Somn. Scip._ lib. ii. 5, uses the nomenclature of Cleomedes. Reinhardt,
quoted in Engelmann’s _Bibliotheca classica Græca_, under Geminus, I
have not been able to see.

[284] Strabo, i. 4, § 6, 7; i. 2, § 24. Geminus, _Isagoge_, 13.
Muellenhof, _Deutsche Alterthumskunde_, i. 247-254. Berger, _Geogr.
Fragmente d. Eratosthenes_, 8, 84.

[285] Cicero, _Respubl._, vi. 15... sed partim obliquos, partim
transversos, partim etiam adversos stare vobis. Some MSS. read aversos.
See also _Tusc. Disp._, i. 28; _Acad._, ii. 39.

[286] Antichthones alteram [zonam], nos alteram incolimus. Illius situs
ob ardorem intercedentis plagae incognitus, huius dicendus est. Haec
ergo ab ortu porrecta ad occasum, et quia sic iacet aliquanto quam
ubi latissima est longior, ambitur omnis oceano. Mela, _Chor._, i.
4, 5. Because Mela says that the known world is _but little_ longer
than its width, it has been supposed that he was better informed than
his contemporaries, and attributed something like its real extent
to Africa. Thomassy (_Les papes géographiques_, Paris, 1852, p. 17)
finds in his work a rival system to that of Ptolemy. The discovery
of America, he thinks, was due to Ptolemy; that of the Cape of Good
Hope to Mela. It was the good fortune of Mela that his work was
widely read in the Middle Ages, and had great influence; but we owe
him no new system of geography, since he simply adopted the oceanic
theory as represented by Strabo and Crates. That he slightly changed
the traditional proportion between the length and breadth of the
known world is of small importance. The known world, he states, was
surrounded by the ocean, and there is nothing to show that he supposed
Africa to extend below the equator. In his description of Africa
he applies the terms length and breadth not as we should, but with
contrary usage: “Africa ab orientis parte Nilo terminata, pelago a
ceteris, brevior est quidem quam Europa, quia nec usquam Asiae et non
totis huius litoribus obtenditur, longior tamen ipsa quam latior, et
qua ad fluvium adtingit latissima,” etc., i. 20. (Ed. Parthey, 1867.)

[287] Mela, i. 54, “Alter orbis.” Cicero, _Tusc. Disp._, i. 28, “Ora
Australis.”

[288] Hyde Clarke, _Atlantis_, in the _Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society_, London, New Series, vol. iii.; Reinaud, _Relations
politiques_, etc., _de l’empire Romaine avec l’Asie orientale_, etc.,
in the _Journal Asiatique_, 1863, p. 140.

[289] The exposition of Macrobius is so interesting as illustrating the
mathematical and physical geography of the ancients, and as showing
how thoroughly the practical consequences of the sphericity of the
earth were appreciated; it is so important in the present connection
as demonstrating that the whole idea of inhabited lands in other parts
of the earth was based on logic only, not on knowledge, that I have
ventured to quote from it somewhat freely.

Macrobius, _Comm. in Somn. Scipionis_, ii. 5.—“Cernis autem eamdem
terram quasi quibusdam redimitam et circumdatam cingulis, e quibus
duos maxime inter se diversos, et caeli verticibus ipsis ex utraque
parte subnixos, obriguisse pruina vides; medium autem illum, et
maximum, solis ardore torreri. Duo sunt habitabiles: quorum australis
ille, in quo qui insistunt, adversa vobis urgent vestigia, nihil ad
vestrum genus; hic autem alter subjectus aquiloni, quem incolitis,
cerne quam tenui vos parte contingat. Omnis enim terra, quae colitur
a vobis, angusta verticibus, lateribus latior, parva quaedam insula
est....” (Cicero.) ... Nam et septentrionalis et australis extremitas
perpetua obriguerunt pruina.... Horum uterque habitationis impatiens
est.... Medius cingulus et ideo maximus, aeterno afflatu continui
caloris ustus, spatium quod et lato ambitu et prolixius occupavit,
nimietate fervoris facit inhabitabile victuris. Inter extremos vero
et medium duo majores ultimis, medio minores ex utriusque vicinitatis
intemperie temperantur.... Licet igitur sint hae duae ... quas diximus
temperatas, non tamen ambae zonae hominibus nostri generis indultae
sunt: sed sola superior, ... incolitur ab omni, quale scire possumus,
hominum genere, Romani Graecive sint, vel barbari cujusque nationis.
Illa vero ... sola ratione intelligitur, quod propter similem temperiem
similiter incolatur, sed a quibus, neque licuit unquam nobis nec
licebit cognoscere: interjecta enim torrida utrique hominum generi
commercium ad se denegat commeandi.... Nec dubium est, nostrum quoque
septentrionem [ventum] ad illos qui australi adjacent, propter eamdem
rationem calidum pervenire, et austrum corporibus eorum gemino aurae
suae rigore blandiri. Eadem ratio nos non permittit ambigere quin per
illam quoque superficiem terrae quae ad nos habetur inferior, integer
zonarum ambitus quae hic temperatae sunt, eodem ductu temperatus
habeatur; atque ideo illic quoque eaedem duae zonae a se distantes
similiter incolantur.... Nam si nobis vivendi facultas est in hac
terrarum parte quam colimus, quia, calcantes humum, caelum suspicimus
super verticem, quia sol nobis et oritur et occidit, quia circumfuso
fruimur aere cujus spiramus haustu, cur non et illic aliquos vivere
credamus ubi eadem semper inpromptu sunt? Nam, qui ibi dicuntur morari,
eamdem credendi sunt spirare auram, quia eadem est in ejusdem zonalis
ambitus continuatione temperies. Idem sol illis et obire dicitur nostro
ortu, et orietur quum nobis occidet: calcabunt aeque ut nos humum, et
supra verticem semper caelum videbunt. Nec metus erit ne de terra in
caelum decidant, quum nihil unquam possit ruere sursum. Si enim nobis,
quod asserere genus joci est, deorsum habitur ubi est terra, et sursum
ubi est caelum, illis quoque sursum erit quod de inferiore suspicient,
nec aliquando in superna casuri sunt.

Hi quos separat a nobis perusta, quos Graeci _ἀντοικοὑς_ vocant,
similiter ab illis qui inferiorem zonae suae incolunt partem interjecta
australi gelida separantur. Rursus illos ab _ἀντοικοῖς_ suis, id
est per nostri cinguli inferiora viventibus, interjectio ardentis
sequestrat: et illi a nobis septentrionalis extremitatis rigore
removentur. Et quia non est una omnium affinis continuatio, sed
interjectae sunt solitudines ex calore vel frigore mutuum negantibus
commeatum, has terrae partes quae a quattuor hominum generibus
incoluntur, maculas habitationum vocavit....

9. Is enim quem solum oceanum plures opinantur, de finibus ab illo
originali refusis, secundum ex necessitate ambitum fecit. Ceterum
prior ejus corona per zonam terrae calidam meat, superiora terrarum et
inferiora cingens, flexum circi equinoctialis imitata. Ab oriente vero
duos sinus refundit, unum ad extremitatem septentrionis, ad australis
alterum: rursusque ab occidente duo pariter enascuntur sinus, qui usque
ad ambas, quas supra diximus, extremitates refusi occurrent ab oriente
demissis; et, dum vi summa et impetu immaniore miscentur, invicemque
se feriunt, ex ipsa aquarum collisione nascitur illa famosa oceani
accessio pariter et recessio.... Ceterum verior, ut ita dicam, ejus
alveus tenet zonam perustam; et tam ipse qui equinoctialem, quam sinus
ex eo nati qui horizontem circulum ambitu suae flexionis imitantur,
omnem terram quadrifidam dividunt, et singulas, ut supra diximus,
habitationes insulas faciunt ... binas in superiore atque inferiore
terrae superficie insulas....

[290] Mr. Gladstone (_Homer and the Homeric age_, vol. iii.) transposes
these Homeric localities to the east, and a few German writers agree
with him. President Warren (_True key to ancient cosmologies_, etc.,
Boston, 1882) will have it that Ogygia is neither more nor less than
the north pole. Neither of these views is likely to displace the one
now orthodox. Mr. Gladstone is so much troubled by Odysseus’s course
on leaving Ogygia that he cannot hide a suspicion of corruption in the
text. President Warren should remember that Ogygia apparently enjoyed
the common succession of day and night. In Homeric thought the western
sea extended northward and eastward until it joined the Euxine. Ogygia,
located northwest of Greece, would be the centre, _omphalos_, of the
sea, as Delphi was later called the centre of the land-masses of the
world.

[291] _Odyssey_, iv. 561, etc.

[292] It is well known that whereas Odysseus meets the spirits of
the dead across Oceanus, upon the surface of the earth, there is in
the _Iliad_ mention of a subterranean Hades. The Assyrio-Babylonians
had also the idea of an earth-encircling ocean stream,—the word
_Ὠκεανὸς_ the Greeks said was of foreign origin,—and on the south of
it they placed the sea of the dead, which held the island homes of
the departed. As in the _Odyssey_, it was a place given over to dust
and darkness, and the doors of it were strongly barred; no living
being save a god or a chosen hero might come there. Schrader, _Namen
d. Meere in d. Assyrischen Inschriften (Abhandl. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss.
zu Berlin_, 1877, p. 169). Jeremias, _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen
Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode_ (Leipzig, 1887). The Israelites,
on the other hand, imagined the home of the dead as underground.
_Numbers_, xvi. 30, 32, 33.

Buchholtz, _Die Homerische Realien_, i. 55, places Hades on the
European shores of Ocean, but the text of the Odyssey seems plainly
in favor of the site across the stream, as Völcker and others have
understood.

[293] Hesiod, _Works and Days_, 166-173; Elton’s translation, London,
1815, p. 22. Paley marks the line _Τηλοῦ ἀπ̓ ἀθανάτων τόισιν Κρόνος
ἐμβασιλζύει_ as probably spurious. Cronos appears to have been
originally a Phœnician deity, and his westward wandering played an
important part in their mythology. We shall find further traces of this
divinity in the west.

[294] Pindar, _Olymp._, ii. 66-85, Paley’s translation, London, 1868,
p. 12. See also Euripides, _Helena_, 1677.

[295] Æschylus, in the _Prometheus bound_, introduced the Gorgon
islands in his epitome of the wanderings of Io, and certainly seems to
speak of them as in the east; the passage is, however, imperfect, and
its interpretation has overtasked the ablest commentators.

[296] Euripides, _Hippolytus_, 742-751; Potter’s translation, i. p.
356. See also Hesiod, _Theog._, 215, 517-519.

[297] Mela, iii. 100, 102, etc. The chief passage is Pliny, _Hist.
Nat._, vi. 36, 37, who took his information from King Juba and a writer
named Statius Sebosus. Pliny, who, beside the groups named in the
text, mentions the Gorgades, which he identifies with the place where
Hanno met the gorillas, has probably misunderstood and garbled his
authorities; his account is contradictory and illusive.

[298] Tzetzes (_Scholia in Lycophron_, 1204, ed. Mueller, ii. 954), a
grammarian of the twelfth century, says that the Isles of the Blessed
were located in the ocean by Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Plutarch, Dion,
Procopius, Philostratus and others, but that to many it seems that
Britain must be the true Isle of the Blessed; and in support of this
view he relates a most curious tale of the ferriage of the dead to
Britain by Breton fishermen.

[299] _L’Atlantide_, by Paul Gaffarel, in the _Revue de Géographie_,
April, May, June, July, 1880 (vi. 241, 331, 421; vii. 21). See also,
in his _Étude sur les rapports de l’Amérique et de l’ancien continent
avant Christophe Colomb_ (Paris, 1869).

[300] _Atlantis: the antediluvian world_, New York, 1882.

[301] Theopomp., _Fragmenta_, ed. Wieters, 1829, no. 76, p. 72.
_Geographi Graec. minores_, ed. Mueller, i. 289. Aeliani, _Var. Hist._,
iii. 18. The extracts in the text are taken from “_A Registre of
Hystories, etc., written in Greeke by Aelianus, a Roman, and delivered
in English by_ Abraham Fleming.” London, 1576, fol. 36.

[302] We owe this quip to Tertullian (he at least is the earliest
writer to whom I can trace it): “Ut Silenus penes aures Midae blattit,
_aptas sane grandioribus fabulis_” (_De pallio_, cap. 2).

[303] “Furthermore he tolde one thing among all others, meriting
admiration, that certain men called Meropes dwelt in many cittyes
there about, and that in the borders adiacent to their countrey, was a
perilous place named Anostus, that is to say, wythout retourne, being
a gaping gulfe or bottomles pit, for the ground is as it were cleft
and rent in sonder, in so much that it openeth like to the mouth of
insatiable hell, y^t it is neither perfectly lightsome, nor absolutely
darksome, but that the ayer hangeth ouer it, being tempered with a
certaine kinde of clowdy rednes, that a couple of floodes set their
recourse that way, the one of pleasure the other of sorow, and that
about each of them growe plantes answearable in quantity and bignes
to a great plaine tree. The trees which spring by y^e flood of sorow
yeldeth fruite of one nature, qualitie, and operation. For if any man
taste thereof, a streame of teares floweth from his eyes, as out of a
conduite pipe, or sluse in a running riuer, yea, such effect followeth
immediately after the eating of the same, that the whole race of their
life is turned into a tragical lamentation, in so much that weeping and
wayling knitteth their carkeses depriued of vitall mouing, in a winding
sheete, and maketh them gobbettes for the greedy graue to swallow and
deuoure. The other trees which prosper vpon the bankes of the floode
of pleasure, beare fruite cleane contrary to the former, for whosoeuer
tasteth thereof, he is presently weined from the pappes of his auncient
appetites and inueterate desires, & if he were linked in loue to any
in time past, he is fettered in the forgetfulnes of them, so that
al remembrance is quite abolished, by litle and litle he recouereth
the yeres of his youth, reasuming vnto him by degrees, the times &
seasons, long since, spent and gone. For, the frowardnes and crookednes
of old age being first shaken of, the amiablenes and louelynesse of
youth beginneth to budde, in so much as they put on y^e estate of
stripplings, then become boyes, then change to children, then reenter
into infancie, & at length death maketh a finall end of all.”

Compare the story told by Mela (iii. 10) about the Fortunate Isles:
“Una singulari duorum fontium ingenio maxime insignis: alterum qui
gustavere risu solvuntur, ita adfectis remedium est ex altero bibere.”

It should be noted that the country described by Theopompus is called
by him simply “The Great Continent.”

[304] Strabo, vii. 3, § 6. Perizonius makes this passage in Aelian
the peg for a long note on ancient knowledge of America, in which he
brings together the most important passages bearing on the subject. He
remarks: “Nullus tamen dubito, quin Veteres aliquid crediderint vel
sciverent, sed quasi per nebulam et caliginem, de America, partim ex
antiqua traditione ab Aegyptiis vel Carthaginiensibus accepta, partim
ex ratiocinatione de forma et situ orbis terrarum, unde colligebant,
superesse in hoc orbe etiam alias terras praeter Asiam, Africam, &
Europam.” In my opinion their assumed knowledge was based entirely on
ratiocination, and was not real knowledge at all; but Perizonius well
expresses the other view.

[305] _Mare Cronium_ was the name given to a portion of the northern
ocean. Forbiger, _Handbuch_, ii. 3, note 9.

[306] The average of all known rates of speed with ancient ships is
about five knots an hour; some of the fastest runs were at the rate of
seven knots, or a little more. Breusing, _Nautik der Alten_, Bremen,
1886, pp. 11, 12. Movers, _Die Phœnizier_, ii. 3, 190. Movers estimates
the rate of a Phœnician vessel with 180 oarsmen at double that of a
Greek merchantman. He compares the sailing qualities of Phœnician
vessels with those of Venice in the Middle Ages to the disadvantage of
the latter. As the ancients had nothing answering to our log, and their
contrivances for time-keeping were neither trustworthy nor adapted
for use on shipboard, these estimates are necessarily based on a few
reports of the number of days spent on voyages of known length,—a
rather uncertain method.

[307] Tin exists in some of the islands of the Indian Ocean, and they
were worked at a later period, but there is no direct evidence, as far
as I am aware, that they were known at the date when Tyre was most
flourishing.

[308] Diodorus Siculus, v. 18, 19; _De Mirab. Auscult._, 84. Müllenhof,
_Deutsche Alterthumskunde_, i., Berlin, 1870, p. 467, traces the report
through the historian Timaeus to Punic sources.

[309] The narration of Hanno’s voyage has been preserved, apparently
in the words of the commander’s report. _Geographi Graeci minores_,
ed. Mueller (Paris, 1855), i. pp. 1-14. Cf. also _Prolegom._, pp.
xviii, xxiii. Our only notion of the date of the expedition is derived
from Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, v. i. § 7, who says: “Fuere et Hannonis
Carthaginiensium ducis commentarii, _Punicis rebus florentissimis_
explorare ambitum Africae jussi.” All that is known of Himilko is
derived from the statement of Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, ii. 67, that he was
sent at about the same time as Hanno to explore the distant regions of
Europe; and from the poems of Avienus, who wrote in the fourth century,
and professed to give, in the _Ora Maritima_, many extracts from the
writings of Himilko. The description of the difficulties of navigation
in the Atlantic is best known. In his _Deutsche Alterthumskunde_
(Berlin, 1870), i. pp. 73-210, Muellenhof has devoted especial
attention to an analysis of this record.

[310] Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, vi. 36, 37; Mela, iii. 100, etc.; Solinus,
23, 56 [ed. Mommsen, p. 117, 230]; Ptolemy, _Geogr._, iv. 6; _Rapport
sur une mission scientifique dans l’archipel Canarienne,_ par M.
le docteur Verneau; 1877. In _Archives des Missions Scientifique
et Litteraires_, 3^e série, tom. xiii. pp. 569, etc. The presence
of Semites is indicated in Gran Canaria, Ferro, Palma, and the
inscriptions agree in character with those found in Numidia by Gen.
Faidherbe. In Gomera and Teneriffe, where the Guanche stock is purest,
there have been no inscriptions found. Dr. Verneau believes that the
Guanches are not descended from Atlantes or Americans, but from the
Quaternary men of Cro-magnon on the Vézère; he found, however, traces
of an unknown brachycephalic race in Gomera.

[311] In the second century, a.d., Pausanias (_Desc. Graec._, i. 23)
was told by Euphemus, a Carian, that once, on a voyage to Italy, he had
been driven to the sea outside [_ἐς τὲν ἔξω θάλασσαν_], where people
no longer sailed, and where he fell in with many desert islands, some
inhabited by wild men, red-haired, and with tails, whom the sailors
called Satyrs. Nothing more is known of these islands. _Ἔξο_ has here
been rendered simply “distant”; but even in this sense it could hardly
apply in the time of Pausanias to any region but the Atlantic. It is
more probable that the phrase means “outside the columns.”

In the first century B.C., some men of an unknown race were cast by
the sea on the German coast. There is nothing to show that these men
were American Indians; but since that has been sometimes assumed, the
matter should not be passed over here. The event is mentioned by Mela
(_De Chorogr._, iii. 5, § 8), and by Pliny (_Hist. Nat._, ii. 67);
the castaways were forwarded to the proconsul, Q. Caecilius Metellus
Celer (B.C. 62), by the king of the tribe within whose territory they
were found. Pliny calls the tribe the Suevi; the reading in Mela is
very uncertain. Parthey has _Botorum_, the older editors _Baetorum_,
or _Boiorum_. The Romans took them for inhabitants of India, who had
been carried around the north of Europe; modern writers have seen in
them Africans, Celts, Lapps, or Caribs. A careful study of the whole
subject, with references to the literature, will be found in an article
by F. Schiern: _Un énigme ethnographique de l’antiquité_, contributed
to the Memoirs of the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries; New
Series, 1878-83, pp. 245-288.

In the Louvre is an antique bronze which has been thought to represent
one of the Indians of Mela, and also to be a good reproduction of the
features of the North American Indian (Longpérier, _Notice des bronzes
antiques_, etc., _du Musée du Louvre_, Paris, 1868, p. 143), but the
supposition is purely arbitrary.

Such an event as an involuntary voyage from the West Indies to the
shores of Europe is not an impossibility, nor is the case cited by
Mela and Pliny the only one of the kind which we find recorded. Gomara
(_Hist. gen. de las Indias_, 7) says some savages were thrown upon
the German coast in the reign of Frederic Barbarossa (1152-1190),
and Aeneas Silvius (Pius II.) probably refers to the same event when
he quotes a certain Otho as relating the capture on the coast of
Germany, in the time of the German emperors, of an Indian ship and
Indian traders (mercatores). The identity of Otho is uncertain. Otto
of Freisingen ([Dagger] 1158) is probably meant, but the passage does
not appear in his works that have been preserved (Aeneas Silvius,
_Historia rerum_, ii. 8, first edition, Venice, 1477). The most curious
story, however, is that related by Cardinal Bembo in his history of
Venice (first published 1551), and quoted by Horn (_De orig. Amer._,
14), Garcia (iv. 29), and others. It deserves, however, record here.
“A French ship while cruising in the ocean not far from Britain picked
up a little boat made of split oziers and covered with bark taken
whole from the tree; in it were seven men of moderate height, rather
dark complexion, broad and open faces, marked with a violet scar.
They had a garment of fishskin with spots of divers shades, and wore
a headgear of painted straw, interwoven with seven things like ears,
as it were (coronam e culmo pictam septem quasi auriculis intextam).
They ate raw flesh, and drank blood as we wine. Their speech could not
be understood. Six of them died; one, a youth, was brought alive to
Roano (so the Italian; the Latin has Aulercos), where the king was”
(Louis XII.). Bembo, _Rerum Venetarum Hist._ vii. year, 1508. [_Opere_,
Venice, 1729, i. 188.]

[312]

Nos manet Oceanus circumvagus; arva, beata
Petamus arva, divites et insulas,
Reddit ubi Cererem tellus inarata quotannis
Et inputata floret usque vinea.

* * * * *

Non huc Argoo contendit remige pinus, Neque inpudica Colchis intulit
pedem; _Non huc Sidonii torserunt cornua nautae_, Laboriosa nec cohors
Ulixei. Juppiter illa piae secrevit litora genti, Ut inquinavit aere
tempus aureum; Aere, dehinc ferro duravit saecula, quorum Piis secunda,
vate me, datur fuga.

(Horace, _Epode_, xvi.)

Virgil, in the well-known lines in the prophecy of Anchises—

Super et Garamantes et Indos Proferet inperium; iacet extra sidera
tellus, Extra anni solisque vias, ubi caelifer Atlas Axem humero
torquet stellis ardentibus aptum—

(_Æneid_, vi. 795.)

had Africa rather than the west in mind, according to the commentators.

It is possible that the islands described to Sertorius were Madeira and
Porto Santo, but the distance was much overestimated in this case.

[313] “He [Eratosthenes] says that if the extent of the Atlantic Ocean
were not an obstacle, we might easily pass by sea from Iberia to India,
still keeping in the same parallel, the remaining portion of which
parallel ... occupies more than a third of the whole circle.... But
it is quite possible that in the temperate zone there may be two or
even more habitable earths _οἰκουμένας_, especially near the circle
of latitude which is drawn through Athens and the Atlantic ocean.”
(Strabo, _Geogr._, i. 4, § 6.)

[314] Seneca, _Naturalium Quaest. Praefatio._ The passage is certainly
striking, but those who, like Baron Zach, base upon it the conclusion
that American voyagers were common in the days of Seneca overestimate
its force. It is certainly evident that Seneca, relying on his
knowledge of theoretical geography, underestimated the distance to
India. Had the length of the voyage to America been known, he would not
have used the illustration.

[315] Smaller vessels even than were then afloat have crossed the
Atlantic, and the passage from the Canaries is hardly more difficult
than the Indian navigation. The Pacific islanders make voyages of
days’ duration by the stars alone to goals infinitely smaller than the
broadside of Asia, to which the ancients would have supposed themselves
addressed.

[316] Aristotle, _Meteorolog._, ii. 1, § 14; Plato, _Timaeus_; Scylax
Caryandensis, _Periplus_, 112. _τῆς Κέρνης δὲ νέσου τὰ ἐπέκεινα οὐκέτι
ἐστὶ πλωτὰ διὰ βραχύτητα θαλάττης καὶ πελὸν καὶ φῦκος_(_Geogr. Graec.
min._, ed. Mueller, i. 93; other references in the notes). Pytheas
in Strabo, ii. 4, § 1; Tacitus, _Germania_, 45, 1; _Agricola_, x. A
gloss to Suidas applies the name Atlantic to all innavigable seas.
Pausanias, i. ch. 3, § 6, says it contained strange sea-beasts, and was
not navigable in its more distant parts. A long list of references to
similar passages is given by Ukert, _Geogr. der Griechen u. Römer_, ii.
1, p. 59. See also Berger, _Wissenschaftliche Geographie_, i. p. 27,
note 3, and Grote, _Hist. of Greece_, iii. ch. 18, notes.

[317] _De Mirab. Auscult._, 136. The Phœnicians are said to have
discovered beyond Gades extensive shoals abounding in fish.

Quae Himilco Poenus mensibus vix quatuor, Ut ipse semet re probasse
retulit Enavigantem, posse transmitti adserit: Sic nulla late flabra
propellunt ratem, Sic segnis humor aequoris pigri stupet. Adjecit et
illud, plurimum inter gurgites Extare fucum, et saepe virgulti vice
Retinere puppim: dicit hic nihilominus, Non in profundum terga dimitti
maris, Parvoque aquarum vix supertexi solum: Obire semper huc et huc
ponti feras, Navigia lenta et languide repentia Internatare belluas.
(Avienus, _Ora Maritima_, 115-130.)

Hunc usus olim dixit Oceanum vetus, Alterque dixit mos Atlanticum mare.
Longo explicatur gurges hujus ambitu, Produciturque latere prolixe
vago. Plerumque porro tenue tenditur salum, Ut vix arenas subjacentes
occulat. Exsuperat autem gurgitem fucus frequens, Atque impeditur
aestus hic uligine: Vis belluarum pelagus omne internatat, Multusque
terror ex feris habitat freta. Haec olim Himilcos Poenus Oceano super
Spectasse semet et probasse retulit: Haec nos, ab imis Punicorum
annalibus Prolata longo tempore, edidimus tibi. (_Ibid._ 402-415.)

Whether Avienus had immediate knowledge of these Punic sources is quite
unknown.

[318] Seneca, _Medea_, 376-380.

[319] In the first book of his _Suasoriæ_, M. Annaeus Seneca collected
a number of examples illustrative of the manner in which several
of the famous orators and rhetoricians of his time had handled the
subject, _Deliberat Alexander, an Oceanum naviget_, which appears to
have been one of a number of stock subjects for use in rhetorical
training. This collection thus gives a good view of the prevalent
views about the ocean, and certainly tells strongly against the idea
that the western passage was then known or practised. “Fertiles in
Oceano jacere terras, ultraque Oceanum rursus alia littora, alium nasci
orbem, ... _facile ista finguntur; quia Oceanus navigari non potest_
... confusa lux alta caligine, et interceptus tenebris dies, ipsum
veros grave et devium mare, et aut nulla, aut ignota sidera. Ita est,
Alexander, rerum natura; _post omnia Oceanus, post Oceanum nihil_....
Immensum, et humanae intentatum experientiae pelagus, totius orbis
vinculum, terrarumque custodia, inagitata remigio vastitas.... Fabianus
... divisit enim illam [quaestionem] sic, ut primum negaret ullas in
Oceano, aut trans Oceanum, esse terras habitabiles: deinde si essent,
perveniri tamen ad illas non posse. Hic difficultatem ignoti maris,
naturam non patientem navigationis.”

[320] Virgil, bishop of Salzburg, was accused before Pope Zacharias
by St. Boniface of teaching the doctrine of antipodes; for this, and
not for his belief in the sphericity of the earth (as I read), he was
threatened by the Pope with expulsion from the church. The authority
for this story is a letter from the Pope to Boniface. See Marinelli,
_Die Erdkunde bei den Kirchenvätern_, p. 42.

[321] Cosmas, as will be seen in the cut, adhered to the continental
theory, placing Paradise on the continent in the east. Paradise was
more commonly placed in an island east of Asia.

[322] It has been suggested by M. Beauvois that Labrador may in
the same way derive its name from _Inis Labrada_, or the Island of
Labraid, which figures in an ancient Celtic romance. The conjecture
has only the phonetic resemblance to recommend it. Beauvois, _L’Elysée
transatlantique (Revue de l’Histoire des Religions_, vii. (1883), p.
291, n. 3).

[323] Gaffarel, P., _Les isles fantastiques de l’Atlantique au moyen
âge_, 3.

[324] Coryat’s _Crudities_, London, 1611. Sig. h(4), verso.

[325] The result of the Arabian measurements gave 56⅔3 miles to a
degree. Arabian miles were meant, and as these contain, according
to Peschel (_Geschichte der Geographie_, p. 134) 4,000 ells of
540.7^{mm}., the degree equalled 122,558.6^m. The Europeans, however,
thought that Roman miles were meant, and so got but 83,866.6^m. to a
degree.

[326] Edrisi, _Geography_, Climate, iv., § 1, Jaubert’s translation,
Paris, 1836, ii. 26.

[327] Found in various Celtic MSS. See Beauvois, _L’Eden occidentale
(Rev. de l’Hist. des Relig._), viii. (1884), 706, etc.; Joyce, _Old
Celtic Romances_, 112-176.

[328] These alleged voyages are considered in the next chapter.

[329] Polybius, _Hist._, iii. 38.

[330] The tract _On the World_ (_περὶ κόσμου_, de mundo), and the
_Strange Stories_ (_περὶθαυμασίων ἀκουσμάτν_, _de mirabilibus
auscultationibus_), printed with the works of Aristotle, are held to
be spurious by critics: the former, which gives a good summary of
the oceanic theory of the distribution of land and water (ch. 3), is
considerably later in date; the latter is a compilation made from
Aristotle and other writers. Muellenhof has sought partially to analyze
it in his _Deutsche Alterthumskunde_, i. 426, etc.

[331] First in _Geographica Marciani, Scylacis, Artemidoris, Dicæarchi,
Isidori. Ed. a Hoeschelio_ (Aug. Vind., 1600). The great collection
made by Hudson, _Geographiae veteris scriptores Graeci minores_ (4
vols., Oxon., 1698-1712; re-edited by Gail, Paris, 1826, 6 vols.), is
still useful, notwithstanding the handy edition by C. Mueller in the
Didot classics, _Geographiae Graeci minores_ (Paris, 1855-61. 2 vols.
and atlas).

[332] _Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Ed. C. et T. Mueller_ (Paris,
Didot, 1841-68. 5 vols.).

[333] _Die geographischen Fragmente des Hipparchus: H. Berger_
(Leipzig, 1869); _Posidonii Rhodii reliquiae doctrinae: coll. J. Bake_
(Lugd. Bat., 1810); _Eratosthenica composuit G. Bernhardy_ (Berlin,
1822); _Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes: H. Berger_
(Leipzig, 1880).

[334] _Strabonis Geographia_ (Romae, Suweynheym et Pannartz, s. a.), in
1469 or 1470, folio. First edition of the Latin translation which was
made by Guarini of Verona, and Lilius Gregorius of Tiferno; only 275
copies were printed. It was reprinted in 1472 (Venice), 1473 (Rome),
1480 (Tarvisii), 1494 (Venice), 1502 (Venice), 1510 (Venice), and 1512
(Paris). _Strabo de situ orbis_ (Venice. Aldus et Andr. Soc., 1516),
fol., was the first Greek edition; a better edition appeared in 1549
(Basil., fol.), with Guarini’s and Gregorius’s translation revised by
Glareanus and others. Critical ed. by J. Kramer (Berlin, 1844), 3 vols.
Ed. with Latin trans. by C. Müller and F. Dübner (Paris, Didot, 1853,
1857). It has since been edited by August Meineke (Leipsic, Teubner,
1866. 3 vols. 8vo).

There was an Italian translation by Buonacciuoli, in Venice and
Ferrara, 1562, 1585. 2 vols. The _Γεωγραφικὰ_ has been several
times translated into German, by Penzel (Lemgo, 1775-1777, 4 Bde.
8vo), Groskund (Berlin, Stettin, 1831-1834. 4 Thle.), and Forbiger
(Stuttgart, 1856-1862. 2 Bde.), and very recently into English by H. C.
Hamilton and W. Falconer (London, Bell [Bohn], 1887). 3 vols. This has
a useful index.

