him to M’Clintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia of Biblical literature_,
etc. (vol viii., 1879),—the editors of which, by their foot-notes,
showed themselves uneasy under some of his inferences and conclusions,
which do not agree with their conservative views.
[1646] Lois Agassiz advanced (1863) this view of the first emergence
of land in America, in the _Atlantic Monthly_, xi. 373; also in _Geol.
Sketches_, p. 1,—marking the Laurentian hills along the Canadian
borders of the United States as the primal continent. Cf. Nott and
Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, ch. 9. Mortillet holds that so late as
the early quaternary period Europe was connected with America by a
region now represented by the Faröes, Iceland, and Greenland. Some
general references on the antiquity of man in America follow:—Wilson,
_Prehistoric Man_. Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, ch. 2. Nadaillac,
_Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 8. Foster, _Prehistoric Races of the
U. S._, and _Chicago Acad. of Sciences, Proc._, i. (1869). Joly, _Man
before Metals_, ch. 7. Emil Schmidt, _Die ältesten Spuren des Menschen
in Nord Amerika_ (Hamburg, 1887). A. R. Wallace in _Nineteenth Century_
(Nov., 1887, or _Living Age_, clxxv. 472). _Pop. Science Monthly_,
Mar., 1877. An epitome in _Science_, Apr. 3, 1885, of a paper by Dr.
Kollmann in the _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_. F. Larkin, _Ancient Man
in America_ (N. Y., 1880). The biblical record restrains Southall in
all his estimates of the antiquity of man in America, as shown in his
_Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 25.
[1647] Hugh Falconer (_Palæontological Memoirs_, ii. 579) says: “The
earliest date to which man has as yet been traced back in Europe is
probably but as yesterday in comparison with the epoch at which he made
his appearance in more favored regions.”
[1648] Cf. also Putnam’s _Report_ in Wheeler’s Survey, 1879, p. 11.
[1649] Cf. H. H. Bancroft, iv. 703: Short, 125, etc.
[1650] Dr. Brinton concludes that since the region is one of a rapid
deposition of strata, the tracks may not be older than quaternary. The
track here figured was 9½ inches long; some were 10 inches. The maximum
stride was 18 inches. Cf. Dr. Earl Flint in _Amer. Antiquarian_ (vi.
112), Mar., 1884, and (vii. 156) May,1885; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, 1884,
p. 356; 1885, p. 414; _Amer. Ant. Soc. Proc._, 1884, p. 92.
[1651] _Story of the Earth and Man._
[1652] _The Great Ice-Age, and its Relations to the Antiquity of Man_
(1874).
[1653] _Mammoth and the Flood._
[1654] “We cannot fix a date, in the historical sense, for events
which happened outside history, and cannot measure the antiquity of
man in terms of years.” Dawkins in _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p.
338. Tylor (_Early Hist. of Mankind_, 197) says “Geological evidence,
though capable of showing the lapse of vast periods of time, has
scarcely admitted of these periods being brought into definite
chronological terms.” Prestwich (_On the geol. position and age of
flint-implement-bearing beds_, London, 1864,—from the _Roy. Soc. Phil.
Trans._) says: “However we extend our present chronology with respect
to the first appearance of men, it is at present unsafe and premature
to count by hundreds of thousands of years.” Southall (_Recent Origin
of Man_, ch. 33) epitomizes the extreme views of the advocates of
glaciation in the present temperate zone.
[1655] Cf. Louis Agassiz, _Geological Sketches_ (1865), p. 210; 2d
series (1886), p. 77.
[1656] J. Adhémer, _Revolutions de la Mer_, who advocates this theory,
connects with it the movement of the apsides, and thinks that it is
the consequent great accumulation of ice at the north pole which by
its weight displaces the centre of gravity; and as the action is
transferred from one pole to the other, the periodic oscillation of
that centre of gravity is thus caused. The theory no doubt borrows
something of its force with some minds from the great law of mutability
in nature. That it is a grand field for such theorizers as Lorenzo
Burge, his _Preglacial Man and the Aryan Race_ shows; but authorities
like Lyell and Sir John Herschel find no sufficient reason in it
for the great ice-sheet which they contend for. Cf. H. Le Hon’s
_Influence des lois cosmiques sur la climatologie et la géologie_
(Bruxelles, 1868). W. B. Galloway’s _Science and Geology in relation
to the Universal Deluge_ (Lond., 1888) points out what he thinks the
necessary effects of such changes of axis. J. D. Whitney (_Climatic
changes of later geological times, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zoöl._, vii. 392,
394) disbelieves all these views, and contends that the most eminent
astronomers and climatologists are opposed to them.
[1657] Of the manifold reasons which have been assigned for these
great climatic changes (Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, 391, and Croll,
_Discussions_, enumerates the principal reasons) there is at least
some considerable credence given to the one of which James Croll has
been the most prominent advocate, and which points to that reduction
of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit which in 22,000 years will
be diminished from the present scale to one sixth of it, or to about
half a million miles. This change in the eccentricity induces physical
changes, which allow a greater or less volume of tropical water to flow
north. In this way the once mild climate of Greenland is accounted
for (Wallace’s _Island Life_). Croll first advanced his views in the
Philosophical Mag., Aug., 1864; but he did not completely formulate his
theory till in his _Climate and time in their geological relations, a
theory of secular changes of the earth’s climate_ (N. Y., 1875). It
gained the acquiescence of Lyell and others; but a principal objector
appeared in the astronomer Simon Newcomb (_Amer. Jl. of Sci. and Arts_,
April, 1876; Jan., 1884; _Philosoph. Mag._, Feb., 1884). Croll answered
in _Remarks_ (London, 1884), but more fully in a further development of
his views in his _Discussions on Climate and Cosmology_ (N. Y., 1886).
Whitney’s _Climatic Changes_ argues on entirely different grounds.
[1658] _Principles of Geology_, ch. 10-13, where he gives a secondary
place to the arguments of Croll.
[1659] Emile Cartailhac’s _L’Age de pierre dans les souvenirs et
superstitions populaires_ (Paris, 1877).
[1660] Joly, _L’Homme avant les métaux_, or in the English transl.,
_Man before Metals_, ch. 2. Nadaillac (_Les Premiers Hommes_, i. 127)
reproduces Mahudel’s cuts.
[1661] Foster, _Prehistoric Races_, 50, notes some obscure facts which
might indicate that man lived back of the glacial times, in the Miocene
tertiary period. These are the discoveries associated with the names of
Desnoyers and the Abbé Bourgeois, and familiar enough to geologists.
They have found little credence. Cf. Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_,
410, and his _Scientific Lectures_, 140; Büchner’s _Man_, p. 31;
Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii, 425; and _L’Homme tertiaire_
(Paris, 1885); Peschel’s _Races of Men_, p. 34; Edward Clodd in _Modern
Review_, July, 1880; Dawkins’ _Address_, Salford, 1877, p. 9; Joly,
_Man before Metals_, 177. Quatrefages (_Human Species_, N. Y., 1879,
p. 150) assents to their authenticity. Many of these look to the later
tertiary (Pliocene) as the beginning of the human epoch; but Dawkins
(_No. Am. Rev._, cxxxvii, 338; cf. his _Early Man in Britain_, p. 90),
as well as Huxley, say that all real knowledge of man goes not back of
the quaternary. Cf. further, Quatrefages, _Introd. à l’étude des races
humaines_ (Paris, 1887), p. 91; and his _Nat. Hist. Man_ (N. Y., 1874),
p. 44.
Winchell (McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, viii. 491-2, and in
his _Preadamites_) concisely classes the evidences of tertiary man as
“Preglacial remains erroneously supposed human,” and “Human remains
erroneously supposed pre-glacial;” but he confines these conclusions
to Europe only, allowing that the American non-Caucasian man might,
perhaps, be carried back (p. 492) into the tertiary age.
Cf. on the tertiary (Pliocene) man, E. S. Morse in _Amer. Naturalist_,
xviii. 1001,—an address at the Philad. meeting, Am. Asso. Adv. Science
and his earlier paper in the _No. Amer. Rev._; C. C. Abbott in _Kansas
City Rev._, iii. 413 (also see iv. 84, 326); _Cornhill Mag._, li. 254
(also in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xxvii. 103, and _Eclectic Mag._, civ.
601). Dr. Morton believed that the Eocene man, of the oldest tertiary
group, would yet be discovered. Agassiz, in 1865 (_Geol. Sketches_,
200), thought the younger naturalists would live to see sufficient
proofs of the tertiary man adduced. S. R. Pattison (_Age of Man
geologically considered in Present Day Tract, no. 13_, or _Journal of
Christ. Philos._ July, 1883) does not believe in the tertiary man,
instancing, among other conclusions, that no trace of cereals is found
in the tertiary strata, and that these strata show other conditions
unfavorable to human life. His conclusions are that man has existed
only about 8,000 years, and that it is impossible for geological
science at present to confute or disprove it. In his view man appeared
in the first stage of the quaternary period, was displaced by floods in
the second, and for the third lived and worked on the present surface.
[1662] Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, 4th ed., ch. 18. Daniel Wilson,
on “The supposed evidence of the existence of interglacial man,”
in the _Canadian Journal_, Oct., 1877. Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique
préhistorique_, ch. 1; _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 10; and his _De
la période glaciaire et de l’existence de l’homme durant cette période
en Amérique_ (Paris, 1884), extracted from _Matériaux_, etc. G. F.
Wright on “Man and the glacial period in America,” in _Mag. West.
Hist._ (Feb., 1885), i. 293 (with maps), and his “Preglacial man in
Ohio,” in the _Ohio Archæol. and Hist. Quart._ (Dec., 1887), i. 251.
Miss Babbitt’s “Vestiges of glacial man in Minnesota,” in the _Amer.
Naturalist_, June, July, 1884, and _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._ xxxii.
385.
[1663] Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 323, considers them
flood-gravels instead, in supporting his thesis.
[1664] _Pop. Science Monthly_, xxii. 315. _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874-75.
