CONCLUSION.
The dim uncertainty which envelopes the most ancient period of American
antiquity, like that which obscures the beginnings of Egyptian,
Assyrian and Trojan history, to say nothing of the origin of the
venerable Asiatic civilizations, renders much of the effort in this
field unsatisfactory. Still the results are of surpassing interest. A
new cosmogony, mythology and traditional history full of weird poetic
inspiration, an inspiration such as is begotten in contemplating the
struggles of nature’s children after a higher development, is added to
the fund of human knowledge. The poetry of the Quiché cosmogony must
some day find expression in verse of Miltonic grandeur. The fall of
Xibalba will no doubt afford the materials for a heroic poem which will
stand in the same relation to America that the Iliad does to Greece.
The doctrines of the benign and saintly Quetzalcoatl or Cukulcan
must be classed among the great faiths of mankind, and their author,
alone of all the great teachers of morals except Christ himself,
inculcating a _positive_ morality, must be granted a precedence of
most of the great teachers of Chinese and Hindoo antiquity. It is the
custom of many Europeans to regard America as having no heroic or
legendary period, no heroes like Achilles, Æneas, Sigfried, Beowolf,
Arthur and the Cid; but who will review the romance of American
antiquity and longer entertain this view? A few years ago, writers
dated North American history from the discoveries made by Columbus
and his immediate successors. Now they go back to the Northmen for a
starting-point. May not the beginning be pushed even farther back,
and the _ancient history of America_ receive the attention of the
historiographer?
The origin of the North American population cannot be positively
settled at present, though the probabilities are that new facts will be
brought to light establishing the relationship of the ancestors of the
Nahuas with some ancient Asiatic race, as the Eskimo have clearly been
proven to belong to the Arctic race which encircles the globe near the
North pole.[802] We have seen that groups of facts unquestionably point
to Northern Asia as the ancient home of a large share of the tribes of
North America, civilized and savage. The autochthonic hypothesis which
had its first great advocate in Dr. Morton, receives no support from
his mistaken argument for the unity of the American race. We think
we have shown, as did Prof. Wilson before us, that no such fact as
ethnic unity exists in America. Dr. Morton’s own measurements of crania
which we have classified, and the recent measurements of mound skulls,
disprove the argument which he sought to establish. The autochthonic
hypothesis owed much of its popularity to the support which it received
from Prof. Agassiz’s doctrine of the separate creations of races of
men, a hypothesis which has rapidly lost ground since the decease of
its eminent advocate. It is impossible to determine whether the people
of the mounds of the United States were preceded in this country by any
other people. Certainly they had intercourse with some race having a
cranial type quite different from their own, as several low-type skulls
taken from the mounds testify. If the rude weapons found in New Jersey
are as old as Dr. Abbott supposes[803]—belonging to the inter-glacial
age—the question of man’s antiquity on this continent may have to
be viewed in a different light from that in which it has hitherto
appeared. It is conjectured that this supposed inter-glacial race were
the ancestors of the Eskimo of to-day, and retired or were driven
to the Arctic regions, where their racial characteristics became
permanent. The traditional history of both Mayas and Nahuas seem to
indicate an old world origin. The former people clearly claim an origin
which, if their traditions are worth anything, must be assigned to some
Mediterranean country. While, on the contrary, the Nahuas persistently
state that they came from the north or north-west. It is certain that
many of their cosmological traditions closely resemble those of Central
and Western Asiatic peoples. Why should the traditions of the ancient
Americans be less reliable than those of the most ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, or Hindoos?[804]
Tradition, language and architectural remains furnish us the data by
which to trace the migrations of peoples. In addition to the testimony
of tradition, the languages of the Mayas and Quichés present affinities
to the west European and African languages; also to the languages
of the West Indies and the Antilles. Whether the Quiché traditions
concerning their ancient home have reference to the Atlantic coast of
the United States is uncertain, though Señor Orozco y Berra believes
their ancestors to have migrated from Florida to Cuba and thence
to Yucatan. Linguistic and architectural evidences show that the
Maya-Quiché family extended its civilization north as far as Panuco,
and south as far as Honduras.
The Nahua migrations are more numerous and their accounts somewhat
obscure. It is not improbable that while few in number the Nahuas
arrived on our north-western coast, where they found a home until they
had become a tribe of considerable proportions. Crossing the watershed
between the sources of the Columbia and Missouri Rivers, a large
portion of the tribe probably found its way to the Mississippi and
Ohio Valleys, where it laid the foundations of a wide-spread empire,
and developed a civilization which reached a respectable degree of
advancement.
The remainder of the Nahuas, we think, instead of crossing the
Rocky Mountains, migrated southward into Utah, and established a
civilization the remains of which are seen in the cliff-dwellings
of the San Juan Valley and such extensive ruins as exist at Aztec
Springs. It must be conceded that this hypothesis rests on linguistic
and traditional evidence, as no affinity between the architecture
of the Cliff-dwellers and either the Mexicans or Mound-builders is
traceable. We have in a preceding chapter summarized our reasons for
considering the Mound-builders to have been Nahuas. The Olmecs, the
first Nahuas to reach Mexico, came in ships from the direction of
Florida, landed at Panuco, and journeyed southward until they came in
contact with the advanced and already old civilization of the Mayas.
The Toltecs came into Mexico by land from the North. The Chichimecs,
their former neighbors in Hue hue Tlapalan, whether Nahuas or not
originally, followed them and adopted their language. The Nahuatlaca
tribes, speaking the same language, arrived centuries afterward from
the same quarter—the North. Finally the Aztecs, the last of the Nahuas,
reached Anáhuac four centuries before the Spanish conquest. Mr. Becker
has conjectured that Aztlan (land of whiteness) was the name applied
to the southern Mississippi Valley and the region of the Gulf States;
that Hue hue Tlapalan (old red land), the ancient empire of the Nahuas,
was situated on the great plains of the west and in the region occupied
by the Cliff-dwellers and Pueblos, and further, that the “seven caves”
or “ravines,” the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés, is the region of the
Colorado River, the land of cañons.
At best these can be but conjectures, yet the probabilities are
that Hue hue Tlapalan bordered upon the great Mississippi Valley.
Traditional and architectural evidence lead us to this conclusion. The
linguistic argument is wanting, except the statement of the historians
that the people of the Floridian region spoke Nahua. It remains for
some one to compare the Aztec with the languages of the southern
Indians before the investigation is complete. While the probability is
pre-eminent that the ancient Americans are of old world origin and that
the Mayas and Nahuas reached this continent from opposite directions,
it is certain that the civilization developed by each people is
indigenous—that it grew up on the soil where we find it, and was shaped
by the wants of man as influenced and modified by the conditions of
nature and physical surroundings. The most persistent investigation has
failed to disclose any marked resemblance between the architecture,
art, religion and customs of the North Americans considered as a whole
and of any old world people. It is true that occasional analogies
suggest intercourse and even relationship with particular races, as
for instance the serpent and phallus worship common to the aboriginal
Americans and the people of India. Sun-worship, so wide-spread, may
also indicate an ancient community of residence for those peoples who
practise it. The Calendar systems of Mayas and Nahuas present analogies
to the systems employed by the Persians, Egyptians and certain
Asiatic nations, and the presumption is very strong that the latter
furnished the ground-plan upon which the Nahua system was constructed.
The accuracy of the Aztec calendar must ever be a monument to their
intellectual culture, and an undeniable proof of the advanced state of
ancient Mexican civilization. The fact that Cortez found the Julian
reckoning, employed by his own and every other European nation, to be
more than ten days in error when tried by the Aztec system—a system
the almost perfect accuracy of which was proven by the adjustments
which took place under Gregory XIII in 1582 A.D.—excites our wonder
and admiration. How the Nahuas, whether Toltec or Aztec we know not,
were able to approximate the true length of the year within two
minutes and nine seconds, thus almost rivalling the accuracy of the
learned astronomers of the Caliph Almamon, is a mystery. The venerable
civilization of the Mayas, whose forest-grown cities and crumbling
temples hold entombed a history of vanished glory, no doubt belongs to
the remotest period of North American antiquity. It was old when the
Nahuas, then a comparatively rude people, first came in contact with
it, adopted many of its features, and engrafted upon it new life. Like
Rome, overwhelmed by the Teutons of the North, it no doubt succumbed
to the vigorous aggressions of the invaders, and was compelled to
resign the dominion of much of its northern territory. The powerful
empire of the Quiché-Cakchiquels was the result of the union of the
old and new races. The otherwise inviting picture of ancient American
civilization is marred by the introduction of human sacrifices which
in each instance occurred in the period of the political decadence
of the people practising it, and no doubt was the most potent factor
in the downfall of both Toltec and Aztec monarchies. Still, when we
reflect upon the Druidical horrors of the Britons at the time of the
Roman conquest, and realize that our Anglo-Saxon ancestors in the sixth
century sold their relatives and even their own children into slavery,
and were but slightly removed from the condition of cannibals if they
were not actually such, the ancient American civilization with its many
humane features and advanced culture rises up in splendor before us, in
marked contrast with our barbarous origin. Although this civilization
was indigenous and peculiar to itself, we find all of the American
tribes possessed of certain arts and traditions which seem common to
mankind in all parts of the world. The character of flint weapons and
implements are the same among all primitive peoples. The modes of
producing fire by friction and of grinding grain differ little, if
any, in America, from those employed by ancient peoples elsewhere. The
first efforts toward the development of the architectural idea all
round the globe, seem to find expression in the rude mound and then in
the more perfect pyramid. These and other considerations which have
been noted in the preceding pages, lead us to the conclusion that at a
remote period, before racial and national characteristics had been well
defined, this continent received its population from the old world, at
different times and from different quarters.