The great French translation of Strabo, made by order of Napoleon,
with very full notes by Gosselin and others, is still the most useful
translation: _Géographie du Strabon trad. du grec en française_ (Paris,
1805-1819). 5 vols. 4to.

[335] The Geography was first printed, in a Latin translation, at
Vincentia, in 1475; the date 1462 in the Bononia edition being
recognized as a misprint, probably for 1482. The history of the book
has been described by Lelewel in the appendix to his _Histoire de la
Géographie_, and more fully in Winsor’s _Bibliography of Ptolemy’s
Geography_ (Cambridge, Mass., 1884), and in the section on Ptolemy by
Wilberforce Eames in Sabin’s _Dictionary_, also printed separately.

[336] The _Phaenomena_ of Aratus was a poem which had great vogue both
in Greece and Rome. It was commented upon by Hipparchus and Achilles
Tatius (both of which commentaries are preserved, and are found in the
_Uranologion_ of Petavius), and translated by Cicero.

[337] _Gemini elementa astronomiae_, also quoted by the first word of
the Greek title, _Isagoge_. First edition, Altorph, 1590. The best
edition is still that in the _Uranologion_ of Dionysius Petavius
(Paris, 1630). It is also found in the rare translation of Ptolemy by
Halma (Paris, 1828).

[338] _Κύκλικη θεώρια_ quoted as _Cleom. de sublimibus circulis_. The
first edition was at Paris, 1539. 4to. It has been edited by Bake
(Lugd. Bat., 1826), and Schmidt (Leips. 1832). Nothing is known of the
life of Cleomedes. He wrote after the 1st cent. A.D., probably.

[339] It was first printed in the Plato of Basle, 1534. There is an
English translation by Thomas Taylor, _The Commentaries of Proclus on
the Timaeus of Plato_, in 2 vols. (London, 1820). Proclus was also the
author of astronomical works which helped to keep Grecian learning
alive in the early Middle Ages.

[340] The works of L. Annaeus Seneca were first printed in Naples,
1475, fol., but the _Questionum naturalium lib. vii._ were not included
until the Venice ed. of 1490, which also contained the first edition of
the _Suasoriae and Controversariae_ of M. Ann. Seneca. The _Tragoediae_
of L. Ann. Seneca were first printed about 1484 by A. Gallicus,
probably at Ferrara.

[341] _Historiae naturalis libri xxxvii._ The first edition was the
famous and rare folio of Joannes de Spira, Venice, 1469. I find record
of ten other editions and three issues of Landino’s Italian translation
before 1492.

[342] _C. Julii Solini Collectanea rerum memorabilium sive polyhistor._
Solinus lived probably in the third century A.D. His book was a great
favorite in the Middle Ages, both in manuscript and in print, and was
known by various titles, as _Polyhistor, De situ orbis_, etc. The first
edition appeared without place or date, at Rome, about 1473, and in the
same year at Venice, and it was often reprinted with the annotations
of the most famous geographers. The best edition is that by Mommsen
(Berlin, 1864). See Vol. II. p. 180.

[343] First edition, Milan, 1471. 4to. The best is that by Parthey,
Berlin, 1867. A history and bibliography of this work is given in Vol.
II. p. 180.

[344] _Commentariorum in somnium Scipionis libri duo._ The first
edition was at Venice, 1472. There has been an edition by Jahn (2 vols.
Quedlinburg, 1848, 1852), and by Eyssenhardt (Leipzig, 1868), and a
French translation by various hands, printed in 3 vols. at Paris,
1845-47.

[345] _Descriptio orbis terrae; ora maritima._ The first edition
appeared at Venice in 1488, with the _Phaenomena_ of Aratus. It is
included in the _Geogr. Graec. min._ of Mueller. Muellenhof has treated
of the latter poem at length in his _Deutsche Alterthumskunde_, i.
73-210.

[346] _Astronomicon libri v._ Manilius is an unknown personality,
but wrote in the first half of the first century A. D. (First ed.,
Nuremberg, 1472 or 1473); Hyginus, _Poeticon Astronomicon_, 1st or 2d
cent. A. D. (Ferrara, 1475).

[347] _De nuptiis philologiae et Mercurii_, first ed. Vicent., 1499.

[348] E. H. Bunbury, _Hist. of Anc. Geog. among the Greeks and Romans_
(London, 1879), in two volumes,—a valuable, well-digested work, but
scant in citations. Ukert, _Geog. der Griechen and Römer_ (Weimar,
1816), very rich in citations, giving authorities for every statement,
and useful as a summary.

Forbiger, _Handbuch der alten Geographie_ (Hamburg, 1877), compiled on
a peculiar method, which is often very sensible. He first analyzes and
condenses the works of each writer, and then sums up the opinions on
each country and phase of the subject.

Vivien de St. Martin, _Histoire de la Géographie_ (Paris, 1873).

Peschel, _Geschichte der Erdkunde_ (2d ed., by S. Ruge, München, 1877).
Perhaps reference is not out of place also to P. F. J. Gosselin’s
_Géographie des Grecs analysée, ou les Systèmes d’Eratosthenes, de
Strabon et de Ptolémée, comparés entre eux et avec nos connaissances
modernes_ (Paris, 1790); and his later _Recherches sur la Geographie
systématique et positive des anciens_ (1797-1813).

Cf. Hugo Berger, _Geschichte der wiss. Erdkunde der Griechen_ (Leipzig,
1887).

[349] _Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie_ (Tübingen, 1856-62).

[350] Sir George Cornwall Lewis, _Historical Survey of the Astronomy of
the Ancients_ (London, 1862).

Theodore Henri Martin, whose numerous papers are condensed in the
article on “Astronomie” in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dictionnaire de
l’Antiquité_. Some of the more important distinct papers of Martin
appeared in the _Mém. Acad. Inscrip. et Belles Lettres._

[351] See Cellarius, _Notit. orb. antiq._ i. ch. 2, _de rotunditate
terrae_. See also Günther, _Aeltere und neuere Hypothese ueber die
chronische Versetzung des Erdschwerpunktes durch Wassermassen_ (Halle,
1878).

[352] _De Natura Rerum._

[353] See _ante_, p. 31. In the second century St. Clement spoke of the
“Ocean impassible to man, and the worlds beyond it.” _1st Epist. to
Corinth._ ch. 20. (_Apostolic Fathers_, Edinb. 1870, p. 22.)

[354] Legrand d’Aussy, _Image du Monde_. _Notices et extraits de la
Bibliothèque du Roi_, etc., v. (1798), p. 260. It is also said that
the earth is round, so that a man could go all round it as an insect
can walk all round the circumference of a pear. This notable poem has
been lately studied by Fant, but is still unprinted. It was known to
Abulfeda, that if two persons made the journey described, they would
on meeting differ by two days in their calendar (Peschel, _Gesch. d.
Erdkunde_, p. 132).

[355] A. Jourdain, _Recherches critique sur l’âge et l’origin des
traductions latines d’Aristote, et sur des commentaires Grecs et Arabes
employés par les docteurs scolastiques_ (Paris, 1843). See also _De
l’influence d’Aristote et de ses interprètes sur la découverte du
nouveau-monde, par Ch. Jourdain_ (Paris, 1861).

[356] See Vol. II., ch. i., Critical Essay.

[357] Cf. a bibliographical note in St. Martin’s _Histoire de la
Géographie_ (1873), p. 296. The well-known _Examen Critique_ of
Humboldt, the _Recherches sur la géographie_ of Walckenaer, the
_Géographie du moyen-âge_ of Lelewel, with a few lesser monographic
papers like Fréville’s “Mémoire sur la Cosmographie du moyen-âge,” in
the _Revue des Soc. Savantes_, 1859, vol. ii., and Gaffarel’s “Les
relations entre l’ancient monde et l’Amérique, étaient-elles possible
au moyen-âge,” in the _Bull. de la Soc. Normande de Géog._, 1881, vol.
iii. 209, will answer most purposes of the general reader; but certain
special phases will best be followed in Letronne’s _Des opinions
cosmographiques des Pères de l’Eglise, rapprocher des doctrines
philosophiques de la Grece_, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Mars,
1834, p. 601, etc. The Vicomte Santarem’s _Essai sur l’histoire de
la cosmographie et de la cartographie pendant le moyen-âge, et sur
les progrès de la géographie après les grandes découvertes du xv^e
siècle_ (Paris, 1849-52), in 3 vols., was an introduction to the great
_Atlas_ of mediæval maps issued by Santarem, and had for its object the
vindication of the Portuguese to be considered the first explorers of
the African coast. He is more interested in the burning zone doctrine
than in the shape of the earth. H. Wuttke’s _Ueber Erdkunde und Kultur
des Mittelalters_ (Leipzig, 1853) is an extract from the _Serapeum_.
G. Marinelli’s _Die Erdkunde bei den Kirchenvätern_ (Leipzig, 1884,
pp. 87) is very full on Cosmas, with drawings from the MS. not
elsewhere found; Siegmund Günther’s _Die Lehre von der Erdrundung u.
Erdbewegung im Mittelalter bei den Occidentalen_ (Halle, 1877), pp. 53,
and his _Die Lehre von der Erdrundung u. Erdbewegung bei den Arabern
und Hebräern_ (Halle, 1877), pp. 127, give numerous bibliographical
references with exactness. Specially interesting is Charles Jourdain’s
_De l’influence d’Aristote et de ses interprètes aux la découverte
du nouveau monde_ (Paris, 1861), where we read (p. 30): “La pensée
dominante de Colomb était l’hypothèse de la proximité de l’Espagne
et de l’Asie, et ... cette hypothèse lui venait d’Aristote et des
scolastiques;” and again (p. 24): “Ce n’est pas à Ptolémée ... que le
moyen âge a emprunté l’hypothèse d’une communication entre l’Europe et
l’Asie par l’océan Atlantique.... Cette conséquence, qui n’avait par
éschappé à Eratosthène, n’est pas énoncée par Ptolémée tandis qu’elle
retrouve de la manière la plus expresse chez Aristote.”

[358] See also _ante_, p. 37.

[359] Plato, _Phaedo_, 108; Plutarch, _De facie_.

[360] Aristotle, _De caelo_, ii. 13.

[361] Ctesias, _On India_, ch. v. (ed. Didot, p. 80), says the rising
sun appears ten times larger in India than in Greece. Strabo, _Geogr._
iii. 1, § 5, quotes Posidonius as denying a similar story of the
setting sun as seen from Gades.

Whether Herodotus had a similar idea when he wrote that in India the
mornings were torrid, the noons temperate and the evenings cold (Herod.
iii. 104), is uncertain. Also see Dionysius Periegetes, _Periplus_,
1109-1111, in _Geographi Graeci minores_. _Ed. C. Mueller_ (Paris,
Didot, 1861, ii. 172). Rawlinson sees in it only a statement of
climatic fact.

[362] _The True Key to Ancient Cosmogonies_, in the _Year Book of
Boston University_, 1882, and separately, Boston, 1882; and in his
_Paradise Found_, 4th ed. (Boston, 1885).

[363] Geminus, _Isagoge_, c. 13.

[364] “Ueber die Gestalt der Erde nach den Begriffen der Alten,” in
_Kritische Blätter_, ii. (1790) 130.

[365] _Ueber Homerische Geographie und Weltkunde_ (Hanover, 1830).

[366] _Homerische Realien, I. 1. Homerische Cosmographie und
Geographie_ (Leipzig, 1871).

[367] _Homer and the Homeric Age_ (London, 1858), ii. 334. The question
of Aeaea, “where are the dancing places of the dawn” (_Od._ xii. 5),
almost induces Gladstone to believe that Homer thought the earth
cylindrical, but it may be doubted if the expression means more than
an outburst of joy at returning from the darkness beyond ocean to the
realm of light.

[368] “Mémoire sur la cosmographie Grecque à l’époque d’Homere et
d’Hesiode,” in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscr. et des Belles Lettres_,
xxviii. (1874) 1, 211-235.

[369] _Entwicklung der Ansichten des Alterthums ueber Gestalt und
Grösse der Erde._ Leipzig, 1868. (Gymn. z. Insterburg.)

[370] _Die Kosmischen Systeme der Griechen_ (Berlin, 1851).

[371] See also Keppel, _Die Ansichten der alten Griechen und Römer von
der Gestalt, Grösse, und Weltstellung der Erde_. (Schweinfurt, 1884.)

[372] For example, K. Jarz, “Wo sind die Homerischen Inseln Trinakie,
Scherie, etc. zu suchen?” in _Zeitschr. für wissensch. Geogr._ ii.
10-18, 21.

[373] See Vol. II. p. 26. His son Ferdinand enlarges upon this. The
passage in Seneca’s _Medea_ was a favorite. This is often considered
rather as a lucky prophecy. Leibnitz, _Opera Philologica_ (Geneva,
1708), vi. 317. Charles Sumner’s “Prophetic Voices concerning America,”
in _Atlantic Monthly_, Sept. 1867 (also separately, Boston, 1874).
_Hist. Mag._ xiii. 176; xv. 140.

[374] Vol. II. 25. Harrisse, _Bib. Amer. Vet._ i. 262.

[375] Perizonius, in his note to the story of Silenus and Midas,
quoted from Theopompus by Ælian in his _Varia Historiæ_ (Rome, 1545;
in Latin, Basle, 1548; in English, 1576), quotes the chief references
in ancient writers. Cf. Ælian, ed. by Perizonius, Lugd. Bat. 1701,
p. 217. Among the writers of the previous century quoted by this
editor are Rupertus, _Dissertationes mixtæ, ad Val. Max._ (Nuremberg,
1663). Math. Berniggerus, _Ex Taciti Germaniâ et Agricolâ questiones_
(Argent. 1640). Eras. Schmidt, _Dissert. de America_, which is annexed
to Schmidt’s ed. of Pindar (Witelsbergæ, 1616), where it is spoken of
as “Discursus de insula Atlantica ultra columnas Herculis qua America
hodie dicitur.” Cluverius, _Introduction in univers. geogr._, vi. 21,
§ 2, supports this view, 1st ed., 1624. In the ed. 1729 is a note by
Reiskius on the same side, with references (p. 667).

Of the same century is J. D. Victor’s _Disputatio de America_ (Jenæ,
1670).

In Brunn’s _Bibliotheca Danica_ are a number of titles of dissertations
bearing on the subject; they are mostly old.

[376] Even the voyage of Kolaos, mentioned in Herodotus (iv. 152), is
supposed by Garcia a voyage to America.

[377] _Mœurs des Sauvages_ (Paris, 1724).

[378] _Attempt to show that America must have been known to the
Ancients_ (Boston, 1773).

[379] _History of America_, 1775.

[380] See Vol. II. p. 68. Humboldt (i. 191) adopts the view of Ortelius
that the grand continent mentioned by Plutarch is America and not
Atlantis. Cf. Brasseur’s _Lettres à M. le Duc de Valmy_, p. 57.

[381] Gaffarel has since elaborated this part of the book in some
papers, “Les Grecs et les Romains ont-ils connu l’Amérique?” in the
_Revue de Géographie_ (Oct. 1881, _et seq._), ix. 241, 420; x. 21,
under the heads of traditions, theories, and voyages.

There are references in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, v. ch. 1; and in
his _Cent. America_, vi. 70, etc.; in Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._,
146, 466, 474; in DeCosta’s _Precolumbian Discovery_. Brasseur touches
the subject in his introduction to his _Landa’s Relation_; Charles
Jourdain, in his _De l’influence d’Aristote et de ses interprètes
sur la découverte du nouveau monde_ (Paris, 1861), taken from the
_Journal de l’Instruction Publique_. A recent book, W. S. Blackett’s
_Researches_, etc. (Lond. 1883), may be avoided.

[382] Of lesser importance are these: Bancroft’s _Native Races_,
iv. 364, v. 55; Short, 418; Stephens’s _Cent. Amer._, ii. 438-442;
M’Culloh’s _Researches_, 171; Weise, _Discoveries of America_, p. 2;
Campbell in _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Amér._ 1875, i. W. L. Stone asks
if the moundbuilders were Egyptians (_Mag. Amer. History_, ii. 533).

[383] Of less importance are: Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 63-77, with
references; Short, 145; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 162, 171; Warden’s
_Recherches_, etc. The more general discussion of Humboldt, Brasseur
(_Nat. Civ._), Gaffarel (_Rapport_), De Costa, etc., of course helps
the investigator to clues.

The subject is mixed up with some absurdity and deceit. The Dighton
Rock has passed for Phœnician (Stiles’ _Sermon_, 1783; Yates and
Moulton’s _New York_). At one time a Phœnician inscription in Brazil
was invented (_Am. Geog. Soc. Bull._ 1886, p. 364; St. John V. Day’s
_Prehistoric Use of Iron_, Lond. 1877, p. 62). The notorious Cardiff
giant, conveniently found in New York state, was presented to a
credulous public as Phœnician (_Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Ap. 1875). The
history of this hoax is given by W. A. McKinney in the _New Englander_,
1875, P. 759.

[384] Cf. Johr. Langius, _Medicinalium Epistolarum Miscellanea_ (Basle,
1554-60), with a chapter, “De novis Americi orbis insulis, antea ab
Hannone Carthaginein repertis;” Gebelin’s _Monde Primitif_; Bancroft’s
_Native Races_, iii. 313, v. 77; Short, 145, 209.

[385] A specimen is in M. V. Moore’s paper in the _Mag. of Amer.
Hist._ (1884), xii. 113, 354. There are various fugitive references to
Roman coins found often many feet under ground, in different parts of
America. See for such, Ortelius, _Theatrum orbis terrarum_; Haywood’s
_Tennessee_ (1820); _Hist. Mag._, v. 314; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, xiii.
457; Marcel de Serre, _Cosmogonie de Moise_, p. 32; and for pretended
Roman inscriptions, Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Nat. Civ. Méx._, preface;
_Journal de l’Instruction Publique_, Juin, 1853; Humboldt, _Exam.
Crit._, i. 166; Gaffarel in _Rev. de Géog._, ix. 427.

[386] _Procli commentarius in Platonis Timaeum. Rec. C. E. C.
Schneider. (Vratislaviae, 1847.) The Commentaries of Proclus on the
Timaeus of Plato. Translated by Thomas Taylor_, 2 vols. 4º. (London,
1820.) Proclus lived A.D. 412-485. The passages of importance are found
in the translation, vol. i. pp. 64, 70, 144, 148.

[387] Taylor, i. 64.

[388] _Procl. in Tim._ (Schneider), p. 126; Taylor, i. 148. Also in
_Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, ed. Mueller. (Paris, 1852), vol.
iv. p. 443.

[389] _Geogr._ ii. § 3, § 6 (p. 103).

[390] _Hist. Nat._, ii. 92.

[391] The Atlantis mentioned by Pliny in _Hist. Nat._, vi. 36, is
apparently entirely distinct from the Atlantis of Plato.

[392] Amm. Marc. xvii. 7, § 13. Fiunt autem terrarum motus modis
quattuor, aut enim brasmatiae sunt, ... aut climatiae ... aut
chasmatiae, qui grandiori motu patefactis subito voratrinis terrarum
partes absorbent, ut in Atlantico mare Europaeo orbe spatiosor insula,
etc. (Ed. Eyssenhardt, Berlin, 1871, p. 106).

[393] Martin, _Etudes sur le Timée_ (1841), i. 305, 306. The passage in
question is in _Schol. ad Rempubl._, p. 327, Plato, ed. Bekker, vol.
ix. p. 67.

[394] Cited in Aelian’s _Varia Historia_, iii. ch. 18. For the other
references see above, pp. 23, 25, 26.

[395] Ammianus Marcellinus (xv. 9) quotes from Timagenes (who wrote in
the first century a history of Gaul, now lost) a statement that some of
the Gauls had originally immigrated from very distant islands and from
lands beyond the Rhine (_ab insulis extimis_ confluxisse et tractibus
transrhenanis) whence they were driven by wars and the incursions of
the sea (Timag. in Mueller, _Frag. hist. of Graec._, iii. 323). It
would seem incredible that this should be dragged into the Atlantis
controversy, but such has been the case.

[396] Plutarch, _Solon_, at end. R. Prinz, _De Solonis Plutarchi
fontibus_ (Bonnæ, 1857).

[397] _De Pallio, 2, Apol._, p. 32. Also by Arnobius, _Adversus
gentes_, i. 5.

[398] Ed. Montfaucon, i. 114-125, ii. 131, 136-138, iv. 186-192, xii.
340.

[399] Gaffarel in _Revue de Géographie_, vi.

[400] _Platonis omnia opere cum comm. Proclii in Timaeum_, etc. (Basil.
Valderus, 1534).

[401] _Ex Platoni Timaeo particula, Ciceronis libro de universitate
respondens ... op. jo. Perizonii_ (Paris, Tiletanus, 1540; Basil. s.
a.; Paris, Morell, 1551). _Interpret. Cicerone et Chalcidio_, etc.
(Paris, 1579). _Le Timée de Platon, translaté du grec en français,
par L. le Roy_, etc. (Paris, 1551, 1581). _Il dialogo di Platone,
intitolato il Timaeo trad. da Sb. Erizzo, nuov. mandato en luce d. Gir.
Ruscellii_ (Venet. 1558).

[402] _Birchrodii Schediasma de orbe novo non novo_ (Altdorf, 1683).

[403] The representation of Sanson is reproduced on p. 18. The full
title of these curious maps is given by Martin, _Etudes sur le Timée_,
i. 270, _notes_.

[404] _Plato, ed. Stallbaum_ (Gothae, 1838); vii. p. 99, note E. See
also his _Prolegomena de Critia_, in the same volume, for further
discussion and references.

[405] Cluverius, _Introduct._, ed. 1729, p. 667.

[406] _Examination of the legend of Atlantis in reference to
protohistoric communications with America_, in the _Trans. Royal Hist.
Soc._ (Lond., 1885), iii. p. 1-46.

[407] W. S. Blackett, _Researches into the lost histories of America;
or, the Zodiac shown to be an old terrestrial map in which the Atlantic
isle is delineated_, etc. (London, 1883), p. 31, 32. The work is not
too severely judged by W. F. Poole, in the _Dial_ (Chicago), Sept. 84,
_note_. The author’s reasons for believing that Atlantis could not have
sunk are interesting in a way. The _Fourth Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_ (p.
251) calls it “a curiosity of literature.”

[408] E. F. Berlioux, _Les Atlantes: histoire de l’Atlantis, et de
l’Atlas primitif_ (Paris, 1883). It originally made part of the first
_Annuaire_ of the Faculté des lettres de Lyon (Paris, 1883).

[409] _Thesaurus Geogr._, 1587, under _Atlantis_. See also under
_Gades_ and _Gadirus_. On folio 2 of his _Theatrum orbis terrarum_ he
rejects the notion that the ancients knew America, but in the index,
under _Atlantis_, he says _forte America_.

[410] Bartolomé de las Casas, _Historia de las Indias. Ed. De la
Fuensanto de Valle and J. S. Rayon_ (Madrid, 1875), i. cap. viii. pp.
73-79.

[411] Taylor, in the introduction to the Timaeus, in his translation
of Plato, regards as almost impious the doubts as to the truth of the
narrative. _The Works of Plato_, vol. i. London, 1804.

[412] _Thes. Geogr._, s. v. _Gadirus_.

[413] _Athanasii Kircherii Mundus subterraneus in xii. libros digestus_
(Amsterd., 1678), pp. 80-83. He gives a cut illustrative of his views
on p. 82.

[414] _Historia orbis terrarum geographica et civilis_, cap. 5, § 2,
hist. insul. I. C. Becmann, 2d ed. (Francfort on Oder, 1680). Title
from British Museum, as I have been unable to see the work. The _Allg.
Deutsche Biographie_ says the first edition appeared in 1680. It was a
book of considerable note in its day.

[415] De la Borde, _Histoire abregée de la mer du Sud_ (Paris, 1791).

[416] J. B. G. M. Bory de St. Vincent, _Essais sur les isles Fortunées
et l’antique Atlantide_ (Paris, an xi. or 1803), ch. 7. Si les Canaries
et les autres isles de l’ocean Atlantique offrent les débris d’un
continent. pp. 427, etc. His map is given _ante_, p. 19.

[417] This is the second part of his _Iles de l’Afrique_ (Paris, 1848),
belonging to the series _L’Univers. Histoire et description de tous les
peuples_, etc. Cf. also his _Les îles fantastiques_ (Paris, 1845).

[418] G. R. Carli, _Delle Lettere Americane_, ii. (1780). Lettere, vii.
and following; especially xiii. and following.

[419] Lyell, _Elements of Geology_ (Lond., 1841), p. 141; and his
_Principles of Geology_, 10th ed. Buffon dated the separation of the
new and old world from the catastrophe of Atlantis. _Epoques de la
Nat._, ed. Flourens, ix. 570.

[420] _Quatres lettres sur la Méxique; Popul Vuh_, p. xcix, and his
_Sources de l’histoire primitive du Méxique_, section viii. pp. xxiv,
xxxiii, xxxviii and ix, in his edition of Diego da Landa, _Relation des
choses de Yucatan_ (Paris, 1864). H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iii.
112, 264, 480; v. 127, develops Brasseur’s theory. In his _Hist. Nat.
Civilisées_ he compares the condition of the Colhua kingdom of Xibalba
with Atlantis, and finds striking similarities. Le Plongeon in his
_Sacred Mysteries_ (p. 92) accepts Brasseur’s theory.

[421] A. Retzius, _Present state of Ethnology in relation to the form
of the human skull_ (Smithsonian Report, 1859), p. 266. The resemblance
is not indorsed by M. Verneau, who has lately made a detailed study of
the aborigines of the Canaries.

[422] F. Unger, _Die versunkene Insel Atlantis_ (Wien, 1860).
Translated in the _Journal of Botany_ (London), January, 1865. Asa Gray
had already called attention to the remarkable resemblance between the
flora of Japan and that of eastern North America, but had not found
the invention of a Pacific continent preferable to the hypothesis of
a progress of plants of the temperate zone round by Behring’s Strait
(_Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences_, vi. 377).
Unger’s theory has been also more or less urged in Heer’s _Flora
Tertiaria Helveticae_ (1854-58) and his _Urwelt der Schweitz_ (1865),
and by Otto Ule in his _Die Erde_ (1874), i. 27.

[423] _Sitzungsberichte der Math. Phys. Classe d. k. Akad. d.
Wissensch._ at Vienna, lvii. (1868) p. 12.

[424] The “Lost Atlantis” and the “Challenger” soundings, _Nature_, 26
April, 1877, xv. 553, with sketch map.

[425] J. Starkie Gardner, _How were the eocenes of England deposited?_
in _Popular Science Review_ (London), July, 1878, xvii. 282. Edw. H.
Thompson, _Atlantis not a Myth_, in _Popular Science Monthly_, Oct.,
1879, xv. 759; reprinted in _Journal of Science_, Lond., Nov. 1879.

[426] _Etude sur les rapports de l’Atlantis et de l’ancien continent
avant Colomb_ (Paris, 1869).

[427] _Revue de Géographie_, Mars, Avril, 1880, tom. vi. et vii.

[428] See p. 46.

[429] _Ultima teoria sobre la Atlantida._ A paper read before the
Geographical Society at Lisbon. I have seen only the epitome in
_Bolletino della Società Geografica Italiana_, xvi. (1879), p. 693.
Apparently the paper was published in 1881, in the proceedings of the
fourth congress of Americanists at Madrid.

[430] Winchell, _Preadamites, or a demonstration of the existence of
man before Adam_, etc. (Chicago, 1880), pp. 378 and fol.

[431] Ignatius Donnelly, _Atlantis: the Antediluvian World_ (N. Y.,
1882).

[432] His work is much more than a defence of Plato. He attempts to
show that Atlantis was the terrestrial paradise, the cradle of the
world’s civilization. I suppose it was his book which inspired Mrs. J.
Gregory Smith to write _Atla: a Story of the Lost Island_ (New York,
1886).

Donnelly’s book was favorably reviewed by Prof. Winchell (“Ancient Myth
and Modern Fact,” _Dial_, Chicago, April, 1882, ii. 284), who declared
that there was no longer serious doubt that the story was founded on
fact. His theory was enthusiastically adopted by Mrs. A. A. Knight in
_Education_ (v. 317), and somewhat more soberly by Rev. J. P. McLean in
the _Universalist Quarterly_ (Oct., 1882, xxxix. 436, “The Continent of
Atlantis”). I have not seen an article in _Kansas Review_ by Mrs. H. M.
Holden, quoted in _Poole’s Index_ (_Kan. Rev._, viii. 435; also, viii.
236, 640). It was more carefully examined and its claims rejected by
a writer in the _Journal of Science_ (London), (“Atlantis once more,”
June, 1883; xx. 319-327). W. F. Poole doubts whether Mr. Donnelly
himself was quite serious in his theorizing (“Discoveries of America:
the lost Atlantis theory,” _Dial_, Sept., 1884, v. 97). Lord Arundel
of Wardour controverted Donnelly in _The Secret of Plato’s Atlantis_
(London, 1885), and believes that the Atlantis fable originated in
vague reports of Hanno’s voyage—a theory hardly less remarkable than
the one it aims to displace. Lord Arundel’s book was reviewed in the
_Dublin Review_ (Plato’s “Atlantis” and the “Periplus” of Hanno), July,
1886, xcix. 91.

[433] Renard, M., _Report on the Petrology of St. Paul’s Rocks,
Challenger Report, Narrative_ (London, 1882), ii. Appendix B.

[434] _A search for “Atlantis” with the microscope_, in _Nature_, 9
Nov., 1882, xxvii. 25.

[435] _The microscopic evidence of a lost continent_, in _Science_, 29
June, 1883, i. 591.

[436] _Origines Celticae_ (London, 1883), i. 119, etc.

[437] _The discoveries of America to the year 1525_ (New York, 1884),
ch. 1. Cf. Poole’s review of this jejune Work, quoted above, for some
healthy criticism of this kind of writing (_Dial_, v. 97). Also a
notice in the _Nation_, July 31, 1884.

The scientific theory of Atlantis is, I believe, supported by M. Jean
d’Estienne in the _Revue des Questiones Scientifiques_, Oct., 1885, and
by M. de Marçay, _Histoire des descouvertes et conquêtes de l’Amerique_
(Limoges, 1881), but I have seen neither. H. H. Howorth, _The Mammoth
and the Flood_ (London, 1887), is struggling to revive the credit of
water as the chief agent in the transformations of the earth’s surface,
and relies much upon the deluge myths, but refuses to accept Atlantis.
He thinks the zoölogic evidence proves the existence in pleistocene
times of an easy and natural bridge between Europe and America, but
sees no need of placing it across the mid-Atlantic (p. 262).

[438] _The naturall and morall historie of the East and West Indies_,
etc., _written in Spanish by Joseph Acosta, and translated into English
by E. G[rimeston]_ (London, 1604), p. 72, 73 (lib. i. ch. 22).

[439] _Notitiae orbis antiquae_ (Amsterdam, 1703-6), 2 vols. The first
ed. was Cantab., 1703. “Atlantica insula Platonis quae similior fabulae
est quam chorographiae,” lib. i. cap. xi. p. 32. In the _Additamentum
de novo orbe an cognatus fuerit veteribus_ (tome ii. lib. iv. pp.
164-166) Cellarius speaks more guardedly, and quotes with approval the
judgment of Perizonius, which has been given above (p. 22).

[440] _Essai sur l’explication historique donnée par Platon de sa
République et de son Atlantide_ (in _Reflexions impartiales sur le
progrès réal ou apparent que les sciences et les arts ont faits dans
le xviii^e siècle en Europe_, Paris, 1780). The work is useful because
it contains the Greek text (from a MS. in the Bibl. du Roi. Cf. _MSS.
de la bibliothèque_, v. 261), the Latin translations of Ficinus and
Serranus, several French translations, and the Italian of Frizzo and of
Bembo.

[441] _Recherches sur les iles de l’océan Atlantique_, in the
_Recherches sur la géographie des anciens_, i. p. 146 (Paris, 1797).
Also in the French translation of Strabo (i. p. 268, note 3). Gosselin
thought that Atlantis was nothing more than Fortaventure or Lancerote.