Reports of progress, etc., in the _Peabody Museum Reports_, nos. x.
and xi. (1878, 1879). Prof. N. S. Shaler accompanies the first of
these with some comments, in which he says: “If these remains are
really those of man, they prove the existence of interglacial man on
this part of our shore.” He is understood latterly to have become
convinced of their natural character. J. D. Whitney and Lucien Carr
agree as to their artificial character (_Ibid._ xii. 489). Cf. Abbott
on Flint Chips (refuse work) in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 506; H.
W. Haynes in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, Jan., 1881; F. W. Putnam
in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, no. xiv. p. 23; Henry Carvell Lewis on _The
Trenton gravel and its relation to the antiquity of man_ (Philad.,
1880); also in the _Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia_ (1877-1879, pp. 60-73; and 1880, p. 306). Abbott
has also registered the discovery of a molar tooth (_Peabody Mus.
Rept._, xvi. 177), and the under jaw of a man (_Ibid._ xviii. 408, and
_Matériaux_, etc., xviii. 334.) On recent discoveries of human skulls
in the Trenton gravels, see _Peab. Mus. Rept._ xxii. 35. The subject
of the Trenton-gravels man, and of his existence in the like gravels
in Ohio and Minnesota, was discussed at a meeting of the Boston Soc.
of Nat. Hist., of which there is a report in their _Proceedings_, vol.
xxiii. These papers have been published separately: _Palæolithic man in
eastern and central North America_ (Cambridge, 1888). CONTENTS:—Putnam,
F. W. Comparison of palæolithic implements.—Abbott, C. C. The antiquity
of man in the valley of the Delaware.—Wright, G. F. The age of the
Ohio gravel-beds.—Upham, Warren. The recession of the ice-sheet in
Minnesota in its relation to the gravel deposits overlying the quartz
implements found by Miss Babbitt at Little Falls, Minn.—Discussion and
concluding remarks, by H. W. Haynes, E. S. Morse, F. W. Putnam. Cf.
also _Amer. Antiquarian_, Jan., 1888, p. 46; Th. Belt’s _Discovery of
stone implements in the glacial drift of No. America_ (Lond., 1878, and
_Q. Jour. Sci._ xv. 63; Dawkins in _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 347.)
[1665] Cf. also _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xix. 492; _Science_, vii. 41;
_Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, xxi. 124; _Matériaux_, etc. xviii. 334;
_Philad. Acad. Nat. Sciences, Proc._ (1880, p. 306). Abbott refers
to the contributions of Henry C. Lewis of the second Geol. Survey of
Penna. (_Proc. Philad. Acad. Nat. Sciences_, and “The antiquity and
origin of the Trenton gravels,” in Abbott’s book), and of George H.
Cook in the _Annual Reports_ of the New Jersey state geologist. Abbott
has recently summarized his views on the “Evidences of the Antiquity
of Man in Eastern North America,” in the _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._,
xxxvii., and separately (Salem, 1888).
[1666] Figuier, _Homme Primitif_, introd.
[1667] The references are very numerous; but it is enough to refer to
the general geological treatises: Vogt’s _Lectures on Man_, nos. 9,
10; Nadaillac’s _Les Prem. Hommes_, ii. 7; Dawkins in _Intellectual
Observer_, xii. 403; and Ed. Lartet, _Nouvelles recherches sur la
coexistence de l’homme et des grands mammifères fossiles, réputés
caractéristiques de la dernière période geologique_, in the _Annales
des Sciences Naturelles_, 4^e série, xv. 256. Buffon first formulated
the belief in extinct animals from some mastodon bones and teeth sent
to him from the Big Bone Lick in Kentucky, about 1740, and Cuvier first
applied the name mastodon, though from the animal’s resemblance to the
Siberian mammoth it has sometimes been called by the latter name. There
are in reality the fossil remains of both mastodon and mammoth found in
America. On the bones from the Big Bone Lick see Thomson’s _Bibliog.
Ohio_, no. 44.
[1668] Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, i. ch. 2; _Proc. Amer. Acad. Nat.
Sciences_, July, 1859; _Amer. Journal of Sci. and Arts_, xxxvi. 199;
cix. 335; _Pop. Sci. Rev._, xiv. 278; A. H. Worthen’s _Geol. Survey,
Illinois_ (1866), i. 38; Haven in _Smithsonian Contrib._, viii. 142;
H. H. Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_ (Lond., 1887), p. 319; J.
P. MacLean’s _Mastodon, Mammoth and Man_ (Cincinnati, 1886). Cf.
references under “Mammoth” and “Mastodon,” in _Poole’s Index_. Koch
represented that he found the remains of a mastodon in Missouri, with
the proofs about the relics that the animal had been slain by stone
javelins and arrows (_St. Louis Acad. of Sci. Trans._, i. 62, 1857).
The details have hardly been accepted on Koch’s word, since some
doubtful traits of his character have been made known (Short, _No.
Amer. of Antiq._, 116; Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_, 37).
There have been claims also advanced for a stone resembling a hatchet,
found with such animals in the modified drift of Jersey Co., Illinois.
E. L. Berthoud (_Acad. Nat. Sci., Philad. Proc._ 1872) has reported
on human relics found with extinct animals in Wyoming and Colorado.
Dr. Holmes (_Ibid._ July, 1859) had described pottery found with the
bones of the megatherium. Lyell seems to have hesitated to associate
man with the extinct animals in America, when the remains found at
Natchez were shown to him in an early visit to America (_Antiquity
of Man_, 237). Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 317, enumerates the
later discoveries, some being found under recent conditions (_Ibid._
278), and so recent that the trunk itself has been observed (p. 299).
In the earliest instance of the bones being reported, Dr. Mather,
communicating the fact to the _Philosophical Trans. Roy. Soc._ (1714),
xxix. 63, says they were found in the Hudson River, and he supposed
them the remains of a giant man, while the colored earth about the
bones represented his rotted body. Cf. _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, xii.
263.
[1669] See on this a later page.
[1670] Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed., 236; Nadaillac’s _Les premiers
hommes_, ii. 13; Southall’s _Recent origin of man_, ch. 30. Vogt
(_Lectures on Man_) accepts the evidence.
[1671] Cf. Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_, ch. 5; Huxley’s _Man’s place in
nature_; Le Hon’s _L’Homme fossile en Europe_; Leslie’s _Origin and
destiny of man_, p. 54, who passes in review these early tentative
explorations.
[1672] Cf. Lyell’s description in his _Antiquity of Man_, ch. 8;
Quatrefages, _Nat. Hist. Man_ (N. Y., 1875), p. 41; Langel, _L’homme
antédiluvien_; Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., ch. 1; Carl Vogt,
_Vorlesungen über den Menschen_.
[1673] Rigollot, of Amiens, who had doubted, finally came to believe in
De Perthes’s views.
[1674] Büchner’s _Man_, p. 26; Hugh Falconer’s _Palæontological
Memoirs_, London, 1868 (ii. 601). Falconer’s essay on “Primæval Man and
his Contemporaries,” included in this work, was written in 1863, in
vindication of the views which Falconer shared with Boucher de Perthes
and Prestwich, and it is an interesting study of the development of the
interest in the caves.
[1675] Lyell, _Antiq. of Man_, ch. 8; Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, ch.
11; Nadaillac, _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. 122; Leslie, _Origin, etc. of
Man_, 56. Southall gives the antagonistic views in his _Recent Origin
of Man_, ch. 16, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, 126.
[1676] This is in dispute, however. That the older cave implements and
those of the drift may be of equivalent age seems to be agreed upon by
some.
[1677] Cf. also Geikie’s _Great Ice Age_; Lubbock’s _Prehistoric
Times_, ch. 10; Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements of Gt. Britain_;
Wilson’s _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_; Nilsson’s _Stone Age in
Scandinavia_; Figuier’s _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p.
473; Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 3; Cazalis de Fondouce’s _Les temps
préhistoriques dans le sud-est de la France_; Roujow’s _Etude sur les
races humaines de la France_; Peschel’s _Races of Men_, introd.
The scarcity of human remains in the drift and in the caves is
accounted for by Lyell (_Student’s Elements_, N. Y., p. 153) by man’s
wariness against floods as compared with that of beasts; and by Lubbock
(_Prehist. Times_, 349) through the vastly greater numbers of the
animals in a hunters’ age.
[1678] The present day is not without a cave people. See _London
Anthropolog. Rev._, April, 1869, and Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., p.
270.
[1679] Haven, p. 86.
[1680] Cf. Florentino Amegluno’s _La Antigüedad del Hombre en la
Plata_ (Paris, 1880), and Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_, 355, who
cites Klee’s _Le Déluge_, p. 326, and enumerates other evidences of
pleistocene man in South America, in connection with extinct animals.
[1681] The instances are not rare of mummies being found in caves of
the Mississippi Valley; but there is no evidence adduced of any great
age attaching to them. Cf. N. S. Shaler on the antiquity of the caverns
and cavern life of the Ohio Valley, in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._,
ii. 355 (1875); and on desiccated remains, see the _Archæologia Amer._,
i. 359; Brinton’s _Floridian Peninsula_, App. ii. On the American caves
see Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 2.
[1682] Abbott’s _Primitive Industry_, ch. 30.
[1683] Lyell, _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. ch. 2; Lubbock, _Prehist.
Times_, ch. 7; Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, i. ch. 5; Joly, _Man
before Metals_, ch. 4; Figuier, _World before Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872),
p. 477. Worsaae, the leading Danish authority, calls them palæolithic
relics; Lubbock places them as early neolithic. Southall, of course,
thinks they indicate the rudeness of the people, not their antiquity.
(_Recent Origin_, etc., ch. 12; _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 5.)
[1684] _Am. Naturalist_, ii. 397.
[1685] Cf. Lyell’s _Second Visit_.
[1686] All the general treatises on American archæology now cover
the subject: Wilson, _Prehist. Man_, i. 132; Nadaillac, _L’Amérique
préhistorique_, ch. 2; Short, _No. Amer. Antiq._, 106; _Smithsonian
Reports_, 1864 (Rau), 1866, 1870 (J. Fowler); _Bull. Essex Inst._, iv.
(Putnam); _Peabody Mus. Reports_, i., v., vii.; _Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
Proc._ 1867, 1875; _Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci. Proc._ 1866; _Pop. Science
Monthly_, x. (Lewis); Lyell’s _Second Visit_, i. 252; Stevens, _Flint
Chips_, 194. For local observations: J. M. Jones in _Smithsonian Ann.
