T.

Tabasco, ancient civilization of, 203.

Tablet of cross, 390;

of sun, 392;

at Chichen-Itza, 398.

Tablet, Rockford, 44; Cincinnati, 44.

Tablets at Palenque, 384–90.

Table Mountain, cranium from, 125.

Tamoanchan, city of Tobasco, 241, 243.

Tarahumara, language of North Mexico, 487.

Tarascos, migrations of, 261.

“Taylor mound,” the, 87–89.

Tehuantepec, antiquities of, 350–60;

language of, 479.

Tegua, Moqui pueblo, 326.

Temple base near Nashville, 62.

Temple of Mexico, 374.

Tennessee mound-works, 58;

explorations of Prof. Jones in, 58–65;

of Prof. Putnam, 65–67.

Tennessee mound crania, 171–4.

Tennessee Valley mounds, 71;

Mr. Fountain on, 71.

Teo-Culhuacan, 250–60, 265, 266.

Teotihuacan, pyramids of, 375–79;

compared with Egypt, 375, 382, 383.

Teotihuacan, sacred city of, 234, 343, 266.

Tepanecs, Nahua tribe, 256.

Tepetla, Toltec station, 246.

Tepehuana, language of North Mexico, 487.

Terra-Cotta, figure from Isla Mugeres, 403.

Terminos, Laguna de, 234.

Texas mounds, 78.

Tezcatlipoca, bloody god of the Nahuas, 269–70;

sorcery of, 269.

Tezcuco, schools of, 481.

Tezpi, flood myth, 263, n.

Tezquil nation, 208.

Theban calendar compared to the Aztec, 459.

Thomas, Dr., on Dakota mounds, 31–2.

Gen. H. W. on same, 32;

low type skull cited, 128, n. 5, 167.

Thomson, Sir C. Wyville, on Atlantic land ridge, 502–3.

Thompson, Dr. J. P., on Usher’s chronology, 201.

Thorowgood on origin of ancient Americans, 136.

Thorwald, Ericson, 22.

Tibiæ, flattened, 30.

Time, Absolute and Relative, 200.

Tlacamitzin, Toltec chief, 244.

Tlachicatzin, city in Hue hue Tlapalan, 245.

Tlahuicas, Nahua tribe, 256.

Tlaloc, Aztec rain-god, 457.

Tlapalans, four, 252;

Bancroft and Brasseur’s views upon, 251–2.

Tlapallan de Cortes, 251;

location of examined, 251.

Tlapallanconco, Toltec station, 245.

Tlascatecs, Nahua tribe, republic of, 257.

Tohil (Quiché deity), 215.

Tollan, Toltec capital, 218, 246.

Toltec migration, 244, 251;

migration according to Becker, 248–50;

according to Ixtlilxochitl, 244–46, 250;

account examined, 246.

Toltec flood myth, 238.

Toltecs, origin according to Ixtlilxochitl, 239.

southern origin considered, 252;

outlines of history, 254;

annals, Bancroft’s resumé of, 255.

Tomlinson’s report on Grave Creek mound, 87.

Tongues, confusion of, 238.

Totonacs, Mexican nation, 234.

Totzapan, 246.

Tower of Mancos Cañon, 297–300;

McElmo, 324;

at Chichen, Mayapan and Tuloom, 355.

Toxpan, Toltec station, 245.

Trade-winds, 508;

agents in the discovery of America, 506.

Tradition (Indian) valueless, 102.

Dr. Foster on, 102.

of Nahua Mound-builders, Becker on, 102–3, n.

Tradition and History and their scope, 109–10.

Tradition of uncertain value, 204.

Trinity myth in Yucatan, 231.

Troano MS, 422.

Tula (Tulha or Tulan), 211.

sculptured column from, 413.

Tulan, 215–16;

four in number, 217–18.

Tulancingo (Tollancingo), Mexican city, 246.

Tulan-Zuiva, 215, 264–66, 248.

Tumuli of Vera Paz, 359;

Tehuantepec, 360.

Vera Cruz, 364.

Tusapan, antiquities of, 367.

Typical mound skull, 166.

Tzendal, language of Chiapas, dialect of the Maya, 206.

Tzendel, a Maya dialect, the oldest American language, 473.

U.

_Uraeus_, Egyptian symbol, 467.

Ural-Altaic languages compared to Indian tongues, 496.

Usher, Bishop, chronology of faulty, 199.

Usumacinta Valley, the seat of most ancient American civilization,

208.

Utah languages, 489–90.

Utatlan, Quiché city, 227;

antiquities of, 358.

Utes, the enemies of the cliff-dwellers, 303.

Uxmal, architectural remains, 347–52.

arches and roofs, 349–50.

sculpture, 393;

Façades at, 394.

Le Plongeon’s observations on, 457.

V.

Valentini, Dr. Ph., interpretation of Mexican Calendar Stone, 453–59;

on analogies in geographical names, 497.

Vancouver’s Island, Aztec termination used, 490;

elements in, 491.

Vases from Casas Grandes, 278;

burial from Mexico, 410;

after Waldeck, 410;

from National Museum, 414–15.

Vater, on the Aztec language, 480–90.

Vega, Bishop Nuñez de la, 200.

Vegetation, age of on mounds, 104;

relation between American and Asiatic, 513.

Vera Paz, mounds of, 359.

Verda Rio, antiquities of, 284.

Verrezano, 22.

Vespucius, 22.

Voc, mythical personage, 222.

Votan (culture hero), tradition of cited, 133–9, 145, 204.

document written by, 206–10.

Vucub-Cakix, Xilbalban monarch, 222.

Vucab-Came, 224.

Vukub-Hunapu, Quiché chief, 222.

W.

Wabash Valley, mounds in, 57, n. 2.

Watch-tower of the Mancos, 300.

Waterbury Mine, 91.

Waynesville, Ohio, inter-glacial relics from, 126.

Welsh discovery of America, 154.

Whipple, Lieut., explorations by, 284.

“White-man’s land,” 152.

Whittlesey, Col., on Shelter Caves, 26.

on ancient copper mines, 91, 94.

Wilson, Dr. Daniel, cranial measurements tabulated, 164;

observations by, on Morton’s theory, 165, n. 2;

examinations of Peruvian crania by, 176;

on head-flattening, 180–2;

on Cincinnati Tablet, 47.

Wisconsin mound-works, 33;

effigy and animal mounds of, 33.

Worship of sun, 40.

Writing, systems of, see Hieroglyphics.

Wyman, Jeffries, on shell-heaps of Florida, 155–8.

X.

Xalisco, Toltec station, 245.

Xan, Quiché messenger, 224.

Xbalanque, Quiché hero, 222–3.

Xelhua, builder of Cholula, 236.

Xibalba, kingdom of Votanites, tradition of fall, 220–26;

date of, 227;

fall of, a theme for poetry, 515;

hatred of, 221.

Xicalancas, 234;

origin of, 234.

Xicalanco, Mexican city, 234.

Xmucane, 222–3.

Xochicalco, pyramid of, 370–3.

Xochimilcos, Nahua tribe, 256.

Xpiyacoc, 222.

Xquiq, Xibalban princess, 223.

Y.

Yamkally language, traces of Aztec in, 490.

Yaqui, Mexican tribe, 219.

Yazoo Valley mounds, 71.

Yellowstone, mounds of, 31.

Yond Mountain, 73.

Yucatan, origin of population, 229–30;

Greek gods in, 467.

Yztachnexucha, 246.

Z.

Zacotlan, Toltec station, 246.

Zamna, Maya culture hero, 229–30.

Zapotecs, Mexican nation, 234;

antiquities of, 360–64.

Zárate, on the Aztec, 486.

Zayi, Casa Grande of, 353.

Zipacua, Xibalban warrior, 222.

Ziuhcohuatl, Toltec station, 246.

Zumárraga, destruction of Aztec MS. by, 429.

Zuñi, description of, 288–89;

Valley, Pueblos of, 288.

Zutugil, language, 476.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Las Casas: _Historia de Indias_, lib. I, cap. 40, tom. I, MS.

Irving: _Columbus_, vol. I, p. 158 (N. Y., 1851 ed.). Navarrete:

_Coleccion de los viajes_, tom. I, p. 176. Grynaeus: _Novus Orbis_,

p. 66, Basil, 1555, fol. Herrera: _Historia General_, Dec. I, lib. I,

cap’s ii et vi, Madrid, 1730.

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

xxx–xxxiii.

[3] Rafn: _Historia Thorfinni Karlsefnii_ (in Ant. Am.), pp. 149,

181; also, De Costa: _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, pp. xxxii,

xxxiii, 21, 41, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 74, 110; Gravier: _Découverte de

l’Amérique par les Normands au Xᵉ Siècle_, p. 83. Paris, 1874, 4to.

[4] Prof. Jos. Leidy, in _Hayden’s 6th Ann. Report of the U. S.

Geological Survey of the Territories_ (1872), pp. 652–3, describes

the stone implements found in the Bridger basin in southern Wyoming.

He remarks, “The question arises, who made the stone implements and

when, and why should they occur in such great numbers in the particular

localities indicated. My friend, Dr. J. Van A. Carter, residing at Fort

Bridger, and well acquainted with the language, history, manners, and

customs of the neighboring tribes of Indians, informs me that they know

nothing about them. He reports that the Shoshones look upon them as the

gift of God to their ancestors. They were no doubt made long ago, some

probably at a comparatively late date, that is to say, just prior to

communication of the Indians with the whites, but others probably date

centuries back.”

[5] It would be foreign to the object of this work to enter upon a

discussion of the antiquity of man in Europe. Were we to follow the

example of several writers on the antiquities of America, we might

present a resumé of the splendid achievements of science in determining

the approximate age of man, as an inhabitant of different portions of

the old world, but such condensed accounts at best are unsatisfactory

and often detrimental to science because of their very slenderness. The

evidences of man’s antiquity being far more remote than the generally

accepted historic period, antedating its beginning by several thousand

years, no doubt exist. The discoveries in the Liége caverns, in the

caves of Languedoc and in the cave of Engihoul in Belgium; in the

Neanderthal and Engis caves; at Abbeville and Amians; the valley of the

Somme; the basin of the Seine; of the Thames; and of the lake dwellers

of Switzerland, as well as the shell-heaps of Denmark, point to an

antiquity which half a century ago it would have been heresy to have

dreamed of. We have but to refer to the admirable work of Sir Charles

Lyell: _The Antiquity of Man_ (Phil., 1863), and to the well-known

works of Lubbock, Tylor, Vogt, and others. A good treatment of the

subject in brief will be found in Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the

U. S._ (1873), and a pointed and popular reference to it in Bryant’s

_History of the U. S._, vol. I. N. Y., 1876.

[6] _Evidences of the Antiquity of Man in the U. S._, by Col. Charles

Whittlesey. A memoir of 20 pp. Perhaps the chief importance of the

above-cited cave discoveries is derived from the eminence of the

antiquarian who cites them, rather than in their real value to science.

In the case of the Elyria cave—examined by Dr. E. W. Hubbard, Prof.

J. Brainerd, and the author of the memoir—“the grindstone grit,”

resting on shale, formed a grotto of considerable size. Four feet of

the floor of the cave, consisting of charcoal, ashes and bones of the

wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, squirrels, fishes, snakes and birds (“all

of which existed in this region when it became known to the whites”),

was removed and three human skeletons discovered. The author states

that the three had been crushed by a large slab of the overhanging

sandstone falling on them, but fails to state how much of the overlying

material consisted of this sandstone slab. He remarks: “Judging from

the appearance of the bones, and the depth of the accumulations over

them, two thousand years may have elapsed since the human skeletons

were laid on the floor of this cave.” The Louisville cave discovery

is no more satisfactory than the above. It is scarcely necessary to

remark that all the evidences are of a comparatively recent interment,

and much less than two thousand years would have been sufficient to

produce the conditions described. See also discoveries at High Rock

Spring, Saratoga, N. Y., cited by Col. Whittlesey, p. 10, and more

fully treated by Dr. McGuire in the “_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of

Nat. Hist._,” vol. xii, p. 398, May, 1839, in which the latter claims

to find traces of the Red man 5470 years ago. It is not probable that

Dr. McGuire’s _traces_ are those of the Indians, nor is it certain that

they were left by human beings at all, since the pine tree (found at a

considerable depth and worn as he supposes by the feet of Indians) was

as liable to have been worn by the feet of animals as of men. See also

Dr. Abbott, _The Stone Age in New Jersey_, Smithsonian Report, 1874, p.

246 _et seq._ See this work, pp. 127–8.

[7] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_,

Washington, 1848, 4to, 1st vol. of Smithsonian Contributions; _Dr. J.

A. Lapham: Antiquities of Wisconsin_, Smithsonian Contributions to

Knowledge, 1855. More recently—_The Upper Mississippi_, by _George

Gale_, Chicago, 1868; _The Mississippi Valley_, by _Dr. J. W. Foster_,

Chicago, 1869, 8vo, and his _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, Chicago,

1873, 8vo. We might add a list of names scarcely less eminent, of

authors who have written upon special fields and examined particular

works. A reliable bibliography of literature on the Mound-builders is

a desideratum which we trust some enterprising Americanist may soon

supply.

[8] Described by Dr. Wm. Blanding in a letter to Dr. Morton, of

Philadelphia. Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 148, and

_Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 105. Foster: p. 151.

[9] Squier: _Antiquities of Western New York_, vol. ii, Smithsonian

Contributions, 1851. See an interesting account of the _Antiquities of

Orleans County, New York_, by F. H. Cushing, in _Smithsonian Report_

for 1874, p. 375.

[10] _Antiquity of Man in U. S._, p. 12; also, _Ancient Earth Forts of

the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio_, by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, Cleveland,

O., 1871, pp. 40 and plates.

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

[12] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 364 _et seq._, from which we

draw the above. _The Proceedings of the American Ass. for the Adv. of

Science_ for 1875.

[13] See Mr. Gillman’s in _Sixth Annual Report of the Trustees of

the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology_, p. 12 _et seq._,

Cambridge, 1873, and _Am. Jour. of Arts and Sciences_, 3d ser., vol.

vii, pp. 1–9, Jan., 1874.