The uniformity with which the human mind operates in all lands for the
accomplishment of certain ends, has in many instances resulted in the
independent development of institutions common to several peoples. This
fact, together with the probability that occasionally foreigners were
cast upon the American shores, will be sufficient to account for many
features which have been discovered in Mexican and Central American
architecture, art, and religion, presenting analogies with the old
world. The fact that civilizations having such analogies are developed
in isolated quarters of the globe, separated from each other by broad
seas and lofty mountains, and thus indicating a uniformity of mental
operation and a unity of mental inspiration, added to the fact that the
evidence is of a preponderating character that the American continent
received its population from the old world, leads us to the truth that
God “hath made of one blood all nations of men.”
APPENDIX.
A.
MADISONVILLE EXPLORATIONS.
Since the greater part of this work was put in type, the exploration
of ancient mounds in several localities in the United States has
yielded gratifying results. Most conspicuous for rich returns,
both in pottery and human remains, are the researches which have
recently been prosecuted with such rare intelligence and vigor by
the Literary and Scientific Society of Madisonville, Ohio, in the
aboriginal burying-grounds and among the mound-works of the Little
Miami Valley. Through the liberality of the society and the courtesy
of its secretary, Mr. Frank W. Langdon, we are enabled to present
an authorized account of the explorations. We take this opportunity
of expressing our obligations to the society, and especially to Mr.
Langdon, who has kindly prepared the following report:
NOTICE OF SOME RECENT ARCHÆOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES IN THE LITTLE MIAMI
VALLEY. _By FRANK W. LANGDON, Secretary of the Literary and
Scientific Society of Madisonville, Ohio._
The valley of the Little Miami River, in South-western Ohio, has long
been noted for the number and extent of its pre-historic earthworks,
which, distributed on either side of the river, from its confluence
with the Ohio to the well-known Fort Ancient and beyond, form an almost
continuous chain of mounds, forts, circles, and embankments, extending
for more than fifty miles, and constituting an important division of
the great earthworks system of the Mississippi Valley.
Of the few publications relating more especially to the ancient works
of this series, one of the most important, perhaps, is the paper by
Dr. Charles L. Metz, entitled “The Prehistoric Monuments of the
Little Miami Valley,”[805] accompanied by a chart showing the location
and character of more than forty of these earthworks, situated in
Columbia, Spencer and Anderson Townships of Hamilton County. The Hon.
Joseph Cox, H. B. Whetsel, Esq., Mr. Charles F. Low, and the several
other gentlemen composing the organization known as the Literary and
Scientific Society of Madisonville, have also, at various times,
given considerable attention to archæological investigations in this
vicinity, and the valuable and interesting collections of objects
of pre-historic art accumulated by these gentlemen afford abundant
evidence of the long-continued occupation of this region by a numerous
and somewhat intelligent people of whom we have no historic record.
A renewed interest in the subject has been recently developed by the
discovery, near Madisonville, of one of the cemeteries of this unknown
people, and the explorations therein by the above-named society, are
perhaps among the most interesting that have ever been conducted in the
Mississippi Valley.
This cemetery, which is distant about one and one-half miles south-east
from Madisonville, occupies the western extremity of an elevated
plateau overlooking the Little Miami River, and situated from eighty
to one hundred feet above the water-line. It is bounded on the south
by the river “bottom”; on the north and west by a deep ravine, through
which flows a small stream known as Whisky Run; on the east the plateau
slopes gradually up to the general level of the surrounding country,
of which it is in fact a continuation or spur, its character of an
isolated plateau being derived from its position between the eroded
river valley and the deep ravine above referred to. The precipitous
but well-wooded bluff which forms the southern limit of this plateau
extends eastward, facing the river, for perhaps half a mile, and
distributed along its edge are a number of mounds and other earthworks;
at its base are the Cincinnati and Eastern and Little Miami Railways,
the nearest station being Batavia Junction, distant about half a mile
east of the cemetery.
The original forest still covers the site of the cemetery, and
measurements of some of the principal trees are recorded by Dr. Metz
in his paper before mentioned, as follows: a walnut, 15½ feet in
circumference; an oak, 12 feet; a maple, 9½ feet; an elm, 12 feet. The
locality has long been known to local collectors and others interested
in archæological matters, as the “Pottery Field,” so called on account
of the numerous fragments of earthenware strewn over the surface; and
it was until recently supposed to be a place where the manufacture of
pottery had been carried on by the ancient inhabitants of the valley,
the fragments found being considered the _debris_. A few scattered
human remains had also been found in the adjoining ravines, but it was
not until some time in March, 1879, that its true character and extent
as a cemetery were brought to light.
It then became apparent that some concerted action would be necessary,
in order to secure the best scientific results from the discovery; and
early in April excavations were begun under the auspices of the before
mentioned organization, the proprietors of the premises, Messrs. A.
J. and Charles K. Ferris, having kindly granted to it the exclusive
privilege of making a thorough and systematic exploration of the
ground. From that time until the present (July 19, 1879) excavations
have been continued with a force varying from one to three men,
assisted by members of the society, every foot of the ground gone over
being thoroughly explored, and full notes taken as the work progressed.
The following brief outline of the results, taken from the records of
the society, will but serve to convey an idea of the general features
of the discovery and of its importance to archæological science, time
and space not permitting a detailed account in the present connection.
Of the four or five acres of ground over which the cemetery is believed
to extend, only a small segment of the south-western portion has been
explored. The exploration, however, has been exceedingly thorough and
comprises an extent of perhaps half an acre of ground, from which have
been exhumed in all one hundred and eighty-five skeletons. Of these,
however, but a small proportion are in a good or even tolerable state
of preservation, as with the utmost care only about forty crania could
be preserved sufficiently well for measurement. The preservation of
even this number must probably be attributed to the favorable character
of the soil, a compact gravelly drift, as the various surroundings,
position of some skeletons under large trees, etc., all indicate for
these interments a remote antiquity.
With respect to the mode of burial, this is far from being uniform. A
large majority of the skeletons are found at a depth of from two to
three feet, in a horizontal position, face upwards; but exceptions
to this rule are numerous, many interments being made in a sitting
position, and some in groups of from three to six individuals
irregularly disposed. There has been no attempt in any instance at
the construction of a stone coffin, but in one case the skeleton was
covered with a layer of small flat limestone from the adjacent stream.
The heads of those in the horizontal position are generally directed to
the east or south-east; but this rule is not constant, several being
found at right angles to these. It is worthy of note, however, that,
with scarcely an exception, those skeletons accompanied by the finer
vases, pipes and other choice relics, have their heads directed east or
south-east.
During the progress of the work on April 12, a cranium, unaccompanied
by other bones, was exhumed; in searching for the rest of the skeleton,
a circular excavation, three and a half feet in diameter and four and a
half feet in depth, was made, from which were taken bones sufficient to
represent twenty-two skeletons. But two of the crania, both evidently
those of females, could be preserved; they are remarkable for their
whiteness and smooth texture as compared with the average crania
from this cemetery. A sacrum taken from this pit has imbedded in its
anterior surface, near the promontory, one of the small triangular
flints known as “war arrows,” which had passed obliquely from above
downwards, and to the right, necessarily penetrating the abdominal
walls and viscera in order to reach its final lodging place. The bottom
of the pit was paved with the common river mussel shells (_unios_), and
there appeared to have been some attempt at a natural disposition of
the bones, those of the lower extremities being placed at the bottom,
the crania at the top.
Among the human remains from this cemetery are many possessing features
of surgical and anatomical interest, as, for instance, an adult male
cranium in which complete anchylosis of the atlas to the condyles
has occurred, the posterior arch remaining free. Other crania show
evidences of severe injury with subsequent repair, and among the long
bones are several showing characteristic lesions strongly indicative
of rachitis and of syphilis, a fact of considerable interest in its
relation to the geographical distribution of the latter disease, and
also as bearing on the theory of its introduction into Southern Europe
from America in the fifteenth century.
Among the graves opened are several of children, who are usually buried
in close proximity to adults, and with them are found various ornaments
or toys of perforated shell, bone, etc., as well as small earthen
vessels.
[Illustration: Bowl from Ancient Cemetery, Little Miami Valley.
(Collection of W. C. Rogers, Madisonville, O.)]
The pottery ware which accompanies the skeletons is usually situated
near the head and presents many features of special interest. It is
made of clay, finely tempered with pounded unio shells, and much care
has evidently been bestowed upon its manufacture, some pieces being
scarcely thicker than an ordinary teacup. Many specimens are in a
perfect condition, or nearly so, and they usually contain a single
unio shell when found, the shell being evidently intended for use as a
spoon. The vessels range in capacity from a third of a pint, or even
smaller, up to a gallon or more, the smaller ones, as before stated,
being usually found in the graves of children. They are symmetrical
in shape and varied in design, some being artistically ornamented
with scroll work, handles representing lizards, human heads, etc.,
and are almost invariably provided with four handles. Among the
few exceptions to this latter rule is an eight-handled bowl (see
cut), in the collection of W. C. Rogers, Esq., which is a two-story
affair, apparently made by combining two distinct vessels, and then
removing the bottom of the upper one. Vessels having but two handles
occasionally occur, and others with holes in lieu of handles; but
these are exceptions to the general rule as above noted.
The total number of vessels taken from the cemetery to date is
eighty-eight. There is good reason to believe, however, that each
interment has been originally accompanied by a vessel, the present
disparity between the number of vessels and the number of skeletons
being accounted for by the fragments thickly strewn over the surface
and intermingled with the surrounding soil, which have doubtless at one
time constituted portions of the missing burial urns. To the growth
of trees, action of frost and rooting of hogs, the destruction of so
much of this valuable ware must be attributed, and to the latter cause,
irregularities observed in the disposition of some of the skeletons are
probably due.