Report_, 1863, on those of Nova Scotia. S. F. Baird in _Nat. Museum
Proc._ (1881, 1882), on those of New Brunswick and New England. For
those in Maine see _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvi., xviii.; _Central
Ohio Sci. Assoc. Proc._, i. 70; that at Damariscotta, in particular,
is described in the _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xx. 531, 546; and in the
_Maine Hist. Soc. Col._, v. (by P. A. Chadbourne) and vi. 349. Wyman’s
studies are in the _Amer. Naturalist_, Jan., 1868, and _Peabody Mus.
Rept._, ii. Putnam (_Essex Inst. Bull_., xv. 86) says that those at
Pine Grove, near Salem, Mass., were examined in 1840. The map which
is annexed of those on Cape Cod, taken from the _Smithsonian Report_
(1883, p. 905), shows the frequency of them in a confined area, as
observed; but the same region doubtless includes many not observed.
For those on the New Jersey coast see Cook’s _Geology of New Jersey_
(Newark, 1868), and Rau in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1863, 1864, 1865.
The Lockwood collection from the heap at Keyport is in the Peabody
Museum (cf. _Rept._, xxii. 43). Francis Jordan describes the _Remains
of an Aboriginal Encampment at Rehoboth, Delaware_ (Philad., 1880).
Elmer R. Reynolds reported on “Precolumbian shell heaps at Newburg,
Maryland, and the aboriginal shell heaps of the Potomac and Wicomico
rivers” at the _Congrès des Américanistes_ (Copenhagen, 1883, p. 292).
Joseph Leidy describes those at Cape Henlopen in the _Phil. Acad. Nat.
Sci._, 1866. Those on the Georgia coast, St. Simon’s Island, etc., are
pointed out in C. C. Jones’s _Antiquities of the Southern Indians;
Smithsonian Repts._, 1871 (by D. Brown); in Lyell’s _Antiq. of Man_,
and in his _Second Visit to the U. S._ (N. Y., 1849), i. 252.
The shell heaps of Florida have had unusual attention. Wyman has
indicated the absence of objects in them, showing Spanish contact. Dr.
Brinton’s first studies of them were in his _Notes on the Floridian
Peninsula_ (Philad., 1859), ch. 6, and again in the _Smithsonian
Report_ (1866), p. 356. Prof. Wyman’s first reports (St. John River)
were in _The American Naturalist_, Jan., Oct., Nov., 1868. He also
described them in the _Peabody Mus. Report_, i., v., vii., and in his
_Fresh Water Shell Heaps of the St. John River, Florida_ (Salem, 1875),
being no. 4 of the _Memoirs of the Peabody Acad. of Science_. There are
other investigations recorded in the _Smithsonian Reports_, 1877, by S.
P. Mayberry, on St. John River; 1879, by S. T. Walker, on Tampa Bay;
also by A. W. Vogeler in _Amer. Naturalist_, Jan., 1879; by W. H. Dall
in the _American Journal of Archæology_, i. 184; and by A. E. Douglass
in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 74, 140. On those of Alabama, see
_Peabody Mus. Rept._, xvi. 186, and _Smithsonian Rept._, 1877.
On those of the great interior valleys, see the _Second Geological
Report of Indiana_, and Humphrey and Abbott’s _Physics and Hydraulics
of the Mississippi Valley_.
For the California coast, there is testimony in Bancroft’s _Native
Races_, iv. 709-712; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874 (by P. Schumacher);
_American Antiquarian_, vii. 159; and _Journal of the Anthropological
Institute_, v. 489. Schumacher covers the northwest coast in the
_Smithsonian Rept._, 1873. Those in Oregon are reported to be destitute
of the bones of extinct animals, in the _Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey_,
iii. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 739, refers to those on Vancouver’s
Island. W. H. Dall describes those on the Aleutian Islands in the
_Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology_, i. 41.
[1687] This branch of archæological science began, I believe, with
the discovery by Sir Wm. R. Wilde of some lacustrine habitations in a
small lake in county Meath. R. Monro’s _Ancient Scotch lake Dwellings_
(Edinburgh, 1882) has gathered what is known of the remains in Great
Britain. There are similar remains in various parts of the continent
of Europe; but those revealed by the dry season of 1853-54 in the
Swiss lakes have attracted the most notice. Dr. Keller described them
in _Reports_ made to the Archæological Society of Zurich. A. Morlot
printed an abstract of Keller’s Report in the _Smithsonian Report_,
1863. In 1866, J. E. Lee arranged Keller’s material systematically, and
translated it in _The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and other parts
of Europe, by Ferdinand Keller_ (London, 1866), which was reissued,
enlarged and brought down to date, in a second edition in 1878. The
earliest elaborated account was Prof. Troyon’s _Habitations lacustres_
(1860), of which there was a translation in the _Smithsonian Reports_,
1860, 1861. Troyon and Keller have reached different conclusions: the
one believing that the traces of development in the remains indicate
new peoples coming in, while Keller holds these to be signs of the
progress of the same people. A paper by Edouard Desor, _Palafittes or
Lacustrian Constructions_, appeared in English in the _Smithsonian
Report_, 1865. There is a large collection of typical relics from these
lake dwellings in the Peabody Museum (_Report_, v.).
These evidences now make part of all archæological treatises: Lyell’s
_Antiq. of Man_; Lubbock, _Prehist. Times_, ch. 6; Nadaillac, _Les
premiers hommes_, i. 241; Stevens, _Flint Chips_, 119; Joly, _Man
before Metals_, ch. 5; Figuier, _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y.,
1872), p. 478; Southall, _Recent Origin_, etc., ch. 11, and _Epoch
of the Mammoth_, ch. 4; _Archæologia_, xxxviii.; Haven in _Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc_., Oct., 1867; Rau in _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875;
_Poole’s Index_, p. 718, and _Supplement_, p. 246. The man of the
Danish peat-beds and of the Swiss lake dwellings is generally held to
belong to the present geological conditions, but earlier than written
records.
[1688] _Senate Doc._; also separately, Philad., 1852. Cf. Bancroft,
_Native Races_, iv. 652; Domenech’s _Deserts_, etc., i. 201; _Annual
Scient. Discovery_, 1850; Short, _No. Am. of Antiq._, 293. A photograph
of the Casa Blanca is given in _Putnam’s Report, Wheeler’s Survey_, p.
370. Cf. Haven in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1855, p. 26.
[1689] _Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the territories_, 2d
series, no. 1 (Washington, 1875), and its _Annual Rept._ (Washington,
1876), condensed in Bancroft, iv. 650, 718, and by E. A. Barber in
_Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 22. Cf. Short, 295, etc.
[1690] _Bulletin_, etc., ii. (1876). Hayden’s _Survey_ (1876).
Cf. Short, p. 305; _Kansas City Rev._, Dec., 1879 (on their age);
James Stevenson in _Fourth Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_, pp. xxxiv,
284; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_ (ii. 61), and _L’Amérique
préhistorique_, ch. 5; _Scribner’s Mag._, Dec., 1878 (xvii. 266); _Good
Words_, xx. 486; _Science_, xi. 257. Those of the Cañon de Chelly are
described by James Stevenson in the _Journal Amer. Geo. Soc._ (1886),
p. 329. It is generally recognized that the cliff dwellers and the
Pueblo people were the same race, and that the modern Zuñi and Moquis
represent them. Bandelier in _Archæol. Inst. of Am., 5th Rept._ J.
Stevenson (_Second Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, 431) describes some cavate
dwellings of this region cut out of the rock by hand. There is no
evidence that these remains call for any association with them of the
great antiquity of man.
[1691] Cf., for instance, Short, 331.
[1692] Morgan (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 257) finds correspondence
to the roving Indian in physical and cranial character, in linguistic
traits, and in the similarity of arts and social habits. Their
connection with the moundbuilder and cliff-dwelling race is traced in
H. F. C. Ten Kate’s _Reizen en Onderzolkingen in Nord America_ (Leyden,
1885). Cushing thinks (_Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 481) they got their
habit of building in stories from having, as cliff-dwellers, earlier
built on the narrow shelves of the rocks. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._,
xii. 550) thinks their architectural art deteriorated, since the ruined
pueblos are finer constructions than those inhabited now. Cf. on the
origin of Pueblo architecture V. Mindeleff in _Science_, ix. 593, and
S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv. 208, and _Wisconsin Acad. of
Science_, v. 290.
[1693] See chapter vii. of Vol. II.
[1694] Cf. lesser accounts of these earlier notices in E. G. Squier’s
paper in the _Amer. Rev._, Nov., 1848; and G. M. Wheeler in the
_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ (1874), vol. vi.
[1695] The book is rare. There is a copy in Harvard College library.
Cf. Sabin, ii. 4636-38; Ternaux, 518; Carter-Brown, ii.; Leclerc, no.
813 (200 francs). There is a French version, Brussels, 1631; and a
Latin, Saltzburg, 1634.
[1696] Not to be confounded with the Casas Grandes, farther south in
the Mexican province of Chihuahua, which is of a similar character. Cf.
Bancroft, iv. 604 (with references); Short, ch. 7; Bartlett’s _Personal
Narrative_, ii. 348. It was first described in Escudero’s _Noticias de
Chihuahua_ (1819); and again in 1842, in _Album Mexicano_, i. 372.
[1697] From that day to the present there have been very many
descriptions: _Documentos para la historia de Mexico_, 4th ser., i.
282; iv. 804; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 621; Short, 279; Schoolcraft,
_Ind. Tribes_, iii. 300; Bartlett, _Personal Nar._, ii. 278, 281;
Emory, _Reconnaissance_, 81, 567; Humboldt, _Essai politique_; Baldwin,
_Anc. America_, 82; Mayer, _Mexico_, ii. 396, and _Observations_,
15; Domenech, _Deserts_, i. 381; Ross Browne, _Apache Country_, 114;
Jametel in _Rev. de Géog._, Mar., 1881; Nadaillac, _Prehist. Amér._,
222. Bancroft groups many of the descriptions, and best collates them.
[1698] Gregg, in his _Commerce des Prairies_ (N. Y., 1844), examined
the Pueblo Bonito in 1840.