[14] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 151. “There is a large mound,

three hundred feet high and three hundred yards in diameter at the

base, at the southern end of the prairie, about twenty-five miles from

Olympia; and scattered over the prairie for a distance of fifteen miles

are many smaller mounds, not more than four feet high and twenty or

thirty in diameter. * * * A few days ago one of the engineers of the

Northern Pacific Railroad opened one of them and found the remains

of pottery; and a more thorough examination of others revealed other

curious relics, evidently the work of human hands; in fact, in every

mound that has yet been opened there is some relic of a long-forgotten

race discovered.” In quoting the above, Dr. Foster remarks that the

great mound was no doubt a natural eminence artificially rounded off.

[15] _Narrative of the U. S. Exploring Expedition during the Years

1838–42._ Phila., 1844. Tom. IV, p. 334. “We soon reached the Butte

prairies (on Columbia River) which were extensive, and covered with

_tumuli_ or small mounds, at regular distances asunder. As far as I

could learn there is no tradition among the natives relative to them.

They are conical mounds thirty feet in diameter, about six to seven

feet high above the level, and many thousands in number. Being anxious

to ascertain if they contained any relics, I subsequently visited these

prairies, and opened three of the mounds, _but found nothing_ in them

but a pavement of round stones.”

[16] _Baldwin_ (_Ancient America_, pp. 31–2) remarks: “Lewis and Clark

reported seeing them on the Missouri River a thousand miles above its

junction with the Mississippi River; but this report has not been

satisfactorily verified.”

[17] See Mr. A. Barrandt in _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, for an account

of discoveries on Clark’s Creek in Dakota; on the Bighorn River; on the

Yellowstone; on the Morean and the banks of the Great Cheyenne. See

Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 153–4. The proof is conclusive that

the head-waters of the Missouri was one of their ancient seats. The

same gentleman (Mr. Barrandt) describes a remarkable mound in Lincoln

County, Dakota, situated eighty-five miles north-west of Sioux City, on

the west fork of the Little Sioux of Dakota or Turkey Creek. The mound

is known as the “Hay Stack.” Its dimensions are 327 feet in length at

the base on the north-west side, and 290 on the south-east side, and

120 feet wide. It slopes at an angle of about 50°, is from thirty-four

to forty feet in height, the north-east end being the higher. To the

summit, which is from twenty-eight to thirty-three feet wide, there is

a well-beaten path. The remarkable feature of the mound is the fact

that part of the north-east side is walled up with soft sandstone and

limestone, brought a distance of at least three miles from an ancient

quarry. The remainder of the surface is pronounced to be of calcined

clay. The mound contained a large interior circular chamber, in which

the bones of animals, thirty-six pieces of pottery, and a mass of

charcoal and ashes were found.—_Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413

_et seq._

[18] Since this is a contested point, both as to the presence of the

works of the Mound-builders in the North-west and as to their great

antiquity, I subjoin a portion of a report on these mounds made by Gen.

H. W. Thomas, U. S. A., to Dr. Thomas of the Surveying Expedition, in

the _Sixth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey_ under Dr.

Hayden in 1872, pp. 656–7:

“‘Lewis and Clarke reported seeing Indian mounds 1000 miles above

the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri, but this report

is not verified.’ So says Mr. John D. Baldwin, A. M., in his work

entitled ‘Ancient America.’

“I now and here propose to contribute my mite toward the

verification of the statement of Lewis and Clarke.

“The few men whom duty or wild inclination have from time to

time brought into this, for the most part, uninhabited region of

treeless prairie, have all known of the existence of thousands of

artificial mounds. What was in them they knew not, and but two or

three, to my knowledge, have ever been opened. On August 16, 1872,

I opened one on the high table-lands that spread out on both sides

of a little stream called the James. The point is about 47° north

latitude, and 98° 38´ longitude west from Greenwich. It is within

three miles of the line of the North Pacific Railroad. The mound is

circular in form, 30⁸⁄₁₀ feet in its shorter, and 35³⁄₁₀ feet in

its longer diameter, and five feet high. I opened four trenches,

three feet wide, from the outer edge, meeting in the centre,

forming a cross when finished. I then excavated the entire mound

from the centre outward, until there was nothing more to find.

For results I had several two-bushel bags full of bones, eight

skulls, many pieces of skulls too small to be of value (there must

have been at least twenty-five bodies buried there), a rough-hewn

stone ten inches high and five and a half inches in diameter, in

shape resembling closely a conical shell, a cutting half an inch

deep around the centre. (This was evidently tied with thongs to a

stout handle, and used in pulverizing their maize.) A portion of a

shell necklace, two flints, two heads of beaver, and some bones of

animals unknown, and a large quantity of bivalves, much like the

clam (_Mya oblongata_) of our Atlantic coast, but thicker, and the

interior surface much more pearly.

“The mounds and their contents are apparently of great antiquity.

They are, in every case, on the very highest point in their

immediate neighborhood, and perfectly drained. The climate is

excessively dry; so dry that the James River is entirely dry at

a point about 500 feet above the contemplated railroad-bridge

across the river. Notwithstanding this, many of the bones crumbled

into white dust on being brought to the air, like those found in

Herculaneum and Pompeii, and it was absolutely impossible to get

out a single one in anything like perfection. Around and over

these bodies stones and sticks were placed, doubtless to preserve

the remains from the coyote and the fox. The wood could be rubbed

into fine yellow-brown dust between the thumb and forefinger. Any

trace of excavation around the mound for dirt to heap it with had

been entirely obliterated. The upright position of the skulls also

indicated that the bodies were buried in a sitting posture. The

leg-bones, however, lay lower and horizontal.

“The number of mounds indicates a denser population than ever has

been known here, or than the natural resources of this region can

now support by the chase. At the same time the number of dry lakes

scattered all over would indicate that at some remote period the

country may have been a better one than now, and supported a larger

population.”

[19] “_Antiquities of Wisconsin_,” _Smithsonian Contributions to

Knowledge_, vol. vii, 1855.

[20] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments_, pp. 97–99. Recent and

possibly more exact surveys of the Alligator give the figures

as somewhat less than the above. Isaac Smucker, a very reliable

antiquarian of Licking Co., Ohio, in an address before the Ohio State

Archæological Convention, held at Mansfield in September, 1875,

corrects the figures in the following statement: “The Alligator mound

is upon the summit of a hill or spur, which is nearly 200 feet high,

six miles west of Newark, and near the village of Granville. The

outlines of the Alligator (or Crocodile) are clearly defined. His

entire length is 205 feet. The breadth of the body at the widest part,

twenty feet, and the length of the body between the fore-legs and

hind-legs is fifty feet. The legs are each about twenty feet long. The

head, fore-shoulders and rump have an elevation varying from three to

six feet, while the remainder of the body averages a foot or two less.”

[21] _Lapham’s Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 18, 20, 36, 37, 39, 52,

54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 69.

[22] _W. H. Canfield’s Sketches of Sauk County, Wisconsin_;

_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 101. On the copper remains of the

Mound-builders, see _Pre-Historic Wisconsin_, by _Prof. James D.

Butler, LL.D._, annual address before the State Historical Society of

Wisconsin, Feb. 18, 1876. Wisconsin Hist. Col., vol. vii. Privately

printed.

[23] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, figured and described on p. 416 by

Jared Warner of Patch Grove, Wis. (Oct. 1872). A further description of

mounds in the same locality, by Moses Strong, M. E., will be found in

_Smithsonian Report_ for 1876, p. 424.

[24] _Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 42–5: “The main features of these

remains is the enclosure or ridge of _earth_ (not brick, as has been

erroneously stated), extending around three sides of an irregular

parallelogram; the west branch of Rock River forming the fourth side on

the east. The space thus enclosed is seventeen acres and two-thirds.

The corners are not rectangular, and the embankment or ridge is not

straight. The earth of which the ridge is made was evidently taken

from the nearest ground, where there are numerous excavations of very

irregular form and depth; precisely such as may be seen along our

modern railroad and canal embankments. These excavations are not to be

confounded with the hiding-places (caches) of the Indians, being larger

and more irregular in outline. Much of the material of the embankment

was doubtless taken from the surface without penetrating a sufficient

depth to leave a trace at the present time. If we allow for difference

of exposure of earth thrown up into a ridge and that lying on the

original flat surface, we can perceive no difference between the soil

composing the ridge and that found along its sides. Both consist of a

light yellowish sandy loam. The ridge forming the enclosure is 631 feet

long at the north end, 1419 feet long on the west side, and 700 feet

on the south side; making a total length of wall 2750 feet. The ridge

or wall is about twenty-two feet wide, and from one foot to five in

height.” * * * After describing one of the mounds of this enclosure, he

remarks: “The analogy between these elevations and the ‘temple mounds’

of Ohio and the Southern States, will at once strike the reader who has

seen the plans and descriptions. They have the same square or regular

form, sloping or graded ascent, the terraced or step-like structure,

and the same position in the interior of the enclosure. This kind of

formation is known to increase in numbers and importance as we proceed

to the south and south-west, until they are represented by the great

structures of the same general character on the plains of Mexico.”

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

[26] Dr. Farquharson in _Proceedings of Am. Ass. for the Adv. of

Science_, vol. xxiv, p. 305.

[27] Through the courtesy of Dr. R. J. Farquharson I am enabled to

append the original report made by Mr. Gass to the Davenport Academy,

Jan. 26, 1877. It is as follows:

“We broke the surface on the north-east slope of the mound about

ten or twelve feet from the opening on the west side made in

1874. The earth was frozen to a depth of about three and a half

feet. Five or six inches below the surface we came upon a layer

of shells one or two inches in thickness, which sloped downward

toward the south-east, reaching a depth of two feet or rather more

below the surface, and extending for a distance of ten or twelve

feet. Between the surface and this first layer of shells a number

of small fragments of human bones were found scattered through

the soil. Under this shell layer was a stratum of earth of from

twelve to fifteen inches in thickness, resting on a second layer of

shells, from three to four inches in thickness. Both shell layers

sloped downward nearly parallel with each other.

“Below the second shell layer the earth was of the nature of a

light mould, darker in color than the earth above and thickly

interspersed with fragments of human bones. These circumstances

arrested my attention and caused me to proceed from this time on

with the greatest caution. At a depth of about fifteen inches under

the lowest part of the shell layer exposed in this excavation—the

shell stratum at this point being five or six inches thick—the

inscribed slates were found. The slate is the same as that usually

found overlying coal beds in this vicinity, and is such as is

frequently seen cropping out from the hill-sides or in isolated

slabs in the beds of streams. Both plates lay close together on the

hard undisturbed clay bottom of the mound.

“The engraved side of the smaller tablet was upward, and also

that side of the larger one presenting the heavenly bodies,

hieroglyphics, etc. The larger plate being partially divided by

natural cleavage, its upper layer was unfortunately broken in

two by a slight stroke of the spade. The two plates were closely

encircled by a single row of weathered limestones. These stones are

irregular in shape, but almost of the same size, their dimensions

being about three by three by seven or eight inches, and the

diameter of the circle about two feet.

“In the immediate vicinity were found a number of fragments

of human bones, one being a portion of a skull saturated with

carbonate of copper. A small piece of copper was found; also many

fragments of slate and a piece of bone artificially wrought.”

Also see _Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences_ for

_Account of the Discovery of Inscribed Tablets_, by Rev. J. Gass, with

_A Description_ by Dr. R. J. Farquharson. Davenport, Iowa, July, 1877.

Cuts and views.

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

Annual Report Peabody Museum_.

[29] In a paper, _A Deposit of Agricultural Flint Implements Found in

Southern Illinois_, _Smithsonian Report_, 1868, Dr. Chas. Rau treats

the subject of Aboriginal Agriculture at considerable length. In

the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 413 _et seq._, Dr. A. Patton

describes the exploration of several remarkable mounds in Lawrence

Co., Illinois. In the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 351, Taylor

McWhorter describes a number of mounds in Mercer Co., Illinois. He

estimates the number in the county at one thousand, mostly on the

Mississippi River bank. _The Antiquities of Whiteside County, Ill._,

by W. H. Pratt, of Davenport, Iowa, printed in the same Report, p. 354

_et seq._, is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the

mounds. The first mound examined yielded eight skulls, two of which

were preserved. The third mound opened yielded the skeletons of four

adults and several articles of interest, such as pieces of mica, a lump

of galena and a dove-colored arrow-head. From the fifth mound opened,

a remarkably well-preserved skeleton was recovered. Dr. Farquharson,

of the Davenport Academy of Sciences, has contributed one of the most

valuable tables of mound-cranial measurements ever published.

[30] The best and most exhaustive treatment of the above is by _Mr.

Robert Clarke: The Pre-Historic Remains which were Found on the Site

of Cincinnati, Ohio, with a Vindication of the Cincinnati Tablet_.

Cincinnati, 1876. 8vo, 34 pp. It is to be regretted that this

valuable discussion of the genuineness of one of the most important

Mound-builder relics is only “privately circulated.” Mr. Clarke has

fully accomplished the design for which he wrote.

[31] _Dr. Daniel Drake’s Picture of Cincinnati_, Cincinnati, 1815.

_Squier and Davis in Ancient Monuments_. _Gen. Harrison: Ohio Hist. and

Phil. Society Trans._, vol. i, and others.