[442] _Geogr. d. Griechen u. Römer_, i. 1, p. 59; ii. 1, p. 192. Cf.
Letronne’s _Essai sur les idées cosmographiques qui se rettachent au
nom d’Atlas_, in the _Bull. Univ. des sciences_ (Ferussac), March, 1831.

[443] _Examen Crit._, i. 167-180; ii. 192.

[444] _The dialogues of Plato, translated by B. Jowett_ (N. Y., 1873),
ii. p. 587 (Introduction to Critias).

[445] Bunbury, _History of ancient geography_, i. 402.

[446] _Etude sur le Timée de Platon_ (Paris, 1841), t. i. pp. 257-333.

[447] Paul Gaffarel, _Etude sur les rapports de l’Amérique et de
l’ancien continent avant Christophe Colomb_ (Paris, 1869), ch. 1er;
_L’Atlantide_, pp. 3-27. The same author has more lately handled the
subject more fully in a series of articles: _L’Atlantide_, in the
_Revue de Géographie_, April-July, 1880; vi. 241, 331, 421; vii.
21,—which is the most detailed account of the whole matter yet brought
together.

[448] One of the most recent résumés of the question is that by
Salone in the _Grande Encyclopédie_. (Paris, 1888, iv. p. 457). The
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, by the way, regards the account, “if not
entirely fictitious, as belonging to the most nebulous region of
history.”

A few miscellaneous references, of no great significance, may close
this list: _Amer. Antiquarian_, Sept., 1886; H. H. Bancroft, _Nat.
Races_, v. 123; J. S. Clarke’s _Progress of Maritime Discovery_, p.
ii. Geo. Catlin’s _Lifted and Subsided Rocks of America_ (Lond., 1870)
illustrates “The Cataclysm of the Antilles.” Dr. Chil, in the Nancy
_Congrès des Américanistes_, i. 163. Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, app.
E. Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._ Irving’s _Columbus_, app. xxii. Major’s
_Prince Henry_ (1868), p. 87. Nadaillac’s _Les Prem. Hommes_, ii. 114,
and his _L’ Amérique préhistorique_, 561. John B. Newman’s _Origin
of the Red Men_ (N. Y., 1852). Prescott’s _Mexico_, iii. 356. C. S.
Rafinesque’s incomplete _American Nations_ (Philad.), and his earlier
introduction to Marshall’s _Kentucky_, and his _Amer. Museum_ (1832).
Two articles by L. Burke in his _Ethnological Journal_ (London), 1848:
_The destruction of Atlantis_, July; _The continent of America known to
the ancient Egyptians and other nations of remote antiquity_, Aug. The
former article is only a reprint of Taylor’s trans. of Plato. Roisel’s
_Etudes ante-historiques_ (Paris, 1874), devoted largely to the
religion of the Atlanteans. Léon de Rosny’s “L’Atlantide historique” in
the _Mém. de la Soc. d’Ethnographie_ (Paris, 1875), xiii. 33, 159, or
_Revue Orientale et Américaine_. Short’s _No. Americans of Antiquity_,
ch. 11. Daniel Wilson’s _Lost Atlantis_ (Montreal, 1886), in _Proc. and
Trans. Roy. Soc. of Canada_, 1886, iv. Cf. also _Poole’s Index_, i. 73;
ii. 27; and Larousse’s _Grand Dictionnaire_.

[449] _Legends and Superstitions of the Sea and of Sailors in all Lands
and at all Times_ (Chicago and New York, 1885).

[450] _Légendes, croyances de la mer._ 2 vols. (Paris, 1886.) See ch. 9
in 1^{ere} série.

[451] _L’Elysée transatlantique et l’Eden Occidental_ (Mai-Juin,
Nov.-Dec., 1883), vii. 273; viii. 673.

[452] _Paradise Found: the Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole_
(Boston, 1885), 4th ed.

[453] Eumenius (?), in the third century A.D., is doubtful about the
existence even of the Fortunate Isles (i. e. the Canaries). _Eumenii
panegyricus Constantino Aug._, vii., in Valpy’s _Panegyrici veteres_
(London, 1828), iii. p. 1352. Baehrens credits this oration to an
unknown author. Mamertinus appears to know them from the poets only
(_Ibid._ p. 1529).

[454] _Saggio sulla nautica antica dei Veneziani_, n. p., n. d.
(Venice, 1783); French translation (Venice, 1788).

[455] _Il mappamondo di Fra Mauro descritto ed illustrato_ (Venice,
1806). _Di Marco Polo e degli altri viaggiatori veneziani ... con
append. sopra le antiche mappe lavorate in Venezia_ (Venice, 1818).

[456] ii. 156, etc.

[457] D’Avezac: _Iles d’Afrique_ (Paris, 1848) 2^e _partie_; _Iles
connues des Arabes_, pp. 15; _Les îles de Saint-Brandan_, pp. 19; _Les
îsles nouvellement trouvées du quinzième siècle_, pp. 24. The last
two pieces had been previously published under the title _Les îles
fantastiques de l’Ocean occidental au moyen âge_, in the _Nouvelles
Annales des Voyages_ (Mars, Avril, 1845), 2d série, i. 293; ii. 47.

[458] _Les îsles fantastiques de l’Atlantique au moyen âge._ Lyon
[1883], pp. 15. This is apparently extracted from the _Bulletin de la
Société de Géographie de Lyon_ for 1883.

[In _Poole’s Index_ is a reference to an article on imaginary islands
in _London Society_, i. 80, 150.]

[459] “Zur Geschichte der Erdkunde in der letzten Hälfte des
Mittelalters. Die Karten der seefahrenden Völker Süd-Europas bis zum
ersten Druck der Erdbeschreibung des Ptolemaeus.” _Jahresbericht_, vi.
vii. (1870). Accompanying the article are sketches of the principal
mediæval maps, which are useful if access to the more trustworthy
reproductions cannot be had.

[460] _Sammlung mittelalterlicher Welt- und Seekarten italienischen
Ursprungs_, etc. (Venice, 1886), especially pp. 14-22, and under the
notices of particular maps in the second part.

[461] _The Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, surnamed the Navigator_,
etc. London, 1868.

[462] The position of these islands and the fact that the Arabs
believed that they were following Ptolemy in placing in them the first
meridian seems almost conclusive in favor of the Canaries; but M.
D’Avezac is inclined in favor of the Azores, because the Arabs place in
the Eternal Isles certain pillars and statues warning against further
advance westward, which remind him of the equestrian statues of the
Azores, and because Ebn Sáyd states that the Islands of Happiness lie
between the Eternal Islands and Africa.

[463] D’Avezac, _Iles d’Afrique_, ii. 15. _Géographie d’Abul-Fada trad.
par M. Reinand et M. Guiyard_ (Paris, 1848-83). 2 vols. The first
volume contains a treatise on Arabian geographers and their systems.
_Géographie d’Edrisi trad. par M. Jaubert_ (Paris, 1836-40). 2 vols.
4to (Soc. de Géogr. de Paris, _Recueil de Voyages_, v., vi.) Cf.
Cherbonneau on the Arabian geographers in the _Revue de Géographie_
(1881).

[464] Humboldt, _Examen Crit._, ii. 163; D’Avezac, _Iles d’Afrique_,
ii. 19; St. Malo’s voyage by Beauvois, _Rev. Hist. Relig._, viii. 986.

[465] _Les voyages de Saint Brandan et des Papoe dans l’Atlantique au
moyen-âge_, published by the Soc. de Géogr. de Rochefort (1881). See
also his _Rapports de l’Amérique et de l’ancien continent_ (Paris,
1869), p. 173-183. The article _Brenden_ in Stephen’s _Dict. of
National Biography_, vol. vi. (London, 1886), should be consulted.

[466] 16 May; _Maii_, tom. ii. p. 699.

[467] _La légende latine de S. Brandaines, avec une traduction
inédite_, etc. (Paris, 1836). M. Jubinal gives a full account of all
manuscripts.

[468] _St. Brandan, a mediæval legend of the sea, in English prose and
verse_ (London, 1844). The student of the subject will find use for
_Les voyages de Saint Brandan à la recherche du paradis terrestre,
legend en vers du XII^e siècle, avec introduction par Francisque
Michel_ (Paris, 1878), and “La legende Flamande de Saint Brandan et du
bibliographie” by Louis de Backer in _Miscellanées bibliographiques_,
1878, p. 191.

[469] _Nova typis transacta navigatio._ _Novi orbis India
occidentalis_, etc. (1621), p. 11.

[470] Honoré d’Autun, _Imago Mundi_, lib. i. cap. 36. In _Maxima
Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum_ (Lugd., 1677), tom. xx. p. 971.

[471] Humboldt (_Examen Critique_, ii. 172) quotes these islands from
Sanuto Torsello (1306). They appear on a map of about 1350, preserved
in St. Mark’s Library at Venice (Wuttke, in _Jahresber. d. Vereins für
Erdkunde zu Dresden_, xvi. 20), as “_I fortunate I beate, 368,_” in
connection with _La Montagne de St. Brandan_, west of Ireland. They are
also in the Medicean Atlas of 1351, and in Fra Mauro’s map and many
others.

[472] _Noticias de la historia general de las islas de Canaria_, by
D. Jos. de Viera y Clavijo, 4 vols. 4to (Madrid, 1772-83). Humboldt,
_Examen_, ii. 167. D’Avezac, _Iles d’Afrique_, ii. 22, etc. _Les îles
fortunées ou archipel des Canaries_ [by E. Pégot-Ogier], 2 vols.
(Paris, 1862), i. ch. 13. Saint-Borondon (_Aprositus_), pp. 186-198.
_Teneriffe and its six satellites_, by O. M. Stone, 2 vols. (London,
1887), i. 319. This mirage probably explains the _Perdita_ of Honoré
and the _Aprositos_ of Ptolemy. Cf. O. Peschel’s _Abhandlungen zur
Erd- und Völkerkunde_ (Leipzig, 1877), i. 20. A similar story is
connected with Brazil.

[473] M. Buache in his _Mémoire sur l’Isle Antillia_ (_Mém. Inst. de
France, Sciences math. et phys._, vi., 1806), read on a copy of the
Pizigani map of 1367, sent to him from Parma, the inscription, _Ad
ripas Antilliae or Antullio_. Cf. Buache’s article in German in _Allg.
Geogr. Ephemeriden_, xxiv. 129. Humboldt (_Examen_, ii. 177) quotes
Zurla (_Viaggi_, ii. 324) as denying that such an inscription can be
made out on the original: but Fischer (_Sammlung von Welt-karten_,
p. 19) thinks this form of the name can be made out on Jomard’s
fac-simile. Wuttke, however, thinks that the word Antillia is not to
be made out, and gives the inscription as _Hoc sont statua q fuit
ut tenprs A cules_, and reads _Hoc sunt statuae quae fuerunt antea
temporibus Arcules = Herculis_ (Wuttke, _Zur Geschichte der Erdkunde
in der letzten Haelfte des Mittelalters_, p. 26, in _Jahresbericht des
Vereins für Erdkunde zu Dresden_, vi. and vii., 1870). The matter is
of interest in the story of the equestrian statue of Corvo. According
to the researches of Humboldt, this story first appears in print in
the history of Portugal by Faria y Sousa (_Epitome de las historias
Portuguezas_, Madrid, 1628. _Historia del Reyno de Portugal_, 1730),
who describes on the “Mountain of the Crow,” in the Azores, a statue
of a man on horseback pointing westward. A later version of the
story mentions a western promontory in _Corvo_ which had the form of
a person pointing westward. Humboldt (ii. 231), in an interesting
sketch, connects this story with the Greek traditions of the columns of
Hercules at Gades, and with the old opinion that beyond no one could
pass; and with the curious Arabic stories of numberless columns with
inscriptions prohibiting further navigation, set up by _Dhoulcarnain_,
an Arabian hero, in whose personality Hercules and Alexander the Great
are curiously compounded (see _Edrisi_). Humboldt quotes from Buache
a statement that on the Pizigani map of 1367 there is near Brazil
(Azores) a representation of a person holding an inscription and
pointing westward.

[474] Fernan Colomb, _Historia_, ch. 9; Horn, _De Originibus Amer._
p. 7, quoted by Gaffarel in his _Les îles fantastiques_, p. 3, _note_
1, 2. D’Avezac, _Iles d’Afrique_, ii. 27, quotes a similar passage
from Medina (_Arte naviguar_), who found it in the Ptolemy dedicated
to Pope Urban (1378-1389). According to D’Avezac (_Iles_, ii. 28),
a “geographical document” of 1455 gives the name as _Antillis_, and
identifies it with Plato’s _Atlantis_.

[475] Formaleoni, _Essai_, 148.

[476] D’Avezac marks as wrong the reading _Sarastagio_ of Humboldt.

[477] D’Avezac, _Iles d’Afrique_, ii. 29; Gaffarel, _Iles
fantastiques_, 12. Fischer (_Sammlung_, 20) translates _Satanaxio,
Satanshand_, but thinks the island of _Deman_, which appears on the
Catalan chart of 1375, is meant by the first half of the title. The
Catalan map, fac-similed by Buchon and Foster in the _Notices et
extraits des documents_, xiv. 2, has been more exactly reproduced in
the _Choix des documents géographiques conservées à la Bibl. Nat._
(Paris, 1883).

[478] Peter Martyr, in 1493, states that cosmographers had determined
that Hispaniola and the adjacent isles were _Antillae insulae_, meaning
doubtless the group surrounding Antillia on the old maps (_Decades_,
i. p. 11, ed. 1583); but the name was not popularly applied to the new
islands until after Wytfliet and Ortelius had so used it (Humboldt,
_Examen_, ii. 195, etc.). But Schöner, in the dedicatory letter of
his globe of 1523, says that the king of Castile through Columbus has
discovered _Antiglias Hispaniam Cubam quoque_ (Stevens, _Schöner_,
London, 1888, fac-simile of letter). In the same way the name Seven
Cities was applied to the pueblos of New Mexico by their first
discoverers, and Brazil passed from an island to the continent.

[479] Humboldt identified it with _Terceira_, but Fischer questions
whether St. Michael does not agree better with the easterly position
constantly assigned to Brazil.

[480] The Bianco map of 1436 has, on the ocean sheets, five groups
of small islands, from south to north: (1) Canaries; (2) Madeira and
Porto Santo; (3) _luto_ and _chapisa_; (4) _d. brasil, di colonbi,
d. b. ntusta, d. sanzorzi_; (5) _coriios_ and _corbo marinos_; (6)
_de ventura_; (7) _de brazil_. West of the third and fourth lies
_Antillia_, and N. W. of the fifth a corner of _de laman satanaxio_,
while west of six and seven are numerous small islands unnamed. On
the ocean sheet of the Bianco of 1448, we have (2) Madeira and Porto
Santo; (3) _licongi_ and _coruo marin_; (4) _de braxil, zorzi_, etc.;
(5) _coriios_ and _coruos marinos_; (6) _y. d. mam debentum_; (7) _y.
d. brazil d. binar_. There is no Antillia and no Satanaxio, but west
of (3) and (4) are two other groups: (1) _yd. diuechi marini, y de
falconi_; (2) _y fortunat de s^o. beati. blandan, dinferno, de ipauion,
beta ixola, dexerta_. There is not much to be hoped from such geography.

[481] Over against Africa he has an _Isola dei Dragoni_. On the
Pizigani map of 1367 the Brazil which lies W. of North France is
accompanied by a cut of two ships, a dragon eating a man, and a legend
stating that one cannot sail further on account of monsters. There was
a dragon in the Hesperian isles, and some have connected it with the
famous dragon-tree of the Canaries.

[482] _Examen_, ii. 216, etc.

[483] For an account of the Irish MSS. see Eugene O’Curry, _Lectures
on the MS. material of ancient Irish history_ (Dublin, 1861), lect.
ix. p. 181; H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Introduction a l’étude de la
littérature Celtique_, 2 vols. (Paris, 1883), i. chap. 8, p. 349, etc.;
also _Essai d’un catalogue de littérature épique d’Irlande_, by the
same author (Paris, 1883). For accounts of the voyages see O’Curry,
p. 252, and especially p. 289, where a sketch of that of the sons of
_Ua Corra_ is given. A list of the voyages is given by D’Arbois de
Jubainville in his _Essai_, under _Longeas_ (involuntary voyages) and
_Immram_ (voluntary voyages), with details about MSS. and references
to texts and translations (_Mailduin_, p. 151; _Ua Corra_, 152). See
also Beauvois, _Eden occidental, Rev. de l’Hist. des Relig._, viii.
706, 717, for voyages of _Mailduin_ and the sons of _Ua Corra_, and of
other voyages. Also Joyce, _Old Celtic romances_ (London, 1879). Is M.
Beauvois in earnest when he suggests that the talking birds discovered
by Mailduin (and also by St. Brandan) were probably parrots, and their
island a part of South America?

[484] The name is derived by Celtic scholars from _breas_, large, and
_i_, island.

[485] _Gulielmi de Worcester Itineraria_, ed. J. Nasmyth (Cantab.,
1778), p. 223, 267. I take the quotation from _Notes and Queries_, Dec.
15, 1883, 6th series, viii. 475. The latter passage is quoted in full
in _Bristol, past and present_, by Nicholls and Taylor (London, 1882),
iii. 292. Cf. H. Harrisse’s _C. Colomb._, i. 317.

[486] _Cal. State Papers, Spanish_, i. p. 177.

[487] _Irish Minstrelsy, or bardic remains of Ireland_, etc., 2 vols.
(London, 1831), i. 368.

[488] This is very nearly its position in the _Arcano del Mare_ of
Dudley, 1646 (Europe 28), where it is called “disabitata e incerta.”

[489] i. 369. _O-Brazile, or the enchanted island, being a perfect
relation of the late discovery and wonderful disenchantment of an
island on the North [sic] of Ireland_, etc. (London, 1675).

[490] John T. O’Flaherty, _Sketch of the History and antiquities of the
southern islands of Aran_, etc. (Dublin, 1884, in _Roy. Irish Acad.
Trans._, vol. xiv.)

[491] _On Hy Brasil, a traditional island off the west coast of
Ireland, plotted in a MS. map written by Le Sieur Tassin_, etc., in the
_Journal of the Royal Geological Society of Ireland_ (1879-80), vol.
xv. pt. 3, pp. 128-131, _fac-simile of map_.

[492] In an atlas issued 1866, I observe _Mayda_ and _Green Rock_.

[493] Harrisse would put it in 1482. See Vol. II. p. 90.

[494] Also in his _Bib. Amer. Vet._, p. xvi.

[495] The various versions of the letter are as follows: _Ulloa_
(_Historie_, 1571, ch. 8). Dalla città di Lisbona per dritto verso
ponente sono in detta carta ventisei spazi, ciascun de’ quali contien
dugento, & cinquanta miglia, fino alla ... città di Quisai, la quale
gira cento miglia, che sono trentacinque leghe.... Questo spazio e
quasi la terza parte della sfera.... E dalla’ Isola di Antilia, che
voi chiamate di sette città, ... fino alla ... isola di Cipango sono
dieci spazi, che fanno due mila & cinquecento miglia, cioè dugento, &
venticinque leghe.

_Barcia._ Hallareis en un mapa, que ai desde Lisboa, à la famosa ciudad
de Quisay, tomando el camino derecho à Poniente, 26 espacios, cada uno
de 150 millas. Quisai’ tiene 35 leguas de ambitu.... De la isla Antilla
hasta la de Cipango se quentan diez espacios, que hacen 225 leguas.

_Las Casas_: Y de la ciudad de Lisboa, en derecho por el Poniente, son
en la dicha carta 26 espacios, y en cada uno dellos hay 250 millas
hasta la ... ciudad de Quisay, la cual etiene al cerco 100 millas, que
son 25 leguas, ... (este espacio es cuasi la tercera parte de la sfera)
... é de la isla de Antil, ... Hasta la ... isla de Cipango hay 10
espacios que son 2,500 millas, es á sabre, 225 leguas.

_Columbus’s copy_: A civitate vlixiponis per occidentem indirecto sunt
.26. spacia in carta signata quorum quodlibet habet miliaria .250.
usque ad nobilisim[am], et maxima ciuitatem quinsay. Circuit enim
centum miliaria ... hoc spatium est fere tercia pars tocius spere....
Sed ab insula antilia vobis nota ad insulam ... Cippangu sunt decem
spacia.

[496] Cf. “Les îles Atlantique,” by Jacobs-Beeckmans in the _Bull. de
la Soc. géog. d’Anvers_, i. 266, with map.

[497] Of these collections, those of Kunstmann and Jomard are not
uncommon in the larger American libraries. A set of the Santarem series
is very difficult to secure complete, but since the description of
these collections in Vol. II. was written, a set has been secured for
Harvard College library, and I am not aware of another set being in
this country. The same library has the Ongania series. The maps in this
last, some of which are useful in the present study, are the following:—

1. Arabic marine map, xiiith cent. (Milan); 2. Visconte, 1311
(Florence); 3. Carignano, xivth cent. (Florence); 4. Visconte, 1318
(Venice); 5. Anonymous, 1351 (Florence); 6. Pizigani, 1373 (Milan);
7. Anon., xivth cent. (Venice); 8. Giroldi, 1426 (Venice); 9. Bianco,
1430, (Venice); 10. Anon., 1447 (Venice); 11. Bianco, 1448 (Milan);
12. Not issued; 13. Anon., Catalan, xvth cent. (Florence); 14. Leardo,
1452; 15. Fra Mauro, 1457 (Venice); 16. Cantino, 1501-3 (Modena). This
has not been issued in this series, but Harrisse published a fac-simile
in colors in connection with his _Les Corte-Real_, etc., Paris, 1883.
17. Agnese, 1554 (Venice). The names on these photographs are often
illegible; how far the condition of the original is exactly reproduced
in this respect it is of course impossible to say without comparison.

[498] The notions prevailing so far back as the first century are seen
in the map of Pomponius Mela in Vol. II. p. 180.

[499] Vol. II. p. 36.

[500] Lelewel (ii. 119) gives a long account of Sanuto and his maps,
and so does Kunstmann in the _Mémoires_ (vii. ch. 2, 1855) of the Royal
Bavarian Academy; but a more perfect inventory of his maps is given in
the _Studi biog. e bibliog._ of the Italian Geographical Society (1882,
i. 80; ii. 50). Cf. Peschel, _Gesch. der Erdkunde_, Ruge, ed. 1877, p.
210. Sanuto’s map of 1320 was first published in his _Liber Secretorum
fidelium crucis_ (Frankfort, 1811. Cf. reproduction in St. Martin’s
_Atlas_, pl. vi. no. 3). Further references are in Winsor’s _Kohl
Maps_, no. 12. It is in part reproduced by Santarem.

[501] Cf. _Amer. Geog. Soc. Journal_, xii. 177, and references in the
_Kohl Maps_, nos. 13 and 14.

[502] Vol. II. p. 38.

[503] Cf. references in Vol. II. 38.

[504] Cf. _Studi_, etc., ii. no. 392.

[505] Cf. Desimoni’s _Le carte nautiche Italiane del medio evo a
proposito di un libro del Prof. Fischer_ (Genoa, 1888).

[506] Cf. Vol. II. 38 for references; and Lelewel and Santarem’s
Atlases.

[507] Cf. _Studi_, etc., vol. ii. pp. viii, 67, 72, with references.

[508] Cf. Pietro Amat in the _Mem. Soc. Geografica_, Roma, 1878;
_Studi_, etc., ii. 75; Winsor’s _Bibliog. Ptolemy_, sub anno 1478.

[509] Cf. account of inaugurating busts of Fra Mauro and John Cabot,
in _Terzo Congresso Geografico internazionale_ (held at Venice, Sept.,
1881, and published at Rome, 1882), i. p. 33.

[510] Asa Gray, in _Darwiniana_, p. 203. Cf. his _Address_ before Amer.
Assoc. Adv. Science, 1827.

[511] The subject of these pre-Columbian claims is examined in almost
all the general works on early discovery. Cf. Robertson’s _America_;
J. S. Vater’s _Untersuchungen über Amerikas Bevölkerung aus dem alten
Continent_ (Leipzig, 1810); Dr. F. X. A. Deuber’s _Geschichte der
Schiffahrt im Atlantischen Ozean_ (Bamberg, 1814); Ruge, _Geschichte
des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_ (ch. 2); Major’s _Select Letters of
Columbus_, introd.; C. A. A. Zestermann’s _Memoir on the Colonization
of America in antehistoric times, with critical observations by E. G.
Squier_ (London, 1851); _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_ (ii. 404);
“Les précurseurs de Colomb” in _Études par les Pères de la Compagnie
de Jesus_ (Leipzig, 1876); Oscar Dunn in _Revue Canadienne_, xii. 57,
194, 305, 871, 909,—not to name numerous other periodical papers. Paul
Gaffarel, in his “Les relations entre l’ancien monde et l’Amérique
étaient-elles possibles au moyen âge?” (_Soc. Normande de Géog.
Bulletin_, 1881, p. 209), thinks that amid the confused traditions
there is enough to convince us that we have no right to determine that
communication was impossible.

[512] _MSS. de la bibliothèque royale_ (Paris, 1787), i. 462.

[513] De Costa in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ xii. (1880) p. 159, etc.,
with references.

[514] Humboldt, _Views of Nature_, p. 124. He also notes the drifting
of Eskimo boats to Europe.

[515] _Tratado de las cinco zonas habitables._

[516] Respecting these Christian Irish see the supplemental chapters of
Mallet’s _Northern Antiquities_ (London, 1847); Dasent’s _Burnt Njal_,
i. p. vii.; Moore’s _History of Ireland_; Forster’s _Northern Voyages_;
Worsaae’s _Danes and Norwegians in England_, 332. Cf. on the contact of
the two races H. H. Howorth on “The Irish monks and the Norsemen” in
the _Roy. Hist. Soc. Trans._ viii. 281.

[517] Conybeare remarks that jarl, naturalized in England as earl, has
been displaced in its native north by graf.

[518] It has sometimes been contended that a bull of Gregory IV, in
A.D. 770, referred to Greenland, but Spitzbergen was more likely
intended, though its known discovery is much later. A bull of A.D.
835, in Pontanus’s _Rerum Daniarum Historia_, is also held to indicate
that there were earlier peoples in Greenland than those from Iceland.
Sabin (vi. no. 22,854) gives as published at Godthaab, 1859-61, in 3
vols., the Eskimo text of Greenland Folk Lore, collected and edited by
natives of Greenland, with a Danish translation, and showing, as the
notice says, the traditions of the first descent of the Northmen in the
_eighth_ century.

[519] Known as the Katortuk church.

[520] An apocryphal story goes that one of these churches was built
near a boiling spring, the water from which was conducted through the
building in pipes for heating it! The Zeno narrative is the authority
for this. Cf. Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._ i. 79.

[521] The Westribygd, or western colony, had in the fourteenth century
90 settlements and 4 churches; the Eystribygd had 190 settlements, a
cathedral and eleven churches, with two large towns and three or four
monasteries.

[522] R. G. Haliburton, in the _Popular Science Monthly_, May, 1885, p.
40, gives a map in which Bjarni’s course is marked as entering the St.
Lawrence Gulf by the south, and emerging by the Straits of Belle Isle.

[523] Dated 1135, and discovered in 1824.

[524] Distinctly shown in the diverse identifications of these
landmarks which have been made.

[525] On the probabilities of the Vinland voyages, see Worsaae’s _Danes
and Norwegians in England_, etc., p. 109.

[526] _Grönland’s Hist. Mindesmaeker_, iii. 9.

[527] The popular confidence in this view is doubtless helped by
Montgomery, who has made it a point in his poem on Greenland, canto v.
De Courcy (_Hist. of the Church in America_, p. 12) is cited by Howley
(_Newfoundland_) as asserting that the eastern colony was destroyed by
“a physical cataclysm, which accumulated the ice.” On the question of a
change of climate in Greenland, see J. D. Whitney’s _Climatic Changes_
(_Mus. Comp. Zoöl. Mem._, 1882, vii. 238).

[528] Rink (_Danish Greenland_, 22) is not inclined to believe that
there has been any material climatic change in Greenland since the
Norse days, and favors the supposition that some portion of the finally
remaining Norse became amalgamated with the Eskimo and disappeared. If
the reader wants circumstantial details of the misfortunes of their
“last man,” he can see how they can be made out of what are held to be
Eskimo traditions in a chapter of Dr. Hayes’s _Land of Desolation_.

Nordenskjöld (_Voyage of the Vega_) holds, such is the rapid
assimilation of a foreign stock by a native stock, that it is not
unlikely that what descendants may exist of the lost colonists of
Greenland may be now indistinguishable from the Eskimo.

Tylor (_Early Hist. Mankind_, p. 208), speaking of the Eskimo, says:
“It is indeed very strange that there should be no traces found among
them of knowledge of metal-work and of other arts, which one would
expect a race so receptive of foreign knowledge would have got from
contact with the Northmen.”

Prof. Edward S. Morse, in his very curious study of _Ancient and Modern
Methods of Arrow Release_ (Salem, 1885,—_Bull. Essex Inst._, xvii.) p.
52, notes that the Eskimo are the only North American tribe practising
what he calls the “Mediterranean release,” common to all civilized
Europe, and he ventures to accept a surmise that it may have been
derived from the Scandinavians.

[529] Given by Schlegel, Egede (citing Pontanus), and Rafn; and a
French version is in the _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._, 2d series,
iii. 348. It is said to be preserved in a copy in the Vatican. M. F.
Howley, _Ecclesiastical Hist. of Newfoundland_ (Boston, 1888), p. 43,
however, says “Abbé Garnier mentions a bull of Pope Nicholas V, of date
about 1447, concerning the church of Greenland; but on searching the
Bullarium in the Propaganda library, Rome, in 1885, I could not find
it.”

[530] Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 146.

[531] E. B. Tylor on “Old Scandinavian Civilization among the modern
Esquimaux,” in the _Journal of the Anthropological Inst._ (1884),
xiii. 348, shows that the Greenlanders still preserve some of the
Norse customs, arising in part, as he thinks, from some of the lost
Scandinavian survivors being merged in the savage tribes. Their
recollection of the Northmen seems evident from the traditions
collected among them by Dr. Rink in his _Eskimoiske Eventyr og Sagn_
(Copenhagen, 1866); and their dress, and some of their utensils and
games, as it existed in the days of Egede and Crantz, seem to indicate
the survival of customs.

[532] _Cosmos_, Bohn’s ed., ii. 610; _Examen Crit._, ii. 148.

[533] Cf. _Geographie de Edrisi, traduite de l’arabe en français
d’après deux manuscrits de la bibliothèque du Roi, et accompagnée de
notes, par G. Amédée Jaubert_ (Paris, 1836-40), vol. i. 200; ii. 26.
Cf. _Recueil des Voyages et Mémoires de la Société de Géographie de
Paris_, vols. v., vi. The world-map by Edrisi does not indicate any
knowledge of this unknown world. Cf. copies of it in St. Martin’s
_Atlas_, pl. vi; Lelewel, _Atlas_, pl. x-xii; Peschel’s _Gesch. der
Erdkunde_, ed. by Ruge, 1877, p. 144; _Amer. Geog. Soc. Journal_,
xii. 181; _Allg. Geog. Ephemeriden_, ix. 292; Gerard Stein’s _Die
Entdeckungsreisen in alter und neuer Zeit_ (1883).

Guignes (_Mém. Acad. des Inscriptions_, 1761, xxviii. 524) limits the
Arab voyage to the Canaries, and in _Notices et Extraits des MSS. de
la bibliothèque du Roi_, ii. 24, he describes a MS. which makes him
believe the Arabs reached America; and he is followed by Munoz (_Hist.
del Nuevo Mondo_, Madrid, 1793). Hugh Murray (_Discoveries and Travels
in No. Amer._, Lond., 1829, i. p. II) and W. D. Cooley (_Maritime
Discovery_, 1830, i. 172) limit the explorations respectively to the
Azores and the Canaries. Humboldt (_Examen Crit._, 1837, ii. 137)
thinks they may possibly have reached the Canaries; but Malte Brun
(_Géog. Universelle_, 1841, i. 186) is more positive. Major (_Select
Letters of Columbus_, 1847) discredits the American theory, and in
his _Prince Henry_ agrees with D’Avezac that they reached Madeira.
Lelewel (_Géog. du Moyen Age_, ii. 78) seems likewise incredulous. S.
F. Haven (_Archæol. U. S._) gives the theory and enumerates some of
its supporters. Peschel (_Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_,
1858) is very sceptical. Gaffarel (_Etudes_, etc., p. 209) fails to
find proof of the American theory. Gay (_Pop. History U. S._, i. 64)
limits their voyage to the Azores.