[1699] Washington, 1848,—30th Cong., Ex. Doc. 41. This includes Lieut.
J. W. Abert’s _Report and Map of the Examination of New Mexico_. He
visited two pueblos. This and other material afforded the base for
the studies of Squier and Gallatin, the former printing “The ancient
monuments of the aboriginal semi-civilized nations of New Mexico and
California” (_Amer. Rev._, 1848), and the latter a paper in the _Amer.
Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii., repeated in French in the _Nouv. Ann. des
Voyages_, 1851, iii. 237.
[1700] This is perhaps the most important of all the ruins. Bancroft,
iv. 671. Bandelier’s studies are the most recent. _Congrès des Amér.,
Compte Rendu_, 1877, ii. 230, and his _Introd. to studies among the
sedentary Indians of New Mexico and Report of the ruins of Pecos_
(Boston, 1881,—Archæol. Inst. of America).
[1701] Also in _Rept. of Sec. of War, 1st Sess. 31st Cong._ Cf.
Bancroft, iv. 652, 655, 661; Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 86; Domenech’s
_Deserts_, i. 149, 379; Short, 292. The Chaco cañon was visited
by W. H. Jackson in 1877, and his report is in the _Report of
Hayden’s Survey_, 1878, p. 411. Morgan gives a summary, with maps
(see Nadaillac, 229), in his _Houses and House Life_, etc., ch. 7,
8,—holding (p. 167) them to be the seven cities of Cibola seen by
Coronado. Cf. on this mooted question our Vol. II. 501-503; and
Simpson’s paper in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._ vol. v.
[1702] _32d Cong., 2d sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 59._
[1703] On the Zuñi region see Bancroft, iv. 645, 667, 673 (with ref.);
Short, 288; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die Felsengebirge Nord Amerikas_
(ii. 196, 402), and his _Tagebuch_, 283; Cozzen’s _Marvellous Country_;
_Tour du Monde_, i.; _Harper’s Monthly_, Aug., 1875; J. E. Stevenson’s
_Zuñi and the Zunians_ (Washington, 1881). Of F. H. Cushing’s recent
labors among the Zuñi, see Powell’s _Second_, _Third_, and _Fifth
Reports, Bur. of Ethnology_.
[1704] The _Report_ of Lieut. W. H. Emory, directly in charge of
the survey (_Ho. Ex. Doc. 135, 34th Cong., 1st sess._), was printed
separately in 3 vols. in 1859.
[1705] _Report upon U. S. Geol. Surveys, west of the one hundredth
meridian in charge of First Lieut. Geo. M. Wheeler, vol. vii.,
Archæology_ (Washington, 1879). Ernest Ingersoll, a member of the
survey, published some papers on the “Village Indians of New Mexico” in
the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vi. and vii.
[1706] Cf. L. H. Morgan on this ruin in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii.
536, and in a paper in the _Trans. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci._ (St. Louis,
1877).
[1707] His notes form a good bibliography. He intends as a supplement
an account of the different explorations prior to the seventeenth
century.
[1708] Bancroft (_Native Races_, i. 529, 599; iv. 662, etc.) gives the
best clues to authorities prior to 1875. Short (ch. 7) condenses more,
and Baldwin (p. 78) still more. Nadaillac, _L’Amérique préhistorique_
(ch. 5) also summarizes. Morgan studies the social condition of this
ancient people (_Systems of Consanguinity_, Part ii. ch. 6; _Houses and
House Life_, ch. 6; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xii.). Cf. James Stevenson’s
“Ancient Habitations of the Southwest” in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._,
xviii. (1886), and his illustrated _Catalogue of Collections_ in
Powell’s _Second Rept. Bureau of Ethnol._; E. A. Barber on “Les anciens
pueblos” in _Cong. des Américanistes,_ 1877, i. 23, in which he traces
a gradation from the moundbuilders through the old pueblo peoples to
the Toltecs; C. Schoebel’s account of an expedition in the _Archives de
la Soc. Amér. de France_, nouv. ser. i., and the references in _Poole’s
Index_, i. 1063; ii. 359.
Dividing the remaining references into localities, we note for New
Mexico the following: J. H. Carleton in the _Smithsonian Rept._ (1854);
W. B. Lyon (_Ibid._ 1871); J. A. McParlin (_Ibid._ 1877); Turner in
_Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; and A. W. Bell in _Journal of the
Ethnol. Soc._ (London), Oct., 1869. Carleton describes the ruins also
in the _Western Journal_, xiv. 185. Clarence Pullen describes the
people in _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xix. 22. For Colorado: E. L.
Berthoud in _Smithsonian Repts._, 1867, 1871. G. L. Cannon in _Ibid._
1877; H. Gannett in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xvi. 666 (Mar., 1880); _Amer.
Naturalist_, x. 31; _Lippincott’s Mag._, xxvi. 54. For Arizona: F.
E. Grossmann, J. C. Y. Lee, and R. T. Burr in _Smithsonian Repts._,
respectively for 1871, 1872, 1879, with other references in Poole under
“Moqui.”
[1709] This scope of treatment is manifest in the large number of
papers contained in the _Smithsonian Reports_. See W. J. Rhees’ _Catal.
of Publ. of Sm. Inst._ (Washington, 1882), pp. 252-3.
[1710] _Beschreibung der Reise_ (Göttingen, 1764; Eng. transl., Lond.,
1772).
[1711] _Journal of two visits_, etc., Burlington, 1774 (Thomson’s
_Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 657).
[1712] His account is copied in the _Mass. Mag._, Oct., 1791.
[1713] Cf. _Amer. Mag._, Dec., 1787; Jan., Feb, 1788.
[1714] Repeated in Gilbert Imlay’s _Topog. Descrip. West. Territory_.
[1715] _Journal of a Tour._
[1716] _Voyage dans Louisiane_ (Paris, 1807).
[1717] _Sketches of Louisiana_ (1812).
[1718] _Views of Louisiana_ (Pittsburg, 1814).
[1719] _Account of the History, Manners and Customs of the Indian
Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the neighboring States_,
in the _Transactions Amer. Philos. Soc._ (1819), and later repeated in
other editions and versions (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no.
533, etc., and Pilling’s _Eskimo Bibliog._, 43). Louis Cass’s criticism
on Heckewelder is in _No. Am. Rev._ Jan., 1826. Cf. Haven, _Archæol. U.
S._, 43.
[1720] _Description of the Antiquities discovered in the State of
Ohio and other Western States, with engravings from actual surveys_
(Worcester, Mass., 1820). This was reprinted in the _Writings of Caleb
Atwater_ (Columbus, 1833). This volume also included his _Observations
made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829_ (Columbus, 1831), where
Atwater was sent by the Federal government to purchase mineral lands of
the Indians (P. G. Thomson’s _Bibl. of Ohio_, no. 52; Pilling, _Bibl.
of Siouan Lang._, p. 2). The part originally published in the _Archæol.
Amer._ was translated by Malte Brun in _Nouv. Annales de Voyages_,
xxviii., who added a paper on “L’origine et l’époque des monumens de
l’Ohio.” Cf. Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 33, and the memoir of Atwater in
_Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1867.
[1721] Including those of Newark, Perry County, Marietta, Circleville,
Paint Creek, Little Miami, Piketon, etc.
[1722] Haven, 117. This publication was anticipated by a condensed
statement in Squier’s _Observation on the Aboriginal Monuments of the
Mississippi Valley_, in the second volume of the _Trans. Amer. Ethnol.
Soc._ (N. Y., 1847), and in his _Observations on the Uses of the Mounds
of the West, with an attempt at their Classification_ (New Haven,
1847). Cf. also _Harper’s Mag._, xx. 737; xxi. 20, 165; _Amer. Jour.
Science_, lxi. 305.
[1723] These went in 1863 to the Blackmore collection in Salisbury,
Eng., and are described in Stevens’ _Flint Chips_.
[1724] Cf. _Trans. Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci._, 1873, and a paper “On the
weapons and military character of the race of the mounds” in the
_Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem._, i. 473 (1869).
[1725] _Proceedings_, Oct. 23, 1852, where are plans of those at
Crawfordsville, and of others in the dividing ridge between the
Mississippi and the Kickapoo rivers. Cf. _Ibid._ Oct., 1876.
[1726] P. G. Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, no. 925.
[1727] As, for instance, Conant’s _Footprints of Vanished Races_
(1879). Cf. T. H. Lewis in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, Jan.,
1886 (ii. 65).
[1728] _Archæology of the U. S._ (1856).
[1729] M’Culloh in 1829 had come to a similar conclusion, and Gallatin
and Schoolcraft have somewhat followed him.
[1730] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866. Cf. Charlevoix.
[1731] This was Dr. J. C. Warren’s view in 1837, in a paper before the
_Brit. Asso. Adv. Science_. Cf. also Blumenbach, Morton, Nott, and
Gliddon.
[1732] Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 539) thinks they were connected
in some obscure way with these southern nations, and in 1875 could
write (p. 787) that “most and the best authorities deem it impossible
that the moundbuilders were ever the remote ancestors of the Indian
tribes.” Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 55) deems the modern Pueblo Indians
to be their representatives. Brasseur supposes the Toltecs came from
them. (Cf. also Short, 492; and S. B. Evans, in _Kansas City Rev._,
March, 1882.) John Wells Foster, who had for some years written on the
subject, gathered his results in a composite volume, _Prehistoric Races
of the United States_ (Chicago, 1873, 1878, 1881, etc.), in which he
held to the theory of their migrating south and developing into the
civilization of Central America. Cf. his paper in the _Trans. Chicago
Acad. Nat. Sci._, vol. i., and his abstract of it in his _Mississippi
Valley_ (1869, p. 415). J. P. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati,
1879) takes similar ground. Morgan (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 552)
holds that they cannot be classed with any known Indian “stock,” and
that the “nearest region from which they could have been derived is
New Mexico.” Wills de Haas takes exception to this view in the _Trans.
Anthropological Soc. of Washington_ (1881). Cf. R. S. Robertson in
_Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ (1877), xi. 39.