Among the other articles of utility or ornament found in the graves
are twelve pipes, of various patterns, three of them being made from
the Minnesota Catlinite or Red Pipestone; also stone disks, axes
and chisels, flint knives and spear-heads, and many ornaments and
implements of bone, such as beads, awls, needles, perforated teeth,
etc., together with others of unknown uses. Two small cylinders of
rolled copper, about two inches in length, and two flat pieces of the
same metal an inch or more square, are among the collections, as are
also two stones bearing inscriptions as follows: one, an irregular
piece of sandstone, measuring about 3 × 2 × 1 inches, on the flat
surface of which are cut two parallel figures made of straight lines
and apparently intended to represent arrows; this specimen is now in
the writer’s collection. The other stone, which is in the collection of
E. A. Conkling, Esq., is a flattened dark-green boulder measuring about
3½ × 2½ inches, one side of which is completely covered with a network
of lines from ⅛ to ¼ of an inch apart and crossing each other at nearly
right angles, thus forming quadrangular divisions of various sizes.
An interesting feature of these excavations has been the discovery of
what may be designated as “ashpits”; being circumscribed deposits of
ashes, shells, sand, etc., from two to three feet in thickness, placed
at varying distances below the surface. A perpendicular section made
of one of these pits answers to the following description, which will
serve to convey a fair idea of them all. Diameter of pit, three feet;
the first eighteen inches consisted of leaf mold and sandy soil; then
followed nine inches of clay, burnt earth and charcoal; next, ashes
and charcoal, twelve inches; clay, three inches; white ashes, two
inches; sand and unio shells, six inches; pure ashes, twelve inches;
total depth, five feet two inches.
Of these ashpits, more than fifty have been opened, situated in
continuous rows near the edge of the bluff. They are quite uniform in
size, measuring from three to four feet in diameter and from four to
six feet in depth, and with one or two exceptions have not been found
in any other than the above-mentioned situation. Intermingled with the
ashes are pipes, implements of bone, shell, and stone, a mastodon’s
tooth, bones of various wild animals, including birds and fishes, and
in some of them large sherds of pottery-ware indicating vessels of from
ten to twelve gallons capacity or even larger. With the exception of a
single dorsal vertebra no human remains have yet been found in these
pits, unless the ashes be so considered.
From the uncharred condition of the above articles it is evident that
the ashes have been placed in the pits _as ashes_, after having been
burned elsewhere, as in no case do the relics or the walls of the pits
show any traces of the action of fire.
With respect to the length of time that has elapsed since these
interments, mention has already been made of the situation of some of
the skeletons under large trees, an instance of which may be cited: On
Saturday, April 5, the ground was visited by Judge Cox and Mr. Low,
in company with Dr. Metz, and in excavating beneath an oak tree, six
feet two inches in circumference, a skeleton was discovered, its lower
extremities extending under the tree; overlying the lower extremities
of this skeleton was another, its body situated directly under the
trunk of the tree and the skull so surrounded and penetrated by roots
as to prevent its removal except in fragments. The bones of both
skeletons were much decayed and exceedingly fragile.
In forming an estimate as to the probable antiquity of these
interments, the time that must necessarily have elapsed between the
abandonment of the cemetery and the springing up of the forest; the age
of the trees now present and of others that have fallen and decayed;
the advanced state of decay in which the human remains are found; the
character of the pottery-ware; and lastly, the total absence of any
evidences of communication with civilization, in the shape of glass
beads or other trinkets, must all be taken into account; and it does
not appear at all unreasonable to conclude that the use of this ground
as a cemetery probably antedates the discovery of America by Columbus.
As regards the particular race to which this people belonged,—whether
they were identical with, or related to, the celebrated “stone-grave
people” of Tennessee,[806] as some of their pottery-ware and the shape
and dimensions of their crania would seem to indicate; or whether they
were the last remnants of the once powerful nation that erected Fort
Ancient and other gigantic works in this region,—these and similar
queries remain as yet unanswered. More extended investigations and a
careful comparison of large amounts of material from this and other
localities, may be expected to assist in the solution of these obscure
but interesting problems.
At the present writing excavations are still in progress, with new
developments daily, and a publication of the entire results, with full
details and illustrations, may be looked for in due season.
MADISONVILLE, Hamilton County, Ohio, _July_ 19, 1879.
NOTE.—An illustrated report of the continuation of the Madisonville
exploration, so remarkable in results, will be found in the
_Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History_, vol.
iii, Nos. 1, 2, and 3; also a sketch by F. W. Putnam in _Harvard
University Bulletin_ for June 1, 1881.
B.
[Illustration: Elephant Pipe from Louisa Co., Iowa.]
The question as to whether man and the mastodon were contemporaneous in
America, has long been a matter of dispute as the reader is aware after
the perusal of our second chapter and other sources. The “elephant
pipe” figured in the accompanying cut has been the means of calling
fresh attention to the subject. Dr. R. J. Farquharson, of the Davenport
Academy of Sciences, who kindly furnished us the photo from which our
illustration is a reduction, states that six or seven years ago Mr.
Peter Mare, a farmer (whose estate was situated on both sides of the
line dividing Muscatine and Louisa Counties, Iowa) found the elephant
pipe while plowing corn on his land in Louisa County. The finder,
who had no idea of its archæological value, kept it with a number of
“Indian stones,” as he termed them, until last year (1878), when it
became the property of the Davenport Academy. Dr. Farquharson says:
“The ancient mounds were very abundant in that vicinity (Louisa Co.),
and rich in relics which are deposited on the surface of the soil (not
in excavations), as we found in exploring a number. In such a case
it is not strange that a mound having been gradually removed by long
cultivation, the relics so deposited should be reached and turned up
by the plow.” * * * “The pipe, which is of a fragile sandstone, is of
the ordinary Mound-builder’s type, and has every appearance of age and
usage. Of its genuineness I have no doubt. Together with the ‘Elephant
mound’ of Wisconsin, the elephant head of Palenque (depicted in Lord
Kingsborough’s great work), our pipe completes the series of what the
French would call ‘documents’ proving the fact of the contemporaneous
existence on this continent of man and the mastodon.”[807] The above
facts, as stated by Dr. Farquharson, were substantially embodied in a
paper read by Mr. Pratt before the Davenport Academy, April 25, 1879.
C.
THE CHARNAY EXPLORATION.
The exploring expedition under French and American patronage, led by
M. Désiré Charnay, began its labors in Mexico, May 1st, 1880, and
continued them nearly a year. During this time a large number of ruins,
scattered over the area extending from Teotihuacan and Tollan, on the
north, and Palenque, on the south, are reported to have been examined.
How thorough the examination was, or how scientifically accurate
were the published reports, it would at present (September, 1881) be
impossible to determine. Suffice it to say that they are generally
viewed with distrust, partly on account of the disjointed, haphazard
form in which they have appeared in the _North American Review_
(September, 1880-June, 1881—doubtless without blame on the part of the
editor), where the splendid heliotype illustrations have been rendered
nearly valueless by the frequent omission, from the text and elsewhere,
of descriptive reference; and partly on account of the over-confident
style of the writer. It is to be hoped that the ground for criticism
may be removed when M. Charnay shall formally publish his reports.
It would be superfluous in this connection to summarize his work, since
his papers are accessible to all.
It is worthy of note, however, that he reports Teotihuacan, on the
authority of several authors, to have contained twenty-seven thousand
dwellings, besides its temples, and that the heaps of ruins which
remain justify the statement. The whole area of five or six miles
in diameter was found covered with heaps of ruins. Cement roadways,
containing broken pottery, seemed to afford evidence of occupancy
in even a more ancient epoch than that in which Teotihuacan was
founded. Excavations revealed two halls of a supposed temple at the
base of one of the pyramids. One of these halls is reported to be
nearly fifty feet square, in the middle of which stood six pillars
which had served to sustain the roof. At Tula, the ancient capital of
Tollau, north-west of the city of Mexico, hitherto so fruitless of
archæological, and especially of architectural remains, M. Charnay
made remarkable discoveries of pyramids, and several Toltec houses of
immense proportions, one of which contained forty-three apartments,
besides corridors and a staircase. Sculptures were numerous, and bricks
of burnt clay, twelve inches long by five inches wide, were found to
have been used in constructing stairways.
Near the village of Comalcalco, thirty-five or forty miles
north-west of San Juan Bautista, the capital of Tabasco, vast ruins
were discovered, particularly pyramids, towers, and edifices, all
forest-grown, equalling and even surpassing in proportions those at
Palenque. Upon a pyramid 115 feet high an edifice of brick and mortar
234 feet in length was explored.
At the village of Palenque, M. Charnay found the two bas-reliefs seen
by Waldeck and Stephens a half century ago, now built into the outer
wall of a church (see this work, p. 391).
At the ancient city itself the explorer discovered the ruins to be
more extensive than ever heretofore supposed, and estimates that it
would require the labor of five hundred men for six months, under the
direction of a corps of topographers, simply to determine the general
plan of the city. Eight hundred and sixty-one square feet of casts of
bas-reliefs were taken. It was ascertained at Palenque, by breaking off
portions of the vesture upon the stucco reliefs, that the human body
had in all cases been first carefully modeled, and that the drapery had
subsequently been superposed. Whether this fact throws light simply
upon the process employed, or indicates a reaction or evolution in art,
is equally interesting and uncertain.
D.
HOUSE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS AND PUEBLOS.
Among the unsolved problems of American archæology is that of the
use to which the extensive systems of embankments attributed to the
Mound-builders were put. The Newark (Ohio) system of works, now
covering two miles square, but formerly presenting twelve miles of
embankment, reaching at some points a height of thirty-five feet,
with sufficient width for a carriage-way on top, has been a veritable
sphinx to all inquirers. Nor does it stand alone in an architectural
aspect. Its square is precisely of the dimensions of a similar figure
found at Hopetown, in the Scioto Valley. Its circles are connected
with squares or octagons, a typical combination of features generally
prevalent in mound structures. Furthermore, its trenches are all within
the enclosures. The probability is that the clew to the solution of
the problem has come to light. The discovery of what are pronounced
to be mound-works, in connection with the Pueblo ruins of Colorado
and New Mexico and Arizona, has given us the hint. Mr. Wm. H. Holmes
in “A Notice of the Ancient Ruins of South-western Colorado, examined
during the Summer of 1875,”[808] shows us the Mound and Pueblo ruin in
close proximity. In describing a ruined village on the Rio La Plata,
he says: “North of this, about 300 feet, is a truncated rectangular
mound, 9 or 10 feet in height and 50 feet in width by 80 in length.