[534] Given as A.D. 1380; but Major says, 1390. _Journal Royal Geog.
Soc._, 1873, p. 180.

[535] De Costa, _Verrazano the Explorer_ (N. Y., 1880), pp. 47, 63,
contends that Benedetto Bordone, writing his _Isole del Monde_ in 1521,
and printing it in 1528, had access to the Zeno map thirty years and
more earlier than its publication. This, he thinks, is evident from the
way in which he made and filled in his outline, and from his drawing
of “Islanda,” even to a like way of engraving the name, which is in
a style of letter used by Bordone nowhere else. Humboldt (_Cosmos_,
Bohn’s ed., ii. 611) has also remarked it as singular that the name
Frislanda, which, as he supposed, was not known on the maps before
the Zeni publication in 1538, should have been applied by Columbus to
an island southerly from Iceland, in his _Tratado de las cinco zonas
habitables_. Cf. De Costa’s _Columbus and the Geographers of the North_
(1872), p. 19. Of course, Columbus might have used the name simply
descriptively,—cold land; but it is now known that in a sea chart of
perhaps the fifteenth century, preserved in the Ambrosian library at
Milan, the name “Fixlanda” is applied to an island in the position of
Frislanda in the Zeno chart, while in a Catalan chart of the end of
the fifteenth century the same island is apparently called “Frixlanda”
(_Studi biog. e bibliog. della soc. geog. ital._, ii. nos. 400, 404).
“Frixanda” is also on a chart, A.D. 1471-83, given in fac-simile to
accompany Wuttke’s “Geschichte der Erdkunde” in the _Jahrbuch des
Vereins für Erdkunde_ (Dresden, 1870, tab. vi.).

[536] Irving’s _Columbus_ takes this view.

[537] J. P. Leslie’s _Man’s Origin and Destiny_, p. 114, for instance.

[538] Brevoort (_Hist. Mag._, xiii. 45) thinks that the “Isola Verde”
and “Isle de Mai” of the fifteenth-century maps, lying in lat. 46°
north, was Newfoundland with its adjacent bank, which he finds in one
case represented. Samuel Robertson (_Lit. & Hist. Soc. Quebec, Trans._
Jan. 16) goes so far as to say that certain relics found in Canada may
be Basque, and that it was a Basque whaler, named Labrador, who gave
the name to the coast, which the early Portuguese found attached to
it! We find occasional stories indicating knowledge of distant fishing
coasts at a very early date, like the following:—

“In the yeere 1153 it is written that there came to Lubec, a citie of
Germanie, one canoa with certaine indians, like unto a long barge,
which seemed to have come from the coast of Baccalaos, which standeth
in the same latitude that Germanie doth” (_Galvano_, Bethune’s edition,
p. 56).

[539] W. D. Whitney, _Life and Growth of Language_, p. 258, says: “No
other dialect of the old world so much resembles in structure the
American languages.” Cf. Farrar’s _Families of Speech_, p. 132; Nott
and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races_, 48; H. de Charencey’s _Des affinités
de la langue Basque avec les idiomes du Nouveau Monde_ (Paris and
Caen, 1867); and Julien Vinson’s “La langue basque et les langues
Américaines” in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (Nancy,
1875), ii. 46. On the other hand, Joly (_Man before Metals_, 316) says:
“Whatever may be said to the contrary, Basque offers no analogy with
the American dialects.”

These linguistic peculiarities enter into all the studies of this
remarkable stock. Cf. J. F. Blade’s _Etude sur l’origine des Basques_
(Paris, 1869); W. B. Dawkins in the _Fortnightly Review_, Sept., 1874,
and his _Cave Hunting_, ch. 6, with Brabrook’s critique in the _Journal
Anthropological Institute_, v. 5; and Julien Vinson on “L’Ethnographie
des Basques” in _Mém. de la Soc. d’Ethnographie, Session de 1872_, p.
49, with a map.

[540] But see Vol. III. 45; IV. 3. Forster (_Northern Voyages_, book
iii. ch. 3 and 4) contends for these pre-Columbian visits of the
European fishermen. Cf. Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1508.
The same currents and easterly trade-winds which helped Columbus might
easily have carried chance vessels to the American coasts, as we have
evidence, apparently, in the stern-post of a European vessel which
Columbus saw at Guadaloupe. Haven cites Gumilla (_Hist. Orinoco_, ii.
208) as stating that in 1731 a bateau from Teneriffe was thrown upon
the South American coast. Cf. J. P. Casselius, _De Navigationibus
fortuitis in Americam, ante Columbum factis_ (Magdeburg, 1742);
Brasseur’s _Popul Vuh_, introd.; Hunt’s _Merchants’ Mag._ xxv. 275.

[541] Francisque-Michel, _Le Pays Basque_, 189, who says that the
Basques were acquainted with the coasts of Newfoundland a century
before Columbus (ch. 9).

Humboldt (_Cosmos_, Eng. ed. ii. 142) is not prepared to deny such
early visits of the Basques to the northern fishing grounds. Cf.
Gaffarel’s _Rapport_, p. 212. Harrisse (_Notes on Columbus_, 80) goes
back very far: “The Basques and Northmen, we feel confident, visited
these shores as early as the seventh century.”

There are some recent studies on these early fishing experiences in
Ferd. Duro’s _Disquisiciones nauticas_ (1881), and in E. Gelcich’s
“Der Fischgang des Gascogner and die Entdeckung von Neufundland,” in
the _Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1883), vol.
xviii. pp. 249-287.

[542] Cf. M. Hamconius’ _Frisia: seu de viris erbusque Frisiæ
illustribus_ (Franckeræ, 1620), and L. Ph. C. v. d. Bergh’s _Nederlands
annspraak op de ontdekking van Amerika voor Columbus_ (Arnheim, 1850).
Cf. Müller’s _Catalogue_ (1877), nos. 303, 1343.

[543] Watson’s bibliog. in Anderson, p. 158.

A Biscayan merchant, a subject of Navarre, is also said to have
discovered the western lands in 1444. Cf. André Favyn, _Hist.
de Navarre_, p. 564; and G. de Henao’s _Averignaciones de las
Antigüedades? de Cantabria_, p. 25.

Galvano (Hakluyt Soc. ed., p. 72) recounts the story of a Portuguese
ship in 1447 being driven westward from the Straits of Gibraltar to
an island with seven cities, where they found the people speaking
Portuguese; who said they had deserted their country on the death of
King Roderigo. “All these reasons seem to agree,” adds Galvano, “that
this should be that country which is called Nova Spagna.”

It was the year (1491) before Columbus’ voyage that the English began
to send out from Bristol expeditions to discover these islands of the
seven cities, and others having the same legendary existence. Cf.
Ayala, the Spanish ambassador to England, in _Spanish State Papers_, i.
177. Cf. also Irving’s _Columbus_, app. xxiv., and Gaffarel’s _Etude
sur la rapports_, etc., p. 185.

[544] See Vol. II. p. 34.

[545] See Vol. II. p. 34, where is a list of references, which may be
increased as follows: Bachiller y Morales, _Antigüedades Americanas_
(Havana, 1845). E. de Freville’s _Mémoire sur le Commerce maritime
de Rouen_ (1857), i. 328, and his _La Cosmographie du moyen age, et
les découvertes maritimes des Normands_ (Paris, 1860), taken from the
_Revue des Sociétés Savantes_. Gabriel Gravier’s _Les Normands sur la
route des Indes_, (Rouen, 1880). Cf. _Congrès des Américanistes in
Compte Rendu_ (1875), i. 397.

[546] “Ethnography and Philology of America,” in H. W. Bates, _Central
America, West Indies, and South America_ (Lond., 1882). This was the
opinion of Prescott (_Mexico_, Kirk’s ed., iii. 398), and he based his
judgment on the investigations of Waldeck, Voyage dans la Yucatan, and
Dupaix, _Antiquités Méxicaines_. Stephens (_Central America_) holds
similar views. Cf. Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_, i. 327; ii. 43. Dall
(_Third Rep. Bur. Ethnol._, 146) says: “There can be no doubt that
America was populated in some way by people of an extremely low grade
of culture at a period even geologically remote. There is no reason for
supposing, however, that immigration ceased with these original people.”

[547] Cf. references in H. H. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, v. 39;
_Amerika’s Nordwest Küste; Neueste Ergebnisse ethnologischer Reisen_
(Berlin, 1883), and the English version, _The Northwest Coast of
America. Being Results of Recent Ethnological Researches from the
collections of the Royal Museums at Berlin. Published by the Directors
of the Ethnological Department_ (New York, 1883).

[548] Cf. his _Observations on some remains of antiquity_ (1796).

[549] Different shades of belief are abundant: F. Xavier de Orrio’s
_Solucion del gran problema_ (Mexico, 1763); Fischer’s _Conjecture sur
l’origine des Américaines_; Adair’s _Amer. Indians;_ G. A. Thompson’s
_New theory of the two hemispheres_ (London, 1815); Adam Hodgson’s
_Letters from No. Amer._ (Lond., 1824); J. H. McCulloh’s _Researches_
(Balt., 1829), ch. 10; D. B. Warden’s “Recherches sur les Antiquités
de l’Amérique” in the _Antiquités Méxicaines_ (Paris, 1834), vol. ii.;
E. G. Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_ (N. Y., 1851); Brasseur de Bourbourg’s
_Hist. des Nations Civilisées_, i. 7; José Perez in _Revue Orientale
et Américaine_ (Paris, 1862), vol. viii.; Bancroft’s _Native Races_,
v. 30, 31, with references; Winchell’s _Preadamites_, 397; a paper on
Asiatic tribes in North America, in _Canadian Institute Proceedings_
(1881), i. 171. Dabry de Thiersant, in his _Origine des Indiens du
nouv. monde_ (Paris, 1883), reopens the question, and Quatrefages
even brings the story of Moncacht-Ape (see _post_, Vol. V. p. 77) to
support a theory of frequent Asiatic communication. Tylor (_Early Hist.
Mankind_, 209) says that the Asiatics must have taught the Mexicans to
make bronze and smelt iron; and (p. 339) he finds additional testimony
in the correspondence of myths, but Max Müller (_Chips_, ii. 168)
demurs. Nadaillac, in his _L’Amérique préhistorique_, discussed this
with the other supposable connections of the American people, and
generally disbelieved in them; but Dall, in the English translation,
summarily dismisses all consideration of them as unworthy a scientific
mind; but points out what the early Indian traditions are (p. 526).

A good deal of stress has been laid at times on certain linguistic
affiliations. Barton, in his _New Views_, sought to strengthen the
case by various comparative vocabularies. Charles Farcy went over
the proofs in his _Antiquités de l’Amérique: Discuter la valeur des
documents relatifs à l’histoire de l’Amérique avant la conquête des
Européens, et déterminer s’il existe des rapports entre les langues
de l’Amérique et celles des tribus de l’Afrique et de l’Asie_ (Paris,
1836). H. H. Bancroft (_Native Races_, v. 39) enumerates the sources of
the controversy. Roehrig (_Smithsonian Report_, 1872) finds affinities
in the languages of the Dakota or Sioux Indians. Pilling (_Bibliog. of
Siouan languages_, p. 11) gives John Campbell’s contributions to this
comparative study. In the _Canadian Institute Proceedings_ (1881), vol.
i. p. 171, Campbell points out the affinities of the Tinneh with the
Tungus, and of the Choctaws and Cherokees with the Koriaks. Cf. also
_Ibid_., July, 1884. Dall and Pinart pronounce against any affinity of
tongues in the _Contributions to Amer. Ethnology_ (Washington), i. 97.
Cf. Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._, 494; Leland’s _Fusang_, ch. 10.

[550] Behring’s Straits, first opened, as Wallace says, in quaternary
times, are 45 miles across, and are often frozen in winter. South
of them is an island where a tribe of Eskimos live, and they keep
constant communication with the main of Asia, 50 miles distant, and
with America, 120 miles away. Robertson solved the difficulty by
this route. Cf. _Contributions to Amer. Ethnology_ (1877), i. 95-98;
Warden’s _Recherches_; Maury, in _Revue des deux Mondes_, Ap. 15, 1858;
Peschel’s _Races of Men_, p. 401; F. von Hellwald in _Smithsonian
Report_, 1866; Short, p. 510; Bancroft, _Native Races_, v. 28, 29, 54;
and Chavanne’s _Lit. of the Polar Regions_, 58, 194—the last page shows
a list of maps. Max Müller (_Chips_, ii. 270) considers this theory a
postulate only.

[551] _Contrib. to Amer. Ethnology_, i. 96; Lyell’s _Principles of
Geology_, 8th ed., 368; A. Ragine’s _Découverte de l’Amérique du
Kamtchatka et des îles Aléoutiennes_ (St. Petersburg, 1868, 2d ed.);
Pickering’s _Races of Men_; Peschel’s _Races of Men_, 397; Morgan’s
_Systems of Consanguinity_. Dall (_Tribes of the Northwest_, in
Powell’s _Rocky Mountain Region_, 1877, p. 96) does not believe in the
Aleutian route.

On the drifting of canoes for long distances see Lyell’s _Principles of
Geology_, 11th ed., ii. 472; Col. B. Kennon in Leland’s _Fousang; Rev.
des deux Mondes_, Apr., 1858; Vining, ch. 1. Cf. Alphonse Pinart’s “Les
Aléoutes et leur origine,” in _Mém. de la Soc. d’Ethnographie, session
de 1872_, p. 155.

[552] Cf. references in H. H. Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 54. We have
an uncorroborated story of a Tartar inscription being found. Cf. Kalm’s
_Reise_, iii. 416; _Archæologia_ (London, 1787), viii. 304.

[553] Gomara makes record of such floating visitors in the beginning
of the sixteenth century. Horace Davis published in the _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._ (Apr., 1872) a record of Japanese vessels driven upon the
northwest coast of America and its outlying islands in a paper “On the
likelihood of an admixture of Japanese blood on our northwest coast.”
Cf. A. W. Bradford’s _American Antiquities_ (N. Y., 1841); Whymper’s
_Alaska_, 250; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 52, with references;
_Contributions to Amer. Ethnol._, i. 97, 238; De Roquefeuil’s _Journal
du Voyage autour du Monde_ (1876-79), etc. It is shown that the great
Pacific current naturally carries floating objects to the American
coast. Davis, in his tract, gives a map of it. Cf. Haven, _Archæol. U.
S._, p. 144; _Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc._ (1883), xv. p. 101, by Thomas
Antisell; and _China Review_, Mar., Apr., 1888, by J. Edkins.

[554] _Recherches sur les navigations des Chinois du côte de l’Amérique
et sur quelques peuples situés à l’extrémité orientale de l’Asie_
(Paris, 1761). It is translated in Vining, ch. 1.

[555] _Examen Critique_, ii. 65, and _Ansichten der Natur_, or _Views
of Nature_, p. 132.

[556] Much depends on the distance intended by a Chinese _li_. Klaproth
translated the version as given by an early Chinese historian of the
seventh century, Li Yan Tcheou, and Klaproth’s version is Englished in
Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 33-36. Klaproth’s memoir is also translated
in Vining, ch. 3. Some have more specifically pointed to Saghalien,
an island at the north end of the Japan Sea. Brooks says there is a
district of Corea called Fusang (_Science_, viii. 402). Brasseur says
the great Chinese encyclopædia describes Fusang as lying east of Japan,
and he thinks the descriptions correspond to the Cibola of Castañeda.

[557] Again with a commentary in _The Continental Mag._ (New York, vol.
i.). Subjected to the revision of Neumann, it is reproduced in Leland’s
_Fusang_ (Lond., 1875). Cf. Vining, ch. 6, who gives also (ch. 10) the
account in Shan-Hai-king as translated by C. M. Williams in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, April, 1883.

[558] The pamphlets are translated in Vining, ch. 4 and 5. Paravey
held to the Mexican theory, and he at least convinced Domenech (_Seven
years’ residence in the great deserts of No. Amer._, Lond., 1860).
Paravey published several pamphlets on subjects allied to this. His
_Mémoire sur l’origine japonaise, arabe et basque de la civilisation
des peuples du plateau de Bogota d’après les travaux de Humboldt et
Siebold_ (Paris, 1835) is a treatise on the origin of the Muyscas or
Chibchas. Jomard, in his _Les Antiquités Américaines au point de vue
des progrès de la géographie_ (Paris, 1817) in the _Bull. de la Soc.
Géog._, had questioned the Asiatic affiliations, and Paravey replied
in a _Réfutation de l’opinion émise par Jomard que les peuples de
l’Amérique n’ont jamais en aucun rapport avec ceux de l’Asie_ (Paris,
1849), originally in the _Annales de philosophie Chrétienne_ (May,
1849).

[559] Also in the _Rev. Archéologique_ (vols. x., xi.), and epitomized
in Leland. Cf. also Dr. A. Godron on the Buddhist mission to America
in _Annales des Voyages_ (Paris, 1864), vol. iv., and an opposing view
by Vivien de St. Martin in _L’Année géographique_ (1865), iii. p. 253,
who was in turn controverted by Brasseur in his _Monuments Anciens du
Méxique_.

[560] This paper is reprinted in Leland.

[561] Cf. also his _Variétés Orientales_, 1872; and his “L’Amérique,
etait-elle connue des Chinois à l’époque du déluge?” in the _Archives
de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., iii. 191.

[562] S. W. Williams, in the _Journal of the American Oriental Soc._
(vol. xi.), in controverting the views of Leland, was inclined to find
Fusang in the Loo-choo Islands. This paper was printed separately as
_Notices of Fusang and other countries lying east of China in the
Pacific ocean_ (New Haven, 1881).

[563] A good deal of labor has been bestowed to prove this identity of
Fusang with Mexico. It is held to be found in the myths and legends
of the two people by Charency in his _Mythe de Votan, étude sur les
origines asiatiques de la civilisation américaine_ (Alençon, 1871),
drawn from the _Actes de la Soc. philologique_ (vol. ii.); and he has
enforced similar views in the _Revue des questions historiques_ (vi.
283), and in his _Djemschid et Quetzalcohuatl. L’histoire légendaire de
la Nouvelle-Espagne rapprochée de la source indo-européenne_ (Alençon,
1874). Humboldt thought it strange, considering other affinities,—as
for instance in the Mexican calendars,—that he could find no Mexican
use of phallic symbols; but Bancroft says they exist. Cf. _Native
Races_, iii. 501; also see v. 40, 232; Brasseur’s _Quatre Lettres_, p.
202; and John Campbell’s paper on the traditions of Mexico and Peru as
establishing such connections, in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Amér._
(Nancy, 1875), i. 348. Dr. Hamy saw in a monument found at Copan an
inscription which he thought was the Taë-kai of the Chinese, the symbol
of the essence of all things (_Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._, 1886, and
_Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xvi. 242, with a cut of the
stone). Dall controverts this point (_Science_, viii. 402).

Others have dwelt on the linguistic resemblances. B. S. Barton in
his _New Views_ pressed this side of the question. The presence of a
monosyllabic tongue like the Otomi in the midst of the polysyllabic
languages of Mexico has been thought strongly to indicate a survival.
Cf. Manuel Najera’s _Disertacion sobre la lengua Othomi_, Mexico,
1845, and in _Amer. Philos. Soc. Trans._, n. s., v.; Ampère’s
_Promenade en Amérique_, ii. 301; Prescott’s _Mexico_, iii. 396;
Warden’s _Recherches_ (in Dupaix), p. 125; Latham’s _Races of Men_,
408; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iii. 737; v. 39, with references. Others
find Sanskrit roots in the Mexican. E. B. Tylor has indicated the
Asiatic origin of certain Mexican games (_Journal of the Anthropol.
Inst._, xxiv.). Ornaments of jade found in Nicaragua, while the stone
is thought to be native only in Asia, is another indication, and they
are more distinctively Asiatic than the jade ornaments found in Alaska
(_Peabody Mus. Reports_, xviii. 414; xx. 548; _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._,
Jan., 1886).

On the general question of the Asiatic origin of the Mexicans see
Dupaix’s _Antiquités Méxicaines_, with included papers by Lenoir,
Warden, and Farcy; the _Report_ on a railroad route from the
Mississippi, 1853-54 (Washington); Whipple’s and other _Reports_ on the
Indian tribes; John Russell Bartlett’s _Personal Narrative_ (1854);
Brasseur’s _Popul Vuh_, p. xxxix; Viollet le Duc’s belief in a “yellow
race” building the Mexican and Central American monuments, in Charnay’s
_Ruines Américaines_, and Charnay’s traces of the Buddhists in the
_Popular Science Monthly_, July, 1879, p. 432; Le Plongeon’s belief
in the connection of the Maya and Asiatic races in _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, Apr. 30, 1879, p. 113; and some papers on the ancient Mexicans
and their origin by the Abbé Jolibois, Col. Parmentier, and M. Emile
Guimet, which, prepared for the Soc. de Géog. de Lyon, were published
separately as _De l’origine des Anciens Peuples du Méxique_ (Lyon,
1875).

A few other incidental discussions of the Fusang question are these: R.
H. Major in _Select Letters of Columbus_ (1847); J. T. Short in _The
Galaxy_ (1875) and in his _No. Americans of Antiquity_; Nadaillac in
his _L’Amérique préhistorique_, 544; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._ calls
the story vague and improbable. In periodicals we find: _Gentleman’s
Mag._, 1869, p. 333 (reprinted in _Hist. Mag._, Sept., 1869, xvi. 221),
and 1870, reproduced in _Chinese Recorder_, May, 1870; Nathan Brown in
_Amer. Philolog. Mag._, Aug., 1869; Wm. Speer in _Princeton Rev._, xxv.
83; _Penn Monthly_, vi. 603; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Apr., 1883, p. 291;
_Notes and Queries_, iii. 58, 78; iv. 19; _Notes and Queries in China
and Japan_, Apr., May, 1869; Feb., 1870. Chas. W. Brooks maintained
on the other hand (_Proc. California Acad. Sciences_, 1876; cf.
Bancroft’s _Native Races_, v. 51), that the Chinese were emigrants from
America. There is a map of the supposed Chinese route to America in
the _Congrès des Américanistes_ (Nancy, 1875), vol. i.; and Winchell,
_Pre-Adamites_, gives a chart showing different lines of approach from
Asia. Stephen Powers (_Overland Monthly_, Apr., 1872, and _California
Acad. Sciences_, 1875) treats the California Indians as descendants of
the Chinese,—a view he modifies in the _Contrib. to Amer. Ethnology_,
vol. iii., on “Tribes of California.” It is claimed that Chinese coin
of the fifteenth century have been found in mounds on Vancouver’s
Island. Cf. G. P. Thurston in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, xiii. p. 457. The
principal lists of authorities are those in Vining (app.), and Watson’s
in Anderson’s _America not discovered by Columbus_.

[564] From Easter Island to the Galapagos is 2,000 miles, thence to
South America 600 more. On such long migrations by water see Waitz,
_Introduction to Anthropology_, Eng. transl., p. 202. On early modes of
navigation see Col. A. Lane Fox in the _Journal Anthropological Inst._
(1875), iv. 399. Otto Caspari gives a map of post-tertiary times in his
_Urgeschichte der Menschheit_ (Leipzig, 1873), vol. i., in which land
is made to stretch from the Marquesas Islands nearly to South America;
while large patches of land lie between Asia and Mexico, to render
migration practicable. Andrew Murray, in his _Geographical Distribution
of Mammals_ (London, 1866), is almost compelled to admit (p. 25) that
as complete a circuit of land formerly crossed the southern temperate
regions as now does the northern; and Daniel Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_,
holds much the same opinion. The connection of the flora of Polynesia
and South America is discussed by J. D. Hooker in the _Botany of the
Antarctic Voyage of the Erebus and Terror, 1839-43_, and in his _Flora
of Tasmania_. Cf. _Amer. Journal of Science and Arts_, Mar., May, 1854;
Jan., May, 1860.

[565] _Races of Men._

[566] _Compte Rendu_, 1877, p. 79; 1883, p. 246; the latter
being called “Polynesian Antiquities, a link between the ancient
civilizations of Asia and America.” Further discussions of the
Polynesian migrations will be found as follows: A. W. Bradford’s _Amer.
Antiquities_ (N. Y., 1841); Gallatin (_Am. Eth. Soc. Trans._, i. 176)
disputed any common linguistic traces, while Bradford thought he found
such; Lesson and Martinet’s _Les Polynésiens, leur origine, leurs
migrations, leur langage_; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 344; Jules
Garnier’s “Les migrations polynésiennes” in _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog.
de Paris_, Jan., June, 1870; G. d’Eichthal’s “Etudes sur l’histoire
primitive des races océaniennes et Américaines” in _Mem. de la Soc.
Ethnologique_ (vol. ii.); Marcoy’s _Travels in South America_; C.
Staniland Wake’s _Chapters on Man_, p. 200; a “Rapport de la Polynésie
et l’Amérique” in the _Mémoires de la Soc. Ethnologique_, ii. 223; A.
de Quatrefages de Bréau’s _Les Polynésiens et leurs migrations_ (Paris,
1866), from the _Revue des deux Mondes_, Feb., 1864; O. F. Peschel in
_Ausland_, 1864, p. 348; W. H. Dall in _Bureau of Ethnology Rept._,
1881-82, p. 147. Allen’s paper, already referred to, gives references.

[567] Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 44, with references, p. 48, epitomizes
the story. Cf. Short, 151. There was a tradition of giants landing on
the shore (Markham’s _Cieza de Leon_, p. 190). Cf. Forster’s _Voyages_,
43.

[568] A belief in the Asiatic connection has taken some curious forms.
Montesinos in his _Memorias Peruanas_ held Peru to be the Ophir
of Solomon. Cf. Gotfriedus Wegner’s _De Navigationis Solomonæis_
(Frankfort, 1689). Horn held Hayti to be Ophir, and he indulges in some
fantastic evidences to show that the Iroquois, _i. e._ Yrcas, were
Turks! Cf. Onffroy de Thoron in _Le Globe_, 1869. C. Wiener in his
_L’Empire des Incas_ (ch. 2, 4) finds traces of Buddhism, and so does
Hyde Clarke in his _Khita-Peruvian Epoch_ (1877). Lopez has written
on _Les Races Aryennes de Pérou_ (1871). Cf. Robert Ellis, _Peruvia
Scythica_. _The Quicha Language of Peru, its derivation from Central
Asia with the American languages in general_ (London, 1875). Grotius
held that the Peruvians were of Chinese stock. Charles Pickering’s
ethnological map gives a Malay origin to the islands of the Gulf of
Mexico and a part of the Pacific coast, the rest being Mongolian.

[569] The story is given in English by De Costa (_Pre-Columbian Disc.
of America_, p. 85) from the _Landnámabók_, no. 107. Cf. _Saga of
Thorfinn Karlsefne_, ch. 13, and that of Erik the Red. Leif is said in
the sagas to have met shipwrecked white people on the coasts visited by
him (_Hist. Mag._, xiii. 46).

[570] _Antiquitates Americanæ_, 162, 183, 205, 210, 211, 212, 214, 319,
446-51.

[571] Brinton in _Hist. Mag._, ix. 364; Rivero and Tschudi’s _Peru_.

[572] Schöning’s _Heimskringla_. _Grönlands Historiske Mindesmærker_,
i. 150.

[573] _Eyrbyggja Saga_, ch. 64, and given in English in De Costa’s
_Pre-Columbian Discovery_, p. 89. Cf. Sir Walter Scott’s version of
this saga and the appendix of Mallet’s _Northern Antiquities_

[574] Traces of Celtic have been discovered by some of the
philologists, when put to the task, in the American languages. Cf.
Humboldt, _Relation Historique_, iii. 159. Lord Monboddo held such a
theory.

[575] Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, 176. One of the earliest
accounts which we have of the Cherokees is that by Henry Timberlake
(London, 1765), and he remarks on their lighter complexion as
indicating a possible descent from these traditionary white men.

[576] Richard Broughton’s _Monasticon Britannicum_ (London, 1655), pp.
131, 187.

[577] _A Memoir on the European Colonization of America in antehistoric
times_ was contributed to the _Proceedings_ of the American
Ethnological Society in 1851, to which E. G. Squier added some notes,
the original paper being by Dr. C. A. A. Zestermann of Leipzig. The
aim was to prove, by the similarity of remains, the connection of the
peoples who built the mounds of the Ohio Valley with the early peoples
of northwestern Europe, a Caucasian race, which he would identify
with the settlers of Irland it Mikla, and with the coming of the
white-bearded men spoken of in Mexican traditions, who established a
civilization which an inundating population from Asia subsequently
buried from sight. This European immigration he places at least
1,200 years before Christ. Squier’s comments are that the monumental
resemblances referred to indicate similar conditions of life rather
than ethnic connections.

The other advocate was Eugène Beauvois in a paper published in the
_Compte Rendu du Congrès des Américanistes_ (Nancy, 1875, p. 4) as _La
découverte du nouveau monde par les irlandais et les premières traces
du christianisme en Amérique avant l’an 1000_, accompanied by a map, in
which he makes Irland it Mikla correspond to the provinces of Ontario
and Quebec. Again, in the session at Luxembourg in 1877, he endeavored
to connect the Irish colony with the narrative of the seaman in the
Zeno accounts, in a paper which he called _Les Colonies Européennes
du Markland et de l’Escociland au xiv. Siècle, et les vestiges qui
en subsistèrent jusqu’aux xvi^e et xvii^e Siècles_, and in which
he identifies the Estotiland of the Frislanda mariner. M. Beauvois
again, at the Copenhagen meeting of the same body, read a paper on
_Les Relations précolumbiennes des Gaels avec le Méxique_ (Copenhagen,
1883, p. 74), in which he elicited objections from M. Lucien Adam.
Beauvois belongs to that class of enthusiasts somewhat numerous in
these studies of pre-Columbian discoveries, who have haunted these
Congresses of Americanists, and who see overmuch. Other references to
these Irish claims are to be found in Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 186;
Beamish’s _Discovery of America_ (London, 1841); Gravier’s _Découverte
de l’Amérique_, p. 123, 137, and his _Les Normands sur la route, etc._,
ch. 1; Gaffarel’s _Etudes sur les rapports de l’Amérique_, pp. 201,
214; Brasseur’s introd. to his _Popul Vuh_; De Costa’s _Pre-Columbian
Discovery_, pp. xviii, xlix, lii; Humboldt’s _Cosmos_ (Bohn), ii. 607;
Rask in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 21; _Journal London Geog.
Soc._, viii. 125; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, i. 53; and K. Wilhelmi’s
_Island, Hvitramannaland, Grönland und Vinland, oder Der Norrmänner
Leben auf Island und Grönland und deren Fahrten nach Amerika schon über
500 Jahre vor Columbus_ (Heidelberg, 1842).

[578] The account in the Landnámabók is briefly rehearsed in ch. 8 of
C. W. Paijkull’s _Summer in Iceland_ (London, 1868).

[579] There are various editions, of which the best is called that
of Copenhagen, 1843. The _Islendingabók_, a sort of epitome of a
lost historical narrative, is considered an introduction to the
_Landnámabók_. Much of the early story will be found in Latin in the
_Islenzkir Annáler, sive Annales Islandici ab anno Christi 803 ad anno
1430_ (Copenhagen, 1847); in the _Scripta historica Islandorum de rebus
veterum Borealium_, published by the Royal Soc. of Northern Antiquaries
at Copenhagen, 1828-46; and in Jacobus Langebek’s _Scriptores Rerum
Danicarum medii ævi_ (Copenhagen, 1772-1878,—the ninth volume being a
recently added index).

[580] A convenient survey of this early literature is in chapter 1 of
the _History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North, from the most
ancient times to the present, by Frederick Winkel Horn, revised by the
author, and translated by Rasmus B. Anderson_ (Chicago, 1884). The text
is accompanied by useful bibliographical details. Cf. B. F. De Costa in
_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ (1880), xii. 159.