[1733] Major Powell says, that years ago he reached the conclusion
that the modern Indians must have raised at least some of the mounds
in the Mississippi Valley (_Bur. of Ethnol. Rept._, iv. p. xxx).
Cf. also Powell’s paper in _Science_, x. 267. In the second of
these reports (p. 117) Henry W. Henshaw sets forth the views, which
the Bureau maintained; and he defended these views in the _Amer.
Antiquarian_, viii. 102. The leading member, however, of the Bureau
staff, who is working in this field, is Cyrus Thomas. In the _Nat.
Mus. Report_ (1887) he defined the aim and character of the _Work in
Mound Exploration of the Bureau of Ethnology_, also issued separately.
In this it was stated that over 2,000 mounds had been opened, and
38,000 relics gathered from them; but nothing to afford any clue to the
language which the moundbuilders spoke. The conclusions reached were:—
_First_, the mounds are as diversified as the Indian tribes are.
_Second_, they yield no signs of a superior race.
_Third_, their builders and the Indians are the same.
_Fourth_, the accounts of the early European visitors of the Indians
found here correspond to the disclosures of the mounds.
_Fifth_, certain kinds of mounds in certain localities are the work of
tribes now known; and there are no signs about the mounds to connect
them with the Pueblo Indians or those farther south.
Thomas, in the _Fifth Report_ (1888) described the “Burial Mounds of
the northern sections of the U. S.” He says that the character of the
mounds and their contents indicate the possibility of dividing the
territory they occupy roughly into eight districts, each with some
prominent characteristic, and he roughly distinguishes these sections
as of Wisconsin; the Upper Mississippi; Ohio; New York; Appalachian;
the Middle Mississippi; the Lower Mississippi and the Gulf. He holds
that the moundbuilding people existed from about the fifth or sixth
century down to historic times.
Taking for his texts the mounds of the Appalachian districts, he
has presented anew his grounds for believing this region at least
to have had the red Indian race for the constructors of its mounds,
and that the Cherokees were that race. Carr had already (1876), from
investigating a truncated oval mound in Virginia, and comparing it with
Bartram’s (_Travels_, 365) description of a Cherokee council-house
(_Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. 75), reached the conclusion that that
particular mound was built by the Cherokees. Thomas further undertakes
to prove that the Cherokees once occupied the Appalachian region, and
that implements of the white men are found in some of the mounds,
bringing them down to a period since the contact with Europeans. The
habits of the builders of these mounds are, as he affirms, known to
correspond to what we know from historic evidence were the habits of
the Cherokees.
Thomas has also communicated the views of the Bureau in other ways, as
in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, vi. 90; vii. 65; _Mag. Amer. Hist._, May,
1884, p. 396; 1887, p. 193; July and Sept., 1888. In these papers,
among other points, he maintains that the defensive enclosures of
northern Ohio are due to the Iroquois-Huron tribes, and he accepts the
view of Peet and Latham, that the animal mounds are more ancient than
the simpler forms. Other investigators have adopted, in some degree,
this view. Horatio Hale thinks the Cherokees of Iroquois origin, and
that they may have mingled with the moundbuilders. C. C. Baldwin holds
the Allegheni, Cherokees, and the moundbuilders to be the same.
Prominent among those who have adopted this red-Indian theory are Judge
M. F. Force and Lucien Carr. In 1874 Force published at Cincinnati
a paper, which he read before the literary club of that city; and
in 1877 he prepared a paper on the race of the moundbuilders, which
appears in French in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_
(1877, i. p. 121), and in English, _To what Race did the Moundbuilders
belong_ (Cincinnati, 1875). He maintains that the race, which shows no
differences from the modern Indians, flourished till about 1,000 years
ago, and that some of them still survived in the Gulf States in the
sixteenth century, and that their development was about on the plane of
the Pueblos, higher than the Algonquins and lower than the Aztecs.
Carr’s _Mounds of the Mississippi Valley historically considered_
makes part of the second volume of Shaler’s _Kentucky Survey_, and was
also issued separately (1883). It is the most elaborate collation of
the accounts of the early travellers, and of others coming in contact
with the Indians at an early day, which has yet been made, and his
foot-notes are an ample bibliography of this aspect of the subject. He
holds that these early records prove that nothing has been found in the
mounds which was not described in the early narratives as pertaining
to the Indians of the early contact. He aims also particularly to show
that these early Indians were agriculturists and sun-worshippers.
Brinton, reviewing the paper in the _American Antiquarian_ (1883, p.
68), holds that Carr goes too far, and practises the arts of a special
pleader. Brinton’s own opinions seem somewhat to have changed. In the
_Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866, p. 35, he considers the moundbuilders as not
advanced beyond the red Indians; and in the _American Antiquarian_
(1881), iv. 9, in inquiring into their probable nationality, he thinks
they were an ancient people who were driven south and became the
moundbuilding Chahta.
Other supporters of the red Indian view are Edmund Andrews, in the
_Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iv. 126; P. R. Hoy, in _Ibid._ vi.;
O. T. Mason, in _Science_, iii. 658; Nadaillac, in _L’Amérique
préhistorique_; E. Schmidt, in _Kosmos_ (Leipzig), viii. 81, 163; G. P.
Thurston, in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, 1888, xix. 374.
[1734] This is denied in Fred. Larkin’s _Anc. Man in America_ (N. Y.).
[1735] J. D. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_ (N. Y., 1871). D. Wilson’s
_Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 10, etc., who holds that “the moundbuilders
were greatly more in advance of the Indian hunter than behind the
civilized Mexican;” and he claims that the proof deduced from the
Indian type of a head discovered in a moundbuilder’s pipe (i. 366) is
due to a perverted drawing in Squier and Davis. Short, _No. Amer. of
Antiq._, believed they were of the race later in Anahuac. Gay, _Pop.
Hist. U. S._, i. ch. 2, believes in the theory of a vanished race. In
1775 Adair thought the works indicated a higher military energy than
the modern Indian showed.
[1736] _Antiq. of Man_, 4th ed. 42.
[1737] Putnam’s papers and the records of his investigations can be
found in his _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xvii., xviii., xix., xx., etc.
_Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist._, xv.; _Amer. Naturalist_, June, 1875;
_Kansas City Rev._, 1879, etc.
[1738] _No. Am. Rev._, cxxiii., for “houses of the moundbuilders,” and
also in his _Houses and Home Life_, ch. 9. Cf. on the other hand C.
Thomas in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1884, p. 110.
[1739] Rhee’s _Catalogue_, p. 252-3.
[1740] S. D. Peet, who edits this journal, has advanced in one of
his papers (vii. 82) that some of these earthworks are Indian game
drives and screens. (He also contributed a classification of them to
the _Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, i. 103.) The paper by J. E.
Stevenson (ii. 89), and that by Horatio Hale on “Indian Migrations”
(Jan.-April, 1883), are worth noting. The _Compte Rendu, Congrès des
Américanistes_, 1875 (i. 387), has Joly’s “Les Moundbuilders, leurs
Œuvres et leurs Caractères Ethniques,” and that for 1877 has a paper by
John H. Becker and Stronck. That by R. S. Robertson in _Ibid._ (i. p.
39) is also reprinted in the _Mag. Amer. Hist._ (iv. 174), March, 1880;
while in March, 1883, will be found some of T. H. Lewis’s personal
experiences in exploring mounds. Some other periodical papers are: W.
de Haas, in _Trans. Am. Asso. Adv. Science_, 1868; D. A. Robertson, in
_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, v. 256; A. W. Vogeles and S. L. Fay, in
_Amer. Naturalist_, xiii. 9, 637; E. B. Finley in _Mag. Western Hist._,
Feb., 1887, p. 439; _Science_, Sept. 14, 1883; Squier, in _American
Journal Science_, liii. 237, and in _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. 737, xxi.
20, 165; C. Morris, in _Nat. Quart. Rev._, Dec. 1871, 1872, April,
1873; Ad. F. Fontpertius on “Le peuple des mounds et ses monuments” in
the _Rev. de Géog._ (April and August, 1881); E. Price, in the _Annals
of Iowa_, vi. 121; Isaac Smucker, in _Scientific Monthly_ (Toledo,
Ohio), i. 100.
Some other references, hardly of essential character, are: H. H.
Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. ch. 13; v. 538; Gales’s _Upper Mississippi,
or Historical Sketches of the Moundbuilders_ (Chicago, 1867);
Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36; Wm. McAdams’s _Records of
ancient races in the Mississippi valley; being an account of some of
the pictographs, sculptured hieroglyphs, symbolic devices, emblems and
traditions of the prehistoric races of America, with some suggestions
as to their origin_ (St. Louis, 1887); Brühl’s _Culturvölker des alten
Amerika_; J. D. Sherwood, in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 341; E. Pickett’s
_Testimony of the Rocks_ (N. Y.).
[1741] _Hist. Mag._, Feb., 1866.
[1742] Cf. _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 316; C. Thomas in _Amer.
Antiq._, vii. 66; Warden’s _Recherches_, ch. 4; Baldwin’s _Anc.
America_, ch. 2.
[1743] Cf. Short, p. 158.
[1744] Force, _To what Race_, etc., p. 63.
[1745] Cf. Henry Gillman’s “Ancient Men of the Great Lakes” in _Amer.
Assoc. Adv. Sci._ (Detroit, 1875), pp. 297, 317; _Boston Nat. Hist.
Soc. Proc._, iv. 331; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867, p. 412; C. C. Jones’s
_Antiq. Southern Indians_; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, iv., vi., xi.; Jos.
Jones’s _Aborig. Remains of Tennessee_; Jeffries Wyman in _Am. Journal
of Arts_, etc., cvii. p. i.; W. J. McGee in _Ibid._ cxvi. 458; and
Dr. S. F. Landrey on “A moundbuilder’s brain” in _Pop. Science News_
(Boston, Oct., 1886, p. 138).
[1746] Cf. Holmes’s “Objects from the Mounds” in Powell’s _Bur. of
Ethnol. Repts._, iii.; C. C. Baldwin’s “Relics of the Moundbuilders” in
_West. Reserve Hist. Soc. Tract_, no. 23 (1874); Foster on their stone
and copper implements in _Chicago Acad. Science_, i. (1869); objects
from the Ohio mounds in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 418; images from them
in _Science_, April 11, 1884, p. 437. In the mounds of the Little Miami
Valley, native gold and meteoric iron have been found for the first
time (_Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 170).