On the east end, near one of the angles, is a low, projecting pile
of débris that may have been a tower. There is nothing whatever to
indicate the use of this structure. Its flat top and height give it
more the appearance of one of the sacrificial mounds of the Ohio Valley
than any other observed in this part of the West. It may have been,
however, only a raised foundation, designed to support a superstructure
of wood or adobe.... South of this, and occupying the extreme southern
end of the terrace, are a number of small circles and mounds, while
an undetermined number of diminutive mounds are distributed among the
other ruins.” Mr. W. H. Jackson, in the same document (p. 29) that
contains Mr. Holmes’ report, mentions the remains of “many circular
towns” on a high plateau between the Montezuma and the Hovenweep. The
year following, the lamented scholar, Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, acting on
the suggestion or originating a hypothesis of his own, announced in the
_North American Review_ for July, 1876, what has since been called his
“Pueblo Theory.” A fuller exposition of his views were embodied in his
paper “On Houses of the American Aborigines,” published in the _Report
of the Archæological Institute of America for 1879–1880_. Mr. Morgan
illustrates the prevalence of communal houses among the aborigines east
of the Mississippi, citing the long houses of the Iroquois; and west
of the river the communal lodges of the Minnitares and Mandans, and
of Columbia River Indians seen by Lewis and Clark in 1805. The writer
further illustrates the communal architecture of the aborigines by
discussions relating to the joint tenement houses of the Pueblos of New
Mexico and Arizona. Having thus laid his foundation, he applies the
communal idea and its expression in the Mandan and Pueblo structures
in a conjectural restoration of the mound villages. He supposes that,
as adobe would not withstand the frosts and rains of the Ohio Valley,
the Mound-builder people resorted to the structure of wooden edifices.
He says: “They might have raised these embankments of earth, enclosing
circular, rectangular, or square areas, and constructed their long
houses upon them.” Mr. Morgan would build upon the squares and circles
houses having a wooden framework, upon which turf and grass were placed
both upon roof and sides. In order that this should be possible, the
sides are supposed to have been inclined at the same angle with the
embankment, the superstructure being a continuation of the earthern
foundation so far as outline and geometrical figure is concerned. To
preserve analogy with the closed, windowless ground-storey of New
Mexico Pueblos, Mr. Morgan supposes that the outer side or sides of
the edifice were closed, presenting only blank walls of heavy turf
or gravel to view; while the walls facing within the enclosure were
windowed, and pierced with doors. The entrances to the enclosures, he
supposes, were guarded with palisades. There the defensive feature of
the Pueblo house was preserved. In his elaborate work, the “Houses
and House Life of the American Aborigines,”[809] that last touch of a
vanished hand, the author has discussed at length the development of
the joint tenement house among the Mound-builders. After illustrating
the principle, as applied in the restoration of High Bank works
(Ross County, Ohio), he adds: “These embankments, therefore, require
triangular houses of the kind described, and long houses as well,
covering their entire length. But the interior plan might have been
different; for example, the passage-way might have a long exterior
wall, and the stalls or apartments on the court side, and but half as
many in number; and, instead of one continuous house, in the interior,
450 feet in length, it might have been divided into several, separated
from each other by cross partitions. The plan of life, however, which
we are justified in ascribing to them, from known usages of Indian
tribes in a similar condition of advancement, would lead us to expect
large households formed on the basis of kin, with the practice of
communism in living in each household, whether large or small.” The
plausibility of Mr. Morgan’s hypothesis is, to say the least, striking.
However, his supposition that the Mound-builders and Pueblos were of
the same race, is not unattended with difficulties. Conspicuous among
them is the marked dissimilarity of the ceramic ornament employed by
the two peoples. Nothing is more stable than the art of a race or
age. Nothing more truly reveals the inner life of a people than its
pottery. The Mound-builders and Pueblos each had their ceramic types.
But they were wholly unlike—apparently the work of unrelated races.
Yet, community of burial, as well as community of residence, to which
may be added similarity of cranial type, are facts that declare for Mr.
Morgan’s hypothesis as to the relation of the peoples in question.[810]
INDEX.
A.
Abbott, discoveries in New Jersey. 127–8;
view of Eskimo, 128.
Aboriginal painting of sun, 65;
trade, 98;
Rau on, 98.
Aborigines, American, 21.
Acolhuas, Nahua tribe, 256.
Agassiz on Floridian jaw-bone, 112;
on origin of nations, 158–9;
on physical life and nature, 158;
views of untenable, 159, 516.
Ages of stone and bronze in Mississippi valley, 27.
Age of trees on mounds, 104.
Agglutination in languages, 471.
Alabama mounds, 71–72.
Alaska, climate of, 511.
Aleutian islands, 509;
migration by, 509.
Alleghany Mts., boundary of Mound country, 58.
Alligator mound, 34.
Allighewi, 102.
Allouez, Father, on aboriginal copper, 92–3.
Al-Mamoun, state of learning during kalifate of, 132.
Altar mounds, 37;
Squier and Davis on, 83–87;
stratification of, 83–84;
Prof. Andrews on, 83, n. 1.
Alton, mounds at, 41.
Amaquemecan, Chichimec home, 248, 256.
American civilization (ancient) contrasted with that of Britons, 520.
“Bottom,” recent discoveries in, 43–44.
languages, number and variety of, 190;
instability of, 190.
race not unique, 165;
of old world origin, 201–2.
Anahuac, 249.
Analogies in geographical names, 497.
in religion, 459–68.
of ceremonial law, 463.
Scandanavian and Mexican, 464.
Hindoo and Mexican, 465.
Greek and Mexican, 466.
Egyptian and Mexican, 467.
Anchylosis (bony) observed in mound-builder remains, 184.
Ancient copper mines, 89–94.
Ancient forts of New York, 28;
of Lake Erie, 28;
Col. Whittlesey on, 28;
Dr. Foster on, 28.
Anderson’s, W. M., “Calendar Stone,” 70.
Andrews, E. B., explorations by, 55.
Antiquity of man, chap. ii;
testimony of geology, 102;
in Europe, 24, n. 1.
Antiquity of mounds, 101, 103, 104.
Red man, 22.
Antipodes, St. Augustine on, 132;
Aristarchus of Samos on, 132.
Apes, American group of, 194.
Ararat, Mt., 497.
the Mexican, 261–63.
Arch, pueblo, 292.
Architecture, analogies in, real and fancied, 339.
Maya, 340–55.
classification of styles, 340.
Palenque, 340;
Yucatan style, 346;
Uxmal, 347.
Kabah, 352;
Zayi, 353;
Labná, 354.
Quiché, 355–59.
Nahua, 359–83;
Mitla, 360–64.
Maya and Nahua compared, 381.
Architectural progress in mound works, 79–80.
Argyll, Duke of, on Negroid type, 197.
Art, unity of style in savage, 196.
high order at Palenque, 389, 392;
at Uxmal, 393, 395;
at Copan, 404.
Palenque and Egyptian compared, 418.
Astronomical knowledge of Aztecs, 455.
Mound-builders, 94–6.
Atlantic Ocean, floor of, 502, 505.
submerged land ridge of, 503.
mean depths of, 502.
sea-board, changes in level of, 504.
continent, 505.
Atlantis, Platonic, tradition of, 142, 498–505.
Brasseur de Bourbourg on, 498–500.
Legends of from _Popol Vuh_ and _Codex Chimalpopoca_, 499.
Retzius on, 500;
Unger, 501;
Heer, 501.
Atolls of the Pacific, 507;
Dana and Le Conte on, 507–8.
Atoyac, Mexican river, 234.
Autochthones, mound-builders not, 97.
Autochthon, the American an, 192.
Autochthonic origin of Americans, 155.
Axayacatl, Mexican king, 452.
Azores, volcanic character of, 503.
Aztec calendar, 446–59;
year, 447;
months, 447;
weeks and days, 448;
inter-calation, 448;
Ritual year, 449, 455;
Lords of night, 449.
Stone, 450;
lunar reckoning, 455.
chronology, 458.
Aztec language, richness of, 471, 480, 481;
extent of, 480, 492.
the classic tongue, 480;
ancient and modern, 481.
grammar, 481–85;
Lord’s prayer in, 485.
traces of north of Mexico, 486–90, 491.
elements in Nootka languages, 491.
Aztec picture-writing, 428–33.
Aztec springs, 300, 324–26;
Aztec-Sonora languages, 487–8.
“Aztec theory,” the, 331.
Aztecs, migrations of, 259–263;
date of, 259;
stations, 260–61;
southern origin of considered, 266, n. 1.
Aztlan, Nahua home, 257–9, 518;
location of, 257–9, 264–65.
description of by Duran, 258.
Aztlan, Wis., mound works at, 36.
B.
Babel myths, 140;
tower of, 205;
Cholula, 235–37.
Bacab myth, 465.
Balam-Agab, Quiché progenitor, 214.
Balam-Quitzé, Quiché progenitor, 214.
Baldwin, J. D., on mounds of North-west, 31, 32.
Bancroft, H. H., on Hue hue Tlapalan, 251–53.
resumé of Toltec annals by, 255.
observations on Cox-cox myth, 263.
on Maya chronology, 438.
on Aztec language, 476, n. 2.
Baptism, Mexican, 462.
Barber, E. A., 305.
Barrandt on Dakota mounds, 31.
Basque and Maya languages compared, 476;
Dr. Farrar on, 476, n. 2.
Bartlett’s exploration of Casas Grandes, 276–83.
Bayou St. John, earthworks on, 76.
Beard mound, 56.
Bearded men at Chichen-Itza, 401.
Beau Relief in Stucco, 388.
Becker, J. H., on traditions of Nahua Mound-builders, 102, n.;
on ancient home of Nahuas, 248;
on Toltec migration, 248–50.
Behring’s Straits, Bancroft’s remarks on, 147.
width and depth of, 510;
Lyell and Herschel on, 510;
Hellwald on migration by, 511;
Dall, W. H., on migration _via_, 512, n. 1.