[32] _Dr. Daniel Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, 3d ed., 1876, vol. i,

pp. 274–5. The following description is given in _Squier and Davis’s

Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_: “The material is

fine-grained, compact sandstone of a light-brown color. It measures

five inches in length, three in breadth at the ends, and two and

six-tenths at the middle, and is about half an inch in thickness. The

sculptured face varies very slightly from a perfect plane. The figures

are cut in low relief (the lines being not more than one-twentieth

of an inch in depth), and occupy a rectangular space four inches

and two-tenths long by two and one-tenth wide. The sides of the

stone, it will be observed, are slightly concave. Right lines are

drawn across the face near the ends, at right angles, and exterior

to these are notches, twenty-five at one end and twenty-four at the

other. The back of the stone has three deep longitudinal grooves, and

several depressions, evidently caused by rubbing—probably produced by

sharpening the instrument used in the sculpture.” [Mr. Gest, however,

does not regard these as tool marks, but thinks they are of peculiar

significance.] “Without discussing the singular resemblance which

the relic bears to the Egyptian _Cartouch_, it will be sufficient to

direct attention to the reduplication of the figures, those upon one

side corresponding with those upon the other, and the two central ones

being also alike. It will be observed that there are but three scrolls

or figures—four of one and two of each of the others. Probably no

serious discussion of the question whether or not these figures are

hieroglyphical is needed. They more resemble the stalk and flowers of

a plant than anything else in nature. What significance, if any, may

attach to the peculiar markings or graduations at the end, it is not

undertaken to say. The sum of the products of the longer and shorter

lines (24 × 7 + 25 × 8) is 368, three more than the number of days in

the year; from which circumstance the suggestion has been advanced that

the tablet had an astronomical origin, and constituted some sort of

a calendar.” We may here add that Col. Chas. Whittlesey published at

Cleveland, Ohio, in _Historical and Archæological Tract No. 9_ (Feb.

1872) of the Western Reserve Historical Society, a statement that the

“Cincinnati Tablet” was a fraud. But we are informed that he is since

convinced of its genuineness.

[33] Judge M. F. Force: _Mound-Builders_. Cincinnati, 1872. Rev. S. D.

Peet in the _American Antiquarian_ for April, 1878, refers to the visit

of the Ohio Archæological and the National Anthropological Conventions

to Fort Ancient in September, 1877, and states that during the visit

the significance of the walls of the lower enclosure was discovered.

“They bear a resemblance,” he remarks, “to the form of two massive

serpents, which are apparently contending with one another. Their heads

are the mounds, which are separated from the bodies by the opening

which resembles a ring around the neck. They bend in and out and rise

and fall, and appear like two massive green serpents rolling along

the summit of this high hill. Their appearance under the overhanging

forest trees is very impressive”—p. 50. See also Mr. Peet’s memoir on

a Double-walled Earthwork in Ashtabula County, Ohio, in _Smithsonian

Report_ for 1876, pp. 443–4.

[34] Dr. Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 145, cites a letter from

Prof. E. B. Andrews, of the Ohio Geological Survey, describing an

earthwork discovered by him in Vinton County with the ditch _outside_

the parapet. In his _Report of Explorations of Mounds in Southern

Ohio_, published in _Tenth Ann. Report of the Peabody Museum of Am.

Arch. and Eth._, p. 53 (Camb., 1877), the Professor remarks: “On a

spur of a ridge about two miles east of Lancaster is an earth wall,

evidently for defence. The ditch is on the outside of the wall, where

it should be according to modern ideas of defence. In this particular

the earthwork differs from all the circles and so-called ‘forts,’

either circular or square, which I have seen, these having the ditch on

the inside.”

[35] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 128: “No one, I think, can

view the complicated system of works here displayed and stretching

away for miles without arriving at the conclusion that they are the

result of an infinite amount of toil expended under the direction of a

governing mind, and having in view a definite aim. At this day, with

our iron instruments, with our labor-saving machines, and the aid of

horse-power, to accomplish such a task would require the labor of many

thousand men continued for many months. These are the work of a people

who had fixed habitations, and who, deriving their support in part at

least from the soil, could devote their surplus labor to the rearing of

such structures. A migratory people dependent upon the uncertainties of

the chase for a living, would not have the time, nor would there be the

motive, to engage in such a stupendous undertaking.”

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

[37] _North American Review_, July, 1876.

[38] Robert Clarke’s _Pre-Historic Remains at Cincinnati_, p. 18: “I

believe I am correct in saying that there is no clay in Ohio which

could be applied in this way and resist for any length of time the

washing rains and sudden winter changes of temperature of our climate,”

_et seq._

[39] See A. B. Tomlinson’s _Grave Greek Mound_ (1838). _Schoolcraft in

American Ethnological Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. Especially Squier and

Davis.

[40] Dr. Patton has described some interesting mounds near Vincennes,

Indiana. A giant mound, which towers above many others of considerable

proportions, is called the Sugar-loaf Mound, and stands on a promontory

which overlooks the rich valley of the Wabash. The height of the

Sugar-loaf is seventy feet, with a circumference at the base of one

thousand feet. Dr. Patton in June, 1873, sank a shaft in this mound

to the depth of forty-six feet. The composition of the mound was of

siliceous sand, nowhere found in the region except in other mounds.

At ten feet below the summit bones were found, but much decayed.

Immediately below them was a layer of charcoal and ashes. Thirty feet

deeper the same conditions were repeated, and the bones again were so

brittle as to render it impossible to save them. A bed of calcined clay

was next entered which could not be penetrated with the instruments

at command. One mile south of the Sugar-loaf is a pyramidal mound

forty-three feet high, with a circumference of 714 feet at the base and

a platform on top fifteen feet wide and fifty feet in length. Others of

as great proportions are described. _Smithsonian Report_, 1873, pp. 411

_et seq._ See also _Antiquities of La Porte County, Indiana_, by R. S.

Robertson in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, pp. 377 _et seq._ A very

low type of cranium was exhumed from one of the mounds in this county.

Also see _Mounds at Merom and Hutsonville on the Wabash_, by F. W.

Putnam—_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xv, 1872.

Fifty-nine mounds were examined, and three stone graves discovered.

[41] For an excellent treatment of this part of the subject, see

_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 130–144 inclusive.

[42] In _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley._

[43] _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee._

_Smithsonian Contribution No. 259._ Oct. 1876, p. 100.

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

[45] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 138.

[46] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 348–360.

Cambridge, 1878. See also _Antiquities of Jackson County, Tenn._, by

Rev. Joshua Hale, in _Smithsonian Reports_ for 1874, p. 384. Very

interesting and valuable explorations have been conducted in Tennessee

by Mr. E. O. Dunning for the Peabody Museum of Am. Arch. and Eth. See

_Reports_, 3d, p. 7; 4th, p. 7; 5th, p. 11.

[47] _Mr. Jas. R. Page’s Results of Investigations of Indian Mounds_,

in _Transactions of St. Louis Acad. of Science_, vol. iii, p. 226, and

copied in _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, vol. ii,

No. 4, pp. 371 _et seq._

[48] In _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, p. 378. Also

see _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 318.

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

[50] _Fontaine’s How the World was Peopled_, p. 278, and _Foster’s

Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 111 _et seq._

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

[52] _Squier and Davis’s Ancient Monuments_, pp. 117 _et seq._

_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 112.

[53] _E. Cornelius_ in _Silliman’s Journal_, vol. i, p. 223, and

_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 122.

[54] _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p.

123. A further description of works on Etowah River in Bartow Co., Ga.,

by _Mr. Stephenson_ in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, p. 421. A full

and elaborate treatment is also that by Charles C. Jones, Jr., entitled

_Monumental Remains of Georgia_. Savannah, 1861. 12mo, p. 118.

[55] _Smithsonian Report_, 1872.

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

[57] These measurements were carefully made by Dr. S. H. Headlee, of

St. James, Missouri, and communicated to the editors of the _Cincinnati

Quar. Jour. of Science_, published in January number, 1875, pp. 94–5.

[58] A sensational description of this mound which appeared in the

_St. Louis Times_ is used by Mr. S. M. Hosea as the basis of an

article on Sacrificial Mounds in the above number of the _Cincinnati

Quarterly Jour. of Science_, p. 62. The account contains some wonderful

statements, which are evidently made by some unscientific person, and

hence are utterly worthless. Although, judging from internal evidence,

we have little faith in the reliableness of the correspondent, we give

a paragraph for what it is worth: “The approach or causeway which

leads across the trench from the north is ten feet in width. Ascending

from this causeway to the summit of the mound are the remains of a

rude flight of stairs, constructed originally of roughly-hewn stones.

Most of these steps are now displaced, and quite a number have rolled

down into the trench below, but there is unmistakable evidence that

they were at one time arranged in regular order of ascent, and could

doubtless be again replaced in position by an intelligent architect.”

“By a series of investigations, I found that about a foot beneath

the surface there was a regular solid platform of stone covering the

entire top of the mound. This platform, though constructed by rude and

unmechanical hands, is placed in position with a precision and firmness

that might well defy the ravages of the elements in all coming ages.

About twelve feet from the northern edge of the mound, and directly on

a line with the approach and stairway, I noticed a very perceptible

elevation of the earth, covering an area of about twenty by fifteen

feet; and driving a pick into the elevated ground, the point struck

upon solid rock a few inches below the surface. * * * Pushing our work,

we soon unearthed a piece of workmanship that an antiquarian would

have worked a week to bring to light. The newly-discovered curiosity

consisted of a flat rock twelve feet long, ten feet wide, and eleven

inches thick. The centre of the stone was hollowed to a depth of six

inches, with a margin of about one foot around the edge.” “At the

south end of the stone, a round hole five inches deep and four in

diameter was drilled. Amongst the dirt taken out of this place hewn in

the stone, was a large fossil tooth and a piece of small broken stone

column, and several bits of pottery ware.” This description is very

suggestive of the Mexican Temple or Teocalli, but unfortunately for the

facts, Dr. Headlee, who made the measurements given in the text a short

time subsequently, failed to find any certain evidences that either a

stairway or temple had existed on the mound.

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

Foster.

[60] See on chambered mounds similar to English barrows, Curtiss in

_Peabody Museum Reports_, vol. ii, p. 717; Broadhead in _Smithsonian

Report_ for 1879, pp. 350 _et seq._ (with cuts).

[61] “Within the State, from Pulaski County to Arkansas, in all the

little valleys which wind in and out among the flint-crowned hills

of the Ozarks, are seen what may be termed garden mounds. These are

elevated about two or three feet above the natural surface of the land,

and are from fifteen to fifty feet in diameter, varying thus in size

according to the amount of richer soil which could be scraped together.

Their presence may always be detected in fields of growing grain by

its more luxuriant growth and deeper green.”—_A. J. Conant_ in the

_Transactions_ cited above, p. 354. The same writer has treated the

subject more fully in a recent work published at St. Louis, entitled,

“_The Commonwealth of Missouri_.”

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

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

[64] Prof. Forshey, in _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 121, 122,

remarks: “There is a class of mounds west of the Mississippi Delta and

extending from the Gulf to the Arkansas and above, and westward to the

Colorado in Texas, that are to me, after thirty years’ familiarity

with them, entirely inexplicable. In my Geological Reconnoissance of

Louisiana in 1841–2, I made a pretty thorough report upon them. I

afterwards gave a verbal description of their extent and character

before the _New Orleans Academy of Sciences_. These mounds lack every

evidence of artificial construction based on implements or other

human vestigia. They are nearly all round, none angular, and have an

elevation hemispheroidal of one foot to five feet, and a diameter

from thirty feet to one hundred and forty feet. They are numbered by

millions. In many places, in pine forests and upon the prairies, they

are to be seen nearly tangent to each other as far as the eye can

reach, thousands being visible from an elevation of a few feet. On the

gulf-marsh margin, from the Vermillion to the Colorado, they appear

barely visible, often flowing into one another, and only elevated a

few inches above the common land. A few miles interior they rise to

two and even four feet in height. The largest I ever saw were perhaps

one hundred and forty feet in diameter and five feet high. These were

in Western Louisiana. Some of them had abrupt sides, though they are

nearly all of gentle slopes. There is ample testimony that the pine

trees of the present forests antedate these mounds. The material for

their construction is like that of the vicinity everywhere, and often

there is a depression in close proximity to the elevation.” We can

make no conjecture concerning the use of those mounds described by

Prof. Forshey, except to suggest that they in all probability served as

foundations for dwellings in a low country, which at that time may have

been moister and more marshy than at present. If such was the case,

the whole region must have presented the appearance of a continuous

community instead of the proper proportion of country and village. This

crowded state of affairs could have been produced by the pressure from

enemies in the north, and the lack of agricultural lands evidently was

sufficient alone to cause a migration to the south.

[65] A number of the cuts in this chapter illustrative of the Arts of

the Mound-builders, are copies of those used by Dr. Charles Rau in his

_Catalogue of the Archæological Collection of the National Museum_,

Washington, Smithsonian Contribution No. 287 (1876), granted me through

the courtesy of Professor Henry. A few also are from the memoir by

Prof. Jos. Jones on the _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_. Smithsonian

Contribution No. 259 (1876). For an able classification of these Mound

Relics (a work which I could not undertake in a volume not devoted

exclusively to the Mound-builders), I refer the reader to Rau’s Memoir

above cited, as being altogether the most satisfactory attempt of the

kind of which I have any knowledge. For a classification of works in

Ohio, see _Antiquities of Ohio_: Report of the Committee of the State

Archæological Society to the Centennial Commission of Ohio (Columbus,

Ohio, 1877, 8vo). The incompleteness of the work is to be regretted.

Ohio, out of its vast fund of material, certainly ought to furnish a

more satisfactory contribution to the subject of archæology. The work

comprises seven chapters, of which the last is the least satisfactory

of all, for while bearing the title “Location of Ancient Earthworks

in Ohio,” it enumerates only one hundred and sixteen out of the ten

thousand mound-works in the State. Still the memoir is not without

value. Its chapters on Stone Relics, Copper Relics, and Insignia and

Ornaments are comparatively thorough.

[66] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143. Prof. E. B. Andrews has shown that

the supposed uniformity of stratification in altar mounds is a fallacy.

In many instances the earth has been dumped together indiscriminately.

[67] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143, the following general description

is given: “The altars or basins found in these mounds are almost

invariably of burned clay, although a few of stone have been

discovered. They are symmetrical, but not of uniform size or shape.

Some are round, others elliptical, and others square or parallelograms.