[1747] See, on such impositions in general, MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_,
ch. 9; C. C. Abbott in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, July, 1885, p. 308;
Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 19; Putnam in _Peab. Mus. Repts._,
xvi. 184; _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._ 247.
The best known of the disputed relics are the following: The largest
mound in the Ohio Valley is that of the Grave Creek, twelve miles
below Wheeling, which was earliest described by its owner, A. B.
Tomlinson, in 1838. It is seventy feet high and one thousand feet in
circumference. (Cf. Squier and Davis, Foster, MacLean, _Olden Time_, i.
232; and account by P. P. Cherry—Wadsworth, 1877.) About 1838 a shaft
was sunk by Tomlinson into it, and a rotunda constructed in its centre
out of an original cavity, as a showroom for relics; and here, as taken
from the mound, appeared two years later what is known as the Grave
Creek stone, bearing an inscription of inscrutable characters. The
supposed relic soon attracted attention. H. R. Schoolcraft pronounced
its twenty-two characters such “as were used by the Pelasgi,” in his
_Observations respecting the Grave creek mound, in Western Virginia;
the antique inscription discovered in its excavation; and the connected
evidence of the occupancy of the Mississippi valley during the mound
period, and prior to the discovery of America by Columbus_, which
appeared in the _Amer. Ethnological Soc. Trans._, i. 367 (N. Y.,
1845). Cf. his _Indian Tribes_, iv. 118, where he thinks it may be an
“intrusive antiquity.” The French savant Jomard published a _Note sur
une pierre gravée_ (Paris, 1845, 1859), in which he thought it Libyan.
Lévy-Bing calls it Hebrew in _Congrès des Amér._ (Nancy, i. 215). Other
notices are by Moïse Schwab in _Revue Archéologique_, Feb., 1857; José
Perez in _Arch. de la Soc. Amér. de France_ (1865), ii. 173; and in
America in the _Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 197; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._,
133, and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April 29, 1863, pp. 13, 32; _Amer.
Antiquarian_, i. 139; Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 75.
Squier promptly questioned its authenticity (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc.
Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._, 168). Wilson laughed at it (_Prehistoric
Man_, ii. 100). Col. Whittlesey has done more than any one to show
its fraudulent character, and to show how the cuts of it which have
been made vary (_Western Reserve, Hist. Soc. Tracts_), nos. 9 (1872),
33 (1876), 42 (1878), and 44 (1879.) Cf. on this side Short, p. 419;
and _Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._, 250. Its authenticity is, however,
maintained by MacLean (_Moundbuilders_, Cinn., 1879), who summarizes
the arguments _pro_ and _con_.
What is known as the Cincinnati tablet was found on the site of that
city in 1841 (_Amer. Pioneer_, ii. 195). Squier accepted it as genuine,
and thought it might be a printing-stone for decorating hides (_Amer.
Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, ii.; _Aborig. Mts._ (1847), p. 70). Whittlesey
at first doubted it (_West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 9), but was later
convinced of its genuineness by Robert Clarke’s _Prehistoric Remains
found on the site of Cincinnati_ (privately printed, Cinn., 1876).
The so-called Berlin tablet was found in Ohio in 1876. S. D. Peet
believes it genuine (_Amer. Antiq._, i. 73; vii. 222).
On the Rockford tablet, see Short, 44.
The Davenport tablets, found by the Rev. J. Gass in a mound near
Davenport, in Jan., 1877, are described in the _Davenport Acad.
Proc._, ii. 96, 132, 221, 349; iii. 155. Cf. further in _Amer. Asso.
Adv. Science Proc._ (April, 1877), by R. J. Farquharson; _Congrès des
Amér._ (1877, ii. 158, with cut). The _American Antiquarian_ records
the controversy over its genuineness. In vol. iv. 145, John Campbell
proposed a reading of the inscription. The suspicions are set forth in
vii. 373. Peet, in viii. 46, inclines to consider it a fraud; and, p.
92, there is a defence. Short (pp. 38-39) doubts. In the _Second Amer.
Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, H. W. Henshaw, on “Animal Carvings,” attacked
its character. (Cf. _Fourth Rept._, p. 251.) A reply by C. E. Putnam
in vol. iv. of the _Davenport Acad. Proc._, and issued separately,
is called _Vindication of the Authenticity of the Elephant pipes and
inscribed tablets in the Mus. of the Davenport Acad._ (Davenport, Iowa,
1885). Cf. Cyrus Thomas in _Science_, vi. 564; also Feb. 5, 1886, p.
119. The question of the elephant pipes is included in the discussion,
some denying their genuineness. Cf. also _Amer. Antiq._, ii. 67; Short,
531; Dr. Max Uhle in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1887.
[1748] It has been found convenient to follow an advancing line of
geographical succession, but the affiliations of the peoples of the
mounds seem to indicate that those dwelling on both slopes and in the
valleys of the Appalachian ranges should be grouped together, as Thomas
combines them in his section on the mounds of the Appalachian District.
(_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._)
[1749] _Proc._, Oct. 23, 1849, p. 13; Belknap’s _New Hampshire_, iii.
89; Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, 42.
[1750] D. A. Robertson, _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, vol. v., contends
that the North American mounds were built by a colony of Finns long
before the Christian era.
[1751] It was also issued, with some additional matter, at Buffalo
(1851) as _Antiquities of New York State, with supplement on
Antiquities of the West_ (1851). Squier has also at this time a paper
on these mounds in _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1849, p. 41. Cf.
_Am. Journal of Science_, lxi. 305, and _Harper’s Monthly_, xx. and
xxi. His conclusions, distinct from those pertaining to the Ohio
mounds, were that the N. Y. earthworks were raised by the red Indians.
[1752] Cf. W. M. Taylor on a Pennsylvania mound in _Smithsonian Rept._,
1877.
[1753] A few minor references may be given. The _Smithsonian Reports_
have papers by D. Trowbridge (1863); and by F. H. Cushing on those of
Orleans County (1874). W. L. Stone held them to have been built by
Egyptians, who afterward went south (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, Sept., 1878,
ii. 533). Cf. _Ibid._ v. 35, and S. L. Frey in the _Amer. Naturalist_,
Oct., 1879. A small book, _Ancient Man in America_ (N. Y., 1880), by
Frederic Larkin, takes issue with Squier, and believes the builders
were not the modern Indians. He says he found in one of the N. Y.
mounds, in 1854, a copper relic, with a mastodon, evidently in harness,
scratched upon it! H. G. Mercer’s _Lenape Stone_ describes a “gorget
stone” dug up in Buck’s County, Penn., in 1872, which shows a carving
representing a fight between Indians and the hairy mammoth, which we
are also asked to accept as genuine. What is recognized as an ancient
burial mound of the Senecas is described at some length in G. S.
Conover’s _Reasons why the State should acquire the famous burial mound
of the Seneca Indians_ (1888).
[1754] Contributions to a bibliography and lists of the Ohio mounds
are found as follows: Mrs. Cyrus Thomas’s “Bibliog. of Earthworks in
Ohio” in the _Ohio Archæol. and Hist. Quarterly_, June, 1887, et seq.;
a lesser list is in Thomson’s _Bibliog. of Ohio_, p. 385. Lists of
the works are given in the _Ohio Centennial Rept._ and in MacLean’s
_Moundbuilders_, pp. 230-233. J. Smucker, in the _Amer. Antiquarian_,
vi. 43, describes the interest in archæology in the State, and
instances the results in the numerous county histories, in the Western
Reserve Hist. Soc. publications, in those of the Nat. Hist. Soc. of
Cincinnati, of the Archæological Soc. at Madisonville, of the Central
Ohio Scientific Association (begun 1878), and of the District Hist.
Society (beginning its reports in 1877. Cf. P. G. Thomson, _Bibl. of
Ohio_, no. 328). The course of the West. Reserve Hist. Soc. is sketched
in the _Mag. West. Hist._, Feb., 1888 (vol. vii.).
[1755] _Life of Cutler_, ii. 14, 252.
[1756] _Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc._, iv.
[1757] Their survey is used in Stevens’s _Flint Chips_ by Sherwood.
[1758] Cf. no. 11, 23, 41.
[1759] Some minor references: Whittlesey in _Fireland’s Pioneer_
(June, 1865), and in his _Fugitive Essays_ (Hudson, O., 1852). C. H.
Mitchener’s _Ohio Annals_ (Dayton, 1876). _Hist. Mag._, xii. 240. C. W.
Butterfield in _Mag. West. Hist._, Oct., 1886 (iv. 777). I. Dille in
_Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 359; and Hill and others in _Ibid._ 1877.
C. Thomas in _Science_, xi. 314. Thomas J. Brown on artificial terraces
in _Amer. Antiquarian_, May, 1888. Howe’s _Hist. Collections of Ohio_,
as well as the numerous county histories, afford some material.
[1760] The annexed map of the vicinity of Chillicothe will show their
abundance in a confined area. E. B. Andrews on those in the S. E. in
_Peabody Mus. Rept._, x. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_ (Cincinnati, 1879)
is of no original value except for Butler County. Squier and Davis give
a plan of the fortified hill in this county. Walker’s _Athens County_.
Isaac J. Finley and Rufus Putnam’s _Pioneer Record of Ross County_
(Cincinnati, 1871). A plan of the High Bank works in this county is
given in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, v. 56. The Highland County works,
called Fort Hill, are described in the _Ohio Arch. & Hist. Q._, 1887,
p. 260. G. S. B. Hampstead’s _Antiq. of Portsmouth_ (1875) embodies
results of a long series of surveys. Cf. _Journal Anthropological
Institute_, vii. 132.
[1761] D. Drake’s _Picture of Cincinnati_ (1815); Harrison in _Ohio
Hist. & Philos. Soc._, i.; Squier and Davis; Ford’s _Cincinnati_, i.
ch. 2.
[1762] The best known of the ancient fortifications of this region
is that called Fort Ancient, about 42 miles from Cincinnati. It was
surveyed by Prof. Locke in 1843. Cf. L. M. Hosea in _Quart. Journal of
Science_ (Cinn., Oct., 1874); Putnam in the _Amer. Architect_, xiii.