Berthoud, E. L., stone implements collected by, 124.
Big Harpeth valley works, 60–65.
Blake, J. H., collection of Peruvian skulls by, 176–7.
Bollaert’s interpretation of hieroglyphics, 425.
Books used by Mayas, 420.
by Aztecs, 428.
Bourbeuse River, mastodon discovered at, 116.
Brasseur de Bourbourg, estimate of by Bancroft, 142, n. 1.
on the Platonic Atlantis, 142, 498–500;
on Igh and Imox, 205, n. 1;
on Maya hieroglyphics, 421–25;
on religious analogies, 467–8;
on Scandinavian and Maya languages, 476.
Brachycephalic crania classified, 162–3.
Brazil, accidental discovery of by Cabral, 506.
Brentwood, Tenn., stones graves at, 60.
Brick, sun-dried, from mounds, 72–75.
Brinton, Dr., phonetic alphabet, 427;
Buddha and Quetzalcoatl compared by, 466.
Brown, Thos., mounds of, 63–4.
Browne, Ross, explorations by, 282–3.
Buckle, on learning in Spain, 133, n. 2.
Buddhist missionaries in America, 148–50.
Burial, “intrusive” in mounds, 85;
ceremony, 40;
in stone coffins, 60;
vase from Mexico, 410.
Butler, J. W., on Chaac-Mol, 399.
Buschmann’s researches on American languages, 487–88.
Sonora family, 487;
on Aztec element in Nootka language, 491.
C.
Cabots, 22.
Cabral, discovery of Brazil by, 506.
Cabrera on the origin of the Votanites, 208–9;
on Votanic document, 207.
Cahita, language of New Mexico, 487.
Cahokia mound, 41.
Calapooya language, traces of Aztec in, 490.
Calaveras Co. (Cal.) cranium, 125;
views of Whitney, Wyman and others on, 125.
Calendar systems, mound-builder, 40.
Maya, 435–45;
days, 436;
months, 437;
the Katun, 439–40;
Ahau Katun, 441;
succession of, 442.
Nahua or Mexican, its construction, 243, 446–59;
perfection of, 519;
year, 447;
days and weeks, 448;
inter-calation, 448;
Ritual year, 449;
lords of night, 449;
Calendar Stone, 408–9;
interpreted by Gama, Chevero and Valentini, 450–58;
history, 452–3, 457.
California, traces of antiquity of man in, 125.
California languages and their affinities to Chinese, 495;
Japanese, 496.
Canals constructed by Mound-builders, 98–100.
Caras or Carians ancient navigators, 507;
Brasseur on, 507.
Carr’s Measurements of Crania, 173;
on low-type mound crania, 174.
Carter, 22;
Carter, Dr. J. Van A., on stone implements, 24, n. 1.
Carthaginian colonization of America, 145–6
Cara Gigantesca, 404.
Casa del Ecó, 312.
Gobernador (Uxmal), 347–50.
Grande of Zayi, 353.
de Monjas, sculptures of, 394.
Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, 276;
Aztec station at, 277.
of the Gila, 284.
Cataclysm, traditions of a, 499.
Cave explorations, 26.
dwellings, 292–311, 313.
village of Rio Chelley, 313.
shelters of San Juan, 319.
fortresses of Rio Mancos, 320.
Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, Toltec king, 272.
Cemetery, aboriginal, 65.
Centennial Report of Ohio Arch. Asso., 82.
Centla, pyramid of, 365–6.
Cephalic index of crania, 160.
Ceremonial law, analysis of, 463.
Chaac-Mol, statue of, 397–400.
Chaco Valley, ruined pueblo in, 291;
peculiarity of architecture, 292.
Chalcas, Nahua tribe, 256.
Chalco, lake, 264.
Challenger, voyage of, 502;
“Challenger plateau,” 502–3.
Chalcatzin, Toltec chief, 244.
Chamber, interior in mound, 75.
Chanes, ancient races, 206.
Charencey, 425.
Chelly Cañon, antiquities of, 293;
cave-village of, 313–14;
house in, 315.
Chevero, interpretation of Mexican Calendar Stone by, 450–2.
Chiapan architecture, 340.
Chiapas, ancient civilization of, 203.
Chichen-Itza, antiquities of, 353–5, 397–403;
mural paintings at, 401.
Chichilticale, “red house,” 281.
Chichimecs, Mexican nation, 243;
dynasty of, 254;
language of, 255, 480;
Pimentel on, 255–6.
Chicomoztoc (Chichimostoc) Nahua home, 256–7;
identical with “seven caves,” 261, n.; 264–66.
Chihuahua, Casas Grandes of, 275;
original descriptions of, 276;
material and dimensions of, 276–77.
Children’s graves in Tennessee, 66–8.
Chimalhuacan, Toltec station, 245.
Chinook language, traces of Aztec in, 490, n. 3.
Cholula pyramid, 235;
not related to a flood, 235, 237;
origin according to Duran, 236, 368–70.
Christ myth in Yucatan, 231, 464.
Christy collection, Mosaic knife from, 412.
Chinese colonization of America, 148.
Chronology, accepted faulty, 199, 200;
Duke of Argyll on, 200.
Maya, 435–45;
adjusted to ours, 443–45.
Cibola, seven cities of, 288.
Cincinnati mound-works. 44–6;
tablet, 44–6.
Circumcision, 463.
Cists, stone, 60.
Civilization, American contrasted with that of ancient Britons, 520.
Clallam and Lummi languages, Aztec element in, 490.
Clarke, Robert, on Cincinnati Tablet, 44–6.
on Morgan’s Pueblo theory, 55, n. 2.
Classification of crania, 160–3.
of mound-works by Squier and Davis, and Foster, 81.
of mound relics by Rau, 82, n. 1.
Clavigero, views on origin of Americans, 140, n. 1.
on first colonists of America, 204.
Cliff-dwellers, 293;
their traditional history, 302.
Cliff-dwellings of the Mancos Cañon, 298–99, 319.
McElmo Cañon, 302.
Hovenweep, 305–7.
San Juan, 307, 308, 319.
and Rock Shelters on San Juan, 309.
house of Chelly Cañon, 315.
in Montezuma Cañon, 316.
Cloth from mounds, 37, 43.
Coast level, elevation and depression of, 405.
Coffins, stone, 60.
Columbus, 22;
stern-post of ship seen by, 506.
Colonists, first in Mexico, 242.
Color, variety in human races, 197, 198;
Darwin on origin of, 199.
Color of ancient Americans, 189;
Pritchard on, 189, n. 2.
Colorado River, ruins in Grand Cañon of, 285.
Major Powell’s exploration, 285–87.
Colorado Chiquito, antiquities of, 287.
Columbia River languages, 492.
Conant, A. J., explorations by, 76, 77;
on ancient canals, 98, 100.
Conflict of science and dogmatism, 131.
Confusion of tongues, 238.
Connett mound, 56.
Conquest of Xibalba, 222–5.
Copan, 221;
ruins of, 356–59;
sculpture of, 404–5.
Copper in mounds, 85;
ancient mines of, 89–94;
theory of Mexican supply, 93, 493.
relics from Wisconsin, 99.
Cora language and its relation to Aztec, 486–7.
Cosmogonic egg, 416, 419, 465.
Coronado’s journey to New Mexico, 281, n. 1.
Cox, Prof., discoveries cited, 75.
Cox-cox, Mexican Noah, 262, n. 1.
Cox-cox, Bancroft’s observations on, 263, 454.
_Crania Americana_, measurements of, classified, 161–3.
Cranial measurements, 159–60.
Crania from mounds, testimony of, 105–6.
River Rogue, 167;
measurements by Gillman, 168.
Davenport, Farquharson’s measurements, 169–70;
from Ohio, 170;
from Kentucky, 171;
from Tennessee, 171;
comparison, 174;
compression of common, 178, 184;
among Chinooks, 182;
among other American tribes, 183.
Cranium, low type, discovered by Conant, 174.
Cremation probable, 85.
Cristone of McElmo Cañon, 301.
Cross, subterranean temple of, 363.
Tablet of, 390.
Cruciform works at Trenton, Wis., 35.
Crux Ansata at Palenque, 416–17.
Cukulcan culture hero, 230–31, 272, 394, 457.
Culhuacan, 226.
Culhuas (Nahuas) sometimes applied to Mayas, 209.
Curtiss, Ed., explorations by, 65.
D.
Dablon, Father, on aboriginal use of copper, 92–3.
Dakota mounds, 31, n. 2.
Dall, W. H., on migration by Behring’s Straits, 512, n. 1.
Dana, J. D., review of Dr. Koch’s discoveries, 120.
Darwin on old world origin of Americans, 194.
Davenport Academy, explorations conducted by, 37–40.
Davenport Tablet, 38, 40.
Davenport mound crania, 169–70.
elephant pipe, Appendix B.
Days, Maya, 436–38.
Deguignes, 148.
Deluge myths, Mexican, 262–3, notes.
Tezpi, 263, n.;
Analogies, 460.
Development of American Race (see Evolution).
Dickson, Dr., examination of “Mammoth Ravine” by, 113–14.
Diseases of Mound-builders, 184.
Dogmatism and science, 131.
Dolechocephalic crania classified, 161.
“Dolphin Rise,” the, 501.
Domenech, Abbé, note on works, 139, n. 4.
Dowler, Dr., skeleton discovered by, 123;
estimate of antiquity, 123.
Drake, account of works at Cincinnati by, 44.
Drift (modified), fossil from, 121.
Dwellings of Mound-builders, 67.
E.
Earth, globular form discovered, 133.
Echevarria y Veitia on the origin of the Americans, 138.
Eckstein, Baron de, on the Caras, 507.
Eden, Mexican analogies with, 460.
Edificios de Quemada, 379.
Education of Aztec children, 432.
Effigy mounds of Wisconsin, 33–36;
of Ohio, 34;
of Georgia, 35.