Some are small, measuring barely two feet across, while others are

fifty feet long by twelve or fifteen feet wide. The usual dimensions

are from five to eight feet. All appear to have been modelled of fine

clay brought to the spot from a distance, and they rest on the original

surface of the earth. In a few instances a layer or small elevation of

sand had been laid down, upon which the altar was formed. The height of

the altars, nevertheless, seldom exceeds a foot or twenty inches above

the adjacent level. The clay of which they are composed is usually

burned hard, sometimes to the depth of ten, fifteen, and even twenty

inches. This is hardly to be explained by any degree or continuance of

heat, though it is manifest that in some cases the heat was intense. On

the other hand, a number of these altars have been noticed which are

very slightly burned; and such, it is a remarkable fact, are destitute

of remains.”

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

Ancient America_, p. 41.

[69] _Squier and Davis_: _Op. Cit._, pp. 169–70. _Foster_: _Op. Cit._,

pp. 188–196. Schoolcraft in vol. i, _Trans. Am. Ethnol. Soc._ M. C.

Read in _American Antiquarian_, vol. i, p. 139, Jan. 1879. Dr. Clemens

in Morton’s _Crania Americana_, p. 221. Mr. E. O. Dunning in _Foster_,

p. 194.

[70] _Description of an Ancient Sepulchral Mound near Newark, Ohio_, by

O. C. Marsh, F. G. S., in _American Journal of Science and Arts_ for

July, 1866. Second Series, vol. xlii.

[71] See _Dr. Charles T. Jackson’s Geological Report to the United

States Government_, 1849. _Foster and Whitney’s Report on the

Geology of the Lake Superior Region_, Part I. Published by authority

of Congress in 1850, and substantially reproduced in _Foster’s

Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, chap. vii, in 1873. The most

elaborate treatment is by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, _Ancient Mining

on the Shores of Lake Superior_. Published in the _Smithsonian

Contribution to Knowledge_ in 1863, vol. xiii. _Swineford’s History and

Review of the Mineral Resources of Lake Superior_, Marquette, 1876.

Containing _Ancient Copper Mines of Lake Superior by Jacob Houghton_.

[72] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 268. For a further account, see

Mr. Henry Gillman in an article printed in _Appleton’s Journal_, August

9, 1873, and entitled _Ancient Works at Isle Royal_; also to a paper

printed in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, and in the _Proceedings

of the Amer. Ass. for the Advancement of Science_, 1875 meeting, p.

330. Also A. C. Davis in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 369.

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

[74] “L’on trouve souvent au fond de l’eau, des pieces de cuivre tout

formé, de la pesanteur de dix et vingt livres; i’en ay veu plusieurs

fois entre les mains des Sauvages, et comme ils sont superstitieux,

ils les gardent comme autant de divinités, ou comme des presents que

les dieux qui sont au fond de l’eau leur ont faits pour estre la cause

de leur bonheur; c’est pour cela, qu’ils conservent ces morceaux de

cuivre envelopés parmi leurs meubles les plus pretieux, il y en a

qui les gardent depuis plus de cinquante ans; d’autres les ont dans

leurs familles de temps immemorial, et les cherissent comme des dieux

domestiques.”—_Relations des Jésuites, en l’Année 1667_, p. 8. Quebec

reprint, 1858. Tome iii.

[75] “En y entrant par son embouchure, que se décharge au Sault, le

premier endroit que se présente où se retrouve du cuivre en abondance,

est une Isle que est éloignée de quarante on cinquante lieuës,

scituée vers le côté du Nord, vis a vis d’un endroit qu’on appelle

Missipicoüatong. Les sauvages racontent que c’est une Isle flottante,

que est quelquefois loing, quelquefois proche, selon les vents qui la

poussent, et la promenent de côté et d’autre. Ils ajoûtent qu’il y a

bien longtemps que quatre sauvages y furent par rencontre, s’etans

égarez dans la brume, dont cette Isle est presque toujours environnée.

C’étoit du temps qu’ils n’avoient point encore eu de commerce avec les

François, et n’avoient aucun usage ny des chaudieres ny des haches.

Ceux-cy donc voulans se preparer à manger, firent à leur ordinaire:

prenant des pierres qu’ils trouvoient au bord de l’eau, les faisaient

rougir dans le feu et les jettaient dans un plat d’ecorce plein d’eau

pour la faire boüillir et faire cuire par cette industrie leur viande.

Comme ils choisissoient ces pierres, ils trouvoient, que c’étoient

presque tous morceaux de cuivre; ils se servirent donc des unes et des

autres, et aprés avoir pris leur repas, ils songerent à s’embarquer

au plustost, craignant les Loups Cerviers et les Lievres, qui sont

en cét endroit grands comme des Chiens, et qui venoient manger leurs

provisions et même leur Canot. Avant que de partir, ils se chargerent

de quantité de ces pierres grosses et menuës, et même de quelques

plaques de cuivre; mais ils ne furent pas bien éloignez du rivage,

qu’une puissante voix se fit entendre à leurs oreilles, disant tout

en colere: Qui sont ces voleurs qui m’emportent les berceaux et

les divertissemens de mes enfans? Les plaques de cuivre sont les

berceaux, parce que parmy les sauvages ils ne sont faits que d’un ou

deux aix joints ensemble, sur lesquels ils couchent leurs enfans; et

ces petits morçeaux de cuivre qu’ils enlevoient, sont les jouets et

les divertissemens des enfans sauvages, qui joüent ensemble avec des

petites pierres.” The voice which the savages heard was believed to be

that of a spirit called Missibizi, a certain water-god. “Quoy qu’il en

soit, cette voix étonnante jetta tellement la frayeur dans l’esprit de

nos Voyageurs, qu’un des quatre mourut avant que d’arriver à terre;

peu de temps aprés un second fut enlevé, puis le troisièma; de sorte

qu’il n’en resta qu’un, lequel s’étant rendu en son Pays, raconta

tout ce qui s’étoit passé, pues mourut fort peu apriés.” The Father

adds that the savages never afterward could be induced to approach

the island for fear of being seized by the Genii presiding over its

treasures.—_Relations des Jesuités l’année 1670_, p. 84, tome iii.

Quebec reprint, 1858.

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

[77] _Congrès International des Américanistes._ Luxembourg. 1877, tom.

i, pp. 51–2.

[78] _Essai Politique_ (Paris, 1825–27), vol. iii, p. 114. Dr. Charles

Rau has courteously furnished me the following references on ancient

mining in Mexico: _Clavigaro’s History of Mexico_, Phil., 1817, vol.

i., p. 20. _Prescott’s Mexico_, vol. i, p. 138; _Despatches of Hernando

Cortés_ addressed to the Emperor Charles V (trans. by Folsom, New

York, 1842), p. 412. _Memoirs of Bernal Diaz_ (trans. of Lockhart,

London, 1844), vol. i, p. 36. Dr. Rau remarks: “We are forcibly led

to the conclusion that the Mexicans obtained copper by the mining

process.”—_Letter to the Author_, Aug. 24, 1878.

[79] Colonel Whittlesey in the _Report of the State Archæological

Society_ to the Centennial Commission of Ohio, Chap. IV, pl. 10, has

figured several symmetrical tubes of stone from Ohio Mounds. The

most perfect of these he thinks may have served “as telescopic helps

for distant views.” The most general use to which most of them were

applied, it is believed, was the making of signals, or possibly rude

music. One of the tubes taken from the Tippet Mound near Newark, Ohio,

and figured in the report, has its upper end flattened like a whistle

or flute, and has a hole penetrating it just below the mouthpiece,

which indicates that it may have been a musical instrument. The Huron

slates were most frequently employed in the manufacture of tubes, as

they were in the production of the class of objects known as ceremonial

relics.

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

122–3.

[81] Dr. Rau has shown that division of labor and its advantages was

recognized among the aborigines; that certain individuals who were

qualified to manufacture particular implements devoted themselves

exclusively to that work. He bases his conjecture “on the occurrence

of manufactured articles of a homogeneous character in mounds or in

deposits below the surface of the soil. There is little doubt, for

instance, that there were persons who devoted their time chiefly to

the manufacture of stone arrow-heads and of other articles produced

by chipping, among which may be mentioned those remarkable large

digging tools described by me several years ago, and the oval or

leaf-shaped implements made of the peculiar hornstone of ‘Flint Ridge’

in Ohio.” See Stock-in-trade of an Aboriginal Lapidary, by Charles Rau,

_Smithsonian Report_ for 1877.

[82] Dr. S. S. Schoville, in the _Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of

Science_, April, 1875, p. 164, describes the discovery of numerous mica

plates in a mound on the east bank of the Little Miami River, about

twenty-five miles east of Cincinnati. He states, that at the base of

the mound, on a level with the surrounding country, the remains of

several skeletons were found, placed with their heads together and

lying in a horizontal position. “Lying upon or immediately over the

cranial debris, were found plates of mica, some a foot in diameter.

These plates were disposed in such a way as to cover an area somewhat

larger than that occupied by the crania beneath. However, it could

not definitely be determined whether the design had been to make

a continuous or common roof over the faces as a group, or whether

each face had a covering of its own.” The writer ventures the rather

fanciful conjecture that the mica in this and many other cases served

the purpose of exhibiting temporarily the features of the dead in the

manner that glass is now used on caskets.

[83] See a most interesting and extensive memoir on _Aboriginal Trade

in_ _North America_, by Charles Rau, first published in vol. iv of the

_Archiv für Anthropologie_ (Braunschweig, 1872), and translated in

_Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 249–394.

[84] Mr. A. J. Conant in the _Commonwealth of Missouri_, pp. 77–8 (St.

Louis, 1877), refers to ancient canals fifty feet wide and twelve feet

deep observed by Dr. G. C. Swallow. He quotes a pretty full account

from Geo. W. Carleton, Esq. Mr. Conant considers some of the southern

bayous of artificial origin.

[85] For further material on the Mound-builders, see the documents

cited throughout the chapter. No less important is Dr. Foster’s

admirable work so often quoted, and which we must add has been of great

service in the preparation of this chapter. A very good paper on the

Mound-builders is that by Robert S. Robertson of Fort Wayne, Indiana,

in the _Congrès International des Américanistes Compte-Rendu de la

Sec. Ses. Luxembourg_, 1877, tom. i, pp. 39–50, though we do not fully

agree with the author’s views as to the colonization of the Mississippi

valley from the south. The classification of Mound-works by Rev.

Stephen D. Peet in the same document, p. 103, is very satisfactory, and

corresponds to that adopted in this chapter. The learned article by

Judge Force of Cincinnati in the same document, vol. i, pp. 121–156, is

full of interest. For recent mound explorations, see Appendix.

[86] _Pre-Historic Times_, p. 425. Also cited by Foster. In this

connection I refer the reader to the argument of Mr. John H. Becker of

Berlin, in the _Congrès International des Américanistes_, Luxembourg,

1877, tom. i, pp. 345–6: “These northern nations * * * have not

quite forgotten the former existence and the exodus of these Nahua

Mound-builders in and from the western prairie country. Cusick’s

remarkable history of the Iroquois (Schoolcraft, vol. v) states again

and again that ‘their hunters were opposed by big snakes,’ that the

‘great horned snake appeared on Lake Ontario,’ that the ‘lake serpent

traversed the country, and they were compelled to build fortifications

in order to save themselves from the devouring monsters,’ that ‘a snake

with a human head prevented the intercourse of their several villages,

as it had settled near the principal path of communication,’ also ‘that

it retreats,’ etc., etc. Now, in order to understand the force of these

passages, it is necessary to remind the reader that the Nahua race were

perhaps even more properly and generally designated as the ‘Culhua’ the

‘Snake’ race, and one branch, remotely connected with them in blood

and language, though wofully degenerated, the Snakes or Shoshones of

Oregon, etc., carry the name to this very day. * * * ‘An expedition

was sent towards the Mississippi River; they crossed it, reached an

extensive meadow; they discovered a _curious animal_, a _winged fish_;

it flew about the tree, it moved like a _humming bird_’ * * * the

_humming bird_ was the totem of the last tribe of Nahuas, arriving in

Anahuac from Aztlan. The Cherokee tradition, told by Timberlake, is

equally significant: ‘The prince of rattlesnakes lives in the glens

of the mountains. His palace is guarded by obedient subjects. * * *

And in the myth of the Algonquins, the god-hero Michabo is in conflict

with the shining prince of serpents who lives in the lake; he destroys

the reptile with a dart; clothes himself with the skin of his foe, and

_drives the rest of the serpents to the south_.’”

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

[88] Foster, pp. 172–3, remarks: “Squier and Davis hastily stated

that none of these works occupied the alluvial bottoms (an error

which Mr. Squier subsequently corrected), and from this statement the

most erroneous conclusions as to their antiquity have been drawn.

There is nothing to indicate but that those works were constructed

after the surface had assumed its present configuration, and that the

climate had become essentially as it is now. That they should not

occur as abundantly on the bottoms as on the river terraces is not

to be wondered at, when we consider the great fluctuations of the

Mississippi and its tributaries. The extreme range between low and

high water of the Upper Mississippi at its mouth is thirty-five feet;

that of the Missouri at its mouth about the same; and that of the Ohio

at Louisville, forty-two feet. Hence, during the flood time a greater

portion of the bottom lands are subject to overflow, and it would be

natural for the Mound-builders to shun such situations. Where the

immediate valleys lie above high water, we find their works. Of this

the ‘American Bottom’ is a notable instance.”

[89] See Dr. Lapham’s communication in Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_,

pp. 373–5, in which he shows the possibility of finding the average

increase of wood each year by measuring annual rings of growth.

[90] Sir Charles Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 41, says: “When I

visited Marietta in 1842, Dr. Hildreth took me to one of the mounds,

and showed me where he had seen a tree growing on it, the trunk of

which when cut down displayed eight hundred rings of annual growth.”

[91] See Prof. Asa Gray in Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 392; also

Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, p. 41, where the opinion of President

Harrison is quoted as follows: “We may be sure that no trees were

allowed to grow so long as the earthworks were in use; and when they

were forsaken, the ground, like all newly-cleared land in Ohio, would

for a time be monopolized by one or two species of tree, such as the

yellow locust and the black or white walnut. When the individuals

which were the first to get possession of the ground had died out one

after the other, they would, in many cases, instead of being replaced

by other species, be succeeded, by virtue of the law which makes a

rotation of crops profitable in agriculture, by other kinds, till

at last, after a great number of centuries (several hundred years

perhaps), that remarkable diversity of species characteristic of North

America, and far exceeding what is seen in European forests, would be

established.”