19; _Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1878; Force’s _Moundbuilders_; Warden’s
_Recherches_; Squier and Davis, with plan reduced in MacLean, p. 21;
Short, 51; and on its present condition, _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvi. 168.
There is an excellent map of the mounds in the Little Miami Valley, in
Dr. C. L. Metz’s _Prehistoric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley_,
in the _Journal of the Cincinnati Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. i., Oct.,
1878. The explorations of Putnam and Metz are recorded in the _Peab.
Mus. Repts._, xvii., xviii. (Marriott mound), and xx. Cf. Putnam’s
lecture in _Mag. West. History_, Jan., 1888. There are explorations at
Madisonville noticed in the _Journal of the Cinn. Soc. Nat. Hist._,
Apr., 1880. Others in this region are recorded in L. B. Welch and J. M.
Richardson’s _Prehistoric relics found near Wilmington_ (Sparks mound),
and by F. W. Langdon in the appendix of Short.
[1763] M. C. Read’s _Archæol. of Ohio_ (Cleveland, 1888), with cut.
Col. Whittlesey made the survey in Squier and Davis, and it is copied
by Foster. O. C. Marsh in _Hist. Mag._, xii. 240; and in _Amer. Journal
of Science_, xcii. (July, 1866). Isaac Smucker, a local antiquary, in
_Newark American_, Dec. 19, 1872; in _Amer. Hist. Record_, ii. 481; and
in _Amer. Antiq._, iii. 261 (July, 1881). Cf. Nadaillac, 99, and view
in Lossing’s _War of 1812_, p. 565.
Other antiquities of the central region are described in no. 11
_Western Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts_ (Hardin Co.); in _Ohio Arch. Hist.
Quart._, March, 1888 (Franklin Co.); _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April,
1863 (Fairfield Co., etc.).
[1764] R. W. McFarland in _Ohio Arch. Hist. Quart._, i. 265 (Oxford).
[1765] Cox in _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci._, 1874 (fort in Clarke Co.).
[1766] _West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts_, no. 41 (1877); and for the
Cuyahoga Valley in no. 5 (1871), both by Whittlesey. The works on the
Huron River, east of Sandusky, were described, with a plan, by Abraham
G. Steiner in _Columbian Mag._, Sept., 1789, reprinted in _Fireland’s
Pioneer_, xi. 71. G. W. Hill in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874; E. O.
Dunning on the Lick Creek mound in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, v. p. 11; S.
D. Peet on a double-walled enclosure in Ashtabula Co. in _Smithsonian
Rept._, 1876. Cf. Cornelius Baldwin on ancient burial cists in
northeastern Ohio in _West. Res. Hist. Tracts_, no. 56, and Yarrow on
mound-burials in _First Rept. Bur. Ethnol._
[1767] Cf. Putnam in _Bull. Essex Inst._, iii. (Nov., 1871), and
_Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._ (Feb., 1872); Foster, p. 134, with plan.
The _Smithsonian Repts._ cover notices by W. Pidgeon (1867), by A.
Patton in Knox and Lawrence counties (1873), and by R. S. Robertson
(1874).
[1768] _Peabody Mus. Reports_, xii. 473 (1879). For Illinois mounds see
Thomas in _Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._; Davidson and Struve’s _Illinois_;
E. Baldwin’s _La Salle Co._ (Chicago, 1877); W. McAdams’s _Antiq. of
Cahokia_ (Edwardsville, 1883); H. R. Howland in the _Buffalo Soc. Nat.
Hist. Bull._, iii.; and in _Smithsonian Repts._, by Chas. Rau (1868);
largely on agricultural traces; by Dr. A. Patton (1873); by T. M.
Perrine on Union Co. (1873); by T. McWhorter and others (1874); by W.
H. Pratt on Whiteside Co. (1874); by J. Shaw on Rock River (1877); and
by J. Cochrane on Mason Co. (1877).
[1769] His papers are in the _Smithsonian Repts._, 1873, 1875; _Peabody
Mus. Reports_, vi. (1873), on the St. Clair River mounds; _Am. Journal
of Arts, etc._, Jan., 1874; _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc._, 1875; on
bone relics in _Congrès des Amér._, 1877, i. 65; and on the Lake Huron
mounds, in _American Naturalist_, Jan., 1883. Cf. other accounts in
_Michigan Pioneer Collections_, ii. 40; iii. 41, 202; S. D. Peet in
_Amer. Antiq._, Jan., 1888; and on the old fort near Detroit, _Ibid._
p. 37; and Bela Hubbard’s _Memorials of a half century_.
[1770] The copy in Harvard College library has some annotations by
George Gale. Lapham’s survey of Aztlan is reproduced in Foster, p. 102.
Lapham’s book is summarized by Wm. Barry in the _Wisconsin Hist. Soc.
Coll._, iii. 187. These _Collections_ contain other papers on mounds
in Crawford Co. by Alfred Brunson (iii. 178); on man-shape mounds (iv.
365); J. D. Butler on “Prehistoric Wisconsin” (vii.); on Aztalan (ix.
103).
The _Transactions_ of the Wisconsin Acad. of Science are also
of assistance: vol. iii., a report of a committee on the mounds
near Madison, with cuts; vol. iv., a paper by J. M. DeHart on the
“Antiquities and platycnemism [flat tibia bones] of the Moundbuilders.”
[1771] S. D. Peet has discussed this aspect in the _Amer. Antiquarian_
(1880), iii. p. 1; vi. 176; vii. 164, 215, 321; viii. 1; ix. 67. He
also examines the evidence of the village life of their builders (ix.
10). Cf. his _Emblematic Mounds_; and his paper in the _Wisconsin Hist.
Coll._, ix. 40.
[1772] None of the bones of extinct animals have been found in
the mounds; nor has the buffalo, long a ranger of the Mississippi
Valley, been identified in the shapes of the mounds. (Cf. Peet on the
identification of animal mounds in _Amer. Antiq._, vi. 176.) Peet holds
they followed the mastodon period (_Ibid._ ix. 67). The elephant mound,
so called, has been often shown in cuts. (Cf. _Smithsonian Rept._,
1877, accompanying a paper by J. Warner, and Powell’s _Second Rept.
Bur. of Eth._, 153.) Henshaw here discredits the idea of its being
intended for an elephant. The evidence of elephant pipes is thought
uncertain. Cf. article on mound pipes by Barber in _Amer. Naturalist_,
April, 1882.
[1773] _Second Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, p. 159, where Henshaw thinks
it may just as well be anything else. Cf. Isaac Smucker in _Amer.
Antiquarian_, vii. 350.
[1774] Cf. _Amer. Antiq._, vi. 254.
[1775] _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xvii., and _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct.,
1883. He points out that the Ohio effigy mounds have a foundation of
stones with clay superposed; the Georgia mounds are mainly of stone;
while the Wisconsin mounds seem to be constructed only of earth.
Further references on the Wisconsin mounds: _Smithsonian Repts._, by E.
E. Breed (1872); by C. K. Dean (1872); by Moses Strong (1876, 1877); by
J. M. DeHart (1877); and again (1879).
Also: Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, p. 106; W. H. Canfield’s _Sauk County_;
DeHart in _Amer. Antiquarian_, April, 1879; their military character in
_Ibid._, Jan., 1881; also as emblems in _Ibid._ 1883 (vi. 7); Nadaillac
and other general works. There is a map of those near Beloit—some are
in the college campus—in the _American Antiquarian_, iii. 95.
[1776] They have been described in the _Smithsonian Reports_ by T. R.
Peale (1861); and in _Amer. Antiquarian_, July, 1888, by S. D. Peet.
Other mounds and relics are described in the _Smithsonian Repts._
(1863) by J. W. Foster; (1870) by A. Barrandt; (1877) by W. H. R.
Lykins; and (1879) by G. C. Broadhead; in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, viii.,
by Professor Swallow; in _Missouri Hist. Soc. Publ._, no. 6, by F.
F. Hilder; in _Cinn. Quart. Jour. of Sci._, Jan., 1875, by Dr. S. H.
Headlee; in the _Kansas City Rev._, i. 25, 531; in the _St. Louis Acad.
of Science_ (1880) by W. P. Potter; Mr. A. J. Conant has been the most
prolific writer in _Ibid._, April 5, 1876; in W. F. Switzler’s _History
of Missouri_ (St. Louis, 1879), and in C. R. Burns’s _Commonwealth of
Missouri_ (1877). Cf. also Poole’s _Index_, p. 858.
[1777] T. H. Lewis in _Science_, v. 131; vi. 453. On other Iowa mounds,
see _Smithsonian Rept._, by J. B. Cutts (1872); by M. W. Moulton
(1877), and again (1879); _Annals of Iowa_, vi. 121; and W. J. McGee in
_Amer. Journal Science_, cxvi. 272.
[1778] _Smithsonian Rept._, 1863; and for mounds, 1879. Cf. L. C. Estes
on the antiquities on the banks of Missouri and Lake Pepin in _Ibid._,
1866.
[1779] _Kansas Rev._, ii. 617; Joseph Savage and B. F. Mudge in _Kansas
Acad. Science_, vii.
[1780] _Smithsonian Rept._, by A. J. Comfort (1871) and by A. Barrandt
(1872); W. McAdams in _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 153.
[1781] _Amer. Naturalist_, x. 410, by E. Palmer; Bancroft, _Nat.
Races_, iv. 715.
[1782] App. to Gleeson’s _Hist. of the Catholic Church in California_
(1872), ii., and Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 695.
[1783] P. W. Norris in _Smithsonian Report_, 1879.
[1784] Cf. George Gibbs in _Journal Amer. Geogr. Soc._, iv.; A. W.
Chase in _Amer. Jour. Sci._, cvi. 26; _Amer. Architect_, xxi. 295; and
Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iv. 735.
[1785] Cf. S. H. Locket in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1872), and T. P.
Hotchkiss in the same, and a paper in 1876; _Amer. Journal Science_,
xlix. 38, by C. G. Forshey, and lxv. 186, by A. Bigelow.