[581] Saxo Grammaticus acknowledges his dependence on the Icelandic
sagas, and is thought to have used some which had not been yet put into
writing.

[582] Baring-Gould in his _Iceland, its Scenes and Sagas_ (London,
1863) gives in his App. D a list of thirty-five published sagas,
sixty-six local histories, twelve ecclesiastical annals, and sixty-nine
Norse annals. Cf. the eclectic list in Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 17.

Konrad Maurer has given an elaborate essay on this early literature
in his _Ueber die Ausdrücke: altnordische, altnorwegische und
isländische Sprache_ (Munich, 1867), which originally appeared in the
_Abhandlungen_ of the Bavarian Academy.

G. P. Marsh translated P. E. Müller’s “Origin, progress, and decline
of Icelandic historical literature” in _The American Eclectic_ (N.
Y., 1841,—vols. i., ii.). In 1781, Lindblom printed at Paris a French
translation of Bishop Troil’s _Lettres sur l’Islande_, which contained
a catalogue of books on Iceland and an enumeration of the Icelandic
sagas. (Cf. Pinkerton’s _Voyages_, vol. i.) Chavanne’s _Bibliography of
the Polar Regions_, p. 95, has a section on Iceland.

Solberg’s list of illustrative works, appended to Anderson’s version
of Horn’s _Lit. of the Scandinavian North_, is useful so far as the
English language goes. Periodical contributions also appear in _Poole’s
Index_ (p. 622) and _Supplement_, p. 214.

Burton (_Ultima Thule_, i. 239) enumerates the principal writers on
Iceland from Arngrimur Jónsson down, including the travellers of this
century.

[583] The more general histories of Scandinavia, like Sinding’s English
narrative,—not a good book, but accessible,—yield the comparisons more
readily.

[584] There are also German (Gotha, 1844-75) and French versions
(Paris). The best German version, _Geschichte Schwedens_ (Hamburg and
Gotha, 1832-1887), is in six volumes, a part of the _Geschichte der
europäischen Staaten_. Vol. 1-3, by E. G. Geijer, is translated by O.
P. Leffler; vol. 4, by F. F. Carlson, is translated by J. G. Petersen;
vol. 5, 6, by F. F. Carlson.

[585] Published in German at Lübeck in 1854 as _Das heroische Zeitalter
der Nordisch-Germanischen Völker und die Wikinger-Züge_.

[586] Maurer had long been a student of Icelandic lore, and his
_Isländische Volkssagen der Gegenwart gesammelt und verdeutscht_
(Leipzig, 1860) is greatly illustrative of the early north. Conybeare
(_Place of Iceland in the History of European Institutions_, preface)
says: “To any one writing on Iceland the elaborate works of the learned
Maurer afford at once a help and difficulty: a help in so far as they
shed the fullest light upon the subjects; a difficulty in that their
painstaking completeness has brought together well-nigh everything that
can be said.”

[587] What is known as the Kristni Saga gives an account of this
change. Cf. Eugène Beauvois, _Origines et fondation du plus ancien
évêché du nouveau monde. Le diocèse de Gardhs en Grœnland, 986-1126_
(Paris, 1878), an extract from the _Mémoires de la Soc. d’Histoire,
etc., de Beaune_; C. A. V. Conybeare’s _Place of Iceland in the
history of European institutions_ (1877); Maurer’s _Beiträge zur
Rechtsgeschichte des germanischen Nordens_; Wheaton’s _Northmen_;
Worsaae’s _Danes and Norwegians in England_, p. 332; Jacob Rudolph
Keyser’s _Private Life of the Old Northmen_, as translated by M.
R. Barnard (London, 1868), and his _Religion of the Northmen_, as
translated by B. Pennock (N. Y., 1854); _Quarterly Review_, January,
1862; and references in McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, under
Iceland.

[588] Such are the Swedish work of A. M. Strinhold, known in the German
of E. F. Frisch as _Wikingzüge, Staatsverfassung und Sitten der alten
Scandinaver_ (Hamburg, 1839-41).

A summarized statement of life in Iceland in the early days is held to
be well made out in Hans O. H. Hildebrand’s _Lifvet þå Island under
Sagotiden_ (Stockholm, 1867), and in A. E. Holmberg’s _Nordbon under
Hednatiden_ (Stockholm). J. A. Worsaae published his _Vorgeschichte des
Nordens_ at Hamburg in 1878. It was improved in a Danish edition in
1880, and from this H. F. Morland Simpson made the _Prehistory of the
North, based on contemporary materials_ (London, 1886), with a memoir
of Worsaae (d. 1885), the foremost scholar in this northern lore.

[589] This book is recognized as one of the best commentaries and most
informing books on Icelandic history, and this writer’s introduction
to Gudbrand Vigfússon’s _Icelandic-English Dictionary_ (3 vols.,
Cambridge, Eng., 1869, 1870, 1874) is of scholarly importance.

[590] The millennial celebration of the settlement of Iceland in 1874
gave occasion to a variety of books and papers, more or less suggestive
of the early days, like Samuel Kneeland’s _American in Iceland_
(Boston. 1876); but the enumeration of this essentially descriptive
literature need not be undertaken here.

[591] _Antiquitates Americanæ_, pp. 1-76, with an account of the
Greenland MSS. (p. 255). Müller’s _Sagenbibliothek_. Arngrimur
Jónsson’s _Grönlandia_ (Iceland, 1688). A fac-simile of the title is
in the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_, ii., no. 1356. A translation by Rev.
J. Sephton is in the _Proc. Lit. and Philos. Soc. of Liverpool_, vol.
xxxiv. 183, and separately, Liverpool, 1880. There is a paper in the
_Jahresbericht der geographischen Gesellschaft in München für 1885_
(Munich, 1886), p. 71, by Oskar Brenner, on “Grönland im Mittelalter
nach einer altnorwegischen Quelle.”

Some of the earliest references are: Christopherson Claus’ _Den
Grölandske Chronica_ (Copenhagen, 1608), noticed in the _Carter-Brown
Catalogue_, ii., no. 64. Gerald de Veer’s _True and perfect description
of three voyages_ speaks in its title (_Carter-Brown_, ii. 38) of “the
countrie lying under 80 degrees, which is thought to be Greenland,
where never man had been before.” Antoine de la Sale wrote between 1438
and 1447 a curious book, printed in 1527 as _La Salade_, in which he
refers to Iceland and Greenland (Gronnellont), where white bears abound
(Harrisse, _Bib. Am. Vet._, no. 140).

[592] This book is now rare. Dufossé prices it at 50 francs; F. S.
Ellis,—London. 1884, at £5.5.0. Before Torfæus, probably the best
known book was Isaac de la Peyrère’s _Relation du Groenland_ (Paris,
1647). It is one of the earliest books to give an account of the
Eskimos. It was again printed in 1674 in _Recueil de Voyages du Nord_.
A Dutch edition at Amsterdam in 1678 (_Nauwkenrige Beschrijvingh van
Groenland_) was considerably enlarged with other matter, and this
edition was the basis of the German version published at Nuremberg,
1679. Peyrère’s description will be found in English in a volume
published by the Hakluyt Society in 1855, where it is accompanied
by two maps of the early part of the seventeenth century. Cf.
Carter-Brown, ii., no. 1192, note; Sabin, x. p. 70.

[593] Pilling (_Eskimo Bibliog._, p. 20) gives the most careful account
of editions. Cf. Sabin, v. 66. A Dutch translation at Haarlem in 1767
was provided with better and larger maps than the original issue; and
this version was again brought out with a changed title in 1786. There
was a Swedish ed. at Stockholm in 1769, and a reprint of the original
German at Leipzig in 1770, and it is included in the _Bibliothek der
neuesten Reisebeschreibungen_ (Frankfort, 1779-1797), vol. xx. Cf.
Carter-Brown, ii., nos. 1443, 1576, 1577, 1671, 1728.

[594] This constitutes in 3 vols. a sort of supplement to the
_Antiquitates Americanæ_, Cf. _Dublin Review_, xxvii. 35; _Bulletin de
la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, 3d ser., vol. vi., and a synopsis of the
_Mindesmæker_ in _The Sacristy_, Feb. 1, 1871 (London).

[595] The principal ruin is that of a church, and it will be found
represented in the Antiquitates Americanæ, and again by Nordenskjöld,
Steenstrup, J. T. Smith (_Discovery of America_, etc.), Horsford; and,
not to name more, in Hayes’s _Land of Desolation_ (and in the French
version in _Tour du Monde_, xxvi.).

[596] Rafn in his _Americas arctiske landes Gamle Geographie efter de
Nordiske Oldskrifter_ (Copenhagen, 1845) gives the seals of some of the
Greenland bishops, various plans of the different ruins, a view of the
Katortok church with its surroundings, engraving of the different runic
inscriptions, and a map of the Julianehaab district.

[597] This tendency of the Scandinavian writers is recognized among
themselves. Horn (Anderson’s translation, 324) ascribes it to “an
unbridled fancy and want of critical method rather than to any wilful
perversion of historical truth. This tendency owed its origin to an
intense patriotism, a leading trait in the Swedish character, which on
this very account was well-nigh incorrigible.”

[598] Dasent translates from the preface to _Egils Saga_ (Reikjavik,
1856): “The sagas show no wilful purpose to tell untruths, but simply
are proofs of _the beliefs and turns of thought of men in the age when
the sagas were reduced to writing_” (_Burnt Njal_, i. p. xiii).

[599] Rink (_Danish Greenland_, p. 3) says of the sagas that “they
exist only in a fragmentary condition, and bear the general character
of popular traditions to such a degree that they stand much in need
of being corroborated by collateral proofs, if we are wholly to rely
upon them in such a question as an ancient colonization of America.”
So he proceeds to enumerate the kind of evidence, which is sufficient
in Greenland, but is wholly wanting in other parts of America, and to
point out that the trustworthiness of the sagas of the Vinland voyages
exists only in regard to their general scope.

Dasent, in the introduction of Vigfússon’s _Icelandic Dictionary_,
says of the sagas: “Written at various periods by scribes more or less
fitted for the task, they are evidently of very varying authority.”
The Scandinavian authorities class the sagas as mythical histories, as
those relating to Icelandic history (subdivided into general, family,
personal, ecclesiastical), and as the lives of rulers.

[600] Anderson’s translation, _Lit. of the Scand. North_, p. 81.

[601] Laing (_Heimskringla_, i. 23) says: “Arne Magnussen was the
greatest antiquary who never wrote; his judgments and opinions are
known from notes, selections, and correspondence, and are of great
authority at this day in the saga literature. Torfæus consulted him in
his researches.”

[602] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 20.

[603] Oswald Moosmüller’s _Europäer in Amerika vor Columbus_
(Regensburg, 1879, p. 4) enumerates the manuscripts in the royal
library in Copenhagen.

[604] A. E. Wollheim’s _Die Nat. lit. der Scandinavier_ (Berlin,
1875-77), p. 47. Turner’s _Anglo Saxons_, book iv. ch. 1. Mallet’s _No.
Antiq._ (1847), 393

[605] Cf. G. H. Pertz, _Monumenta Germaniæ historica_, 1846, vol. vii.
cap. 247. Of the different manuscripts, some call Vinland a “regio” and
others an “insula.”

[606] Discovered in the seventeenth century in a monastery on an
island close by the Icelandic coast, and now in the royal library
in Copenhagen. Cf. Laing’s introduction to his edition of the
_Heimskringla_, vol. i. p. 157. Horn says of this codex: “The book was
written towards the end of the fourteenth century by two Icelandic
priests, and contains in strange confusion and wholly without criticism
a large number of sagas, poems, and stories. No other manuscript
confuses things on so vast a scale.” Anderson’s translation of Horn’s
_Lit. of the Scandin. North_, p. 60. Cf. _Flateyjarbok. En Samling af
Norske Konge-Sagaer med indskudte mindre fortællinger om Begivenheder i
og Udenfor Norge samt Annaler_ (Christiania, 1860); and Vigfússon’s and
Unger’s edition of 1868, also at Christiania. The best English account
of the _Codex Flatoyensis_ is by Gudbrand Vigfússon in the preface to
his _Icelandic Sagas_, published under direction of the Master of the
Rolls, London, 1887, vol. i. p. xxv.

[607] For texts, see C. C. Rafn’s edition of _Kong Olaf Tryggvesons
Saga_ (Copenhagen, 1826), and Munch’s edition of _Kong Olaf
Tryggvesön’s Saga_ (Christiania, 1853). Cf. also P. A. Munch’s _Norges
Konge-Sagaer_ of Snorri Sturleson, Sturla Thordsson, etc. (Christiania,
1859).

[608] The _Codex Flatoyensis_ says that it was sixteen winters after
the settlement of Greenland before Leif went to Norway, and that in the
next year he sailed to Vinland.

[609] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 21.

[610] These sagas are given in Icelandic, Danish, and Latin in Rafn’s
_Antiquitates Americanæ_ (Copenhagen, 1837). Versions or abstracts,
more or less full, of all or of some of them are given by Beamish, in
his _Discovery of America by the Northmen_ (London, 1841), whose text
is reprinted by Slafter, in his _Voyages of the Northmen_ (Boston,
1877). J. Elliot Cabot, in the Mass. Quart. Review, March, 1849,
copied in part in Higginson’s _Amer. Explorers_. Blackwell, in his
supplementary chapters to Mallet’s _Northern Antiquities_ (London,
Bohn’s library). B. F. De Costa, in his _Pre-Columbian Discovery of
America_ (Albany, 1868). Eben Norton Horsford, in his _Discovery of
America by Norsemen_ (Boston, 1888). Beauvois, in his _Découvertes
des Scandinaves en Amérique_ (Paris, 1859). P. E. Müller, in his
_Sagabibliothek_ (Copenhagen, 1816-20), and a German version of part
of it by Lachmann, _Sagenbibliothek des Scandinavischen Alterthums in
Aussügen_ (Berlin, 1816).

[611] When, however, Peringskiöld edited the Heimskringla, in 1697,
he interpolated eight chapters of a more particular account of the
Vinland voyages, which drew forth some animadversions from Torfæus in
1705, when he published his _Historia Vinlandiæ_. It was later found
that Peringskiöld had drawn these eight chapters from the _Codex
Flatoyensis_, which particular MS. was unknown to Torfæus. When Laing
printed his edition of the _Heimskringla, The Sea Kings of Norway_
(London, 1844), he translated these eight chapters in his appendix
(vol. iii. 344). Laing (_Heimskringla_, i. 27) says: “Snorro Sturleson
has done for the history of the Northmen what Livy did for the history
of the Romans,”—a rather questionable tribute to the verity of the saga
history, in the light of the most approved comments on Livy. Cf. Horn,
in Anderson’s translation, _Lit. of the Scandinavian North_ (Chicago,
1884), p. 56, with references, p. 59.

[612] J. Fulford Vicary’s _Saga Time_ (Lond., 1887). Some time in the
fifteenth century, a monk, Thomas Gheysmer, made an abridgment of Saxo,
alleging that he “had said much rather for the sake of adornment than
in behalf of truth.” The Canon Christiern Pederson printed the first
edition of Saxo at Paris in 1514 (Anderson’s Horn’s _Lit. Scandin.
North_, p. 102). This writer adds: “The entire work rests exclusively
on oral tradition, which had been gathered by Saxo, and which he
repeated precisely as he had heard it, for in the whole chronicle there
is no trace of criticism proper.... Saxo must also undoubtedly have
had Icelandic sagamen as authorities for the legendary part of his
work; but there is not the slightest evidence to show that he ever had
a written Icelandic saga before him.... In this part of the work he
betrays no effort to separate fact from fiction, ... and he has in many
instances consciously or unconsciously adorned the original material.”
Horn adds that the last and best edition is that of P. E. Müller and J.
Velchow, _Saxonis Grammatici Historia Danica_ (Copenhagen, 1839).

[613] Humboldt (_Crit. Exam._, ii. 120) represented that Ortelius
referred to these voyages in 1570; but Palfrey (_Hist. New England_, i.
51) shows that the language cited by Humboldt was not used by Ortelius
till in his edition of 1592, and that then he referred to the Zeno
narrative.

[614] See _post_, Vol. IV. p. 492.

[615] His account is followed by Malte Brun in his _Précis de la
Géographie_ (i. 395). Cf. also _Annales des Voyages_ (Paris, 1810), x.
50, and his _Géographie Universelle_ (Paris, 1841). Pinkerton, in his
_Voyages_ (London, 1814), vol. xvii., also followed Torfæus.

[616] J. J. Wahlstedt’s _Iter in Americam_ (Upsala, 1725). Cf. _Brinley
Catal._, i. 59.

[617] _Observatio historica ad Frisonum navigatione fortuita in
Americam sec. xi. facta_ (Magdeburg, 1741).

[618] _Franklin’s Works_, Philad., 1809, vol. vi.; Sparks’s ed., viii.
69.

[619] This is the book which furnished the text in an English dress
(London, 1770) known as _Northern Antiquities_, and a part of his
account is given in the _American Museum_ (Philad., 1789). In the
Edinburgh edition of 1809 it is called: _Northern antiquities: or a
description of the manners, customs, religion and laws, of the ancient
Danes, including those of our Saxon ancestors. With a translation
of the Edda and other pieces, from the ancient Icelandic tongue.
Translated from “L’introduction à l’histoire de Dannemarc, &c.,” par
Mons. Mallet. With additional notes by the English translator [Bishop
Percy], and Goranson’s Latin version of the Edda_. In 2 vols. The
chapters defining the locations are omitted, and others substituted, in
the reprint of the _Northern Antiquities_ in Bohn’s library.

[620] There are French and English versions.

[621] Edinburgh, 1818; Boston, 1831.

[622] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1865, p. 184.

[623] _Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopædia._

[624] Allibone, iii. 2667.

[625] Irving, in reviewing the book in the _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1832,
avoided the question of the Norse discovery. (Cf. his _Spanish Papers_,
vol. ii., and Rice’s _Essays from the No. Am. Rev._) C. Robinson, in
his _Discoveries in the West_ (ch. 1), borrows from Wheaton.

[626] Octavo ed., i. pp. 5, 6.

[627] Orig. ed., iii. 313; last revision, ii. 132.

[628] This society, Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift-Selskab, since 1825,
has been issuing works and periodicals illustrating all departments
of Scandinavian archæology (cf. Webb, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._,
viii. 177), and has gathered cabinets and museums, sections of which
are devoted to American subjects. C. C. Rafn’s _Cabinet d’antiquités
Américaines à Copenhague_ (Copenhagen, 1858); _Journal of the Royal
Geographical Society_, xiv. 316; Slafter’s introd. to his _Voyages of
the Northmen_.

[629] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 81; _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1865; _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1865, p. 273; _To-day_, ii.
176.

[630] Professor Willard Fiske has paid particular attention to the
early forms of the Danish in the Icelandic literature. In 1885 the
British Museum issued a _Catalogue of the books printed in Iceland
from A.D. 1578 to 1880 in the library of the British Museum_. In 1886
Mr. Fiske privately printed at Florence _Bibliographical Notices, i.:
Books printed in Iceland, 1578-1844, a supplement to the British Museum
Catalogue,_ which enumerates 139 titles with full bibliographical
detail and an index. He refers also to the principal bibliographical
authorities. Laing’s introduction to the _Heimskringla_ gives a survey.

[631] Cf. list of their several issues in Scudder’s _Catal. of Scient.
Serials_, nos. 640, 654, and the Rafn bibliography in Sabin, xvi. nos.
67,466-67,486. In addition to its Danish publications, the chief of
which interesting to the American archæologist being the _Antiquarisk
Tidsskrift_ (1845-1864), sometimes known as the _Revue Archéologique
et Bulletin_, the society, under its more familiar name of Société
Royale des Antiquaires du Nord, has issued its _Mémoires_, the first
series running from 1836 to 1860, in 4 vols., and the second beginning
in 1866. These contain numerous papers involving the discussion of the
Northmen voyages, including a condensed narrative by Rafn, “Mémoire sur
la découverte de l’Amérique au 10^e siècle,” which was enlarged and
frequently issued separately in French and other languages (1838-1843),
and is sometimes found in English as a _Supplement to the Antiquitates
Americanæ_, and was issued in New York (1838) as _America discovered
in the tenth century_. In this form (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii.
187) it was widely used here and in Europe to call attention to Rafn’s
folio, _Antiquitates Americanæ_.

The _Mémoires_ also contained another paper by Rafn, _Aperçu de
l’ancienne géographie des régions arctiques de l’Amérique, selon les
rapports contenus dans les Sagas du Nord_ (Copenhagen, 1847), which
also concerns the Vinland voyages, and is repeated in the _Nouvelles
Annales des Voyages_ (1849), i. 277.

[632] _Antiqvitates Americanæ sive scriptores septentrionales rerum
ante-Columbianarum in America. Samling af de i nordens oldskrifter
indeholdte efterretninger om de gamle nordboers opdagelsesreiser
til America fra det 10de til det 14de aarhundrede. Edidit Societas
regia antiquariorum Septentrionalium_ (Hafniæ, 1837). CONTENTS:
Præfatio.—Conspectus codicum membraneorum, in quibus terrarum
Americanarum mentio fit.—America discovered by the Scandinavians in
the tenth century. (An abstract of the historical evidence contained
in this work.)—Pættir af Eireki Rauda ok Grænlendingum.—Saga Porfinns
Karlsefnis ok Snorra Porbrandssonar.—Breviores relationes: De
inhabitatione Islandiæ; De inhabitatione Grœnlandiæ; De Ario Maris
filio; De Björne Breidvikensium athleta; De Gudleivo Gudlœgi filio;
Excerpta ex annalibus Islandorum; Die mansione Grœnlandorum in locis
Borealibus; Excerpta e geographicis scriptis veterum Islandorum; Carmen
Færöicum, in quo Vinlandiæ mentio fit; Adami Bremensis Relatio de
Vinlandia; Descriptio quorumdam monumentorum Europæorum, quæ in oris
Grönlandiæ ocidentalibus reperta et detecta sunt; Descriptio vetusti
monumenti in regione Massachusetts reperti; Descriptio vetustorum
quorundam monumentorum in Rhode Island.—Annotationes geographicæ;
Islandia et Grönlandia; Indagatio Arctoarum Americæ regionum.—Indagatio
Orientalium Americæ regionum.—Addenda et emendanda.—Indexes. The larger
works are in Icelandic, Danish, and Latin.

Cf. also his _Antiquités Américaines d’après les monuments historiques
des Islandais et des anciens Scandinaves_ (Copenhagen, 1845). An
abstract of the evidence is given in the _Journal of the Royal
Geographical Society_ (viii. 114), and it is upon this that H. H.
Bancroft depends in his _Native Races_ (v. 106). Cf. also _Ibid._ v.
115-116; and his _Cent. America_, i. 74. L. Dussieux in his _Les Grands
Faits de l’Histoire de la Géographie_ (Paris, 1882; vol. i. 147, 165)
follows Rafn and Malte-Brun. So does Brasseur de Bourbourg in his
_Hist. de Nations Civilisées_, i. 18; and Bachiller y Morales in his
_Antigüedades Americanas_ (Havana, 1845).

Great efforts were made by Rafn and his friends to get reviews of his
folio in American periodicals; and he relied in this matter upon Dr.
Webb and others, with whom he had been in correspondence in working up
his geographical details (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, ii. 97, 107; viii.
189, etc.), and so late as 1852 he drafted in English a new synopsis
of the evidence, and sent it over for distribution in the United
States (_Ibid._ ii. 500; _New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi.; _N. E.
Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1853, p. 13). So far as weight of character went,
there was a plenty of it in his reviewers: Edward Everett in the _No.
Amer. Rev._, Jan., 1838; Alexander Everett in the _U. S. Magazine and
Democratic Review_ (1838); George Folsom in the _N. Y. Review_ (1838);
H. R. Schoolcraft in the _Amer. Biblical Repository_ (1839). Cf. _Mass.
Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 182-3; _Poole’s Index_, 28, 928.

[633] Bohn’s ed., English transl., ii. 603; Lond. ed., 1849, ii.
233-36. Humboldt expresses the opinion that Columbus, during his
visit to Iceland, got no knowledge of the stories, so little an
impression had they made on the public mind (_Cosmos_, Bohn, ii.
611), and that the enemies of Columbus in his famous lawsuit, when
every effort was made to discredit his enterprise, did not instance
his Iceland experience, should be held to indicate that no one in
southern Europe believed in any such prompting at that time. Wheaton
and Prescott (_Ferdinand and Isabella_, orig. ed., ii. 118, 131) hold
similar opinions. (Cf. Vol. II. p. 33.) Dr. Webb says that Irving
held back from accepting the stories of the saga, for fear that they
could be used to detract from Columbus’ fame. Rafn and his immediate
sympathizers did not fail to make the most of the supposition that
Columbus had in some way profited by his Iceland experience. Laing
thinks Columbus must have heard of the voyages, and De Costa (_Columbus
and the Geographers of the North_) thinks that the bruit of the
Northmen voyages extended sufficiently over Europe to render it
unlikely that it escaped the ears of Columbus. Cf. further an appendix
in Irving’s _Columbus_, and Mallet’s _Northern Antiquities_, Bohn’s
ed., 267, in refutation of the conclusions of Finn Magnusen in the
_Nordisk Tidsskrift_. It has been left for the unwise and overtopped
advocates of a later day, like Goodrich and Marie A. Brown, to go
beyond reason in an indiscriminate denunciation of the Genoese. The
latter writer, in her _Icelandic Discoverers of America_ (Boston,
1888), rambles over the subject in a jejune way, and easily falls into
errors, while she pursues her main purpose of exposing what she fancies
to be a deep-laid scheme of the Pope and the Catholic Church to conceal
the merits of the Northmen and to capture the sympathies of Americans
in honoring the memory of Columbus in 1892. It is simply a reactionary
craze from the overdone raptures of the school of Roselly de Lorgues
and the other advocates of the canonization of Columbus, in Catholic
Europe.

[634] This book is for the sagas the basis of the most useful book
on the subject, Edmund Farwell Slafter’s _Voyages of the Northmen
to America_. _Including extracts from Icelandic Sagas relating to
Western voyages by Northmen in the 10th and 11th centuries in an
English translation by Nathaniel Ludlow Beamish; with a synopsis of
the historical evidence and the opinion of professor Rafn as to the
places visited by the Scandinavians on the coast of America_. _With
an introduction_ (Boston, 1877), published by the Prince Society.
Slafter’s opinion is that the narratives are “true in their general
outlines and important features.”

[635] _Island, Huitramannaland, Grönland und Vinland_ (Heidelberg,
1842).

[636] _Die Entdeckung von Amerika durch die Isländer im zehnten
und eilften Jahrhundert_ (Braunschweig, 1844). Cf. E. G. Squier’s
_Discovery of America by the Northmen, a critical review of the works
of Hermes, Rafn and Beamish_ (1849).

[637] Cf. his paper in the _Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc. Trans._, 1865.

[638] Beauvois also made at a later period other contributions to the
subject: _Les derniers vestiges du Christianisme prêchés du X^e au
XIV^e siècles dans le Markland et le Grande-Irlande, les porte-croix de
la Gaspésie at de l’Arcadie_ (Paris, 1877) which appeared originally
in the _Annales de philosophie Chrétiennes_, Apr., 1877; and _Les
Colonies européennes du Markland at de l’Escociland au XIV^e siècle
et les vestiges qui en subsistèrent jusqu’aux XVI^e et XVII^e siècle_
(Luxembourg, 1878), being taken from the _Compte Rendu_ of the
Luxembourg meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes.

[639] _Prehistoric Man_, 3d ed., ii. 83, 85. Cf. also his _Historic
Footprints in America_, extracted from the _Canadian Journal_, Sept.,
1864.

[640] Joseph Williamson, in the _Hist. Mag._, Jan., 1869 (x. 30),
sought to connect with the Northmen certain ancient remains along the
coast of Maine.

[641] He was rather caustically taken to account by Henry Cabot Lodge,
in the _No. Am. Review_, vol. cxix. Cf. Michel Hardy’s _Les Scandinaves
dans l’Amérique du Nord_ (Dieppe, 1874). An April hoax which appeared
in a Washington paper in 1867, about some runes discovered on the
Potomac, had been promptly exposed in this country (_Hist. Mag._, Mar.
and Aug., 1869), but it had been accepted as true in the _Annuaire de
la Société Américaine_ in 1873, and Gaffarel (_Etudes sur les Rapports
de l’Amérique avant Columbus_, Paris, 1869, p. 251) and Gravier (p.
139) was drawn into the snare. (Cf. Whittlesey’s _Archæol. frauds_ in
the _Western Reserve Hist. Soc. Tracts_, no. 9, and H. W. Haynes in
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1888, p. 59.) In a later monograph,
_Les Normands sur la route des Indes_ (Rouen, 1880), Gravier, while
still accepting the old exploded geographical theories, undertook
further to prove that the bruits of the Norse discoveries instigated
the seamen of Normandy to similar ventures, and that they visited
America in ante-Columbian days.

[642] There is an authorized German version, _Die erste Entdeckung von
Amerika_, by Mathilde Mann (Hamburg, 1888).

[643] _American in Iceland_ (Boston, 1876).

[644] _Land of Desolation_ (New York, 1872). There is a French version
in the _Tour du Monde_, xxvi.

[645] _Lectures delivered in America_ (Philad., 1875),—third lecture.

[646] _Europäer in Amerika vor Columbus, nach Quellen bearbeitet von P.
Oswald Moosmüller_ (Regensburg, 1879).

[647] _Larger History of the United States_ (N. Y., 1886).

[648] _Discoveries of America_ (N. Y., 1884).

[649] Particularly Beauvois, already mentioned, and Dr. E. Löffler, on
the Vinland Excursions of the Ancient Scandinavians, at the Copenhagen
meeting, _Compte Rendu_ (1883), p. 64. Cf. also Michel Hardy’s _Les
Scandinaves dans l’Amérique du Nord au X^e Siècle_ (Dieppe, 1874).

[650] R. G. Haliburton, in _Roy. Geog. Soc. Proc._ (Jan., 1885); Thomas
Morgan, in _Roy. Hist. Soc. Trans._ iii. 75.

[651] E. N. Horsford’s _Discovery of America by the Northmen_ (Boston,
1888); Anderson’s _America not discovered by Columbus_, 3d ed., p. 30;
_N. Y. Nation_, Nov. 17, 1887; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Mar., 1888, p. 223.

[652] Remarks of Wm. Everett and Chas. Deane in the society’s
_Proceedings_, May, 1880.

[653] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Dec., 1887. The most incautious
linguistic inferences and the most uncritical cartological perversions
are presented by Eben Norton Horsford in his _Discovery of America by
the Northmen—address at the unveiling of the statue of Leif Eriksen,
Oct. 29, 1887_ (Boston, 1888). Cf. Oscar Brenner in _Beilage zur
Allgemeinen Zeitung_ (Munich, Dec. 6, 1888). A trustful reliance upon
the reputations of those who have in greater or less degree accepted
the details of the sagas characterizes a paper by Mrs. Ole Bull in the
_Mag. of Amer. Hist._, Mar., 1888. She is naturally not inclined to
make much allowance for the patriotic zeal of the northern writers.

[654] The best list is in P. B. Watson’s “Bibliog. of Pre-Columbian
Discoveries of America,” originally in the _Library Journal_, vi. 259,
but more complete in Anderson’s _America not discovered by Columbus_
(3d ed., Chicago, 1883). Cf. also Chavanne’s _Literature of the
Polar Regions_; Th. Solberg’s Bibliog. of Scandinavia, in English,
with magazine articles, in F. W. Horn’s _Hist. of the lit. of the
Scandinavian North_ (1884, pp. 413-500). There is a convenient brief
list in Slafter’s _Voyages of the Northmen_ (pp. 127-140), and a not
very well selected one in Marie A. Brown’s _Icelandic Discoverers_.
_Poole’s Index_ indicates the considerable amount of periodical
discussions. The Scandinavian writers are mainly referred to by Miss
Brown and Mrs. Bull.

[655] Forster finds a corruption of Norvegia (Norway) in Norumbega.
Rafn finds the Norse elements in the words Massachusetts, Nauset,
and Mount Hope (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, viii. 194-198). The word
Hole, used as synonymous to harbor in various localities along the
Vineyard Sound, has been called a relic of the Icelandic Holl, a hill
(_Mag. Amer. Hist._, June, 1882, p. 431; Jos. S. Fay in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, xii. 334; and in Anderson, _America not discovered by
Columbus_, 3d ed.).