Egypt and Teotihuacan compared, 383.
Egyptian influence on American civilization, 147.
Egyptian painting, 197.
Egyptian Tau at Palenque, 416.
El Castillo, pyramid, 366.
Elephant mound. 35–6;
“Trunk,” 385, 395;
pipe, 530.
El Moro, ruins on, 290.
Elyria cave, Whittlesey on, 26.
Engleman, Dr. J. G., 43.
Enoch, H. R., discovery by, 44.
Epsom Creek, antiquities of, 315;
elevated tower on, 316.
Eric the Red, 153.
Ericson, 32.
Eskimo, the first occupants of America, 512.
Estufa (Pueblo sanctuary), 292;
entrance peculiar, 322.
Etowah valley mounds, 72.
Europe, antiquity of man in, 24, n. 1.
Evolution, origin of the Americans by, 191;
views of Hellwald on, 191;
regarded improbable by Hæckel and Darwin, 195.
F.
Fanaticism of early writers on America, 133.
Farquharson, Dr., reports by, 38.
Farrar, Dr. W., on American language, 470.
Feathered Serpent (Quetzalcoatl, Gucumatz Cukulcan), 272, 394, 457.
Festival of the Mexican Cycle, 456.
Flood myths of the Mexicans, 262, n. 1, 499;
of Pueblos, 335–6.
Floors of burnt clay, 66.
Florida, ancient home of Mayas, 517.
Floridian jaw-bone, Agassiz and Pourtales on, 112–13.
Fontaine, Mr., on Tennessee valley mounds, 71.
Forchhammer on Indian languages, 496.
Forest growth on mounds, 104.
Forshey, Prof. C. G., on southern mounds, 77–79.
Fort Ancient, 51;
Judges Dunlevy and Force on, 51, 52.
Fortifications (ancient) in New York, on the Lakes, and in Butler
Co., Ohio, 50;
in Miami valley, 51, 75.
Foster’s _Pre-historic Races_, importance of, 100, n. 2.
Foster, Dr. J. W., on Cahokia mound, 42;
classification of mound-works by, 81;
on Indian traditions, 102;
on age of “New Orleans skeleton,” 124.
Fossil from drift, Jersey Co., Ill., 121;
Foster’s observations on, 121.
Fremont, Montezuma legend by, 334.
Frio, Cape, distance from Africa, 506.
Fuentes, description of Copan by, 356.
Funeral ceremony, 39, 40.
Fusang, 148–51;
views of Neuman on, 149;
Bretschneider, 150;
Klaproth, 150;
D’Eichthal, 151.
G.
Gama, Leon y, on Mexican Calendar Stone, 450–55.
Garcia on origin of Americans, 136–7.
Gardner, J. Starke, on Dolphin and Challenger ridges, 503.
Gass, Rev. J., discoveries of, 37, 40.
Gemelli Carreri, migration map of, 261–3.
Geometrical knowledge of Mound-builders, 49.
Geographical names, analogies in, 497.
Gest, Mr. E., 46.
Giants, race of, 232;
destruction of, 235.
Gila river, Casa Grande of, 279.
accounts of, 279;
ground plan of, 281.
view of, 283.
Gillman, Henry, explorations of, 29.
on crania from River Rogue, 167–8.
on crania from Chamber’s Island, 169.
Goazacoalco (various spellings) river and province, 251.
Gobernador, Casa del, 347–50.
Grammar of Maya language, 477–9.
Aztec language, 481–85.
Grave Creek mound, 87.
Gravier on Northmen, 153.
Gray, Asa, on American and European flora, 501;
on Asiatic flora, 513.
Graphic systems, see Hieroglyphics.
Great Serpent, mound-work, 34, 70.
Grecques at Mitla, 363.
Greek analogies of religion, 466.
Greek colonization of America, 146;
advocates of, 146.
Greek gods in Yucatan, 467.
Green County, Missouri, mound, 74.
Greenland, subsidence of coast, 504.
“Grimm’s Law,” 471–488.
Grote, Prof. A. R., observations on Eskimo, 128, 512.
Guatemalians, origin and flood myths of, 228–9.
Gucumatz, Quiché, deity, 213, 222, 226, 227.
search for maize by, 241, 272.
Gulf Stream, 505.
H.
Hacavitz, mountain and deity, 215–16.
Hæckel, on origin of Americans, 195.
Hair of ancient Americans, 186.
Hair-cloth from mounds, 43.
Hanno’s naval expeditions, 145.
Hands, prints of ancient cliff-dwellers, 312.
Haywood, mummies described by, 187.
Head-flattening, history of, 178–80;
practiced in America, 180–84;
Prof. Wilson on, 180;
among the Chinooks, 182;
among Mound-builders, 183.
Headlee, Dr., cited, 75, n.
Hearths (ancient) in Ohio valley, 122.
Helena, Missouri, sun-dried bricks at, 75.
Hellwald, F. von, and copper in Mexico, 93.
Herrera on origin of Americans, 137.
Heroic period of American history, 515.
Hieroglyphics, from the mounds, 419.
of cliff-dwellers, 420;
of Mayas, 420–28;
Landa’s key to, 223–25.
Mexican, 429–34.
Hill, S. W., on ancient copper mines, 91.
Hindoo and Mexican analogies, 465.
Hiram and Solomon’s fleet, 154.
Hitchcock, Prof. Ed., on age of Mississippi delta, 128.
Hivites, ancestors of Votanites, 208–9, n.
Hoei-Shin, report on Fusang, 148.
Holmes, W. H., explorations of, 297, 305, 317.
on Rio de la Plata, 318;
mound-works reported, 318;
discoveries on San Juan, 319.
in Mancos Cañon, 320–24.
Hooker, Sir Joseph, 43.
Hopetown works, 49.
Hosea, S. M., on sacrificial mounds, 74, n. 2.
Houses of Mound-builders, 67.
Hovenweep, ruined city of, 304;
niche stairway of, 306;
cliff-house of, 307.
Howland, H. R., discoveries by, in “American bottom,” 43–4.
Huastecs, Maya nation, 234.
Hueman (Huematzin), Toltec astrologer and leader, 245, 253.
Hue hue Tlapalan, ancient Nahua home, 238, 240, 248;
date of migration from, 240, 241, 244, 245, n., 458;
location of, 244, 518.
in Mississippi Valley, 253;
not in North-west, 253.
Huehuetan, in Chiapas. 206.
Huemac, Toltec king, 268.
Hueyxalan, Toltec station, 245.
Humboldt, William von, on Aztec language, 486.
Humphries and Abbott’s estimate of age of Mississippi delta, 124.
Hunahpu, Quiché, hero, 222;
exploits of, 222–3.
Hunab Ku (only god), 231.
Hunbatz, 223.
Hun Came, 222–24.
Hunchouen, 228.
Hunhunahpu, Quiché, chief, 222–3.
Hurakan, Quiché, deity, 212, 222, 226.
I.
Iaia, tradition of, 499, n.
Igh, one of the first colonists of Chiapas, 204.
Imox, one of the first colonists of Chiapas, 204.
Inca-bone, 173.
India and Mexico, religious analogies of, 465.
Indiana mounds, 57, n. 2.
Indigenous Americans, 155.
views of writers on, 156.
Infant burial in Tennessee, 60, 66.
Ingersoll, Mr., tradition of cliff-dwellers recorded by, 302–4.
Intercalary days, 445, 455.
Interglacial race, 512–516.
relics from Waynesville, Ohio, 126;
President Orton on, 126–7.
Interglacial man in New Jersey, 127–8.
Iqi-Balam, Quiché, deity, 214–15.
Irish colonists of America, 152.
Israel, lost tribes of in America, 135–6;
views of Duran on, 135;
Thorowgood, 136;
L’Estrange, 136;
Garcia, 137;
Pineda, 138;
Echevarria y Veitia and Kingsborough, 143.
Isle Royal, copper mines on, 91;
Henry Gillman 91, n. 1;
Foster on, 92–3;
Aboriginal use of copper, 92–3.
Issaquena County, Mississippi, mounds, 70;
Anderson’s Calendar Stone from, 70.
Ixtlilxochetl’s _Relaciones_, 240, 250.
J.
Jackson, W. H., discoveries by in the McElmo and Mancos cañons, 294.
in the Hovenweep, 305–7.
Janos river, antiquities of, 278.
Japanese and American affinities, 496.
colonization of America, 148.
Jaredites, colonists of America, 144.
Jaw-bone from Florida, Agassiz and Count Pourtales on, 112–13.
Jewish theory of colonization, 143.
Jewish and Mexican historical analogies, 461.
Jones, George, on Phœnician colonization of America, 146;
estimate of his work, 146, n. 2.
Jones, Prof. Joseph, Mound explorations in Tennessee, 171–3;
cranial measurements by, 172.
K.
Kabah, peculiarity of architecture at, 352.
Kamucu, Quiché national song, 217.
Kennebec valley mound, 28.
Kennon, Col., on Aleutian islands, 509.
Kentucky mound crania, 171.
Kinich-Kakmó, queen of Chichen-Itza, 400.
Kingsborough’s fancied analogies, 460–65.
Kitchens of the Mound-builders, 76.
Kitchen-middens, see _Shell-heaps_.
Knapp, S. O., discovery of ancient copper mines by, 89.
Koch, Dr., discoveries of, 116–121;
J. D. Dana on, 120–21;
Koch, valuable services of, 121, n. 2.
Kuro-suvo, or Japan current, 509.
L.
Labná, architecture of, 353.
Lake Superior copper mines, 90–92.
Lamnites, colonists of America, 144.
Landa’s Alphabet, 423–25.
Maya days and months, 436–7.
Languages (American), multiplicity of, 190, 469;
instability of, 493–4, n. 1.
survival of the fittest, 470.
the Maya-Quiché, 472;
classification of, 472;
stability of the Maya, 473.
the oldest American, 473;
Orozco y Berra on, 473, 493;
Maya-Quiché characteristics, 474;
Dr. Le Plongeon on, 474.
the Aztec, 479–90;
epitome of grammar, 481–85;
affinities to Asiatic, 495–96;
bearing on migrations, 486.