[92] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 118, 119, 122, and M. Stronck,

_Repères chronologiques de l’histoire des Mound-builders_ in _Congrès

des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, tom. i, pp. 316–18, catalogues the

record of the age of trees found on mounds.

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

[94] _American Naturalist_, Jan. 1868.

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

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

[97] From the immense heaps distributed over an area of 150 miles

between Pilatka and Salt Creek Dr. Wyman made some collections of

interest. The banks were composed mostly of the _Ampullaria Depressa_,

the _Paludina Multilineata_ and _Unio Buckleyi_. The bank at King

Phillip’s Town, 450 feet long by 120 feet wide, and in some places

eight feet thick, yielded fragments of pottery and decayed animal

bones. At Black Hammock, on the St. Johns, a mound 900 feet long and

from 100 to 150 in width, yielded the following: such marine shells

as the strombus-gigos, pyrula carica and P. perversa. These had been

shaped into hatchets, gouges and chisels. Scarcely any stone implements

were found in any of the mounds examined. A chisel and twenty-five

arrow-heads were collected in the vicinity of the above shell-bank.

The following animal remains were found: bear, deer, raccoon, opossum,

terrapin, turtle, alligator, cat-fish and garpike. But few bones

of birds were found. Prof. Wyman can only explain the presence of

so many of the now scarce species, the Ampullarius and Paludinas,

on the supposition that they were much more plentiful and are now

becoming extinct, or that the heaps where so abundantly found were

made by slow accumulation, through the lapse of an indefinitely long

period.—_American Naturalist_, vol. ii, Nos. 8 and 9, and _Fifth Annual

Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 22–25. Also _First Report of Peabody

Museum_, pp. 11, 18.

[98] A small sand-mound near Cedar Keys yielded peculiarly massive

skulls; the capacity being 1375 cubic centimetres, or nearly 84 cubic

inches. They show no distortion, and the average thickness of eight of

them through the parietal bones measured 10.5 millimetres, or 0.42 of

an inch. The heaviest weighed 995 grams, and notwithstanding the loss

of its organic matter, is heavier than any of the three hundred skulls

in the collection (Peabody Museum).—_Fourth Annual Report of Peabody

Museum_, p. 13. Also see Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 170.

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

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

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

[102] Further consult, _Second Indiana Report_, p. iii; _Smithsonian

Report_ for 1870; Humphreys and Abbot’s _Physics and Hydraulics of the

Mississippi Valley_, p. 89, and Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, Chap. IV.

[103] Martius: _Von dem Rechtszustande unter den Ureinwohner

Brasiliens_, p. 80, and reprinted in his _Beiträge zur Ethnographie_,

etc., Leipzig, 1867, quarto. “Der dermalige Zustand dieser Naturwesen

beurkundet, dass die amerikanische Natur schon seit Jahrtausenden

den Einfluss einer verändernden und umgestaltenden Menschenhand

erfahren hat. Auf den Antillen und dem Festlande fanden die ersten

Conquistadores den stummen Hund als Hausthier und auf der Jagd

dienend, ebenso das Meerschweinchen in St. Domingo in einem heimischen

Zustande.... Das Llama war in Peru schon seit undenklicher Zeit als

Lastthier benützt worden, und kam nicht mehr im Zustand der Freiheit

vor; ja sogar das Guanaco und die Vicunna scheinen damals nicht

ganz wild, sondern in einer beschränkten Freiheit den Urbewohnern

befreundet, gelebt zu haben, da sie, um geschoren zu werden,

eingefangen, so dann aber wieder freigelassen würden.... Die Cultur

dieser Pflanze (Maize) aus welcher die Peruaner auch Zucker bereiteten,

ist uralt; man findet sie, und die Banane, den Baumwollenstrauch,

die Quinoa- und die Mandioca-Pflanze ebenso wenig wild in America

als unsere Getreidearten in Asien, Europa und Africa. Die einzige

Palme, welche von den Indianern angebaut wird, hat durch diese Cultur

den grossen, steinharten Saamenkern verloren, der oft in Fasern

zerschmolzen, oft gänzlich aufgelöst ist. Ebenso findet man die Banane,

deren Einfuhr nach America geschichtlich nicht nachgewiesen werden

kann, immer ohne Saamen. Man weiss aber aus anderen Erfahrungen, welch’

lange Zeit nothwendig ist, um den Pflanzen einen solchen Stempel von

der umbildenden Macht menschlichen Einflusses aufzudrücken. Gewiss,

auch in America sind die dort heimischen Nutz-Pflanzen der Menschheit

seit undenklichen Zeiten zinsbar unterworfen.”

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

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

[106] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 44.

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

[108] _American Naturalist_, vol. ii, p. 434, 1868. Also quoted by

Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 77.

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

[110] Vol. i, p. 200.

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

[112] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 42.

[113] Vol. ii, p. 197.

[114] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 203.

[115] _Extinct Mammalia of North America_, p. 365: “The specimen may

have been contemporary with the remains of extinct animals, with which

it is said to have been found, though it appears to me equally if not

more probable that it may have fallen into the formation from an Indian

grave above at a comparatively recent date, and become stained like the

true fossils from ferruginous infiltration.”

[116] Foster: _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 61. “A dozen plantation

burial places and Indian mounds and camps had been exposed above for

centuries; and in recent years since uninhabited by the whites (for a

hundred years), the drains had cut through the surface to the depth of

twenty and even forty feet of the bluff loam-beds. The probabilities

are a hundred to one that this bone was not of the bluff (mastodon)

formation but of the recent era.”

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

i, part ii.

[118] Fontaine’s _How the World was Peopled_, pp. 67–69. A book with

many good points, but obscure as to this particular case.

[119] _On the Geology of Lower Louisiana and the Salt Deposit on the

Petit Anse Island_, p. 14, in _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_,

No. 248.

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

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

[122] Vol. xxxvi, p. 198.

[123] Vol. xxxvii, p. 191.

[124] J. D. Dana: _Koch’s Evidence on the Contemporaneity of Man and

the Mastodon in Missouri_, in the _Am. Jour. of Sci. and Arts_, Art.

xxxv, May, 1875, gives the title of two of these pamphlets as follows:

1. _Description of the Missourium or Missouri Leviathan, together with

its Supposed Habits; Indian Traditions Concerning the Location from

which it was Exhumed; Also, Comparisons of the Whale, Crocodile, and

Missourium with the Leviathan, as described in the Forty-first Chapter

of the Book of Job_: by Albert Koch, 16 pp. octavo, St. Louis, 1841

(1840 on the cover, indicating that the copy is from a second edition).

2. _Description of the Missourium Theristocaulodon (Koch) or Missouri

Leviathan (Leviathan Missouriensis), together with its Supposed Habits

and Indian Traditions; Also, Comparisons of the Whale, Crocodile, and

Missourium with the Leviathan, as described in the Forty-first Chapter

of the Book of Job_: by Albert Koch. Fifth edition enlarged, 28 pp.

octavo. Dublin, 1843. (A third edition of twenty-four pages appeared in

London in 1841.)

[125] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 1830, Art. xxxvi, p. 198,

and copied by Mr. J. D. Dana, in his article before cited, May, 1875.

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

Dana.

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

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

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

_North American Stone Implements_.

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

p. 340.

[131] Article cited, p. 344.

[132] Though the above argument by so eminent a specialist must satisfy

any one that Dr. Koch’s claim, as it now stands, is valueless to

science; still, it is due to the memory of the latter, to admit that he

was the most indefatigable and successful collector in his department

in this country. Though unscientific himself, his service to science

must ever be recognized. The great Mastodon in the British Museum is

a monument to his persevering research. Perhaps the disposition to

acknowledge his services, has unduly biased the judgment of many in

favor of his groundless claim.

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

[134] “But it is one of those isolated cases which require further

investigation before full credence can be attached to it.”—_Foster’s

Pre-Historic Races_, p. 71.

[135] _Antiquity of Man in the United States, Transactions of American

Association for Advancement of Science_. Chicago, 1869.

[136] _Second Visit to the United States._

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

_Antiquity of Man_, p. 43.

[138] _Tableau of New Orleans_, 1852, cited by Foster, _Pre-Historic

Races_, p. 73.

[139] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 43.

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

Knowledge_, vol. ix.

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

and 435.

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

[143] _Philadelphia Acad. of Natural Sciences. Proceedings_, Part I,

1872. Also Foster, pp. 69–71.

[144] This letter bears date December 24, 1876, written from

Waynesville, Ohio, and signed by Robert F. Furnas, M. D.

[145] Prof. Orton in _Geology of Highland County_ in “_Progress of the

Ohio_ _Geological Survey in 1870_,” published 1871, and in vol. i. of

_State Geological Report_, p. 442.

[146] Prof. Winchell remarks: “The very general interest that is being

excited in this country in the problems that invest the history of the

drift is my only excuse for calling your attention to the prevalence

of vegetable remains in the Drift of the North-west, and to the wide

divergence of high authorities on the relative position of those

remains in respect to the boulder clay.”—See _Proceedings_, p. 56, _Am.

Ass. for Adv. Sci._, 1875, _24th Meeting_.

[147] _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_, p. 226,

Cambridge, 1878. Dr. Abbott concludes his interesting report by citing

a letter from Mr. Thomas Belt, dated Grant, Colorado, June 29, 1878,

in which the writer reports the discovery of “a small human skull in

undisturbed loess, in a railway cutting about two miles from Denver,

near the watershed between the South Platte and Clear Creek. All the

plains are covered with a drift deposit of granitic and quartzose

pebbles, overlaid by a sandy and calcareous loam closely resembling the

diluvial clay and the loess of Europe.” The skull was found at a point

three and a half feet from the surface.—_Ibid._, p. 257.

[148] _Tenth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, Cambridge_, 1877, vol.

ii, pp. 30–43; _American Naturalist_, June, 1876, p. 329.

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

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

1877.

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

truly scientific work.

[152] _Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey,

under Dr. Hayden in 1872_, p. 657.

[153] General Thomas gives the following account of this form of skull

discovered by him, p. 657: “It is unlike that of any human being to-day

alive on this continent; the frontal bone being low, receding, growing

narrow and pinched from the brows up; the top of the head depressed in

the centre. The cavity of the cranium is full seven inches long, and

a scant four and a half inches wide. The orbital ridges or eyebrows

are excessively developed, like those of the great Gibbon monkey. In

fact the whole skull resembles that of the great Gibbon monkey. The

malar or cheek bones run down very low and deep toward the lower jaw,

are set very far to the front, and are not wide at top, but widen very

much toward the bottom. The nose, and here is the anomaly, is much more

aquiline than that of the Indian. The superior maxillary is one-third

deeper and much more prominent than the Indian’s. The inferior

maxillary is of uncommon prominence, depth, and power, far exceeding

that of the Indian. The mouth is narrow and long, more dog-shaped than

the Indian’s. The _foramen magnum_ or aperture at base of skull, where

the spinal cord enters the head, is peculiarly small. The _condyloid

processes_ are full, oblong, flat on the working surfaces, and at

such an angle as to set the head upward and back more than any race

we know to-day on this continent. Set one of these skulls, without

the lower jaw, on the table, and a line drawn from the upper jaw

perpendicularly upward would be a good inch and a half in front of the

forehead. Set on the lower jaw and it would be two inches.” Mr. R. D.

Guttgisal, formerly an engineer on the Mexican Central Railroad, in

connection with some friends, opened a mound at Chihuahua, on the line

of that railroad. The skulls resembled those I have described (so he

informs me) in every particular. He especially remembers the somewhat

bird-shaped head, and the excessively small _foramen magnum_. The

bodies were not interred horizontally there, but leaning backward as if

in a rocking-chair. Professor H. H. Smith, University of Pennsylvania,

has one of the skulls.

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

109, New York, 1876.

[155] Sir John Lubbock, alluding to the changes that have transpired in

the condition of man from his first appearance in America, says: “But

even if we attribute to these changes all the importance which ever has

been claimed for them, they will not require an antiquity of more than

three thousand years. I do not, of course, deny that the period may

have been very much greater, but in my opinion, at least, it _need_ not

be greater.”—_Pre-Historic Times_, p. 234, London, 1865.

Dr. Foster, after giving many of the reputed proofs of man’s antiquity

here, sums up the argument in the following language: “The evidence, it

must be confessed, rests, in most cases, upon the testimony of a single

observer, and besides, there has not been a recurrence of ‘finds’ in

the same deposit (except in the gravel beds of Colorado and Wyoming,

which require further investigation to command an unqualified belief),

as in the valley of the Somme and in the European caves, which is so

conclusive as to the existence of man as contemporary with the great

Pachyderms.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 71.

[156] _De Civitate Dei_, lib. xvi, cap. 9. Above I have availed myself

of the admirable translation by Rev. Marcus Dods, vol. ii, p. 118.

Edinburgh, 1871. On the subject of Antipodes we may refer the reader to

the view of _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, an Egyptian of the middle of the

6th century. See Draper’s _Conflict between Religion and Science_, p.

65, and the opinion of the Venerable Bede, cited by the same author.

See further Bancroft’s _Native Races of the Pacific States_, vol. v,

pp. 1–8, and Ogilby’s _America_, pp. 6–7.

[157] R. H. Major’s _Prince Henry of Portugal_, chap. xxi. London,

1868, 8vo. Draper’s _Conflict_, pp. 163–5.

[158] The narrowness of the attainments of the “educated” in Spain in

the 17th century is portrayed by Buckle: “Books, unless they were books

of devotion, were deemed utterly useless; no one consulted them, no one

collected them; and until the 18th century, Madrid did not possess a

single public library. * * * De Torres, who was himself a Spaniard, and

was educated at Salamanca early in the 18th century, declares that he

had studied in the university for five years before he had heard that

such things as the mathematical sciences existed. So late as the year

1771, the same university publicly refused to allow the discoveries

of Newton to be taught; and assigned as a reason, that the system of

Newton was not so consonant with revealed religion as the system of

Aristotle.”—_History of Civilization in England_, vol. ii, pp. 72–3.