Brasseur de Bourbourg in his _Nations civilisées du Méxique_, and more
emphatically in his _Grammaire Quichée_, had indicated what he thought
a northern incursion before Leif, in certain seeming similarities to
the northern tongues of those of Guatemala. Cf. also _Nouv. Annales
des Voyages_, 6th ser., xvi. 263; _N. Y. Tribune_, Nov. 21, 1855;
Bancroft’s _Native Races_, iii. 762.

[656] _De origine gentium Americanarum_ (1642).

[657] _Nouv. Ann. des Voyages_, 6th ser., vols. iii. and vi.

[658] In Charnay’s _Ruines_, etc. (Paris, 1867).

[659] _Découverte de l’America par les Normands_ (Paris, 1864).

[660] H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 115-16, gives references on the
peopling of America from the northwest of Europe.

[661] _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._, xiv. 1887; also printed separately as
_Mythology, legends and Folk-lore of the Algonquins_. Cf. also his
_Algonquin Legends of New England_ (1885). Cf. D. G. Brinton in _Amer.
Antiquarian_, May, 1885.

[662] Mr. Mitchell, of the U. S. Coast Survey, has attended to this
part of the subject, and Horsford (p. 28) quotes his MS. He finds on
the Massachusetts coast what he thinks a sufficient correspondence to
the description of the sagas.

[663] So plain a matter as the length of the longest summer day would
indubitably point to an absolute parallel of latitude as determining
the site of Vinland, if there was no doubt in the language of the saga.
Unfortunately there is a wide divergence of opinion in the meaning of
the words to be depended upon, even among Icelandic scholars; and the
later writers among them assert that Rafn (_Antiq. Amer._ 436) and
Magnusen in interpreting the language to confirm their theory of the
Rhode Island bays have misconceived. Their argument is summarized in
the French version of Wheaton. John M’Caul translated Finn Magnusen’s
“Ancient Scandinavian divisions of the times of day,” in the _Mémoire
de la Soc. Roy. des Antiq. du Nord_ (1836-37). Rask disputes Rafn’s
deductions (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, xviii. 22). Torfæus, who is our
best commentator after all, says it meant Newfoundland. Robertson put
it at 58° north. Dahlmann in his _Forschungen_ (vol. i.) places it
on the coast of Labrador. Horsford (p. 66) at some length admits no
question that it must have been between 41° and 43° north. Cf. Laing’s
_Heimskringla_, i. 173; Palfrey’s _New England_, i. 55; De Costa’s
_Pre-Columbian Disc._, p. 33; Weise’s _Discoveries of America_, 31;
and particularly Vigfússon in his _English-Icelandic Dictionary_ under
“Eykt.”

[664] “The discovery of America,” says Laing (_Heimskringla_, i. 154),
“rests entirely upon documentary evidence which cannot, as in the
case of Greenland, be substantiated by anything to be discovered in
America.” Laing and many of the commentators, by some strange process
of reasoning, have determined that the proof of these MS. records
being written before Columbus’ visit to Iceland in 1477 is sufficient
to establish the priority of discovery for the Northmen, as if it was
nothing in the case that the sagas may or may not be good history; and
nothing that it was the opinion entertained in Europe at that time that
Greenland and the more distant lands were not a new continent, but a
prolongation of Europe by the north. It is curious, too, to observe
that, treating of events after 1492, Laing is quite willing to believe
in any saga being “filled up and new invented,” but is quite unwilling
to believe anything of the kind as respects those written anterior to
1492; and yet he goes on to prove conclusively that the _Flatoyensis
Codex_ is full of fable, as when the saga man makes the eider-duck lay
eggs where during the same weeks the grapes ripen and intoxicate when
fresh, and the wheat forms in the ear! Laing nevertheless rests his
case on the _Flatoyensis Codex_ in its most general scope, and calls
poets, but not antiquaries, those who attempt to make any additional
evidence out of imaginary runes or the identification of places.

[665] It must be remembered that this divergence was not so wide to the
Northmen as it seems to us. With them the Atlantic was sometimes held
to be a great basin that was enclasped from northwestern Europe by a
prolongation of Scandinavia into Greenland, Helluland, and Markland,
and it was a question if the more distant region of Vinland did not
belong rather to the corresponding prolongation of Africa on the south.
Cf. De Costa, _Pre-Columbian Disc._, 108; _Hist. Mag._, xiii. 46.

[666] He wrote “Here for the first time will be found indicated the
precise spot where the ancient Northmen held their intercourse.” The
committee of the Mass. Hist. Soc. objected to this extreme confidence.
_Proceedings_, ii. 97, 107, 500, 505.

[667] Reproduction of part of the plate in the _Antiquitates
Americanæ_, after a drawing by J. R. Bartlett. The engravings of the
rock are numerous: _Mem. Amer. Acad._, iii.; the works of Beamish, J.
T. Smith, Gravier, Gay, Higginson, etc.; Laing’s _Heimskringla_; the
French ed. of Wheaton; Hermes’ _Entdeckung von America_; Schoolcraft’s
_Ind. Tribes_, i. 114, iv. 120; Drake’s ed., Philad., 1884, i. p. 88;
the Copenhagen _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, p. 70, from
a photograph. The Hitchcock Museum at Amherst, Mass., had a cast, and
one was shown at the Albany meeting (1836) of the Am. Asso. for the
Adv. of Science. The rock was conveyed by deed in 1861 to the Roy.
Soc. of Northern Antiquaries (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, v. 226; vi.
252), but the society subsequently relinquished their title to a Boston
committee, who charged itself with the care of the monument; but in
doing so the Danish antiquaries disclaimed all belief in its runic
character (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iii. 236).

[668] De Costa, _Pre-Col. Disc._, 29; _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._,
xviii. 37; Gay, _Pop. Hist._, i. 41; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, viii.
72; _Am. Geog. Soc. Journal_, 1870, p. 50; _Amer. Naturalist_, Aug. and
Sept., 1879.

[669] _Am. Ass. Adv. Science, Proc._ (1856), ii. 214.

[670] Cf. paper on the site of Vinland in _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1874,
p. 94; Alex. Farnum’s _Visit of the Northmen to Rhode Island_ (_R. I.
Hist. Tracts_, no. 2, 1877). The statement of the sagas that there
was no frost in Vinland and grass did not wither in winter compels
some of the identifiers to resort to the precession of the equinox as
accounting for changes of climate (Gay’s _Pop. Hist._, i. 50).

[671] E. G. Squier in _Ethnological Journal_, 1848; Wilson’s Prehist.
Man, ii. 98; _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, i. 392; Schoolcraft’s _Indian
Tribes_, iv. 118; _Mém. de la Soc. royale des Antiq. du Nord_, 1840-44,
p. 127.

[672] _Amer. Philos. Soc. Proc._, May 2, 1884 (by Henry Phillips, Jr.);
_Numismatic and Antiq. Soc. of Philad., Proc._, 1884, p. 17; Geo. S.
Brown’s _Yarmouth_ (Boston, 1888).

[673] Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. 98; _Amer. Asso. Adv. Science,
Proc._, 1856, p. 214; _Séance annuelle de la Soc. des Antiq. du Nord_,
May 14, 1859; H. W. Haynes in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1888,
p. 56. The Monhegan inscription, as examined by the late C. W. Tuttle
and J. Wingate Thornton, was held to be natural markings (_Mag. Amer.
Hist._, ii. 308; _Pulpit of the Revolution_, 410). Charles Rau cites a
striking instance of the way in which the lively imagination of Finn
Magnusen has misled him in interpreting weather cracks on a rock in
Sweden (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, ii. 83).

[674] _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1854, p. 185.

[675] _Antiquitates Americanæ_, 335, 371, 401; _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, Oct., 1868, p. 13; W. J. Miller’s _Wampanoag Indians_.

[676] Cf. list of inscribed rocks in the _Proceedings_ (vol. ii.) of
the Davenport Acad. of Natural Sciences.

[677] The stone with its inscription early attracted attention, but
Danforth’s drawing of 1680 is the earliest known. Cotton Mather, in a
dedicatory epistle to Sir Henry Ashurst, prefixed to his _Wonderful
Works of God commemorated_ (Boston, 1690), gave a cut of a part of
the inscription; and he communicated an account with a drawing of
the inscription to the Royal Society in 1712, which appears in their
_Philosophical Transactions_. Dr. Isaac Greenwood sent another draft to
the Society of Antiquaries in London in 1730, and their _Transactions_
in 1732 has this of Greenwood. In 1768 Professor Stephen Sewall of
Cambridge made a copy of the natural size, which was sent in 1774 by
Professor James Winthrop to the Royal Society. Dr. Stiles says that
Sewall sent it to Gebelin, of the French Academy, whose members judged
them to be Punic characters. Stiles himself, in 1783, in an election
sermon delivered at Hartford, spoke of “the visit by the Phœnicians,
who charged the Dighton Rock and other rocks in Narragansett Bay with
Punic inscriptions remaining to this day, which last I myself have
repeatedly seen and taken off at large.” Cf. Thornton’s _Pulpit of
the Revolution_, p. 410. The _Archæologia_ (London, viii. for 1786)
gave various drawings, with a paper by the Rev. Michael Lort and some
notes by Charles Vallancey, in which the opinion was expressed that
the inscription was the work of a people from Siberia, driven south by
hordes of Tartars. Professor Winthrop in 1788 filled the marks, as he
understood them, with printer’s ink, and in this way took an actual
impression of the inscription. His copy was engraved in the _Memoirs
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences_ (vol. ii. for 1793). It
was this copy by Winthrop which Washington in 1789 saw at Cambridge,
when he pronounced the inscription as similar to those made by the
Indians, which he had been accustomed to see in the western country
during his life as a surveyor. Cf. _Belknap Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, ii. 76, 77, 81; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, x. 114. In 1789
there was also presented to the Academy a copy made by Joseph Gooding
under the direction of Francis Baylies (_Belknap Papers_, ii. 160). In
the third volume of the Academy’s _Memoirs_ there are papers on the
inscription by John Davis and Edward A. Kendall; Davis (1807) thinking
it a representation of an Indian deer hunt, and Kendall later, in his
_Travels_ (vol. ii. 1809), assigns it to the Indians. This description
is copied in Barber’s _Historical Collections of Mass._ (p. 117). In
1812 a drawing was made by Job Gardner, and in 1825 there was further
discussion in the _Mémoires de la Société de Géographie de Paris_, and
in the _Hist. of New York_ by Yates and Moulton. In 1831 there was
a cut in Ira Hill’s _Antiquities of America explained_ (Hagerstown,
Md.) This was in effect the history of the interest in the rock up to
the appearance of Rafn’s _Antiquitates Americanæ_, in which for the
first time the inscription was represented as being the work of the
Northmen. This belief is now shared by few, if any, temperate students.
The exuberant Anderson thinks that the rock removes all doubt of the
Northmen discovery (_America not discovered by Columbus_, pp. 21, 23,
83). The credulous Gravier has not a doubt. Cf. his _Notice sur le roc
de Dighton et le séjour des Scandinaves en Amérique au commencement du
XI^e siècle_ (Nancy, 1875), reprinted from the _Compte Rendu, Congrès
des Américanistes_, i. 166, giving Rafn’s drawing. The Rev. J. P.
Bodfish accepts its evidence in the _Proc. Second Pub. Meeting U. S.
Cath. Hist. Soc._ (N. Y., 1886).

[678] _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, p. lvii. The _Brinley
Catalogue_, iii. 5378, gives Dammartin’s _Explification de la Pierre
de Taunston_ (Paris? 1840-50) as finding in the inscription an
astronomical theme by some nation foreign to America. Buckingham Smith
believed it to be a Roman Catholic invocation, around which the Indians
later put their symbols (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr. 29, 1863, p.
32). For discussions more or less extensive see Laing’s _Heimskringla_,
i. 175; Haven in _Smithsonian Contributions_, 1856, viii. 133, in a
paper on the “Archæology of the United States;” Charles Rau in _Mag.
Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1878; Apr., 1879; and in _Amer. Antiquarian_,
i. 38; Daniel Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 97; J. R. Bartlett in
_Rhode Island Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1872-73, p. 70; Haven and others in
_Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1864, and Oct., 1867; H. H. Bancroft’s
_Native Races_, v. 74; Drake’s _N. E. Coast; North American Rev._,
1874; _Amer. Biblical Repository_, July, 1839; _Historical Mag._, Dec.,
1859, and March, 1869; Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_, iii.; H. W. Williams’s
transl. of Humboldt’s _Travels_, i. 157, etc.

[679] Schoolcraft wavered in his opinion. (Cf. Haven, 133.) He showed
Gooding’s drawing to an Algonkin chief, who found in it a record of a
battle of the Indians, except that some figures near the centre did
not belong to it, and these Schoolcraft thought might be runic, as De
Costa has later suggested; but in 1853 Schoolcraft made no reservation
in pronouncing it entirely Indian (_Indian Tribes_, i. 112; iv. 120;
pl. 14). Wilson (_Prehist. Man_, ii., ch. 19) is severe on Schoolcraft.
On the general character of Indian rock inscriptions,—some of which
in the delineations accompanying these accounts closely resemble the
Dighton Rock,—see Mallery in the _Bureau of Ethnology, Fourth Report_,
p. 19; Lieut. A. M. Wheeler’s Report on Indian tribes in _Pacific Rail
Road Reports_, ii.; J. G. Bruff on those of Green River in the Sierra
Nevada, in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1872); _American Antiquarian_, iv. 259;
vi. 119; _Western Reserve Hist. Soc. Tracts_, nos. 42, 44, 52, 53, 56;
T. Ewbank’s _No. Amer. Rock Writing_ (Morrisania, 1866); Brinton’s
_Myths of the New World_, p. 10; Tylor’s _Early Hist. Mankind_;
Dr. Richard Andree’s _Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche_
(Stuttgard, 1878). It is Mallery’s opinion that no “considerable
information of value in an historical point of view will be obtained
directly from the interpretations of the Pictographs in North America.”

[680] Palfrey, i. p. 57; Higginson’s _Larger Hist._, 44; Gay’s _Pop.
Hist._, i. 59, 60; Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 183; Charles T. Brooks’s
_Controversy touching the old stone mill in Newport_ (Newport, 1851);
Peterson’s _Rhode Island_; Drake’s _New England Coast_; Schoolcraft’s
_Indian Tribes_, iv. 120; Bishop’s _Amer. Manufactures_, i. 118; C. S.
Pierce in _Science_, iv. 512, who endeavored by measurement to get at
what was the unit of measure used,—an effort not very successful. Cf.
references in _Poole’s Index_, p. 913.

Gaffarel accepts the Rafn view in his _Etudes sur la rapports_, etc.,
282, as does Gravier in his _Normands sur la route_, p. 168; and De
Costa (_Pre-Columbian Disc._, p. lviii) intimates that “all is in a
measure doubtful.” R. G. Hatfield (_Scribner’s Monthly_, Mar., 1879) in
an illustrated paper undertook to show by comparison with Scandinavian
building that what is now standing is but the central part of a Vinland
baptistery, and that the projection which supported the radiating roof
timbers is still to be seen. This paper was answered by George C. Mason
(_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iii. 541, Sept., 1879, with other remarks in the
_Amer. Architect_, Oct. 4, 1879), who rehearsed the views of the local
antiquaries as to its connection with Gov. Arnold. Cf. _Reminiscences
of Newport_, by Geo. C. Mason, 1884.

[681] _Hist. Mag._, Apr., 1862, p. 123; _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._,
1865, p. 372; Abner Morse’s _Traces of the Ancient Northmen in America_
(Aug., 1861), with a _Supplement_ (Boston, 1887).

[682] _Mémoires de la Soc. roy. des Antiq. du Nord_, 1843; _New Jersey
Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi.; Stone’s _Brant_, ii. 593-94; Schoolcraft’s
_Ind. Tribes_, i. 127; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1883, p. 902; Dr. Kneeland
in _Peabody Mus. Repts._, no. 20, p. 543. The skeleton was destroyed by
fire about 1843.

[683] Dawkins in his _Cave Hunters_ accounts them survivors of the
cave dwellers of Europe. Cf. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_. A. R. Grote
(_Amer. Naturalist_, Apr., 1877) holds them to be the survivors of the
palæolithic man.

[684] E. Beauvois’ _Les Skroelings, Ancêtres des Esquimaux_ (Paris,
1879); B. F. DeCosta in _Pop. Science Monthly_, Nov., 1884; A. S.
Packard on their former range southward, in the _American Naturalist_,
xix. 471, 553, and his paper on the Eskimos of Labrador, in _Appleton’s
Journal_, Dec. 9, 1871 (reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_,
Albany, 1877). Humboldt holds them to have been driven across
America to Europe (_Views of Nature_, Bohn’s ed., 123). Ethnologists
are not wholly agreed as to the course of their migrations. The
material for the ethnological study of the Eskimos must be looked
for in the narratives of the Arctic voyagers, like Scoresby, Parry,
Ross, O’Reilly, Kane, C. F. Hall, and the rest; in the accounts
by the missionaries like Egede, Crantz, and others; by students
of ethnology, like Lubbock (_Prehist. Times_, ch. 14); Prichard
(_Researches_, v. 367); Waitz (_Amerikaner_, i. 300); the Abbé Morillot
(_Mythologie et légendes des Esquimaux du Groenland in the Actes de
la Soc. Philologique_ (Paris, 1875), vol. iv.); Morgan (_Systems of
Consanguinity_, 267), who excludes them from his Ganowanian family;
Irving C. Rosse on the northern inhabitants (_Journal Amer. Geog.
Soc._, 1883, p. 163); Ludwig Kumlien in his _Contributions to the
natural history of Arctic America_, made in connection with the
Howgate polar expedition, 1877-78, in _Bull. of the U. S. Naval
Museum_ (Washington, 1879), no. 15; and his paper in the _Smithsonian
Report_ (1878). There are several helpful papers in the _Journal of
the Anthropological Institute_ (London), vol. i., by Richard King, on
their intellectual character; vol. iv. by P. C. Sutherland; vol. vii.
by John Rae on their migrations, and W. H. Flower on their skulls; vol.
ix. by W. J. Sollars on their bone implements. For other references
see Bancroft, _Native Races_, i. 41, 138; _Poole’s Index_, p. 424, and
_Supplement_, p. 146.

[685] This evidence is of course rather indicative of a geological
antiquity not to be associated with the age of the Northmen. Cf.
Murray’s _Distribution of Animals_, 128; Howarth’s _Mammoth and Flood_,
285.

[686] Rink, born in 1819 in Copenhagen, spent much of the interval
from 1853 to 1872 in Greenland. Pilling (_Bibl. Eskimo Language_, p.
80) gives the best account of Rink’s publications. His principal book
is _Grönland geographisch und statistisch beschrieben_ (Stuttgart,
1860). The English reader has access to his _Tales and Traditions of
the Eskimo_, translated by Rink himself, and edited by Dr. Robert Brown
(London, 1875); to _Danish Greenland, its people and its products_, ed.
by Dr. Brown (London, 1877). Rink says of this work that in its English
dress it must be considered a new book. He also published _The Eskimo
tribes; their distribution and characteristics, especially in regard to
language. With a comparative vocabulary_ (Copenhagen, etc., 1887). He
also considered their dialects as divulging the relationship of tribes
in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_ (xv. 239); and in the
same journal (1872, p. 104) he has written of their descent. Rink also
furnished to the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, a paper on
the traditions of Greenland (Nancy, 1875, ii. 181), and (Luxembourg,
1877, ii. 327) another on “L’habitat primitif des Esquimaux.”

Dr. Brown has also considered the “Origin of the Eskimo” in the
_Archæological Review_ (1888), no. 4.

[687] _Alaska and its Resources_, p. 374; and in _Contributions to
Amer. Ethnology_, i. 93.

[688] “On the origin and migrations of the Greenland Esquimaux” in
the _Journal Royal Geog. Soc._, 1865; “The Arctic highlanders” in the
_Lond. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._ (1866), iv. 125, and in _Arctic Geography
and Ethnology_ (London, 1875), published by the Royal Geog. Society.

[689] _American Antiquarian_, Jan., 1888. Cf. other papers by him in
the _Proc. Roy. Soc. of Canada_, vol. v. “A year among the Eskimos”
in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, 1887, xix. p. 383; “Reise in
Baffinland” in the proceedings of the Berlin Gesellschaft für Erdkunde
(1885). Cf. Pilling’s Eskimo Bibliog., p. 12; and for linguistic
evidences of tribal differences, pp. 69-72, 81-82. Cf. also H. H.
Bancroft’s _Native Races_, iii. 574, and Lucien Adam’s “En quoi la
langue Esquimaude, deffère-t-elle grammaticalement des autres langues
de l’Amérique du Nord?” in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Amér._
(Copenhagen), p. 337.

Anton von Etzel’s _Grönland, geographisch und statistisch beschrieben
aus Dänischen Quellschriften_ (Stuttgart, 1860) goes cursorily over the
early history, and describes the Eskimos. Cf. F. Schwatka in _Amer.
Magazine_, Aug., 1888.

[690] There is an easy way of tracing these accounts in Joel A. Allen’s
_List of Works and Papers relating to the mammalian orders of Cete and
Sirenia_, extracted from the _Bulletin of Hayden’s U. S. Geol. and
Geog. Survey_ (Washington, 1882). It is necessary to bear in mind that
Spitzbergen is often called Greenland in these accounts.

[691] His book, _Det gamle Grönlands nye Perlustration_, etc., was
first published at Copenhagen in 1729. Pilling (_Bibliog. of the Eskimo
language_, p. 26) was able to find only a single copy of this book,
that in the British Museum. Muller (_Books on America_, Amsterdam,
1872, no. 648) describes a copy. This first edition escaped the notice
of J. A. Allen, whose list is very carefully prepared (nos. 217, 220,
226, 230, 235). There were two German editions of this original form
of the book, Frankfort, 1730, and Hamburg, 1740, according to the
_Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (ii. 448, 647), but Pilling gives only the
first. The 1729 edition was enlarged in the Copenhagen edition of 1741,
which has a map, “Gronlandia Antiqua,” showing the east colony and west
colony, respectively, east and west of Cape Farewell. This edition is
the basis of the various translations: In German, Copenhagen, 1742,
using the plates of the 1741 ed.; Berlin, 1763. In Dutch, Delft, 1746.
In French, Copenhagen, 1763. In English, London, 1745; abstracted in
the _Philosoph. Transactions Royal Soc._ (1744), xlii. no. 47; and
again, London (1818), with an historical introduction based on Torfæus
and La Peyrère. Crantz epitomizes Egede’s career in Greenland.

The bibliography in Sabin’s _Dictionary_ (vi. 22,018, etc.) confounds
the Greenland journal (1770-78) of Hans Egede’s grandson, Hans Egede
Saabye (b. 1746; d. 1817), with the work of the grandfather. This
journal is of importance as regards the Eskimos and the missions
among them. There is an English version: _Greenland: extracts from
a journal kept in 1770 to 1778. Prefixed an introduction; illus. by
chart of Greenland, by G. Fries. Transl. from the German_ _[by H. E.
Lloyd]_ (London, 1818). The map follows that of the son of Hans, Paul
Egede, whose _Nachrichten von Grönland aus einem Tagebuche von Bischof
Paul Egede_ (Copenhagen, 1790) must also be kept distinct. Pilling’s
_Bibliog. of the Eskimo language_ affords the best guide.

[692] An English translation by Macdougall was published in London in
1837 (Pilling, p. 38; Field, no. 619). A French version of Graah’s
introduction with notes by M. de la Roquette was published in 1835.
Cf. _Journal Royal Geog. Soc._, i. 247. After Graah’s publication Rafn
placed the Osterbygden on the west coast in his map. Graah’s report
(1830) is in French in the _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, 1830.

[693] On the present scant, if not absence of, population on the east
coast of Greenland, see J. D. Whitney’s _Climatic Changes of later
geological times_ (_Mus. of Comp. Zoöl. Mem._, vii. p. 303, Cambridge,
1882).

[694] The changes in opinion respecting the sites of the colonies and
the successive explorations are followed in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès
des Américanistes_ by Steenstrup (p. 114) and by Valdemar-Schmidt,
“Sur les Voyages des Danois au Groenland” (195, 205, with references).
Cf. on these lost colonies and the search for them _Westminster
Review_, xxvii. 139; _Harper’s Monthly_, xliv. 65 (by I. I. Hayes);
_Lippincott’s Mag._, Aug., 1878; _Amer. Church Rev._, xxi. 338; and in
the general histories, La Peyrère (Dutch transl., Amsterdam, 1678);
Crantz (Eng. transl., 1767, p. 272); Egede (Eng. ed., 1818, introd.);
and Rink’s _Danish Greenland_, ch. 1.

[695] The original of Bardsen’s account has disappeared, but Rafn puts
it in Latin, translating from an early copy found in the Faröe Islands
(_Antiquitates Américanæ_, p. 300). Purchas gives it in English, from
a copy which had belonged to Hudson, being translated from a Dutch
version which Hudson had borrowed, the Dutch being rendered by Barentz
from a German version. Major also prints it in _Voyages of the Zeni_.
He recognizes in Bardsen’s “Gunnbiorn’s Skerries” the island which is
marked in Ruysch’s map (1507) as blown up in 1456 (see Vol. III. p. 9).

[696] Hakluyt, however, prints some pertinent verses by Meredith, a
Welsh bard, in 1477.

[697] _Murphy Catal._, no. 1489; Sabin, x. p. 322; _Carter-Brown
Catal._ for eds. of 1584, 1697, 1702, 1774, 1811, 1832, etc.

[698] In the seventeenth century there were a variety of symptoms of
the English eagerness to get the claims of Madoc substantiated, as in
Sir Richard Hawkins’s _Observations_ (Hakluyt Soc., 1847), and James
Howell’s _Familiar Letters_ (London, 1645). Belknap (_Amer. Biog._,
1794, i. p. 58) takes this view of Hakluyt’s purpose; but Pinkerton,
_Voyages_, 1812, xii. 157, thinks such a charge an aspersion. The
subject was mentioned with some particularity or incidentally by
Purchas, Abbott (_Brief Description_, London, 1620, 1634, 1677), Smith
(_Virginia_), and Fox (_North-West Fox_). Sir Thomas Herbert in his
_Relation of some Travaile into Africa and Asia_ (London, 1634) tracks
Madoc to Newfoundland, and he also found Cymric words in Mexico, which
assured him in his search for further proofs (Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p.
1049; Carter-Brown, ii. 413, 1166).

The _Nieuwe en onbekende Weereld_ of Montanus (Amsterdam, 1671) made
the story more familiar. It necessarily entered into the discussions
of the learned men who, in the seventeenth century, were busied with
the question of the origin of the Americans, as in De Laet’s _Notæ
ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii_ (Paris, 1643), who is inclined to
believe the story, as is Hornius in his _De Originibus Americaniis_
(1652).

[699] Cf. Catlin’s _No. Amer. Indians_, i. 207; ii. 259, 262.

[700] _Gentleman’s Magazine_. It is reprinted in H. H. Bancroft’s
_Native Races_, v. 119, and in Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 286. Cf.
John Paul Marana, Letters writ by a Turkish Spy, 1691, and later.
The story had been told in _The British Sailors’ Directory_ in 1739
(Carter-Brown, iii. 599).

[701] Warden’s _Recherches_, p. 157; Amos Stoddard’s _Sketches of
Louisiana_ (Philad., 1812), ch. 17, and _Philad. Med. and Physical
Journal_, 1805; with views _pro_ and _con_ by Harry Toulmin and B. S.
Barton.

[702] The book was reprinted by Sabin, N. Y., 1865, with an
introduction by Horatio Gates Jones.

[703] _An inquiry into the truth of the tradition concerning the
discovery of America by Prince Madog_ (Lond., 1791), and _Further
Observations ... containing the account given by General Bowles, the
Creek or Cherokee Indian, lately in London, and by several others,
of a Welsh tribe of Indians now living in the western parts of North
America_ (Lond., 1792,—Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, nos. 1664-65). Carey’s
_American Museum_ (April, May, 1792), xi. 152, etc., gave extracts from
Williams.

[704] _The Welsh Indians, or a collection of papers respecting a people
whose ancestors emigrated from Wales to America with Prince Madoc, and
who are now said to inhabit a beautiful country on the west side of the
Mississippi_ (London, 1797). He finds these conditions in the Padoucas.
Goodson, _Straits of Anian_ (Portsmouth, 1793), p. 71, makes Padoucahs
out of “Madogwys”!

[705] _Chambers’ Journal_, vi. 411, mentioning the Asguaws.

[706] _Letter on the Manners, Customs, and Condition of the No. Amer.
Indians_ (N. Y., 1842).

[707] He convinced, for instance, Fontaine in his _How the World was
Peopled_, p. 142.

[708] On the variety of complexion among the Indians, see Short’s _No.
Amer. of Antiq._, p. 189; McCulloh’s _Researches_; Haven, _Archæol. U.
S._, 48; Morton in _Schoolcraft_, ii. 320; _Ethnolog. Journal_, London,
July, 1848; App. 1849, commenting on Morton.

[709] Pilling, _Bibliog. of Siouan languages_ (Washington, 1887, p.
48), enumerates the authorities on the Mandan tongue. The tribe is now
extinct. Cf. Morgan’s _Systems of Consanguinity_, p. 181.

[710] See also _Smithsonian Report_, 1885, Part ii. pp. 80, 271, 349,
449. Ruxton in _Life in the Far West_ (N. Y., 1846) found Welsh traces
in the speech of the Mowquas, and S. Y. McMaster in _Smithsonian
Rept._, 1865, heard Welsh sounds among the Navajos.

[711] Filson in his _Kentucke_ has also pointed out this possibility.

[712] The bibliography of the subject can be followed in Watson’s
list, already referred to, and in that in the _Amer. Bibliopolist_,
Feb., 1869. A few additional references may help complete these lists:
Stephens’s _Literature of the Cymry_, ch. 2; the Abbé Domenech’s
_Seven Years in the Great Desert of America_; Tytler’s _Progress
of Discovery_; Moosmüller’s _Europäer in Amerika vor Columbus_
(Regensburg, 1879, ch. 21); Gaffarel’s _Rapport_ etc., p. 216;
_Analytical Mag._, ii. 409; _Atlantic Monthly,_ xxxvii. 305; _No. Am.
Rev._ (by E. E. Hale), lxxxv. 305; _Antiquary_, iv. 65; _Southern
Presbyterian Rev._, Jan., April, 1878; _Notes and Queries_, index.

[713] This Ptolemy map is reproduced in Gravier’s _Les Normands sur
la route_, etc., 6th part, ch. 1; and in Nordenskjöld’s _Studien und
Forschungen_ (Leipzig, 1805), p. 25. The Ptolemy of 1562 has the same
plate.

[714] J. R. Forster’s _Discoveries in the Northern Regions_. His
confidence was shared by Eggers (1794) in his _True Site of Old
East Greenland_ (Kiel), who doubts, however, if the descriptions of
Estotiland apply to America. It was held to be a confirmation of the
chart that both the east and west Greenland colonies were on the side
of Davis’s Straits.

[715] Buache reproduced the map, and read in 1784, before the Academy
of Inscriptions in Paris, his _Mémoire sur la Frisland_, which was
printed by the Academy in 1787, p. 430.

[716] _Dissertazione intorno ai viaggi e scoperte settentrionali
di Nicolo e Antonio Fratelli Zeni._ This paper was substantially
reproduced in the same writer’s _Di Marco Polo e degli altri
Viaggiatori veneziani più illustri dissertazioni_ (Venice, 1818).

[717] _Annales des Voyages_ (1810), x. 72; _Précis de la Géographie_
(1817).

[718] _Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed_ (Copenhagen, 1834), vol. i.
p. 1; _Royal Geog. Soc. Journal_ (London, 1835), v. 102; _Annales des
Voyages_ (1836), xi.

George Folsom, in the _No. Amer. Rev._, July, 1838, criticised
Zahrtmann, and sustained an opposite view. T. H. Bredsdorff discussed
the question in the _Grönlands Historiske Mindesmæker_ (iii. 529); and
La Roquette furnished the article in Michaud’s Biog. _Universelle_.