Lapham, Dr., survey of mound-works in Wisconsin, 34–5.
Lascarbot on origin of Americans, 137.
Las Casas, on origin of Guatemalians, 228.
on flood myth, 228;
on creation myth, 228, n.;
on Christ myth, 231.
Latham on Morton’s theories, 165, n.
Lautverschiebung, 471, 488.
Leather relic from mound, 56.
Le Conte, Prof., on changes of coast level, 504.
Legendary period of American history, level, 515.
Leidy, Prof. Joseph, on stone implements, 24.
L’Estrange on origin of Americans, 136.
Leroux, M., discoveries of, 284.
Le Plongeon, Dr., explorations in Yucatan, 396–403;
on Maya language, 474–77;
on analogies between Yucatan and Canary Islands, 500.
Liberty, Ohio, works at, 48.
Lief, Norse discoverer of America, 153.
Lord’s prayer in Maya, 479.
in Aztec, 485.
Louisiana mounds, 77–79.
Prof. C. G. Forshey on, 77;
pyramidal mounds, 78.
Low type crania from mounds, 174.
Lund, Dr., explorations by, 116.
Lyell, Sir Charles, on remains at Santos River, Brazil, 113;
observations on Natchez bone, 113–14;
on age of Mississippi delta, 123;
on New Orleans skeleton, 123.
M.
McElmo Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 300, 302.
square tower in, 301;
triple-walled tower of, 224.
McGuire on antiquity of Red man, 27, n.
McKinley, William, mounds described by, 73.
Madisonville explorations, 523.
Mahucutah, Quiché progenitor, 214.
Maize, discovery of, 241.
Man, antiquity of in South America, 109–10, 129;
four creations of, 214.
Man’s influence on nature, 110–11;
measure of antiquity, 110;
Martius on, 111, n.;
Dr. Brinton on, 111;
Dr. Meigs on Santos River remains, 113.
Man of recent origin in America, 130;
Lubbock’s remarks on, 130;
Foster on, 130, n.
Manchester stone fort, 59.
Mancos Cañon, cliff-houses of, 294, 295, 298, 299;
watch-tower of, 296–97, 300;
cave-fortresses of, 320–24.
Manuscripts of Mayas, 421.
Troano MS, 422.
of Mexicans, 429;
Mendoza Codex, 431–33.
Maps, Aztec migration, 261–63.
Marietta mounds, 54.
Marsh, Prof. O. C., exploration by, 87–9.
Mastodon discovered by Dr. Koch, 116–18.
Mayas, traditional origin of, chap. v.;
earliest home, 210;
venerable civilization, 519;
architecture of, 340–55;
sculpture, 384–403;
compared to Egyptian, 415;
calendar of, 435–45;
Katun or Cycle, 439–40;
Ahau Katun, 442;
intercalary days, 445;
system adjusted to our chronology, 443–45;
observations of Landa, Perez, Bancroft and Delaport on, 443–45.
Maya-Quiché languages classified, 472;
stability of, 473;
antiquity of, 474–5.
Maya Grammar, 477–79;
Maya, Lord’s prayer in, 479.
Maya and Hebrew compared, 475.
compared to Scandinavian languages, 476.
compared to the Basque, 476;
to West African languages, 477.
Maya writing, see Hieroglyphics.
Mazatepec, Toltec station, 246.
Mecitl (or Mixi), Aztec leader, 259.
Meigs on mean of Indian cranium, 167.
Melgar on two idols near Mexico, 416;
on Maya language, 475.
Menominees, “White Indiana,” 189.
Mexican baptism, 462–3;
crania, 175.
Calendar, divisions of time, 446;
the Cycle, 446;
festival of, 456;
months, 447;
New Year, 447.
Calendar Stone, 450;
its interpreters, 450;
dates furnished by, 458;
Lunar reckoning, 455.
Mexican language, see Aztec language.
Mexico, pyramid of, 374;
sculpture from, 408–11;
vases from, 410;
vases in the United States National Museum, 413–415.
Miami Valley, aboriginal cemetery in, 523.
Miamisburgh mound, 52.
Mica, use of by Mound-builders, 98.
Michigan mounds, 29.
Migration, the first to America, 512.
conditions favorable in North-west, 513.
Becker on, 513–14.
of the Quichés, 215.
of the Tolteca, 244–251.
of the Aztecs, 259–63;
of Tarascos, 261.
Migration map of Boturini, 433.
of Gemelli Carreri, 261–63, 483.
Gemelli interpreted by Ramirez, 262.
Minas Geraes, caves of, 116.
Mississippi delta, age of, 122–24;
estimate by Lyell, 122;
by Dr. Dowler, 123;
by Dr. Hitchcock, 123;
by Humphries and Abbott, 123.
Mississippi mounds, 69–70, 71.
Mitchell, Dr. A., explorations cited, 73.
Mitla, antiquities of, 361–62.
Mizteco-Zapotec languages, 479.
Miztecs, Mexican tribe. 234.
Mongol colonization of America, 151.
Monjas, Casa de, 350.
Montezuma Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 316.
Montezuma, culture-hero, 333;
legend of his birth, 334;
legend concerning by Papagoes chief, 334;
Montezuma II., Mexican emperor, 453;
languages of his empire, 480.
Months, Maya, 437–39.
Monosyllabism, 495.
Moqui towns, Becker on origin, 332;
name, 332;
Lieutenant Ives’ description of, 326–30;
pottery, 327;
interior of dwellings, 328.
Moqui language, Aztec traces in, 489.
Mooshahueh, Moqui town, 328.
Morgan, L. H., Pueblo theory of, 55;
Robert Clarke on, 53, n.
Mormon colonisation of America, 144;
Bancroft on, 144.
Morton, Dr., classification of American races by, 157–59;
table of cranial measurements by, 158, n. 1;
views untenable, 159–165, 516;
measurements of _Crania Americana_ classified, 161–63.
Moody, J., on Rockford Tablet, 44.
Moss, Captain, 302.
Mosaics at Mitla, 362–3.
Mosaic knife, 412.
Mosaic deluge, Mexican analogies with, 460.
Mound-builders, geographical distribution of works, 27;
Mica mines of, 28;
copper mines of, 92–94.
no tradition of, 102–3;
Mound-builders and Indians distinct, 65.
language of, 492;
diseases of, 184.
Mound-works at St. Clair river, 30;
in British Columbia, 30;
in Oregon, 31;
Bonhomme’s island, 31;
Missouri valley, 31, 33;
on Butte prairies, 31, n. 1;
in Dakota, 31, n. 2;
in Wisconsin, 33;
at Davenport, 37;
heart of country, 40;
St. Louis and American bottom, 41;
in Ohio, 48;
at Newark, 53–55;
in Wabash valley, 57, n. 2;
in Tennessee, 58–68;
in North and South Carolina, 67;
in Mississippi, 67;
in Alabama, 71;
in Georgia, 72, 73;
in Missouri, 74–77;
in Louisiana, 77–79;
in Texas, 78;
antiquity of, 101;
abandonment, 101–5, 458–9;
age of vegetation on, 104;
of Mancos Cañon, 294;
in Vera Paz, 359;
in Tehuantepec, 360;
in Vera Cruz, 364.
Mound crania, condition of a measure of antiquity, 105–6;
typical mound skull, 166.
Mound sculptures, 187–9.
Mugeres Isla, statue from, 403.
Müller, Max, 471.
Mummies from Peru, 186.
from Tennessee, 187.
Mural paintings at Chichen-Itza, 401.
N.
Nachan, “city of serpents,” 205.
Nahua architecture, 359–83.
sculpture, 406–15.
Nahua Calendar, 445–459.
writers on, 445, n. 3.
analogies with calendars of Asia and Egypt, 459.
Nahua language, see Aztec language.
ancient and modern, 480, 481, 486, 493–4, n. 1.
elements of in language of North-west, 491.
the probable language of Mound-builders, 492.
spoken in Florida, 493;
analogies to, 494.
Nahua nations, origin of, 232.
predecessors of in Mexico, 232.
chronology of according to _Codex Chimalpopoca_ and _Popol Vuh_,
241, 250.
their arrival at Panuco, 242.
extent of territory in Mexico, 248.
migrations of, 244, 251, 517.
southern origin considered, 252.
Nahuatlacas, seven Nahua tribes, 256–9.
Najera on the Otomi and the Chinese, 494–5.
Nashville, Tenn., mounds near, 62, 65, 67.
Natchez pelvic bone, discovered by Dr. Dickson, 113.
Lyell’s observations on, 113–14.
Foster’s observations on, 114, n. 4.
Negroid type, ancient, 197.
Nemontemi, Aztec intercalary days, 455.
Neolithic age in America, 23.
Nephites, colonists of America, 144.
Newark, Ohio, works at, 53–55.
New Jersey, traces of inter-glacial man in, 127–8.
New Madrid, Missouri, great mound near, 75–76.
New Orleans, ancient skeleton discovered at, 123.
New York, ancient forts of, 28.
Nezahualcoyoth, King of Tezcuco, poems of, 470.
Niche stairway, 315.
Nootkas, Aztec traces among, 486.
Norse discovery of America, 153.
North-west, antiquity of man in, 128–9.
Nott and Gliddon on the origin of nations, 159.
O.
Oajaca, antiquities of, 360–64.
languages of, 479.
Observations on places of sanctuary, 80.
Obsidian in mounds, 85.
Occupancy of Mississippi valley by Mound-builders, 106.
Ocean currents, 505.
Ococingo, ancient city in Chiapas, 211.
site of, 226.
Ohio Archæological Society report, 82, n. 1.
Ohio mound crania, 170–1.
Ohio mound-works, 47.
estimated number of, 48.
Ojo del Pescado, ruins at, 289.
Oldtown art, 64.
Oldtown, Tennessee, mounds, 61–3.