New York, 1861. Of course these remarks apply to Spain’s period of

misfortune and decline, but it must also be remembered that the spirit

of intolerance which alone brought about that condition was at its

height about the time of the discovery of America.

[159] Mr. Bancroft has illustrated the spirit of this latter class by

quoting a passage from Garcia’s _Origen de Los Indios_, Madrid, 1729,

p. 248. It is certainly one of the most venomous and narrow-minded

utterances on record. See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 4.

[160] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España con Noticias de los Ritos

y Costumbres de los Indios y Explicacion del Calendario Mexicano,

por F. Diego Duran_, Escrita en el año de 1585; MS. in three vols.

folio of upwards of 1000 pp. each. On p. 507, tom. iii, we find

notice of December, 1579, as the date at which that stage of the work

was reached. Copy in the library of Congress at Washington. From

Beristain’s _Biblioteca Hispano-Americana, Septentrional_, tom. i, p.

442, Mexico, 1816, we quote the following: “Duran (F. Diego) á quien el

Illmõ. Eguara, p. 324, de su Biblioteca dá equivocadamente el nombre

de Pedro, y á quien el Jesuita Clavigero llama Fernando con igual

equivocacion. Fué natural de Tezcuco, antigua corte de los Emperadores

Megicanos: y Profeso el Orden de Santo Domingo, en el Convento Imperial

de Megico, á 8 de Margo de 1556. Era varon Docto en Theología, y de

vasta erudicion en la historia antigua de los Indios; pero molestado de

enfermedades en sus años ultimos, no pudo dar á luz publica los bellos

libros, que tenia compuestos, los mas amenos y gustosos, que hasta

entonces se habian escrito sobre las cosas de Indias, como se explica

el Illmõ. Dáila Padilla, y repetieron despues los criticos franceses

Querif y Echard. El referido Arzo-Bispo añade, que el P. Juan de Torar,

Jesuita Megicano, en cuyo poder paraban los manuscritos de su paisano

Duran, se los dió al P. José de Acosta á quien servieron mucho para su

Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias, en lo qual convienen Pinelo y

D. Nicolás Antonio. Los dichos MSS. eran:” _Historia de los Indios de

la N. E. Antigüallas de los Indios de la N. E._

[161] “Cuanto á lo primero tendremos por principal fundamento el ser

esta Nacion y Gente Indiana advenediza de estrañas y remotas regeiones,

y que en su venida á poseer esta Tierra hizo un largo y prolijo camino,

en el cual gastó muchos meses y años para llegar á ella, como de su

relacion y pinturas se colige, y como de algunos viejos ancianos de

muchos dias he procurado saber para sacar esta opinion en limpio; y

dado caso que algunos cuenten algunas falsas fabulas conviene á saber,

que nacieron de unas fuentes y manantiales de agua; otros, que nacieron

de unas cuebas; otros, que su generacion es de los Dioses; lo cual

clara y abiertamente se ve ser fabula, y que ellos mismos ignoran su

origen y principio, dado caso que siempre confiessan havre venido

de tierras; y asi lo he hallado pintado en sus antiguas pinturas,

donde señalan grandes trabajos de hambre, sed, y desnudez, con otras

innumerables afliciones que en él pasáron hasta llegar a esta tierra

y poblada; con lo cual confirmo mi opinion y sospecha de que estos

Naturales sean de aquellas diez Tribus de Isrrael que Salmanasar, Rey

de los Asirios cautivó y transmigró de Asiria en tiempo de Ozeas, Rey

de Isrrael, y en tiempo de Ozequias, Rey de Jerusalem, como se prodra

ver en el cuarto Libro de los Reyes, capitulo diez y siete, donde dice

que fue transladado Isrrael de su tierra á los Asirios hasta el dia

de hoy, etc.; de las cuales dice Esdras en el Libro cuarto, capitulo

trece, que se pasaron á vivir á una tierra remota y apartada que nunca

habia sido habitada; á la cual habia largo y prolijo camino de año y

medio, donde agora se hallan estas Gentes de todas las Islas y Tierra

firma del mar oceano hacia la parte de occidente.”—_Historia Antigua de

la Nueva España_, tom. i., pp. 1–2, MS.

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

1660 before us.

[163] Harmon L’Estrange, Kt., _Americans No Jewes; or Improbabilities

that the Americans are of that Race_, p. 4. 1652; quarto, London.

[164] Id., p. 13.

[165] “De suerte que aviendose conservado este nombre Piru, que es lo

mismo que Ophir, en aquellas tierras, y hallandose que los moradores

dellas parecen a los Hebreos en muchas cosas, bien se signe que a

quellos Indios, y los demas proceden de Ophir nieto de Heber de quien

los Hebreos, y su lengua tomaron el nombre. Tambien se halla el nombre

de Iectan padre de Ophir en la provincia que oy se llama Yucatan, en la

Nueva España, que no es pequeño fundemento para provar que ya que no

pusiesse aquel nombre Iectan, por no haver ido a aquella tierra, pudo

ser que lo diesse su hijo Ophir.”—_Origen de los Indios_, p. 323. Ed.,

_Valencia_, 1607.

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

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

1611.

[168] _Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos_, Madrid,

1728–30, fol. decada 1, lib. i, cap. vi.

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

[170] Aunque la verdad es que ellos, por hablar mas propriamente y

los otros de quien descendieron, por Generacion Natural, son de los

Hijos de Noé * * * y segun lo que tenemos dicho, en otra parte, acerca

de el color de estas gentes, no tendria por cosa descaminada, creer

que son descendientes de los Hijos, u Nietos de Cham, tercero Hijo de

Noé.—_Monarquia Ind._, tom. i, p. 30.

[171] Pineda in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 1852, p. 343; see tradition

of Votan, this work, chap. v.

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

[173] _Historia del origen de pentes que poblaron la America

Septentrional que llaman la Nueva España con noticia de los primeros

que establecieron la Monarquia, que en ella florecio de la Nacion

Tolteca, y noticias que alcanzaron de la creacion del Mundo_ (date

at end of first vol. 1755, and end of third 1780), _por M. Fer. de

Echevarria y Veitia_, pp. 24–30, chap, i, tom. i, MS. Three vols.

folio, in Library of Congress at Washington. About one-fourth of the

work is published in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, tom. viii.

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

Ant._, tom. viii, p. 189.

[175] _Noticias Americanas_, pp. 391–5, 405–7. Cited by Bancroft,

_Native Races_, vol. v, p. 10.

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

[177] _Deserts_, vol. i, p. 26. But what else could be expected of the

editor of that curiosity of Americo-Germanic literature executed by

some German school-boy and unearthed in the Arsenal Library at Paris,

entitled _Manuscript Pictographique Américain précédé d’une notice

sur l’Ideographie des Peaux-Rouges_, par l’Abbé Em. Domenech, Paris,

1860. Published under the auspices of the Minister of State and of the

Emperor Napoleon III. See also _Le Livre des Sauvages au Point de Vue

de la Civilization Française_, Brussels, 1861. The internal evidences

of this remarkable MS. being the work of a German boy are plain to any

one having the slightest knowledge of the German language. How the

Abbé and the Emperor could have been so blinded to its real character

we cannot imagine; however, it would be unfair to leave the impression

that, because of the theory of Ophir’s colonization and because of this

literary blunder, the Abbé’s work entitled _Seven Years’ Residence in

the Great Deserts of North America_ is without value. On the contrary,

it contains much useful information. The following passage occurs on p.

66 of the above work: “The most careful study concerning the origin of

the red-skins, made on the spot, has confirmed us in the belief that

there is nothing in science to contradict the Bible, which represents

Adam as the sole stock whence sprung the three great races which form

the principal types of the human family.”

[178] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv, p. 15. We quote the following

from the translation by Cullan, London, 1807: “We do not doubt that

the population of America has been very ancient, and more so than it

may seem to have been to European authors: 1. Because the Americans

wanted those arts and inventions, such, for example, as those of wax

and oil for light, which on the one hand being very ancient in Europe

and Asia, are on the other most useful, not to say necessary, and when

once discovered are never forgotten. 2. Because the polished nations

of the new world, and particularly those of Mexico, preserve in their

traditions and in their paintings the memory of the creation of the

world and of the building of the Tower of Babel, the confusion of

languages and the dispersion of the people, though blended with some

fables, and had no knowledge of the events which happened afterwards in

Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, although many of them were so great and

remarkable that they could not easily have gone from their memories.

3. Because neither was there among the Americans any knowledge of

the people of the old continent, nor among the latter any account of

the passage of the former to the new world.” He then cites Votan.

See further on early views, Gottfried Wagner’s _De Originibus Amer.

Disertatio Lipsiæ_, 1669; Hugo Grotius’s _Dissertatio de Origine

Gentium Americanorum Amstelodami_, 1642; Jean De Laet’s _Notæ ad Diss.

H. Grotii de Originine Gent. Americ._, 1643; Jean De Laet’s _Responsio

ad H. Grotii Diss. de Origine Gent. Americ._, 1644; Poisson’s

_Animadrersiones in Originem Peruvianorum et Mexicanorum_, Parisiis,

1644; Georgius Hornius’s _De Originibus Americanis Hagæ_, 1652; Rocha’s

_Tratado Unico y Singulare del Origin de los Indios Occidentales,

del Peru, Mexico, Santa Fe, y Chile_; Lima, 1681; Engel’s _Essai sur

Cette Question: Comment l’Amérique est-elle été Peuplée d’Hommes et

d’Ammaux_, Amsterdam, 1767; Corn. De Pauw’s _Recherche sur l’Amérique

et les Americans_, Berlin, 1774; Vater’s _Untersuchungen über America’s

Bevölkerung aus dem alten Continent_, Leipzig, 1810.

[179] D. B. Warden’s _Recherches sur les Antiquités de l’Amérique du

Nord_, in _Antiquités Mexicaines_, tom. ii, div. ii. Paris, 1834,

quarto.

[180] _Native Races_, vol. v, chap. i. The literary apparatus contained

in the notes accompanying the chapter is remarkably full and valuable.

[181] “I know of no man better qualified than was Brasseur de

Bourbourg, to penetrate the obscurity of American primitive history.

His familiarity with the Nahua and Central American languages, his

indefatigable industry and general erudition, rendered him eminently

fit for the task, and every word written by such a man on such a

subject is entitled to respectful consideration. Nevertheless there

is reason to believe that the Abbé was often rapt away from the truth

by the excess of enthusiasm, and the reader of his wild and fanciful

speculations cannot but regret that he has not the opportunity or the

ability to criticise by comparison the French savant’s interpretation

of the original documents.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, p. 127.

[182] The work in which he repudiates his first interpretation of the

Codex Chimalpopoca, and in which he advocates the allegorical meaning

together with the theory of Atlantis, is entitled _Quatre Lettres sur

le Mexique_, Paris, 1868.

[183] This work, p. 135.

[184] Among these we may cite Adair’s _History of the American

Indians_; Jones’ _History of Ancient America_; Giordan’s _Tehuantepec_;

Rossi’s _Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Orégon_, pp. 276–7; Ethan Smith’s

_Views of the Hebrews_; Thorowgood’s _Jewes in America_; Domenech’s

_Deserts_, vol. i, and Simon’s _Ten Tribes_.

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

[186] The tablets remained in their place of concealment until

discovered by Joseph Smith, September 22, 1827. Mr. Bancroft, _Native

Races_, p. 97 _et seq._ (from which we draw the above), has translated

a full account of this wonderful claim from Bertrand’s _Memoirs_, pp.

32 _et seq._

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

Gentium Americanarum_.

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

chapter.

[189] Hudson’s _Geographiæ Veteris Scriptores Græci Minores_,

1698–1712, 8vo, and Rev. Thos. Falconer’s _Voyage of Hanno_,

translated, etc., Oxford, 1797, 8vo.

[190] _Native Races_, p. 66.

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

[192] By George Jones, R. S. I.; M. F. S. V., etc.; dedicated by

permission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to Frederick William the

Fourth, King of Prussia. London, 1843.

[193] Mr. Jones states in his preface that to furnish a list of the

works from which he drew his material would be pedantic, and adds:

“Yet being professedly an original work, the volume of the brain

has been more largely extracted from than any writer whose works

are already before that public—to whose final judgment (upon its

merits or demerits) the present author submits the first history of

ancient America with all humility; but he will yield to none in the

conscientious belief in the truth of the startling propositions and the

consequent conclusions.” With such convictions there is no opportunity

for unbiased investigation.

[194] _Traditions of Decoodah and Antiquarian Researches_, p. 16. New

York, 1858, 8vo.

[195] _Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains Comparées aux Mœurs des Premiers

Temps._ Paris, 1724.

[196] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, p. 122; the Abbé Brasseur de

Bourbourg’s discovery of the Greek Gods in America (_Landa, Relacion_,

pp. lxx–lxxx) will be considered further on.

[197] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, pp. 55 _et seq._; M’Culloch’s

_Researches_, pp. 171–2; Mayer’s _Mexico as it Was_, p. 186; Humboldt’s

_Vues_, tom. i, pp. 120–4, and Stephen’s _Central America_, vol. ii, p.

441; Jones’ _Hist. Anc. Am._, pp. 122 _et seq._

[198] Delafield’s _Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of

America_, Cincinnati, 1839, quarto.

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

of authorities is quoted.

[200] Colonel Kennon in Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 65 _et seq._ Also C. W.

Brooks on Japanese Race in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 51.

[201] In _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_,

vol. xxviii, 1761.

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

America_, 1875. New York.

[203] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 34, note, says: “A Chinese

_li_ is about one-third of a mile”—English, we suppose, but upon what

authority we are unable to say. Klaproth adopted 850 _li_ to a degree,

while D’Eichthal fixes it at 400 to a degree in the sixth century,

though at present it is 250 _li_ to a degree. Deguignes’ _Mémoires de

l’Académie des Inscriptiones et Belles Lettres_, vol. xxviii, 1761, and

Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 128 and 140.

[204] Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 25 _et seq._ This translation was revised

by Professor Neumann himself, and is more literal than that by Klaproth.