[719] Major also, in his paper (_Royal Geog. Soc. Journal_, 1873)
on “The Site of the Lost Colony of Greenland determined, and the
pre-Columbian discoveries of America confirmed, from fourteenth century
documents,” used the Zeno account and map in connection with Ivan
Bardsen’s Sailing Directions in placing the missing colony near Cape
Farewell. Major epitomized his views on the question in _Mass. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1874. Sir H. C. Rawlinson commented on Major’s views
in his address before the Royal Geog. Society (_Journal_, 1873, p.
clxxxvii).

Stevens (_Bibl. Geographica_, no. 3104) said: “If the map be genuine,
the most of its geography is false, while a part of it is remarkably
accurate.”

[720] _I viaggi e la Carta dei Fratelli Zeno Veneziani_ (Florence,
1878), and a _Studio Secondo_ (_Estratto dall. Archivio Storico
Italiano_) in 1885.

[721] “Zeniernes Rejse til Norden et Tolkning Forsoeg,” with a
fac-simile of the Zeni map.

[722] Nordenskjöld’s _Om bröderna Zenos resor och de äldsta kartor
öfner Norden_ was published at Stockholm in 1883, as an address
on leaving the presidency of the Swedish Academy, April 12, 1882;
and in the same year, at the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des
Américanistes, he presented his _Trois Cartes précolumbiennes,
représentant une partie de l’Amérique_ (Greenland), which included
facsimiles of the Zeno (1558) and Donis (1482) maps with that of
Claudius Clavus (1427). This last represents “Islandia” lying midway
alone in the sea between “Norwegica Regio” and “Gronlandia provincia.”
The “Congelatum mare” is made to flow north of Norway, so as almost
to meet the northern Baltic, while north of this frozen sea is an
Arctic region, of which Greenland is but an extension south and
west. The student will find these and other maps making part of the
address already referred to, which also makes part in German of his
_Studien und Forschungen veranlasst durch meine Reisen im hohen Norden,
autorisirte deutsche Ausgabe_ (Leipzig, 1885). The maps accompanying
it not already referred to are the usual Ptolemy map of the north of
Europe, based on a MS. of the fourteenth century; the “Scandinavia”
from the _Isolario_ of Bordone, 1547; that of the world in the MS.
_Insularium illustratum_ of Henricus Martellus, of the fifteenth
century, in the British Museum, copied from the sketch in José de
Lacerda’s _Exame dos Viagens do Doutor Livingstone_ (Lisbon, 1867); the
“Scandinavia” and the “Carta Marina” in the Venetian Ptolemy of 1548;
the map of Olaus Magnus in 1567; the chart of Andrea Bianco (1436);
the map of the Basle ed. (1532) of Grynæus’ _Novis Orbis_; that of
Laurentius Frisius (1524). He gives these maps as the material possible
to be used in 1558 in compiling a map, and to show the superiority of
the Zeno chart. Cf. _Nature_, xxviii. 14; and Major in _Royal Geog.
Soc. Proc._, 1883, p. 473.

[723] “Zeni’ernes Reiser i Norden” in the publication of the Royal
Society of Northern Antiquaries (Copenhagen, 1883), in which he
compares the Zeno Frislanda with the maps of Iceland. He also
communicated to the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes
“Les voyages des frères Zeni dans le Nord” (_Compte Rendu_, p. 150).

[724] This also appeared in the _Geog. Tidsskrift_, vii. 153,
accompanied by facsimiles of the Zeni map, with Ruscelli’s alteration
of it (1561), and of the maps of Donis (1482), Laurentius Frisius
(1525), and of the Ptolemy of 1548.

[725] _Roy. Geog. Soc. Journal_ (1879), vol. xlix. p. 398, “Zeno’s
Frisland is Iceland and not the Faröes,”—and the same views in
“Nautical Remarks about the Zeni Voyages” in _Compte Rendu, Cong. des
Amér._ (Copenhagen, 1883), p. 183.

[726] “Zeno’s Frisland is not Iceland, but the Faröes” in _Roy. Geog.
Soc. Journal_ (1879), xlix. 412.

[727] _Géog. du Moyen Age_, iii. 103.

[728] _Discovery of Maine_, 92.

[729] Dudley, _Arcano del Mare_, pl. lii, places Estotiland between
Davis and Hudson’s Straits; but Torfæus doubts if it is Labrador, as
is “commonly believed.” Lafitau (_Mœurs des Sauvages_) puts it north
of Hudson Bay. Forster calls it Newfoundland. Beauvois (_Les colonies
Européenes du Markland at de l’Escociland_) makes it include Maine,
New Brunswick, and part of Lower Canada. These are the chief varieties
of belief. Steenstrup is of those who do not recognize America at all.
Hornius, among the older writers, thought that Scotland or Shetland
was more likely to have been the fisherman’s strange country. Santarem
(_Hist. de la Cartographie_, iii. 141) points out an island, “Y
Stotlandia,” in the Baltic, as shown on the map of Giovanni Leardo
(1448) at Venice.

In P. B. Watson’s _Bibliog. of Pre-Columbian Discoveries of America_
there is the fullest but not a complete list on the subject, and from
this and other sources a few further references may be added: Belknap’s
_Amer. Biography_; Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, ii. 120; Asher’s
_Henry Hudson_, p. clxiv; Gravier’s _Découverte de l’Amérique_, 183;
Gaffarel’s _Etude sur l’Amérique avant Colomb_, p. 261, and in the
_Revue de Géog._, vii., Oct., Nov., 1880, with the Zeno map as changed
by Ortelius; De Costa’s _Northmen in Maine_; Weise’s _Discoveries
of America_, p. 44; Goodrich’s _Columbus_; Peschel’s _Gesch. des
Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_ (1858), and Ruge’s work of the same title;
Guido Cora’s _I precursori di Cristoforo Colombo_ (Rome, 1886), taken
from the _Bollettino della soc. geog. italiana_, Dec., 1885; Gay’s
_Pop. Hist. U. S._ (i. 76); Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_; _Studi biog.
e bibliog. soc. geog. ital._, 2d ed., 1882, p. 117; P. O. Moosmüller’s
_Europäer in Amerika vor Columbus,_ ch. 24; _Das Ausland_, Oct. 11,
Dec. 27, 1886; _Nature_, xxviii. p. 14.

Geo. E. Emery, Lynn, Mass., issued in 1877 a series of maps, making
Islandia to be Spitzbergen, with the East Bygd of the Northmen at its
southern end; Frisland, Iceland; and Estotiland, Newfoundland.

[730] Sabin, x., no. 42,675.

[731] There are editions with annotations by Robert Ingram, at
Colchester, Eng., 1792; and by Santiago Perez Junquera, at Madrid,
1881. Theoph. Spizelius’ _Elevatio relationis Montezinianæ de repertis
in America tribubus Israeliticis_ (Basle, 1661) is a criticism
(Leclerc, 547; Field, 1473). One Montesinos had professed to have found
a colony of Jews in Peru, and had satisfied Manasseh Ben Israel of his
truthfulness.

[732] Cf. collations in Stevens’s _Nuggets_, p. 728, and his _Hist.
Coll._, ii. no. 538; Brinley, iii. no. 5463; Field, no. 1551, who cites
a new edition in 1652, called _Digitus Dei: new discoveryes, with some
arguments to prove that the Jews (a nation) a people ... inhabit now in
America ... with the history of Ant: Montesinos attested by Mannasseh
Ben Israell_. A divine, John Dury, had urged Thorowgood to publish, and
had before this, in printing some of the accounts of the work of Eliot
and others among the New England Indians, announced his belief in the
theory.

[733] Cotton Mather (_Magnalia_, iii. part 2) tells how Eliot traced
the resemblances to the Jews in the New England Indians.

[734] 2d ed., 1727. Cf. Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, ii. p. 361;
Carter-Brown, iii. 401.

[735] _The History of the American Indians, particularly those Nations
adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, South
and North Carolina, and Virginia: Containing an Account of their
Origin, Language, Manners, Religious and Civil Customs, Laws, Form of
Government, etc., etc., with an Appendix, containing a Description of
the Floridas, and the Missisipi Lands, with their productions_ (London,
1775). His arguments are given in Kingsborough’s Mex. Antiq., viii.
Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 91) epitomizes them. Adair’s book appeared
in a German translation at Breslau (1782).

[736] _Observations on the language of the Muhhekaneew Indians, in
which ... some instances of analogy between that and the Hebrew are
pointed out_ (New Haven, 1788). Cf. on the contrary, Jarvis before the
N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1819.

[737] _Essay upon the propagation of the Gospel, in which there are
facts to prove that many of the indians in America are descended from
the Ten Tribes_ (Philad., 1799; 2d ed., 1801).

[738] _A Star in the West, or an attempt to discover the long lost Ten
Tribes of Israel_ (Trenton, N. J., 1816).

[739] _View of the Hebrews, or the tribe of Israel in America_
(Poultney, Vt., 1825).

[740] _A view of the Amer. Indians, shewing them to be the descendants
of the Ten Tribes of Israel_ (Lond., 1828).

[741] _Discourse on the evidences of the Amer. Indians being the
descendants of the lost tribes of Israel_ (N. Y., 1837). It is
reprinted in Maryatt’s _Diary in America_, vol. ii.

[742] _Hist. of the Wyandotte Mission_ (Cincinnati, 1840); Thomson’s
_Ohio Bibliog._, 409.

[743] _Manners, &c. of the N. Amer. Indians_ (Lond., 1841). Cf.
_Smithsonian Rept._, 1885, ii. 532.

[744] Mainly in vol. vii.; but see vi. 232, etc. Cf. Short, 143, 460,
and Bancroft, _Nat. Races_ (v. 26), with an epitome of Kingsborough’s
arguments (v. 84). Mrs. Barbara Anne Simon in her _Hope of Israel_
(Lond., 1829) advocated the theory on biblical grounds; but later she
made the most of Kingsborough’s amassment of points in her _Ten Tribes
of Israel historically identified with the aborigines of the Western
Hemisphere_ (London, 1836).

[745] The recognition of the theory in the Mormon bible is well
known. Bancroft (v. 97) epitomizes its recital, following Bertrand’s
_Mémoires_. There is a repetition of the old arguments in a sermon,
_Increase of the Kingdom of Christ_ (N. Y., 1831), by the Indian
William Apes; and in _An Address_ by J. Madison Brown (Jackson, Miss.,
1860). Señor Melgar points out resemblances between the Maya and the
Hebrew in the _Bol. Soc. Méx. Geog._, iii. Even the Western mounds have
been made to yield Hebrew inscriptions (_Congrès des Amér._, Nancy, ii.
192).

Many of the general treatises on the origin of the Americans have set
forth the opposing arguments. Garcia did it fairly in his _Origen de
los Indios_ (1607; ed. by Barcia, 1729), and Bancroft (v. 78-84) has
condensed his treatment. Brasseur (_Hist. Nat. Civ._, i. 17) rejects
the theory of the ten tribes; but is not inclined to abandon a belief
in some scattered traces. Short (pp. 135, 144) epitomizes the claims.
Gaffarel covers them in his _Etude sur les rapports de l’Amérique_ (p.
87) with references, and these last are enlarged in Bancroft’s _Nat.
Races_, v. 95-97.

[746] Varnhagen’s _L’origine touranienne des Américains Tupis-Caraïbes
et des anciens Egyptiens, indiquée principalement par la philologie
comparée: traces d’une ancienne migration en Amérique, invasion du
Brésil par les Tupis_ (Vienne, 1876). Labat’s _Nouveau Voyage aux isles
de l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1722), vol. ii. ch. 23. Sieur de la Borde’s
_Relation de l’origine, mœurs, coutumes, etc. des Caraibes_ (Paris,
1764). Robertson’s America. James Kennedy’s _Probable origin of the
Amer. Indians, with particular reference to that of the Caribs_ (Lond.,
1854), or _Journal of the Ethnolog. Soc._ (vol. iv.). _London Geog.
Journal_, iii. 290.

[747] Cf. Peter Martyr, Torquemada, and later writers, like La Perouse,
McCulloh, Haven (p. 48), Gaffarel (_Rapport_, 204), J. Perez in _Rev.
Orientale et Amér._, viii., xii.; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iii. 458.
Brinton (_Address_, 1887) takes exception to all such views. Cf.
Quatrefages’ _Human Species_ (N. Y., 1879, pp. 200, 202).

[748] Cf. Beccari in _Kosmos_, Apr., 1879; De Candolle in _Géographie
botanique_ (1855).

[749] Santarem, _Hist. de la Cartog._, iii. 76, refers to maps of the
fourteenth century in copies of Ranulphus Hydgen’s _Polychronicon_, in
the British Museum and in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, which
show a land in the north, called in the one Wureland and in the other
Wyhlandia.

[750] _Mag. Am. Hist._, April, 1883, p. 290. Cf. Vol. II. p. 28. The
name used is “Grinlandia.”

[751] Mauro’s map was called by Ramusio, who saw it, an improved
copy of one brought from Cathay by Marco Polo. It is preserved in
the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice. It was made by Mauro under the
command of Don Alonso V., and Bianco assisted him. The exact date is
in dispute; but all agree to place it between 1457 and 1460. A copy
was made on vellum in 1804, which is now in the British Museum. Our
cut follows one corner of the reproduction in Santarem’s _Atlas_. A
photographic fac-simile has been issued in Venice by Ongania, and St.
Martin (_Atlas_, p. vii) follows this fac-simile. Ruge (_Geschichte
des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_) gives a modernized and more legible
reproduction. There are other drawings in Zurla’s _Fra Mauro_;
Vincent’s _Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients_ (1797, 1807);
Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_ (pl. xxxiii). Cf. _Studi della Soc. Geografia
Italia_ (1882), ii. 76, for references.

[752] Rafn gives a large map of Iceland with the names of a.d. 1000.
On the errors of early and late maps of Iceland see Baring-Gould’s
_Ultima Thule_, i. 253. On the varying application of the name Thule,
Thyle, etc., to the northern regions or to particular parts of them,
see R. F. Burton’s _Ultima Thule, a Summer in Iceland_ (London, 1875),
ch. 1. Bunbury (_Hist. Anc. Geog._, ii. 527) holds that the Thule of
Marinus of Tyre and of Ptolemy was the Shetlands. Cf. James Wallace’s
_Description of the Orkney islands_ (1693,—new ed., 1887, by John
Small) for an essay on “the Thule of the Ancients.”

[753] There are other reproductions of the map in full, in
Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, i. 51; in his _Broderna Zenos_, and in his
_Studien_, p. 31. Cf. also the present _History_, II., p. 28, for
other bibliographical detail; Hassler, _Buchdruckergeschichte Ulm’s_;
D’Avezac’s _Waltzemüller_, 23; Wilberforce Eames’s _Bibliography
of Ptolemy_, separately, and in Sabin’s _Dictionary_; and Winsor’s
_Bibliog. of Ptolemy’s Geography_.

[754] Cf. D’Avezac in _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._, xx. 417.

[755] See Vol. II. p. 41. There is another sketch in Nordenskjöld’s
_Studien_, etc., p. 33, which is reduced from a fac-simile given in
José de Lacerda’s _Exame dos Viagens do Doutor Livingstone_ (Lissabon,
1867). The present extract is from Santarem, pl. 50. Cf. O. Peschel in
_Ausland_, Feb. 13, 1857, and his posthumous _Abhandlungen_, i. 213.

[756] See references in Vol. II. p. 105.

[757] See Vol. II. p. 108.

[758] See _post_, Vol. IV. p. 35; and Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, p.
174. Cf. Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1511.

[759] He holds that the 1513 Ptolemy map was drawn in 1501-4, and was
engraved before Dec. 10, 1508.

[760] See Vol. II. p. 115.

[761] Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1511.

[762] See Vol. II. p. 111. Winsor’s _Ptolemy_, sub anno 1513. Reisch,
in 1515, seems to have been of the same opinion. Cf. the bibliography
of Reisch’s _Margarita Philosophia_ in Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vol.
xvi., and separately, prepared by Wilberforce Eames. Reisch’s map is
given _post_, Vol. II. p. 114. Another sketch of this map, with an
examination of the question, where the name “Zoana Mela,” applied on it
to America, came from, is given by Frank Wieser in the _Zeitschrift für
Wissensch. Geographie_ (Carlsruhe), vol. v., a sight of which I owe to
the author, who believes Waldseemüller made the map.

[763] The map is given, _post_, Vol. II. 175. Cf. also Nordenskjöld,
_Studien_, p. 53.

[764] Cf. Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1522.

[765] Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1525. This map is no.
49, “Gronlandiæ et Russiæ.” Cf. Witsen’s _Noord en Oost Tartctrye_
(1705), vol. ii.

[766] Winsor’s _Kohl Collection_, no. 102.

[767] Given _post_, Vol. III. p. 17.

[768] Given _post_, Vol. III. p. 11.

[769] _Jahrb. des Vereins für Erdkunde in Dresden_ (1870), tab.
vii. A similar feature is in the map described by Peschel in the
_Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde in Leipzig_ (1871). It is also
to be seen in the Homem map of about 1540 (given in Vol. II. p. 446),
and in the map which Major assigns to Baptista Agnese, and which was
published in Paris in 1875 as a _Portulan de Charles Quint._ (Cf. Vol.
II. p. 445.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[782] Vol. III p. 98.

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

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

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

[786] _Archæological Tour_, p. 202.

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

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

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

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

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

[792] _Nat. Races_, v. 160.

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

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

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

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

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

[798] _Nat. Races_, v. 186.

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

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

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

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

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

[804] See p. 158.

[805] Kirk says (Prescott’s _Mexico_): “Confusion arises from the name
of Chichimec, originally that of a single tribe, and subsequently of
its many offshoots, being also used to designate successive hordes of
whatever race.” Some have seen in the Waiknas of the Mosquito Coast,
and in the Caribs generally, descendants of these Chichimecs who have
kept to their old social level. The Caribs, on other authority, came
originally from the stock of the Tupis and Guaranis, who occupied
the region south of the Amazon, and in Columbus’s time they were
scattered in Darien and Honduras, along the northern regions of South
America, and in some of the Antilles (Von Martius, _Beiträge sur
Ethnographie and Sprachenkunde Amerika’s zumal Brasilìens_, Leipzig,
1867). Bancroft (ii. 126) gives the etymology of Chichimec and of other
tribal designations. Cf. Buschmann’s _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_
(Berlin, 1853). Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 200; _Peabody Mus. Repts._,
ii. 393) says he fails to discover in the word anything more than a
general term, signifying a savage, a hunter, or a warrior, Chichimecos,
applied to roving tribes. Brasseur says that Mexican tradition applies
the term Chichimecs generically to the first occupants of the New World.

[806] These names wander and exchange consonants provokingly, and it
may be enough to give alphabetically a list comprised of those in
Prichard (_Nat. Hist. Man_) and Orozco y Berra (_Geografía_), with
some help from Gallatin in the _American Ethno. Soc. Trans._, i.,
and other groupers of the ethnological traces: Chinantecs, Chatinos,
Cohuixcas, Chontales, Colhuas, Coras, Cuitatecs, Chichimecs, Cuextecas
(Guaxtecas, Huastecs), Mazetecs, Mazahuas, Michinacas, Miztecs,
Nonohualcas, Olmecs, Otomís, Papabucos, Quinames, Soltecos, Totonacs,
Triquis, Tepanecs, Tarascos, Xicalancas, Zapotecs. It is not unlikely
the same people may be here mentioned under different names. The
diversity of opinions respecting the future of these vapory existences
is seen in Bancroft’s collation (v. 202). Torquemada tells us about all
that we know of the Totonacs, who claim to have been the builders of
Teotihuacan. Bancroft gives references (v. 204) for the Totonacs, (p.
206) for the Otomís, (p. 207) for the Mistecs and Zapotecs, and (p.
208) for the Huastecs.

[807] Bancroft, ii. 97. Brasseur, _Nat. Civ._, i. ch. 4, and his
_Palenqué_ ch. 3.

[808] Called Huehue-Tlapallan, as Brasseur would have it.

[809] Following Motolinía and other early writers.

[810] _Native Races_, v. 219, 616.

[811] Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 253.

[812] Kingsborough, ix. 206, 460; Veytia, i. 155, 163. Of the
Quetzalcoatl myth there are references elsewhere. P. J. J. Valentini
has made a study of the early Mexican ethnology and history in his
“Olmecas and Tultecas,” translated by S. Salisbury, Jr., and printed
in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 21, 1882. On Quetzalcoatl in
Cholula, see Torquemada, translated in Bancroft, iii. 258.

[813] This wide difference covers intervening centuries, each of which
has its advocates. Short carries their coming back to the fourth
century (p. 245), but Clavigero’s date of A.D. 544 is more commonly
followed. Veytia makes it the seventh century. Bancroft (v. 211, 214)
notes the diversity of views.

[814] Bancroft (v. 322) in a long note collates the different
statements of the routes and sojourns in this migration. Cf. Short, p.
259.

[815] Cf. Kirk in Prescott, i. 10. It must be confessed that it is
rather in the domain of myth than of history that we must place all
that has been written about the scattering of the Toltec people at
Babel (Bancroft, v. 19), and their finally reaching Huehue-Tlapallan,
wherever that may have been. The view long prevalent about this
American starting-point of the Nahuas, Toltecs, or whatever designation
may be given to the beginners of this myth and history, placed it in
California, but some later writers think it worth while to give it a
geographical existence in the Mississippi Valley, and to associate
it in some vague way with the moundbuilders and their works (Short,
_No. Amer. of Antiq._, 251, 253). There is some confusion between
Huehue-Tlapallan of this story and the Tlapallan noticed in the Spanish
conquest time, which was somewhere in the Usumacinta region, and if we
accept Tollan, Tullan, or Tula as a form of the name, the confusion
is much increased (Short, pp. 217-220). Bancroft (v. 214) says there
is no sufficient data to determine the position of Huehue-Tlapallan,
but he thinks “the evidence, while not conclusive, favors the south
rather than the north” (p. 216). The truth is, about these conflicting
views of a northern or southern origin, pretty much as Kirk puts it
(Prescott, i. 18): “All that can be said with confidence is, that
neither of the opposing theories rests on a secure and sufficient
basis.” The situation of Huehue-Tlapallan and Aztlan is very likely one
and the same question, as looking to what was the starting-point of all
the Nahua migrations, extending over a thousand years.

[816] Bancroft, v. 217.

[817] Torquemada, Boturini, Humboldt, Brasseur, Charnay, Short, etc.

[818] _Nat. Races_ (v. 222).

[819] In support of the California location, Buschmann, in his
_Ueber die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im nördlichen Mexico und
höheren Amerikanischen Norden_ (Berlin, 1854), finds traces of the
Mexican tongue in those of the recent California Indians. Linguistic
resemblances to the Aztec, even so far north as Nootka, have been
traced, but later philologists deny the inferences of relationship
drawn from such similarity (Bancroft, iii. p. 612). The linguistic
confusion in aboriginal California is so great that there is a wide
field for tracing likenesses (_Ibid._ iii. 635). In the _California
State Mining Bureau, Bulletin no. 1_ (Sacramento, 1888), Winslow
Anderson gives a description of some desiccated human remains found
in a sealed cave, which are supposed to be Aztec. There are slight
resemblances to the Aztec in the Shoshone group of languages (Bancroft,
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.

[Illustration: FROM DAWSON’S FOSSIL MEN.

A front view of a Hochelagan skull, surrounded by the outline, on a
larger scale, of the Cro-magnon skull.]

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),
xxix. 63, says they were found in the Hudson River, and he supposed
them the remains of a giant man, while the colored earth about the
bones represented his rotted body. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xii.
263.

[1669] See on this a later page.

[1670] Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed., 236; Nadaillac’s _Les premiers
hommes_, ii. 13; Southall’s _Recent origin of man_, ch. 30. Vogt
(_Lectures on Man_) accepts the evidence.

[1671] Cf. Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, ch. 5; Huxley’s _Man’s place in
nature_; Le Hon’s _L’Homme fossile en Europe_; Leslie’s _Origin and
destiny of man_, p. 54, who passes in review these early tentative
explorations.

[1672] Cf. Lyell’s description in his _Antiquity of Man_, ch. 8;
Quatrefages, _Nat. Hist. Man_ (N. Y., 1875), p. 41; Langel, _L’homme
antédiluvien_; Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., ch. 1; Carl Vogt,
_Vorlesungen über den Menschen_.

[1673] Rigollot, of Amiens, who had doubted, finally came to believe in
De Perthes’s views.

[1674] Büchner’s _Man_, p. 26; Hugh Falconer’s _Palæontological
Memoirs_, London, 1868 (ii. 601). Falconer’s essay on “Primæval Man and
his Contemporaries,” included in this work, was written in 1863, in
vindication of the views which Falconer shared with Boucher de Perthes
and Prestwich, and it is an interesting study of the development of the
interest in the caves.

[1675] Lyell, _Antiq. of Man_, ch. 8; Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, ch.
11; Nadaillac, _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. 122; Leslie, _Origin, etc. of
Man_, 56. Southall gives the antagonistic views in his _Recent Origin
of Man_, ch. 16, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, 126.

[1676] This is in dispute, however. That the older cave implements and
those of the drift may be of equivalent age seems to be agreed upon by
some.

[1677] Cf. also Geikie’s _Great Ice Age_; Lubbock’s _Prehistoric
Times_, ch. 10; Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements of Gt. Britain_;
Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_; Nilsson’s _Stone Age in
Scandinavia_; Figuier’s _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p.
473; Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 3; Cazalis de Fondouce’s _Les temps
préhistoriques dans le sud-est de la France_; Roujow’s _Etude sur les
races humaines de la France_; Peschel’s _Races of Men_, introd.

The scarcity of human remains in the drift and in the caves is
accounted for by Lyell (_Student’s Elements_, N. Y., p. 153) by man’s
wariness against floods as compared with that of beasts; and by Lubbock
(_Prehist. Times_, 349) through the vastly greater numbers of the
animals in a hunters’ age.

[1678] The present day is not without a cave people. See _London
Anthropolog. Rev._, April, 1869, and Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., p.
270.

[1679] Haven, p. 86.

[1680] Cf. Florentino Amegluno’s _La Antigüedad del Hombre en la
Plata_ (Paris, 1880), and Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_, 355, who
cites Klee’s _Le Déluge_, p. 326, and enumerates other evidences of
pleistocene man in South America, in connection with extinct animals.

[1681] The instances are not rare of mummies being found in caves of
the Mississippi Valley; but there is no evidence adduced of any great
age attaching to them. Cf. N. S. Shaler on the antiquity of the caverns
and cavern life of the Ohio Valley, in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._,
ii. 355 (1875); and on desiccated remains, see the _Archæologia Amer._,
i. 359; Brinton’s _Floridian Peninsula_, App. ii. On the American caves
see Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 2.

[1682] Abbott’s _Primitive Industry_, ch. 30.

[1683] Lyell, _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. ch. 2; Lubbock, _Prehist.
Times_, ch. 7; Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, i. ch. 5; Joly, _Man
before Metals_, ch. 4; Figuier, _World before Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872),
p. 477. Worsaae, the leading Danish authority, calls them palæolithic
relics; Lubbock places them as early neolithic. Southall, of course,
thinks they indicate the rudeness of the people, not their antiquity.
(_Recent Origin_, etc., ch. 12; _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 5.)

[1684] _Am. Naturalist_, ii. 397.

[1685] Cf. Lyell’s _Second Visit_.

[1686] All the general treatises on American archæology now cover
the subject: Wilson, _Prehist. Man_, i. 132; Nadaillac, _L’Amérique
préhistorique_, ch. 2; Short, _No. Amer. Antiq._, 106; _Smithsonian
Reports_, 1864 (Rau), 1866, 1870 (J. Fowler); _Bull. Essex Inst._, iv.
(Putnam); _Peabody Mus. Reports_, i., v., vii.; _Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
Proc._ 1867, 1875; _Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci. Proc._ 1866; _Pop. Science
Monthly_, x. (Lewis); Lyell’s _Second Visit_, i. 252; Stevens, _Flint
Chips_, 194. For local observations: J. M. Jones in _Smithsonian Ann.
Report_, 1863, on those of Nova Scotia. S. F. Baird in _Nat. Museum
Proc._ (1881, 1882), on those of New Brunswick and New England. For
those in Maine see _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvi., xviii.; _Central
Ohio Sci. Assoc. Proc._, i. 70; that at Damariscotta, in particular,
is described in the _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xx. 531, 546; and in the
_Maine Hist. Soc. Col._, v. (by P. A. Chadbourne) and vi. 349. Wyman’s
studies are in the _Amer. Naturalist_, Jan., 1868, and _Peabody Mus.
Rept._, ii. Putnam (_Essex Inst. Bull_., xv. 86) says that those at
Pine Grove, near Salem, Mass., were examined in 1840. The map which
is annexed of those on Cape Cod, taken from the _Smithsonian Report_
(1883, p. 905), shows the frequency of them in a confined area, as
observed; but the same region doubtless includes many not observed.

For those on the New Jersey coast see Cook’s _Geology of New Jersey_
(Newark, 1868), and Rau in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1863, 1864, 1865.
The Lockwood collection from the heap at Keyport is in the Peabody
Museum (cf. _Rept._, xxii. 43). Francis Jordan describes the _Remains
of an Aboriginal Encampment at Rehoboth, Delaware_ (Philad., 1880).
Elmer R. Reynolds reported on “Precolumbian shell heaps at Newburg,
Maryland, and the aboriginal shell heaps of the Potomac and Wicomico
rivers” at the _Congrès des Américanistes_ (Copenhagen, 1883, p. 292).
Joseph Leidy describes those at Cape Henlopen in the _Phil. Acad. Nat.
Sci._, 1866. Those on the Georgia coast, St. Simon’s Island, etc., are
pointed out in C. C. Jones’s _Antiquities of the Southern Indians;
Smithsonian Repts._, 1871 (by D. Brown); in Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_,
and in his _Second Visit to the U. S._ (N. Y., 1849), i. 252.

The shell heaps of Florida have had unusual attention. Wyman has
indicated the absence of objects in them, showing Spanish contact. Dr.
Brinton’s first studies of them were in his _Notes on the Floridian
Peninsula_ (Philad., 1859), ch. 6, and again in the _Smithsonian
Report_ (1866), p. 356. Prof. Wyman’s first reports (St. John River)
were in _The American Naturalist_, Jan., Oct., Nov., 1868. He also
described them in the _Peabody Mus. Report_, i., v., vii., and in his
_Fresh Water Shell Heaps of the St. John River, Florida_ (Salem, 1875),
being no. 4 of the _Memoirs of the Peabody Acad. of Science_. There are
other investigations recorded in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1877, by S.
P. Mayberry, on St. John River; 1879, by S. T. Walker, on Tampa Bay;
also by A. W. Vogeler in _Amer. Naturalist_, Jan., 1879; by W. H. Dall
in the _American Journal of Archæology_, i. 184; and by A. E. Douglass
in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 74, 140. On those of Alabama, see
_Peabody Mus. Rept._, xvi. 186, and _Smithsonian Rept._, 1877.

On those of the great interior valleys, see the _Second Geological
Report of Indiana_, and Humphrey and Abbott’s _Physics and Hydraulics
of the Mississippi Valley_.

For the California coast, there is testimony in Bancroft’s _Native
Races_, iv. 709-712; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874 (by P. Schumacher);
_American Antiquarian_, vii. 159; and _Journal of the Anthropological
Institute_, v. 489. Schumacher covers the northwest coast in the
_Smithsonian Rept._, 1873. Those in Oregon are reported to be destitute
of the bones of extinct animals, in the _Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey_,
iii. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 739, refers to those on Vancouver’s
Island. W. H. Dall describes those on the Aleutian Islands in the
_Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology_, i. 41.