Olmecs, First Nahuas, 232–4, 518.
destroy the giants, 235.
build Chohila, 235, 248, 264.
Opata-Tarahumar-Pima family of languages, 488.
Ophir, 145.
Oraybe, Moqui town, 330.
Ordoñez, history of, 207.
Oregon, traces of Aztec in, 490.
Origin of the Americans, Autochthonic, 192 _et seq._
Origin of Americans reviewed, 516.
Origin of Ancient Americans, 134, 153.
views of Duran, 135;
L’Estrange, 136;
Thorowgood, 136;
Garcia, 136–7;
Herrera, 137;
Torquemada, 137;
Pineda, 138;
Echevarria y Veitia, 138;
Ulloa, 139;
Domenech, 139;
Clavigero, 139.
Bancroft’s summary of views cited, 139;
views of modern authors, 201–2, notes;
of old world origin, 202.
Origin of the Nahuas, according to Sahagun, 242.
Origin tradition of Mayas, 204.
of Quichés, 211–12.
Orton, President Edward, on inter-glacial relics in Ohio, 126–7.
Otomi language compared to Chinese, 494–5.
Oztotlan, home of Aztecs, 248.
P.
Pacific Continent, 508.
Page, J. R., explorations by, 67.
Painted desert, 332.
Painting practised by Mound-builders, 65.
Palæolithic age in America, 23.
Palenque art compared with Egyptian, 418.
Palenque, centre of the earliest American civilization, 204, 208–9.
Palenque, situation, 340;
antiquities, 340;
palace, 342;
architectural features of, 343;
Tau at, 343;
roofs, 344;
arch, 345–6;
tower, 345;
sculpture at, 384–92;
statue, 391.
Panuco (Panco, Panutla or Panoaia, Pantlan) Mexican port, 242.
Papantla, pyramid of, 367.
Patton, Dr., on Indiana mounds, 57, n. 2.
Pecos, New Mexico Pueblo, 331.
Pentateuch, true chronology of, 199.
_Peresianus Codex_, 427.
Peruvian crania, 175.
Petit Anse Island, remains from, 115.
Foster’s observations on, 115.
Hilgard and Fontaine’s report on, 115.
Physiognomy of ancient Americans, 186.
Phœnician colonization of America, 145–6.
George Jones on, 145–6.
Picture-writing of Aztecs, 428–33;
specimen from _Codex Mendoza_, 431–2.
Pimentel on Chichimec language, 255.
Pimentel’s classification of Maya languages, 472;
epitome of Aztec Grammar from, 482–83.
Pineda on origin of Americans, 138.
Plastered room in mound, 75
Platycnemism, 183;
Gillman’s discoveries of, 185, n. 2.
Plato’s Atlantis, tradition of, 142.
Polynesia, ancient empire of, 508.
Baldwin on, 508.
Polysynthesis, a law of American language, 471.
Pomme-de-Terre River, Dr. Koch’s discoveries at, 118–19.
Pontonchan, 234.
_Popol Vuh_ (national book of the Quichés), 212, n. 2.
second division of, 221.
Pottery from the cliff-houses, 327.
Powell, Major J. W., explorations, 285–287.
Pratt, W. H., explorations by, 42, n. 2.
Pre-Columbian colonization, views on, 141–154.
Progress, architectural, in mound-works, 79–80.
Prophecy, analogies of, 464.
Ptolemy cited, 497.
Pueblo civilization, extent of, 283.
architecture, chap. vii.
transition in style, 284.
Pueblos of New Mexico, 330–1.
in ruins, 331.
Pueblo Pintado, 291.
Pueblos, the, and Aztecs, 331;
and mound-builders, 332;
architecture and remains compared, 333;
creation and flood and Babel myths of, 335–6.
Puente Nacional, pyramid at, 365.
Putnam, F. W., explorations by, 57, 65, 67.
explorations in Tennessee, 173.
Pyramid, the American, 341.
structure according to Bancroft, 341.
of Tehuantepec, 360.
of Puento Nacional, 365.
of Centla, 366.
of El Castillo, 366.
of Tusipan, 367.
of Papantla, 367.
of Cholula, 368.
of Xochicalco, 370–73.
of Mexico, 374.
of Teotihuacan, 375–9.
Q.
Quemada, Los edificios of, 379–81.
Quiché architecture, 355–9.
Quiché-Cakchiquel languages, 476.
Quinames (Quinametin), 282;
first inhabitants of Mexico, 245;
their destruction, 233.
Quiché poetry, 515.
Quichés reputed to be Carthaginians, 226.
Quichés, Maya nation, 211;
origin tradition, 211–12;
creation myth, 213;
creations of men, 214;
migrations, 215;
deities of, turned to stone, 216;
heroic age of, 220.
Quetzalcoatl, culture hero, 219, 237;
traditions of, 267–71;
from Hue hue Tlapalan, 267;
priest and God of Toltecs, 268;
habits, 268;
author of letters and Mexican calendar, 268;
his enemy, 269;
departure from Tulla, 270;
reign at Cholula, 270;
departure to the East, 271;
expectation of his return, 271;
origin of legends concerning him, 272, 394, 457;
nationality, 464;
positive morality, 515;
discovery of maize, 242.
Quiyahuitztlan, Anahuac, Toltec station, 245.
R.
“Raised Beeches,” discovered by Alexander Agassiz, 504.
Ramirez, on Aztec migration map, 263.
Rau, Charles, on Mexican copper mining, 94, n. 2.
on aboriginal trade, 98.
Red Man, antiquity of, 22;
traditions, 22.
Read, M. C., on Grave Creek Tablet cited, 87, n.
Religious analogies, 459–68.
Religion of the Quichés, 212.
a war of, 226.
Remains at Santos River, Brazil, Lyell and Meigs on antiquity of, 113.
Reviellagigedo, viceroy to Mexico, 453.
Report of Ohio Archæological Society, 82, n. 1.
Retzius, on Morton’s measurements, 165.
on Mexican crania, 175, n.
River Rouge mound, 29.
crania from, 167–8.
River Terraces, mound-works on, 103.
Mr. Baldwin’s views, 103.
Foster’s view, 104. n. 1.
Rock shelters in San Juan Cañon, 309.
in Montezuma Cañon, 316.
“Rockford Tablet,” 44.
Room plastered in mound, 75.
Rosny, M. Leon de, essay by, 425–26.
key to hieratic writings of Mayas, 427.
Ross County (Ohio) works, 48.
Roque, Father, observations on Aztec, 486.
Russell, G. P., explorations by, 87–89.
S.
Sabine worship, 40–85.
Sacrifices, human, 273, 452–53.
Sacrificial mounds, 83–6;
stratified according to Squier and Davis, 84;
stratification denied by Prof. Andrews, 83.
Sacrifices, probably human, 39.
Sahagun’s account of the first Nahuas, 240–6.
Salado Rio, antiquities of, 283.
Salinas River, 283.
Sadelmair, discoveries of, 283.
Salisbury, Stephen, cited, 396–401.
Salish family of languages, Aztec element in, 492.
Sanctuary, places of, 80.
Sandals of Chaac-Mol, 398.
San Juan Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 307.
Echo Cave in, 310–11.
San Miguel Valley, antiquities of, 275–7.
Savage Art, unity in style of, 196.
Scandinavian and Mexican analogies, 466.
discovery of America, 22, 153;
Prof. Rafn on, 153.
Schools of Tezcuco, 481.
Sculpture, from mounds, 382;
at Palenque, 384–92;
Uxmal, 393–95;
Chichen-Itza, 398–403;
Copan, 405;
Monte Alban, 406;
at Tusapan, 407;
Xochicalco, 408;
at Mexico, 409–10.
Sculptures from the mounds, 187–9.
Seltzertown pyramidal mound, 72.
Separate creation theory, Morton and Agassiz’s views of, 157–9;
groundless, 191.
Sepulture, mounds of, 86–88.
“Serpents,” kingdom of, 222.
Serpent Temple, 394;
symbol, 419, 272;
Serpent-work, Adams county, Ohio, 34.
“Seven Caves,” 215, 219, 248, 264–66.
Shaler, Prof., on Dr. Abbott’s discoveries, 128.
Shell-heaps on Atlantic sea-board, 28, 106–7.
fresh-water of, 107–9;
in Florida, 107.
Prof. Wyman on, 106–8;
Dr. Brinton on, 107;
on Pacific coast, 109;
examination by Paul Schumacher, 109.
Shoshone-Comanche languages, 489;
Aztec elements in, 492.
Signal Systems of the Mound-builders, 52.
on Great Miami River, 52.
Squier and Davis on, 53.
Skrellings, 22.
Sorcery practised upon Xibalban kings, 225.
Spain’s state of learning in 17th century, 133, n. 2.
Squier and Davis, estimate of number of mound-works in Ohio, 48;
classification of mound-works by, 81.
Squier on Newark works, 53.
Stations, of Toltec migration, 244–46;
of Aztec migration, according to Veytia, Tezozomoc and Clavigero,
260;
names interpreted by Humboldt, 261, n. 3.
Statuettes in National Museum, 415.
St. Clair River mounds, 30.
Stephens and Catherwood, explorations, chap. viii., _passim_.
Steinthal, Prof., classification of languages by, 471, n. 4.
Stevenson, M. F., description of mounds by, 72.
St. Francis Valley mounds, 74.
St. Louis, mound-works at, 40, 73.
Stone Age in New Jersey, 26;
Dr. Abbott on, 26.
Stone coffins, burial in, 60.
Stone graves in Tennessee, 60;
in Indiana, 57.
Stone implements from Bridger basin, Wyoming, 24, n. 1.
Stone tubes used by Mound-builders, 96.
St. Patrick in America, 152.
Stucco reliefs at Palenque, 384–88.
Sun-dried brick, 75;
wall of at Seltzertown, 72;
in Phillips County, Missouri, 75.
Sun, tablet of, 392.
symbol of, 395.
Sun worship, 40, 85.
Swallow, Prof., explorations by, 75.
Syphilis among Mound-builders, 184.