[205] Klaproth’s _Recherches_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_,

1831, tom. li, pp. 57 _et seq._ Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, tom. xi,

pp. 65–6.

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

189–195.

[207] Dr. E. Bretschneider in the fifth number of the _Chinese Recorder

and Missionary Journal_, vol. iii, published at Foochow, October 1870.

The article entitled _Fusang, or Who Discovered America_, is copied in

full in Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 165 _et seq._ See also Dr. Neumann’s

_Ost-Asien und West Amerika_; in _Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Erdkunde_

for April, 1864. See _D’Eichthal_ in _Revue Archéologique_, 1862, vol.

ii, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 33 _et seq._

[208] The strongest proof upon which the Chinese theory rests is that

of physical resemblance, which on the extreme north-western coast of

America is very marked. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 37.

[209] John Ranking’s _Historical Researches on the Conquest of Peru,

Mexico, etc., by the Mongols_, London, 1827.

[210] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 44–50, contains a good

review, but Ranking himself must be examined to be appreciated.

[211] _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 40 _et seq._, gives a brief review.

The subject will be fully treated in its proper place.

[212] In the Landnama-book, No. 107, is found a narrative of ARE

MARSON, in Hvitramanna Land. Prof. Rafn (_Antiquitates Americanæ_,

pp. 210 _et seq._), translates it as follows: “Ulvus Strabo, filius

Högnii Albi, totum occupavit Reykjanesum inter Thorskafjördum et

Hafrafellum; uxorem habuit Bjargam, filiam Eyvindi Œstmanni, sororem

Helgii Marci. Eorum filius Atlius Rufus, qui uxorem habuit Thorbjargam,

sororem Steinolvi Humilis; horum filius erat Mar de Reykholis, qui

uxorem habuit Thorkatlam, filiam Hergilsis Hnapprassi (natibus

globosis). Eorum filius fuit Arius, qui tempestate delatus est ad

Hvitramannalandiam (Terram alborum hominum), quam nonnulli Irlandiam

Magnum appellant, qui in oceano occidentali jacet prope Vinlandiam

Bonam, sex dierum navigatione versus occidentem ab Irlanda.” On

Hvitramannaland, see _Antiquitates Americanæ_, pp. 162, 163, 183,

210, 212, 214, 447, 448, and De Costa’s _Pre-Columbian Discovery of

America_, pp. lii, 86, 63, 70, 87, 88.

[213] _Monastikon Britannicum_, pp. 131–2, 187–8. Cited by De Costa,

_Pre-Col. Dis. of Am._, p. xviii.

[214] On this subject see Brasseur de Bourbourg in the 16th vol. of the

sixth series of _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, pp. 263, 281–9; also

3d vol. of same work, sixth series, 1855, pp. 156–7, and in _New York

Tribune_ for November 21, 1855.

[215] _Découverte de l’Amérique par les Normands an Xᵉ siècle, par

Gabriel Gravier_, Paris, 1864, 4to.

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

1874, 16mo.

[217] Gravier, _Découverte de l’Amérique_, p. 235, quotes Dr. Schuck as

authority, _Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord_, 1840–43, pp. 26–7;

also 1844, p. 181.

[218] Hakluyt’s _Principal Navigations, Voyages, etc._, vol. iii, pp.

1 _et seq._; see a good discussion of the Welsh claim in Bancroft’s

_Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 116 _et seq._

[219] “I think, therefore (as mentioned before), we do not at all

derogate from God’s greatness, nor in any ways dishonor the sacred

evidence given us by His servants, when we think that there were as

many Adams and Eves (every one knows these names to have an allegorical

sense), as we find different species of the human genus * * * * God

has created an original pair here as well as elsewhere.”—_Roman’s

Concise Nat. Hist. of E. and W. Florida_, p. 55, New York, 1775. “We

will candidly confess that we could never understand why philosophers

have been so pre-disposed to advocate the theory which peoples America

from the Eastern hemisphere. We think the supposition that the Red

man is a primitive type of a family of the human race, originally

planted in the Western Continent, presents the most natural solution

of the problem; and that the researches of physiologists, antiquaries,

philologists and philosophers in general, tend irresistibly to this

conclusion.”—_Norman’s Rambles in Yucatan_, p. 251, New York, 1843,

8vo. “My own belief is that, whatever was the origin of the different

tribes or families, the whole race of American Indians are native and

indigenous to the soil. There is no proof that they are either the

lost tribes of Israel or emigrants from any part of the old world.

They are a separate and as distinct a race as either the Ethiopian,

Caucasian, or Mongolian. In the absence of all proof to the contrary,

it seems to me to be both rational and consistent to assume that the

Creator placed the Red race on the American Continent as early as He

created the beasts and reptiles that inhabit it.”—_Swan’s North-west

Coast_, p. 206, New York, 1857. “Dieu a créé plusieurs couples d’êtres

humains différant les uns des autres intérieurement et extérieurement;

chacun de des couples a été placé dans le climat approprié à son

organisation.”—_Lord Kames in Warden’s Recherches_, p. 203.

[220] The reader who has not given special attention to this phase of

the subject, will be surprised to learn how generally received has

been the autochthonic theory among writers in this field. Mr. Bancroft

has given several quotations to illustrate this fact. See Morelet’s

_Voyage_, vol. i, p. 177, Paris, 1857; Evens’ _Our Sister Republic_, p.

332; Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 232. We prepared

extracts for insertion at this point, but the limit of our space will

not permit a full consideration of the question.

Mr. Bancroft says of the theory, “If we may judge by the recent

results of scientific investigation, [it] may eventually prove to

be scientifically correct. To express belief, however, in a theory

incapable of proof, appears to me idle. Indeed such belief is not

belief, it is merely acquiescing in or accepting a hypothesis or

tradition until the contrary is proved.”—_Native Races_, vol. v, pp.

130–1.

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

[222] Dr. Morton gives the following comparative table showing the

internal capacity and dimensions of the crania of different races:

+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+

| | | _Mean | | |

| | _Number | Internal | _Largest|_Smallest|

| RACES. | of Skulls._| Capacity | in the | in the |

| | |in cubic in._| Series._| Series._|

+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+

|Caucasian | 52 | 87 | 109 | 75 |

|Mongolian | 10 | 83 | 93 | 69 |

|Malay | 18 | 81 | 89 | 64 |

|American | 147 | 82 | 100 | 60 |

|Ethiopian | 29 | 78 | 94 | 65 |

+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+

[223] After presenting several arguments together with accompanying

proofs, Agassiz says: “This coincidence between the circumscription

of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological

provinces characterized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one

of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History

of Mankind, which the study of the geographical distribution of all

the organized beings now existing upon earth has disclosed to us. It

is a fact which cannot fail to throw light at some future time upon

the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows

that man’s physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of

animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom

regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply

to man. Now there are only two alternatives before us at present: 1st.

Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different

races with their peculiarities, in their present distribution, are

to be ascribed to subsequent changes—an assumption for which there

is no evidence whatever, and leads at once to the admission that the

diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution

determined by a general plan established in the beginning of the

creation; or 2d, we must acknowledge that the diversity among animals

is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical

distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized

beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what

are called human races down to their specializations as nations are

distinct primordial forms of the type of man.” * * * He concludes

in these words: “The laws which regulate the diversity of animals

and their distribution upon earth apply equally to man _within the

same limits and in the same degree_; and all our liberty and moral

responsibility, however spontaneous, are yet instinctively directed by

the All-wise and Omnipotent to fulfill the great harmonies established

in Nature.”—_Types of Mankind_, pp. lxxv and lxxvi.

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

[225] _Ibid._

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

Y., 1872.

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

[228] As an illustration of complex classification, we have the

following: “From an old and well-filled European graveyard may be

selected specimens of _klimocephalic_ (slope or saddle skull),

_conocephalic_ (cone-skull), _brachycephalic_ (short-skull),

_dolichocephalic_ (long-skull), _platycephalic_ (flat-skull),

_leptocephalic_ (slim-skull), and other forms of crania equally worthy

of penta or hexa-syllabic Greek epithets.”—_Owen (R.)_, _Anatomy

of Vertebrates_, vol. ii, p. 570. London, 1866, 8vo. Foster, in

_Pre-Historic Rates of the United States_, in addition to the long

and short skulls, adopts also the _orthocephalic_ (erect-head), with

the longitudinal diameter 100; he assumes the transverse diameter for

dolichocephalæ to be less than 73; for orthocephalæ, to range between

74 and 79, and for brachycephalæ, 80 and upwards.

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

[230] Dr. Wilson’s _American Cranial Type_ in _Smithsonian Report_,

1862, pp. 250 _et seq._ Dr. Wilson clearly shows that in one set there

is the characteristic Mongol auxiliary of prominent cheek bones,

while in the other the bones of the face are small and delicate. In

twenty-six measurements he finds proof that the Peruvians were distinct

from the Mexicans. Thirty-one dolichocephalic crania as compared with

twenty-two brachycephalic crania convince him of the error of Morton

and establish a diversity among the tribes of the North-east. He thinks

analogies are traceable between the Esquimaux and the type of elongated

skull; at all events he is satisfied that the form of the skull is as

little constant among the tribes of the new world as among those of the

old.

[231] This author (Dr. Morton), who has given us such numerous and

valuable facts, as well as the linguists who have studied these

American languages with indefatigable zeal, have arrived at the

conclusion that both race and language in the new world are unique. I

am obliged to avow that the facts advanced by Morton himself, and that

the study of numerous skulls with which he has enriched the museum of

Stockholm, have conducted me to a wholly different result. I can only

explain the fact by surmising that this remarkable man has allowed the

views of the naturalist to be warped by his linguistic researches. For,

if the form of the skull has anything to do with the question of races,

we cannot fail to see that it is scarcely possible to find anywhere

a more distinct distribution into dolichocephalæ and brachycephalæ

than in America. It would be only necessary, in order to show this, to

direct attention to certain of the delineations in his own work, where

the skull of the Peruvian infant (Pl. 2), the Lenni-Lenape (Pl. 32),

the Pawnee (Pl. 38), the Blackfoot (Pl. 40), etc., as clearly present

the dolichocephalic form as on the other hand his Natchez (Pl. 30 and

31) and the greater part of his representations of the skulls of Chile,

Peru, Mexico, Oregon, etc., are distinct types of the brachycephalic.

Conclusive, however, as the plates are, I should scarcely have ventured

to advance these remarks, if the rich series of our own collection, and

the numerous and excellent figures of Blumenbach, Sandifort, Van der

Hoeven, etc., did not declare in favor of my opinion. (_Retzius_ in

_Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.)

Latham, in _Natural History of the Varieties of Man_, p. 452,

says: “As to the conformation of the skull, a point where (with

great deference) I differ with the author of the excellent _Crania

Americana_, the Americans are said to be _brakhy_-kephalic, the Eskimo

_dolikho_-kephalic.” He quotes Morton’s tables to contradict his

(Morton’s) conclusions.

[232] “Tried by Dr. Morton’s own definitions and illustrations, the

Scioto Mound skull differs from the typical cranium in some of its

most characteristic features. Instead of the low, receding, unarched

forehead, it has a finely-arched frontal bone with corresponding

breadth of forehead. The wedge-shaped vertex is replaced by a

well-rounded arch curving equally throughout; and with the exception

of the flattened occiput, due to artificial though probably undesigned

compression in infancy, the cranium is a uniformly proportioned example

of an extreme brachycephalic skull.”—_Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p.

127.

[233] Chapter II, p. 127.

[234] Henry Gillman, _The Ancient Men of the Great Lakes_, in

_Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science_, 24th meeting, at Detroit, 1875, p. 317; also _American

Journal of Arts and Science_, 1874, vol. cvii, p. 1 _et seq._, and

_Sixth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 12–20.

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

capacity.

[236] Artificially perforated.

[237] Very retreating frontal.

[238] Very protuberant occipital.

[239] Artificially perforated.

[240] With epactal bone 1.5 in length. It may be interesting to mention

that I find occasionally in our mounds a tendency to the formation of

the epactal bone by a sudden approach of the sutures immediately below

the apex of the occipital—a sort of transitional state.

[241] _Recent Explorations of Mounds near Davenport, Iowa_, in

_Proceedings of American Association for the Advancement of Science_,

24th meeting, 1875, pp. 297 _et seq._

[242] Dr. Farquharson considers that some of his measurements in inches

are scarcely accurate enough, and gives the following table in the

decimals of a metre:

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

METRE.

FORAMINAL DISTANCE TAKEN WITH WYMAN’S INSTRUMENT.

A. _Horizontal Circumference._

B. _Long Diameter._

C. _Transverse Diameter._

D. _Vertical Diameter._

E. _Capacity in Cubic Centimetres._

F. _Foraminal Distance._

G. _Foraminal Ratio._

H. _Ratio of Diameter._

+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

|_No._| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | _Mounds._ |

+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

| 1 |.546|.200|.120|.140|1190| | |.600|Albany, Ill. |

| 2 |.483|.162|.128|.140|1190|.062|.382|.790|Albany, Ill. |

| 3 |.495|.174|.130|.135|1020|.077|.442|.752|Albany, Ill. |

| 7 |.508|.170|.140|.125| | | |.823|Albany, Ill. |

| 8 |.495|.175|.135|.140|1249|.065|.370|.771|Davenport, Mound No. 9.|

| 9 |.508|.171|.140|.140|1334|.062|.362|.818|Rock River, Ill. |

| 10 |.508|.167|.148|.140|1135|.070|.419|.886|Rock River, Ill. |

| 11 |.533|.180|.150|.145|1362| | |.833|Rock River, Ill. |

| 12 |.457|.167|.128|.140|1021| | |.766|Rock River, Ill. |

| 13 |.522|.185|.130|.150|1362|.089|.427|.702|Rock River, Ill. |

| 14 |.483|.171|.138|.140|1192|.079|.460|.807|Henry County, Ill. |

| 15 |.508|.185|.138|.145|1306|.081|.443|.745|Henry County, Ill. |

| 16 |.457|.170|.130|.140|1135|.078|.448|.764|Henry County, Ill. |

| 17 |.533|.185|.135|.146|1249|.072|.389|.703|Henry County, Ill. |

| 18 |.508|.180| |.140| | | | |Rock River, Ill. |

| 19 |.533|.196|.140|.140| | | |.704|Rock River, Ill. |

| 20 | |.200|.128| | | | |.640|Rock River, Ill. |

| 21 | |.180|.137| | | | |.761|Henry County, Ill. |

| 23 | |.178|.140|.140| |.073|.410|.730|Albany, Ill. |

| 24 | |.184|.139|.150| |.088|.478|.755|Rock River, Ill. |

| 26 | |.200| | | | | | |Shell Bed, Rock Island.|

| 27 |.482|.170|.125|.140| 936|.076|.388|.735|Albany, Ill. |

| 28 | |.177|.135|.140| | | |.762|Albany, Ill. |

| 29 |.507|.177|.130|.145|1137|.088|.440|.734|Albany, Ill. |

| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

| |.503|.179|.134|.140|1188|.075|.432|.755|Mean. |

| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

| | 18 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 22 |No. of skulls measured.|

+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

[243] Dr. Jones found skeletons six feet, and in one instance seven

feet in length. (_Antiquities of Tennessee_, pp. 44 and 53.)