[1687] This branch of archæological science began, I believe, with
the discovery by Sir Wm. R. Wilde of some lacustrine habitations in a
small lake in county Meath. R. Monro’s _Ancient Scotch lake Dwellings_
(Edinburgh, 1882) has gathered what is known of the remains in Great
Britain. There are similar remains in various parts of the continent
of Europe; but those revealed by the dry season of 1853-54 in the
Swiss lakes have attracted the most notice. Dr. Keller described them
in _Reports_ made to the Archæological Society of Zurich. A. Morlot
printed an abstract of Keller’s Report in the _Smithsonian Report_,
1863. In 1866, J. E. Lee arranged Keller’s material systematically, and
translated it in _The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and other parts
of Europe, by Ferdinand Keller_ (London, 1866), which was reissued,
enlarged and brought down to date, in a second edition in 1878. The
earliest elaborated account was Prof. Troyon’s _Habitations lacustres_
(1860), of which there was a translation in the _Smithsonian Reports_,
1860, 1861. Troyon and Keller have reached different conclusions: the
one believing that the traces of development in the remains indicate
new peoples coming in, while Keller holds these to be signs of the
progress of the same people. A paper by Edouard Desor, _Palafittes or
Lacustrian Constructions_, appeared in English in the _Smithsonian
Report_, 1865. There is a large collection of typical relics from these
lake dwellings in the Peabody Museum (_Report_, v.).

These evidences now make part of all archæological treatises: Lyell’s
_Antiq. of Man_; Lubbock, _Prehist. Times_, ch. 6; Nadaillac, _Les
premiers hommes_, i. 241; Stevens, _Flint Chips_, 119; Joly, _Man
before Metals_, ch. 5; Figuier, _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y.,
1872), p. 478; Southall, _Recent Origin_, etc., ch. 11, and _Epoch
of the Mammoth_, ch. 4; _Archæologia_, xxxviii.; Haven in _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc_., Oct., 1867; Rau in _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875;
_Poole’s Index_, p. 718, and _Supplement_, p. 246. The man of the
Danish peat-beds and of the Swiss lake dwellings is generally held to
belong to the present geological conditions, but earlier than written
records.

[1688] _Senate Doc._; also separately, Philad., 1852. Cf. Bancroft,
_Native Races_, iv. 652; Domenech’s _Deserts_, etc., i. 201; _Annual
Scient. Discovery_, 1850; Short, _No. Am. of Antiq._, 293. A photograph
of the Casa Blanca is given in _Putnam’s Report, Wheeler’s Survey_, p.
370. Cf. Haven in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1855, p. 26.

[1689] _Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the territories_, 2d
series, no. 1 (Washington, 1875), and its _Annual Rept._ (Washington,
1876), condensed in Bancroft, iv. 650, 718, and by E. A. Barber in
_Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 22. Cf. Short, 295, etc.

[1690] _Bulletin_, etc., ii. (1876). Hayden’s _Survey_ (1876).
Cf. Short, p. 305; _Kansas City Rev._, Dec., 1879 (on their age);
James Stevenson in _Fourth Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_, pp. xxxiv,
284; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_ (ii. 61), and _L’Amérique
préhistorique_, ch. 5; _Scribner’s Mag._, Dec., 1878 (xvii. 266); _Good
Words_, xx. 486; _Science_, xi. 257. Those of the Cañon de Chelly are
described by James Stevenson in the _Journal Amer. Geo. Soc._ (1886),
p. 329. It is generally recognized that the cliff dwellers and the
Pueblo people were the same race, and that the modern Zuñi and Moquis
represent them. Bandelier in _Archæol. Inst. of Am., 5th Rept._ J.
Stevenson (_Second Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, 431) describes some cavate
dwellings of this region cut out of the rock by hand. There is no
evidence that these remains call for any association with them of the
great antiquity of man.

[1691] Cf., for instance, Short, 331.

[1692] Morgan (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 257) finds correspondence
to the roving Indian in physical and cranial character, in linguistic
traits, and in the similarity of arts and social habits. Their
connection with the moundbuilder and cliff-dwelling race is traced in
H. F. C. Ten Kate’s _Reizen en Onderzolkingen in Nord America_ (Leyden,
1885). Cushing thinks (_Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 481) they got their
habit of building in stories from having, as cliff-dwellers, earlier
built on the narrow shelves of the rocks. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._,
xii. 550) thinks their architectural art deteriorated, since the ruined
pueblos are finer constructions than those inhabited now. Cf. on the
origin of Pueblo architecture V. Mindeleff in _Science_, ix. 593, and
S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv. 208, and _Wisconsin Acad. of
Science_, v. 290.

[1693] See chapter vii. of Vol. II.

[1694] Cf. lesser accounts of these earlier notices in E. G. Squier’s
paper in the _Amer. Rev._, Nov., 1848; and G. M. Wheeler in the
_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ (1874), vol. vi.

[1695] The book is rare. There is a copy in Harvard College library.
Cf. Sabin, ii. 4636-38; Ternaux, 518; Carter-Brown, ii.; Leclerc, no.
813 (200 francs). There is a French version, Brussels, 1631; and a
Latin, Saltzburg, 1634.

[1696] Not to be confounded with the Casas Grandes, farther south in
the Mexican province of Chihuahua, which is of a similar character. Cf.
Bancroft, iv. 604 (with references); Short, ch. 7; Bartlett’s _Personal
Narrative_, ii. 348. It was first described in Escudero’s _Noticias de
Chihuahua_ (1819); and again in 1842, in _Album Mexicano_, i. 372.

[1697] From that day to the present there have been very many
descriptions: _Documentos para la historia de Mexico_, 4th ser., i.
282; iv. 804; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 621; Short, 279; Schoolcraft,
_Ind. Tribes_, iii. 300; Bartlett, _Personal Nar._, ii. 278, 281;
Emory, _Reconnaissance_, 81, 567; Humboldt, _Essai politique_; Baldwin,
_Anc. America_, 82; Mayer, _Mexico_, ii. 396, and _Observations_,
15; Domenech, _Deserts_, i. 381; Ross Browne, _Apache Country_, 114;
Jametel in _Rev. de Géog._, Mar., 1881; Nadaillac, _Prehist. Amér._,
222. Bancroft groups many of the descriptions, and best collates them.

[1698] Gregg, in his _Commerce des Prairies_ (N. Y., 1844), examined
the Pueblo Bonito in 1840.

[1699] Washington, 1848,—30th Cong., Ex. Doc. 41. This includes Lieut.
J. W. Abert’s _Report and Map of the Examination of New Mexico_. He
visited two pueblos. This and other material afforded the base for
the studies of Squier and Gallatin, the former printing “The ancient
monuments of the aboriginal semi-civilized nations of New Mexico and
California” (_Amer. Rev._, 1848), and the latter a paper in the _Amer.
Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii., repeated in French in the _Nouv. Ann. des
Voyages_, 1851, iii. 237.

[1700] This is perhaps the most important of all the ruins. Bancroft,
iv. 671. Bandelier’s studies are the most recent. _Congrès des Amér.,
Compte Rendu_, 1877, ii. 230, and his _Introd. to studies among the
sedentary Indians of New Mexico and Report of the ruins of Pecos_
(Boston, 1881,—Archæol. Inst. of America).

[1701] Also in _Rept. of Sec. of War, 1st Sess. 31st Cong._ Cf.
Bancroft, iv. 652, 655, 661; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 86; Domenech’s
_Deserts_, i. 149, 379; Short, 292. The Chaco cañon was visited
by W. H. Jackson in 1877, and his report is in the _Report of
Hayden’s Survey_, 1878, p. 411. Morgan gives a summary, with maps
(see Nadaillac, 229), in his _Houses and House Life_, etc., ch. 7,
8,—holding (p. 167) them to be the seven cities of Cibola seen by
Coronado. Cf. on this mooted question our Vol. II. 501-503; and
Simpson’s paper in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ vol. v.

[1702] _32d Cong., 2d sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 59._

[1703] On the Zuñi region see Bancroft, iv. 645, 667, 673 (with ref.);
Short, 288; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die Felsengebirge Nord Amerikas_
(ii. 196, 402), and his _Tagebuch_, 283; Cozzen’s _Marvellous Country_;
_Tour du Monde_, i.; _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875; J. E. Stevenson’s
_Zuñi and the Zunians_ (Washington, 1881). Of F. H. Cushing’s recent
labors among the Zuñi, see Powell’s _Second_, _Third_, and _Fifth
Reports, Bur. of Ethnology_.

[1704] The _Report_ of Lieut. W. H. Emory, directly in charge of
the survey (_Ho. Ex. Doc. 135, 34th Cong., 1st sess._), was printed
separately in 3 vols. in 1859.

[1705] _Report upon U. S. Geol. Surveys, west of the one hundredth
meridian in charge of First Lieut. Geo. M. Wheeler, vol. vii.,
Archæology_ (Washington, 1879). Ernest Ingersoll, a member of the
survey, published some papers on the “Village Indians of New Mexico” in
the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vi. and vii.

[1706] Cf. L. H. Morgan on this ruin in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii.
536, and in a paper in the _Trans. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci._ (St. Louis,
1877).

[1707] His notes form a good bibliography. He intends as a supplement
an account of the different explorations prior to the seventeenth
century.

[1708] Bancroft (_Native Races_, i. 529, 599; iv. 662, etc.) gives the
best clues to authorities prior to 1875. Short (ch. 7) condenses more,
and Baldwin (p. 78) still more. Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_
(ch. 5) also summarizes. Morgan studies the social condition of this
ancient people (_Systems of Consanguinity_, Part ii. ch. 6; _Houses and
House Life_, ch. 6; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xii.). Cf. James Stevenson’s
“Ancient Habitations of the Southwest” in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._,
xviii. (1886), and his illustrated _Catalogue of Collections_ in
Powell’s _Second Rept. Bureau of Ethnol._; E. A. Barber on “Les anciens
pueblos” in _Cong. des Américanistes,_ 1877, i. 23, in which he traces
a gradation from the moundbuilders through the old pueblo peoples to
the Toltecs; C. Schoebel’s account of an expedition in the _Archives de
la Soc. Amér. de France_, nouv. ser. i., and the references in _Poole’s
Index_, i. 1063; ii. 359.

Dividing the remaining references into localities, we note for New
Mexico the following: J. H. Carleton in the _Smithsonian Rept._ (1854);
W. B. Lyon (_Ibid._ 1871); J. A. McParlin (_Ibid._ 1877); Turner in
_Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; and A. W. Bell in _Journal of the
Ethnol. Soc._ (London), Oct., 1869. Carleton describes the ruins also
in the _Western Journal_, xiv. 185. Clarence Pullen describes the
people in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xix. 22. For Colorado: E. L.
Berthoud in _Smithsonian Repts._, 1867, 1871. G. L. Cannon in _Ibid._
1877; H. Gannett in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xvi. 666 (Mar., 1880); _Amer.
Naturalist_, x. 31; _Lippincott’s Mag._, xxvi. 54. For Arizona: F.
E. Grossmann, J. C. Y. Lee, and R. T. Burr in _Smithsonian Repts._,
respectively for 1871, 1872, 1879, with other references in Poole under
“Moqui.”

[1709] This scope of treatment is manifest in the large number of
papers contained in the _Smithsonian Reports_. See W. J. Rhees’ _Catal.
of Publ. of Sm. Inst._ (Washington, 1882), pp. 252-3.

[1710] _Beschreibung der Reise_ (Göttingen, 1764; Eng. transl., Lond.,
1772).

[1711] _Journal of two visits_, etc., Burlington, 1774 (Thomson’s
_Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 657).

[1712] His account is copied in the _Mass. Mag._, Oct., 1791.

[1713] Cf. _Amer. Mag._, Dec., 1787; Jan., Feb, 1788.

[1714] Repeated in Gilbert Imlay’s _Topog. Descrip. West. Territory_.

[1715] _Journal of a Tour._

[1716] _Voyage dans Louisiane_ (Paris, 1807).

[1717] _Sketches of Louisiana_ (1812).

[1718] _Views of Louisiana_ (Pittsburg, 1814).

[1719] _Account of the History, Manners and Customs of the Indian
Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring States_,
in the _Transactions Amer. Philos. Soc._ (1819), and later repeated in
other editions and versions (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no.
533, etc., and Pilling’s _Eskimo Bibliog._, 43). Louis Cass’s criticism
on Heckewelder is in _No. Am. Rev._ Jan., 1826. Cf. Haven, _Archæol. U.
S._, 43.

[1720] _Description of the Antiquities discovered in the State of
Ohio and other Western States, with engravings from actual surveys_
(Worcester, Mass., 1820). This was reprinted in the _Writings of Caleb
Atwater_ (Columbus, 1833). This volume also included his _Observations
made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829_ (Columbus, 1831), where
Atwater was sent by the Federal government to purchase mineral lands of
the Indians (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 52; Pilling, _Bibl.
of Siouan Lang._, p. 2). The part originally published in the _Archæol.
Amer._ was translated by Malte Brun in _Nouv. Annales de Voyages_,
xxviii., who added a paper on “L’origine et l’époque des monumens de
l’Ohio.” Cf. Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 33, and the memoir of Atwater in
_Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1867.

[1721] Including those of Newark, Perry County, Marietta, Circleville,
Paint Creek, Little Miami, Piketon, etc.

[1722] Haven, 117. This publication was anticipated by a condensed
statement in Squier’s _Observation on the Aboriginal Monuments of the
Mississippi Valley_, in the second volume of the _Trans. Amer. Ethnol.
Soc._ (N. Y., 1847), and in his _Observations on the Uses of the Mounds
of the West, with an attempt at their Classification_ (New Haven,
1847). Cf. also _Harper’s Mag._, xx. 737; xxi. 20, 165; _Amer. Jour.
Science_, lxi. 305.

[1723] These went in 1863 to the Blackmore collection in Salisbury,
Eng., and are described in Stevens’ _Flint Chips_.

[1724] Cf. _Trans. Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci._, 1873, and a paper “On the
weapons and military character of the race of the mounds” in the
_Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._, i. 473 (1869).

[1725] _Proceedings_, Oct. 23, 1852, where are plans of those at
Crawfordsville, and of others in the dividing ridge between the
Mississippi and the Kickapoo rivers. Cf. _Ibid._ Oct., 1876.

[1726] P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 925.

[1727] As, for instance, Conant’s _Footprints of Vanished Races_
(1879). Cf. T. H. Lewis in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, Jan.,
1886 (ii. 65).

[1728] _Archæology of the U. S._ (1856).

[1729] M’Culloh in 1829 had come to a similar conclusion, and Gallatin
and Schoolcraft have somewhat followed him.

[1730] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866. Cf. Charlevoix.

[1731] This was Dr. J. C. Warren’s view in 1837, in a paper before the
_Brit. Asso. Adv. Science_. Cf. also Blumenbach, Morton, Nott, and
Gliddon.

[1732] Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 539) thinks they were connected
in some obscure way with these southern nations, and in 1875 could
write (p. 787) that “most and the best authorities deem it impossible
that the moundbuilders were ever the remote ancestors of the Indian
tribes.” Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 55) deems the modern Pueblo Indians
to be their representatives. Brasseur supposes the Toltecs came from
them. (Cf. also Short, 492; and S. B. Evans, in _Kansas City Rev._,
March, 1882.) John Wells Foster, who had for some years written on the
subject, gathered his results in a composite volume, _Prehistoric Races
of the United States_ (Chicago, 1873, 1878, 1881, etc.), in which he
held to the theory of their migrating south and developing into the
civilization of Central America. Cf. his paper in the _Trans. Chicago
Acad. Nat. Sci._, vol. i., and his abstract of it in his _Mississippi
Valley_ (1869, p. 415). J. P. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati,
1879) takes similar ground. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 552)
holds that they cannot be classed with any known Indian “stock,” and
that the “nearest region from which they could have been derived is
New Mexico.” Wills de Haas takes exception to this view in the _Trans.
Anthropological Soc. of Washington_ (1881). Cf. R. S. Robertson in
_Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (1877), xi. 39.

[1733] Major Powell says, that years ago he reached the conclusion
that the modern Indians must have raised at least some of the mounds
in the Mississippi Valley (_Bur. of Ethnol. Rept._, iv. p. xxx).
Cf. also Powell’s paper in _Science_, x. 267. In the second of
these reports (p. 117) Henry W. Henshaw sets forth the views, which
the Bureau maintained; and he defended these views in the _Amer.
Antiquarian_, viii. 102. The leading member, however, of the Bureau
staff, who is working in this field, is Cyrus Thomas. In the _Nat.
Mus. Report_ (1887) he defined the aim and character of the _Work in
Mound Exploration of the Bureau of Ethnology_, also issued separately.
In this it was stated that over 2,000 mounds had been opened, and
38,000 relics gathered from them; but nothing to afford any clue to the
language which the moundbuilders spoke. The conclusions reached were:—

_First_, the mounds are as diversified as the Indian tribes are.

_Second_, they yield no signs of a superior race.

_Third_, their builders and the Indians are the same.

_Fourth_, the accounts of the early European visitors of the Indians
found here correspond to the disclosures of the mounds.

_Fifth_, certain kinds of mounds in certain localities are the work of
tribes now known; and there are no signs about the mounds to connect
them with the Pueblo Indians or those farther south.

Thomas, in the _Fifth Report_ (1888) described the “Burial Mounds of
the northern sections of the U. S.” He says that the character of the
mounds and their contents indicate the possibility of dividing the
territory they occupy roughly into eight districts, each with some
prominent characteristic, and he roughly distinguishes these sections
as of Wisconsin; the Upper Mississippi; Ohio; New York; Appalachian;
the Middle Mississippi; the Lower Mississippi and the Gulf. He holds
that the moundbuilding people existed from about the fifth or sixth
century down to historic times.

Taking for his texts the mounds of the Appalachian districts, he
has presented anew his grounds for believing this region at least
to have had the red Indian race for the constructors of its mounds,
and that the Cherokees were that race. Carr had already (1876), from
investigating a truncated oval mound in Virginia, and comparing it with
Bartram’s (_Travels_, 365) description of a Cherokee council-house
(_Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. 75), reached the conclusion that that
particular mound was built by the Cherokees. Thomas further undertakes
to prove that the Cherokees once occupied the Appalachian region, and
that implements of the white men are found in some of the mounds,
bringing them down to a period since the contact with Europeans. The
habits of the builders of these mounds are, as he affirms, known to
correspond to what we know from historic evidence were the habits of
the Cherokees.

Thomas has also communicated the views of the Bureau in other ways, as
in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vi. 90; vii. 65; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, May,
1884, p. 396; 1887, p. 193; July and Sept., 1888. In these papers,
among other points, he maintains that the defensive enclosures of
northern Ohio are due to the Iroquois-Huron tribes, and he accepts the
view of Peet and Latham, that the animal mounds are more ancient than
the simpler forms. Other investigators have adopted, in some degree,
this view. Horatio Hale thinks the Cherokees of Iroquois origin, and
that they may have mingled with the moundbuilders. C. C. Baldwin holds
the Allegheni, Cherokees, and the moundbuilders to be the same.

Prominent among those who have adopted this red-Indian theory are Judge
M. F. Force and Lucien Carr. In 1874 Force published at Cincinnati
a paper, which he read before the literary club of that city; and
in 1877 he prepared a paper on the race of the moundbuilders, which
appears in French in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_
(1877, i. p. 121), and in English, _To what Race did the Moundbuilders
belong_ (Cincinnati, 1875). He maintains that the race, which shows no
differences from the modern Indians, flourished till about 1,000 years
ago, and that some of them still survived in the Gulf States in the
sixteenth century, and that their development was about on the plane of
the Pueblos, higher than the Algonquins and lower than the Aztecs.

Carr’s _Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically considered_
makes part of the second volume of Shaler’s _Kentucky Survey_, and was
also issued separately (1883). It is the most elaborate collation of
the accounts of the early travellers, and of others coming in contact
with the Indians at an early day, which has yet been made, and his
foot-notes are an ample bibliography of this aspect of the subject. He
holds that these early records prove that nothing has been found in the
mounds which was not described in the early narratives as pertaining
to the Indians of the early contact. He aims also particularly to show
that these early Indians were agriculturists and sun-worshippers.
Brinton, reviewing the paper in the _American Antiquarian_ (1883, p.
68), holds that Carr goes too far, and practises the arts of a special
pleader. Brinton’s own opinions seem somewhat to have changed. In the
_Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866, p. 35, he considers the moundbuilders as not
advanced beyond the red Indians; and in the _American Antiquarian_
(1881), iv. 9, in inquiring into their probable nationality, he thinks
they were an ancient people who were driven south and became the
moundbuilding Chahta.

Other supporters of the red Indian view are Edmund Andrews, in the
_Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iv. 126; P. R. Hoy, in _Ibid._ vi.;
O. T. Mason, in _Science_, iii. 658; Nadaillac, in _L’Amérique
préhistorique_; E. Schmidt, in _Kosmos_ (Leipzig), viii. 81, 163; G. P.
Thurston, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1888, xix. 374.

[1734] This is denied in Fred. Larkin’s _Anc. Man in America_ (N. Y.).

[1735] J. D. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_ (N. Y., 1871). D. Wilson’s
_Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 10, etc., who holds that “the moundbuilders
were greatly more in advance of the Indian hunter than behind the
civilized Mexican;” and he claims that the proof deduced from the
Indian type of a head discovered in a moundbuilder’s pipe (i. 366) is
due to a perverted drawing in Squier and Davis. Short, _No. Amer. of
Antiq._, believed they were of the race later in Anahuac. Gay, _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, i. ch. 2, believes in the theory of a vanished race. In
1775 Adair thought the works indicated a higher military energy than
the modern Indian showed.

[1736] _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. 42.

[1737] Putnam’s papers and the records of his investigations can be
found in his _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvii., xviii., xix., xx., etc.
_Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist._, xv.; _Amer. Naturalist_, June, 1875;
_Kansas City Rev._, 1879, etc.

[1738] _No. Am. Rev._, cxxiii., for “houses of the moundbuilders,” and
also in his _Houses and Home Life_, ch. 9. Cf. on the other hand C.
Thomas in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1884, p. 110.

[1739] Rhee’s _Catalogue_, p. 252-3.

[1740] S. D. Peet, who edits this journal, has advanced in one of
his papers (vii. 82) that some of these earthworks are Indian game
drives and screens. (He also contributed a classification of them to
the _Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 103.) The paper by J. E.
Stevenson (ii. 89), and that by Horatio Hale on “Indian Migrations”
(Jan.-April, 1883), are worth noting. The _Compte Rendu, Congrès des
Américanistes_, 1875 (i. 387), has Joly’s “Les Moundbuilders, leurs
Œuvres et leurs Caractères Ethniques,” and that for 1877 has a paper by
John H. Becker and Stronck. That by R. S. Robertson in _Ibid._ (i. p.
39) is also reprinted in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._ (iv. 174), March, 1880;
while in March, 1883, will be found some of T. H. Lewis’s personal
experiences in exploring mounds. Some other periodical papers are: W.
de Haas, in _Trans. Am. Asso. Adv. Science_, 1868; D. A. Robertson, in
_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, v. 256; A. W. Vogeles and S. L. Fay, in
_Amer. Naturalist_, xiii. 9, 637; E. B. Finley in _Mag. Western Hist._,
Feb., 1887, p. 439; _Science_, Sept. 14, 1883; Squier, in _American
Journal Science_, liii. 237, and in _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. 737, xxi.
20, 165; C. Morris, in _Nat. Quart. Rev._, Dec. 1871, 1872, April,
1873; Ad. F. Fontpertius on “Le peuple des mounds et ses monuments” in
the _Rev. de Géog._ (April and August, 1881); E. Price, in the _Annals
of Iowa_, vi. 121; Isaac Smucker, in _Scientific Monthly_ (Toledo,
Ohio), i. 100.

Some other references, hardly of essential character, are: H. H.
Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. ch. 13; v. 538; Gales’s _Upper Mississippi,
or Historical Sketches of the Moundbuilders_ (Chicago, 1867);
Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36; Wm. McAdams’s _Records of
ancient races in the Mississippi valley; being an account of some of
the pictographs, sculptured hieroglyphs, symbolic devices, emblems and
traditions of the prehistoric races of America, with some suggestions
as to their origin_ (St. Louis, 1887); Brühl’s _Culturvölker des alten
Amerika_; J. D. Sherwood, in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 341; E. Pickett’s
_Testimony of the Rocks_ (N. Y.).

[1741] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866.

[1742] Cf. _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 316; C. Thomas in _Amer.
Antiq._, vii. 66; Warden’s _Recherches_, ch. 4; Baldwin’s _Anc.
America_, ch. 2.

[1743] Cf. Short, p. 158.

[1744] Force, _To what Race_, etc., p. 63.

[1745] Cf. Henry Gillman’s “Ancient Men of the Great Lakes” in _Amer.
Assoc. Adv. Sci._ (Detroit, 1875), pp. 297, 317; _Boston Nat. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, iv. 331; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867, p. 412; C. C. Jones’s
_Antiq. Southern Indians_; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, iv., vi., xi.; Jos.
Jones’s _Aborig. Remains of Tennessee_; Jeffries Wyman in _Am. Journal
of Arts_, etc., cvii. p. i.; W. J. McGee in _Ibid._ cxvi. 458; and
Dr. S. F. Landrey on “A moundbuilder’s brain” in _Pop. Science News_
(Boston, Oct., 1886, p. 138).

[1746] Cf. Holmes’s “Objects from the Mounds” in Powell’s _Bur. of
Ethnol. Repts._, iii.; C. C. Baldwin’s “Relics of the Moundbuilders” in
_West. Reserve Hist. Soc. Tract_, no. 23 (1874); Foster on their stone
and copper implements in _Chicago Acad. Science_, i. (1869); objects
from the Ohio mounds in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 418; images from them
in _Science_, April 11, 1884, p. 437. In the mounds of the Little Miami
Valley, native gold and meteoric iron have been found for the first
time (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 170).

[1747] See, on such impositions in general, MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_,
ch. 9; C. C. Abbott in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, July, 1885, p. 308;
Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 19; Putnam in _Peab. Mus. Repts._,
xvi. 184; _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._ 247.

The best known of the disputed relics are the following: The largest
mound in the Ohio Valley is that of the Grave Creek, twelve miles
below Wheeling, which was earliest described by its owner, A. B.
Tomlinson, in 1838. It is seventy feet high and one thousand feet in
circumference. (Cf. Squier and Davis, Foster, MacLean, _Olden Time_, i.
232; and account by P. P. Cherry—Wadsworth, 1877.) About 1838 a shaft
was sunk by Tomlinson into it, and a rotunda constructed in its centre
out of an original cavity, as a showroom for relics; and here, as taken
from the mound, appeared two years later what is known as the Grave
Creek stone, bearing an inscription of inscrutable characters. The
supposed relic soon attracted attention. H. R. Schoolcraft pronounced
its twenty-two characters such “as were used by the Pelasgi,” in his
_Observations respecting the Grave creek mound, in Western Virginia;
the antique inscription discovered in its excavation; and the connected
evidence of the occupancy of the Mississippi valley during the mound
period, and prior to the discovery of America by Columbus_, which
appeared in the _Amer. Ethnological Soc. Trans._, i. 367 (N. Y.,
1845). Cf. his _Indian Tribes_, iv. 118, where he thinks it may be an
“intrusive antiquity.” The French savant Jomard published a _Note sur
une pierre gravée_ (Paris, 1845, 1859), in which he thought it Libyan.
Lévy-Bing calls it Hebrew in _Congrès des Amér._ (Nancy, i. 215). Other
notices are by Moïse Schwab in _Revue Archéologique_, Feb., 1857; José
Perez in _Arch. de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (1865), ii. 173; and in
America in the _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 197; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._,
133, and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April 29, 1863, pp. 13, 32; _Amer.
Antiquarian_, i. 139; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 75.

Squier promptly questioned its authenticity (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc.
Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._, 168). Wilson laughed at it (_Prehistoric
Man_, ii. 100). Col. Whittlesey has done more than any one to show
its fraudulent character, and to show how the cuts of it which have
been made vary (_Western Reserve, Hist. Soc. Tracts_), nos. 9 (1872),
33 (1876), 42 (1878), and 44 (1879.) Cf. on this side Short, p. 419;
and _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 250. Its authenticity is, however,
maintained by MacLean (_Moundbuilders_, Cinn., 1879), who summarizes
the arguments _pro_ and _con_.

What is known as the Cincinnati tablet was found on the site of that
city in 1841 (_Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 195). Squier accepted it as genuine,
and thought it might be a printing-stone for decorating hides (_Amer.
Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._ (1847), p. 70). Whittlesey
at first doubted it (_West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 9), but was later
convinced of its genuineness by Robert Clarke’s _Prehistoric Remains
found on the site of Cincinnati_ (privately printed, Cinn., 1876).

The so-called Berlin tablet was found in Ohio in 1876. S. D. Peet
believes it genuine (_Amer. Antiq._, i. 73; vii. 222).

On the Rockford tablet, see Short, 44.

The Davenport tablets, found by the Rev. J. Gass in a mound near
Davenport, in Jan., 1877, are described in the _Davenport Acad.
Proc._, ii. 96, 132, 221, 349; iii. 155. Cf. further in _Amer. Asso.
Adv. Science Proc._ (April, 1877), by R. J. Farquharson; _Congrès des
Amér._ (1877, ii. 158, with cut). The _American Antiquarian_ records
the controversy over its genuineness. In vol. iv. 145, John Campbell
proposed a reading of the inscription. The suspicions are set forth in
vii. 373. Peet, in viii. 46, inclines to consider it a fraud; and, p.
92, there is a defence. Short (pp. 38-39) doubts. In the _Second Amer.
Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, H. W. Henshaw, on “Animal Carvings,” attacked
its character. (Cf. _Fourth Rept._, p. 251.) A reply by C. E. Putnam
in vol. iv. of the _Davenport Acad. Proc._, and issued separately,
is called _Vindication of the Authenticity of the Elephant pipes and
inscribed tablets in the Mus. of the Davenport Acad._ (Davenport, Iowa,
1885). Cf. Cyrus Thomas in _Science_, vi. 564; also Feb. 5, 1886, p.
119. The question of the elephant pipes is included in the discussion,
some denying their genuineness. Cf. also _Amer. Antiq._, ii. 67; Short,
531; Dr. Max Uhle in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1887.

[1748] It has been found convenient to follow an advancing line of
geographical succession, but the affiliations of the peoples of the
mounds seem to indicate that those dwelling on both slopes and in the
valleys of the Appalachian ranges should be grouped together, as Thomas
combines them in his section on the mounds of the Appalachian District.
(_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._)

[1749] _Proc._, Oct. 23, 1849, p. 13; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, iii.
89; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 42.

[1750] D. A. Robertson, _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vol. v., contends
that the North American mounds were built by a colony of Finns long
before the Christian era.

[1751] It was also issued, with some additional matter, at Buffalo
(1851) as _Antiquities of New York State, with supplement on
Antiquities of the West_ (1851). Squier has also at this time a paper
on these mounds in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1849, p. 41. Cf.
_Am. Journal of Science_, lxi. 305, and _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. and
xxi. His conclusions, distinct from those pertaining to the Ohio
mounds, were that the N. Y. earthworks were raised by the red Indians.

[1752] Cf. W. M. Taylor on a Pennsylvania mound in _Smithsonian Rept._,
1877.

[1753] A few minor references may be given. The _Smithsonian Reports_
have papers by D. Trowbridge (1863); and by F. H. Cushing on those of
Orleans County (1874). W. L. Stone held them to have been built by
Egyptians, who afterward went south (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1878,
ii. 533). Cf. _Ibid._ v. 35, and S. L. Frey in the _Amer. Naturalist_,
Oct., 1879. A small book, _Ancient Man in America_ (N. Y., 1880), by
Frederic Larkin, takes issue with Squier, and believes the builders
were not the modern Indians. He says he found in one of the N. Y.
mounds, in 1854, a copper relic, with a mastodon, evidently in harness,
scratched upon it! H. G. Mercer’s _Lenape Stone_ describes a “gorget
stone” dug up in Buck’s County, Penn., in 1872, which shows a carving
representing a fight between Indians and the hairy mammoth, which we
are also asked to accept as genuine. What is recognized as an ancient
burial mound of the Senecas is described at some length in G. S.
Conover’s _Reasons why the State should acquire the famous burial mound
of the Seneca Indians_ (1888).

[1754] Contributions to a bibliography and lists of the Ohio mounds
are found as follows: Mrs. Cyrus Thomas’s “Bibliog. of Earthworks in
Ohio” in the _Ohio Archæol. and Hist. Quarterly_, June, 1887, et seq.;
a lesser list is in Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, p. 385. Lists of
the works are given in the _Ohio Centennial Rept._ and in MacLean’s
_Moundbuilders_, pp. 230-233. J. Smucker, in the _Amer. Antiquarian_,
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.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. I (of 8) - Aboriginal America" ***

Home