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

on p. 119.

[245] _Ancient Men of the Great Lakes._ _Proceedings of the American

Association for Advancement of Science_, meeting of 1875, pp. 322–3.

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

[247] The Aztecs are represented in our museum by three skulls found

in an ancient cemetery near Mexico, which was uncovered in digging

intrenchments to protect the Mexican capital against the armies of the

United States. They are remarkable for the shortness of their axis,

large flattened occiput, obliquely truncated behind, the height of the

semicircular line of the temples, the shortness and trapezoid form

of the parietal plane. They present an elevation or ridge along the

sagittal suture; the base of the skull is very short, the face slightly

prognathic, as among the Mongol Kalmucs. (Retzius in _Smithsonian

Report_, 1859, p. 268.)

[248] _Crania Americana_, p. 98.

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

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

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

294–304.

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

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

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

[255] _Description of a Deformed Fragmentary Skull found in an Ancient

Quarry-cave at Jerusalem_, by Dr. J. A. Meigs, _Transactions of

Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences_, 1859.

[256] We can no longer doubt, then, that this practice of giving an

artificial form to the skull has subsisted from a remote epoch among

the Oriental nations. As Thierry, moreover, pronounces it to be a

Mongol usage, I have submitted the question in the memoir before

spoken of, whether this fact does not speak in favor of an ancient

communication between the old and the new world? Such a communication

seems, indeed, to be now placed beyond doubt by the proofs which have

been accumulated from time to time, through the efforts of numerous

and zealous inquirers. It would seem likely that the usage in question

has been introduced by the Mongols into America, where it has become

diffused even among tribes not of the Mongol stock. (Retzius in

_Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 270; also the same author in _Arch.

des Sciences Naturelles_, Geneva, 1860; _Proceedings of American

Association for Advancement of Science_, 1867, and _Edinburgh Phil.

Journal_, new series, vol. vii.)

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

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

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

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

[261] Prof. Wilson, _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 221, and Retzius in

the Reviews referred to in note 1, p. 180.

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

[263] _Races of Man_ (Bohn), p. 45; Dr. Nott in _Types of Mankind_, p.

436; Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol ii, p. 221.

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

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

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

[267] On skull flattening, see Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol.

ii, chap. xxi. Prof. Jones’ _Antiquities of Tennessee, Smithsonian

Contributions_, 1876, pp. 118 _et seq._ Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 181.

Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 40 and other places.

Townsend’s _Tour to the Columbia River_, pp. 178 _et seq._ Bancroft’s

_Native Races_ as follows: I, 151, 158, 180, 210, 226–8, 256–7; Among

the Mexicans, I, 651; II, 281; Central Americans, I, 717, 754; II,

681–2, 731–2, 802; IV, 304, and the accompanying literary apparatus.

[268] “This is certainly not a common disease now, and although rare,

the instances of cure by bony anchylosis (the only way in which a

true cure can take place), are even yet more rare. Nelaton, in his

_Pathologie Chirurgicale_, has only been able to note twenty-five

recorded cases of such an event. Now, as the space of one year is the

shortest possible time allowed by authorities for such a cure to take

place, and as during all this time the parts must be kept absolutely

at rest, and the person so afflicted being entirely helpless, the

inference is a strong one that these people were not in a savage state.

They must necessarily have been in such a state, in the progress of

advancement in civilization, as to be possessed of an accumulation

of food, the requisite leisure of persons nursing the sick, and of

dwellings sufficiently comfortable to protect them from inclemency of

the weather in this latitude; without those elements of civilization

those persons would inevitably have perished.”—_Dr. Farquharson in

Proceedings of Am. Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxiv,

p. 314.

[269] Prof. Jones, _Antiquities of Tennessee_, gives a good summary of

the discussion from the first writers to the present time, p. 65 _et

seq._

[270] “This flattening of the leg-bone was of a degree unheard of—I

might almost say undreamt of—in any other part of this country or

of the world. In many of the more extreme cases of those flattened

tibiæ with sabre-like curvature which I had exhumed at the Rouge, the

transverse diameter was only 0.48 of the antero-posterior, less than

half, while in that most marked and isolated case recorded by Broca,

from the cave at Cro-Magnon, France, it was 0.60. In the chimpanzee

and gorilla the compression is 0.67. Shortly afterward, even this

extreme degree of compression was cast in the shade by my bringing

to light from a mound on the Detroit River, rich in relics, among a

number of the flattened tibiæ, two specimens of this bone in which the

latitudinal indices were respectively 0.42 and 0.40.”—_Henry Gillman_

in _Proceedings American Association for Advancement of Science_, vol.

xxiv, pp. 316–17. _The Sixth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of

Archæology and Ethnology, Dr. Jeffries Wyman._ _The American Journal

of Arts and Sciences_, 3d series, vol. vii, January 1874. _Gillman_ in

_Smithsonian Report for 1873_, and _Dr. Farquharson_ in _Proceedings of

A. A. A. S._, vol. xxiv, p. 313. 1875.

[271] Gillman in _American Naturalist_ for August, 1875, and

_Proceedings of A. A. A. Science_, 1875, p. 327.

[272] Prof. Wilson has pathetically described the disinterment of

a Peruvian family, consisting of the father, mother and child, and

has especially dwelt upon the color and qualities of the hair as

distinguishing them from the Red Indians. (_Pre-Historic Man_, pp. 440

_et seq._)

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

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

[275] Haywood, _op. cit._, pp. 163–6, 169, 100, 148–9, 338–9. On the

mummies of Lexington, Kentucky, see Atwater’s _Archæologia Americana_,

p. 318. Mammoth Cave, p. 359, _et passim_.

[276] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 5.

[277] Squier and Davis’ _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley_,

pp. 243 _et seq._ Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, pp. 365 _et

seq._ Charles Rau, _Smithsonian Contributions No. 287_, 1876, pp. 84,

55. Prof. Joseph Jones’ _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_, _passim_,

_Smithsonian Contributions_, No. 259.

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

[279] Prichard, _Researches into the Physical Hist. of Mankind_, 4th

ed., 1841, vol. i, p. 269, after reviewing the question of the unity of

the American race, remarks: “It will be easy to prove that the American

races, instead of displaying a uniformity of color in all climates,

show nearly as great a variety in this respect as the nations of the

old continent; that there are among them white races with a florid

complexion inhabiting temperate regions, and tribes black or of very

dark hue in low and inter-tropical countries; that their stature,

figure and countenances are almost equally diversified. Of these facts

I shall collect sufficient evidence when I proceed to the ethnography

of the American nations.” He fulfils this promise ably enough in vol.

v, pp. 289, 374, 542, and other places. We respectfully refer the

reader to the facts there accumulated.

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

[281] See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 262, note, where reference is made to

Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 32, 45, 97, 103.

[282] _The American Migration_, by Frederick von Hellwald. _Smithsonian

Report_ for 1866, pp. 329, 330.

[283] Jean Lamarck, _Philosophic Zoologique_, etc., Paris, 1809, 2

vols., and _Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres_, 1815.

[284] See Hæckel, _History of Creation_, vol. ii, pp. 255–6, and

Professor Huxley’s reference to the genus _Equus_ (embracing the horse,

ass and zebra from specimens collected by Prof. Marsh). New York

Lectures, September, 1876.

[285] Dr. McCosh in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 88;

Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 192 (New York ed.).

[286] _Smithsonian Report_, 1866.

[287] _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 188. Also, “The Simiadæ then

branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys,

and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of

the universe, proceeded.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 204. Again, “We

thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished

with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an

inhabitant of the old world.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. ii, p. 372.

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

[289] “Nowhere can lines of demarcation be so clearly drawn, so

imperceptibly do the families of mankind blend at their circumferences.

The various classifications which have been attempted are so many

proofs of unity of origin; and their confliction shows the fallacy of

the theory of diversity. * * * * We cannot admit that mankind can have

diversity of origin while so united by one great plan. If a species

or variety of the _genus homo_ sprang up in Europe and another in

America by agency of conditions existing in those localities, it would

be beyond probability that they should both be formed on the same

plan.”—_H. Tuttle’s Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man Scientifically

Considered_, pp. 34–5. Boston, 1866, 12mo.

[290] Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 224, and Nilsson’s _The

Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, Lubbock’s trans., 1868, p. 104.

[291] See _Early History of Fire_, by Prof. N. Joly of the Faculty of

Toulouse in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 17; also

Darwin, as above cited.

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

[293] Pallas was the first to show the fallacy of the theory in _Act.

Académie St. Petersburg_, 1780, Part II, p. 69; followed by Rudolphi

in his _Beyträge zur Anthropologia_, 1812, and especially by Godron,

_De l’Espèce_, 1859, vol. ii, p. 246 _et seq._; see Darwin’s _Descent_,

vol. i, p. 232.

[294] Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races_; Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval

Man_, p. 99.

[295] _Primeval Man_, p. 100.

[296] “We ourselves, when visiting the famous cavern of Abou Simbel,

were far from finding all that the writings of certain anthropologists

and partisans of Egyptian art, such as Gliddon, Nott, etc., had

promised us. Doubtless one can perfectly distinguish certain types,

that is indisputable; but to desire to find _a people_ in each

portrait—Scythians, Arabs, Philistines, Lydians, Kurds, Hindoos, Jews,

Chinese, Tyrians, Pelasgians, Ionians, etc.—is it not to give too great

an influence to the Egyptian artists, who were copyists without skill,

and but clumsy inventors?”—_Pouchet’s Plurality of the Human Race_,

Eng. trans., p. 50. London, 1864.

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

[298] Darwin’s _Variation of Animals under Domestication_, vol. ii, pp.

227–335, and many places.

[299] Harlan’s _Medical Researches_, p. 532, and _Quatrefanges_ (_Unité

de l’Espèce Humaine_, 1861, p. 128), cited by Darwin, _Descent_, vol.

i, p. 237.

[300] _Descent_, vol. i, p. 233, Bradford (A. W.) discusses the origin

of color and other racial peculiarities, and attributes to the tendency

of a species to vary, and cites the production of Albinoes, Xanthous,

and Sedigidi or six-fingered individuals. “It must be admitted,” he

says, “that this theory is sufficiently supported by an irrefragable

mass of testimony to establish the _original unity_ of the human race,

and to indicate that varieties of mankind are descended from the same

primitive stock.”—_American Antiquities_, pp. 238–9.

[301] See instances in Darwin’s _Descent_, vol. i, p. 234; Nott

and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 68, and especially Pouchet’s

_Plurality of the Human Race_ (trans.), p. 60.

[302] “I doubt not that there will be found continuous and

uninterrupted causes which shall explain all the diversities of the

different branches of the human family without the necessity of

resorting to independent creations.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p.

355.

[303] See an excellent treatment of this subject by the Duke of Argyll,

_Primeval Man_, pp. 94 _et seq._

[304] “When speaking in a former work of the distinct races of mankind,

I remarked that if all the leading varieties of the human family

sprang originally from a single pair (a doctrine to which then, as

now, I could see no valid objection), a much greater lapse of time

was required for the slow and gradual formation of such races as the

Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro, than was embraced in any of the

popular systems of chronology.”—_Sir Charles Lyell’s Antiquity of Man_,

p. 385. Dr. J. P. Thompson says: “For such works [alluding to Babel]

and especially for founding such an empire as was ancient Egypt, there

was need of centuries for the growth of a population in numbers and

resources, equal to the gigantic structures that crown the banks of

the Nile. The less than two centuries between Archbishop Usher’s date

of the cessation of the flood, and Piazzi Smith’s calculation of the

date of the great pyramid, was far too short an interval for results

upon a scale so magnificent. * * * Either then we must place the flood

much farther back upon the chronological scale, or must admit not only

that it was not universal in territorial extent, which is altogether

probable, but that it was not universal in the destruction of mankind,

which would seem to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the

sacred record.”—_Man in Genesis and Geology_, p. 100. New York, 1870.

12mo.

[305] See Humboldt’s _Essai Polit._, vol. i, p. 79, Paris, 1811. He

considers not only the Red Indians, but the Toltecs and Aztecs, to be

of Asiatic Origin. See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Nat. Civil. Ant._,

tom. i, p. 27. McCullough’s _Researches_, _Phil. and Ant._, pp. 175

_et seq._ Crowe, _The Gospel in Central America_, p. 61. Bradford,

_American Antiquities_, in chapter xii, gives his reasons for declaring

the Americans to have been a “primitive and cultivated branch of the

human family.” Mayer (Brantz) in _Mexico as it Was_, p. 260, expresses

his agreement with the opinion entertained by Bradford. Carver, in

_Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, repeats the

opinion of Charlevoix, that the Americans are of old world origin.

Tylor, _Anahuac_, London, 1861, p. 104, says: “On the whole, the most

probable view of the origin of the Mexican tribes seems to be the one

ordinarily held, that they really came from the old world, bringing

with them several legends, evidently the same as the histories recorded

in the book of Genesis.”