[1786] T. H. Lewis, with plan, in _Amer. Journal Archæol._, iii. 375;
previously noted by Atwater and by Squier and Davis.
[1787] Cf. Filson’s _Kentucke_.
[1788] _Amer. Philos. Soc. Trans._, iv., no. 26.
[1789] Thomas E. Pickett contributed this part (1871) to Collins’s
_Hist. Kentucky_ (1878), i. 380; ii. 68, 69, 227, 302, 303, 457, 633,
765. Pickett’s contribution was published separately as _The testimony
of the Mounds_ (Marysville, Ky., 1875). Prof. Shaler, as head of the
Geological Survey of Kentucky, included in its Reports Lucien Carr’s
treatise on the mounds, already mentioned; and touches the subject
briefly in his _Kentucky_, p. 45. Cf. also Maj. Jona. Heart in Imlay’s
_Western Territory_; S. S. Lyon in _Smithsonian Repts._, 1858, 1870,
and R. Peter, in 1871, 1872; F. W. Putnam in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.
Proc._, xvii. 313 (1875); and _Nature_, xiii. 109.
[1790] The aboriginal remains of Tennessee have successively been
treated in John Haywood’s _History of Tennessee_ (Nashville, 1823);
by Gerard Troost in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._ (1845), i. 335; by
Joseph Jones in _Smithsonian Contributions_, xx. (1876), who connected
those who erected the works, through the Natchez Indians, with the
Nahuas. Edward O. Dunning had described some of the Tennessee relics
in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._, iii., iv., and v.; but Putnam in no. xi.
(1878) gave the results of his opening of the stone graves, with his
explorations of the sites of the villages of the people, and described
their implements, nothing of which, as he said, showed contact with
Europeans. Cyrus Thomas deems these remains the works of the Indian
race (_Amer. Antiq._, vii. 129; viii. 162). The _Smithsonian Repts._
have had various papers on the Tennessee antiquities: I. Dille (1862);
A. F. Danilsen (1863); M. C. Read (1867); E. A. Dayton, E. O. Dunning,
E. M. Grant, and J. P. Stelle (1870); Rev. Joshua Hall, A. E. Law, and
D. F. Wright (1874); and others (in 1877).
L. J. Du Pré, in _Harper’s Monthly_ (Feb., 1875), p. 347, reports upon
a ten-acre adobe threshing-floor, preserved two feet and a half beneath
black loam, near Memphis.
[1791] Col. Jones’s papers are: _Indian Remains in South Georgia, an
address_ (Savannah, 1859); _Ancient tumuli on the Savannah River;
Monumental Remains of Georgia_, part i. (Savannah, 1861); _Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc._, April, 1869; _Antiquities of Southern Indians_ (1873);
on effigy mounds in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1877); and on bird-shaped
mounds in _Journal Anthropological Soc._, viii. 92. Cf. also the early
chapters of his _Hist. of Georgia_.
Other writers: H. C. Williams and Geo. Stephenson in _Smithson. Rept._
(1870); and Wm. McKinley and M. F. Stephenson (1872). Cf. _Amer.
Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, iii., on Creeks and Cherokees; and on the great
mound in the Etowah Valley, _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci._ (1871). Thomas
(_Fifth Rept. Bur. Ethnol._) supposes the Etowah mound to be the one
with a roadway described by Garcilasso de la Vega as being on De Soto’s
route. Thomas describes other mounds of this group, giving cuts of the
incised copper plates found in them, which he holds to be of European
make. This forces him to the conclusion that the larger mound was
built before De Soto’s incursion and the others later; and as they
differ from those in Carolina, he determines they were not built by the
Cherokees.
[1792] Cf. S. A. Agnew in _Smithsonian Reports_ (1867), and J. W.
C. Smith (1874, cf. 1879); Jas. R. Page in _St. Louis Acad. Science
Trans._, iii., and _Cinn. Q. Journal of Sci._, Oct., 1875; Haven, p.
51; and Edw. Fontaine’s _How the World was peopled_, 153.
[1793] E. Cornelius in _Amer. Journ. Sci._, i. 223; Pickett’s
_Alabama_, ch. 3.
[1794] Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes_, iii., and in _N. Y. Hist. Soc.
Proc._, 1846, p. 124. Brinton’s _Floridian Peninsula_, ch. 6. _Amer.
Antiquarian_, iv. 100; ix. 219. _Smithsonian Reports_ (1874), by A.
Mitchell, and 1879.
[1795] J. M. Spainhour on antiquities in North Carolina, in _Smithson.
Rept._, 1871; T. R. Peale on some near Washington, D. C. (_Ibid._,
1872); Schoolcraft, on some in Va., in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._,
i.; with Squier and Davis, and _Peabody Mus. Rept._, x., by Lucien
Carr. There is a plan of a fort in Virginia in the _Amer. Pioneer_,
Sept., 1842, and a paper on the graves in S. W. Virginia in _Mag. Amer.
Hist._, Feb., 1885, p. 184.
[1796] W. E. Guest on those near Prescott, in _Smithsonian Rept._,
1856. T. C. Wallbridge describes some at the bay of Quinté in _Canadian
Journal_ (1860), v. 409, and Daniel Wilson for Canada West in _Ibid._,
Nov., 1856. T. H. Lewis on the remains in the valley of the Red River
of the North, in _Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 369; and for those in
Manitoba papers by A. McCharles in the _Amer. Journal of Archæology_,
iii. 72 (June, 1887), and by George Bryce in _Manitoba Hist. and Sci.
Soc. Trans., No. 18_ (1884-85). Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 738, etc.,
for British Columbia.
[1797] Cf. for garden beds _Amer. Antiquarian_, i. and vii.; Foster,
155; Bela Hubbard’s _Memorials of a half century_ (Detroit). Shaler
(_Kentucky_, 46) surmises that it was the buffalo coming into the
Ohio Valley, and affording food without labor, that debased the
moundbuilders to hunters.
[1798] Cf. Col. Whittlesey on rock inscriptions in the United States in
_West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tract No. 42_. Col. Garrick Mallory’s special
studies of pictographs are contained in the _Bull. U. S. Geological
Survey of the territories_ (1877), and in the _Fourth Rept. Bur.
Ethnol._ Wm. McAdams includes those of the Mississippi Valley in his
_Records of ancient races in the Mississippi Valley_ (St. Louis, 1887).
Cf. _Hist. Mag._, x. 307. Those in Ohio are enumerated in the _Final
Rept. of the State Board of Centennial Managers_ (1877), by M. C.
Read and Col. Whittlesey. Cf. also the _West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts
Nos. 12, 42, 53_; the _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._ (1875); and _The
Antiquary_, ii. 15. Those in the Upper Minnesota Valley are reported on
by T. H. Lewis in the _Amer. Naturalist_, May, 1886, and July, 1887. J.
R. Bartlett in his _Personal Narrative_ noted some of those along the
Mexican boundary, and Froebel (_Seven Years’ Travel_, Lond., 1859, p.
519) controverts some of Bartlett’s views. Cf. Nadaillac, _Les premiers
hommes_, ii.; J. G. Bruff on those in the Sierra Nevada in _Smithson.
Rept._, 1872. A. H. Keane reports upon some in North Carolina in the
_Journal Anthropological Inst._ (London), xii. 281. C. C. Jones in his
_Southern Indians_ (1873) covers the subject. Some in Brazil are noted
in _Ibid._, Apr., 1873.
[1799] The first session of the International Congress of Prehistoric
[Anthropology and] Archæology was held at Neuchâtel, and its
proceedings were printed in the _Materiaux pour l’histoire de l’homme_.
The second session was at Paris; the third at Norwich, England; the
fourth at Copenhagen; and there have been others of later years. Cf.
A. de Quatrefages’ _Rapport sur le progrès de l’anthropologie_ (Paris,
1868). Quatrefages himself is one of the most distinguished of the
French school, and deserves as much as any to rank as the founder of
the present French school of anthropologists. Cf. his _Hommes fossiles
et hommes sauvages_ (1884). The English reader can most easily get
possessed of his view, conservative in some respects, in Eliza A.
Youman’s English version of his most popular book, _Nat. Hist. of Man_
(N. Y., 1875).
[1800] Founded in Paris in 1864 by Gabriel de Mortillet, and edited
after vol. v. by Eugène Trutat and Emile Cartailhac.
[1801] Cf. C. Rau’s _Articles on anthropol. subjects contributed to
the Annual Repts. of the Smithson. Inst., 1863-1877_ (Smiths. Inst.,
no. 440; Washington, 1882). The _Smithson. Rept._, 1880 (Washington,
1881), also contains a bibliography of anthropology by O. T. Mason.
A considerable list of books is prefixed to Dr. Gustav Brühl’s
_Culturvölker des alten Amerika_, which is a collection of tracts
published at different times (1875-1887) at N. Y., Cincinnati, and St.
Louis.
[1802] He had surveyed the condition of the science in 1867 in his
introduction to Nilsson’s _Stone Age,—Primitive inhabitants of
Scandinavia_. Cf. also _Smithsonian Report_, 1862.
[1803] Figuier’s books are nearly all accessible in English. His _Human
Race_ and his _World before the Deluge_ cover some parts of the subject.
[1804] A few minor references: Dawson’s _Story of Earth and Man_, ch.
14, 15. Foster’s _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._, ch. 1, 2. Clodd’s
_Childhood of the World_. Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._, ch. 1. Principal
Forbes in the _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1863; Oct., 1870. _London
Quarterly Rev._, Apr., 1870. _Contemp. Rev._, xi. _Bibliotheca Sacra_,
Apr., 1873. _Brit. Q. Rev._, Ap., Oct., 1863. _Lond. Rev._, Jan., 1860.
_Lippincott’s Mag._, vol. i. _Nat. Q. Rev._, Mar., 1876. _Lakeside
Monthly_, vol. x., etc.
[1805] Translated by N. D’Anvers and edited by W. H. Dall, with some
radical changes of text (N. Y., 1884). Cf. Lucien Carr in _Science_,
1885, Feb. 27, p. 176. Dall discusses the evidences of the remains of
the later prehistoric man in the United States in the _Smithsonian
Contributions_, vol. xxii.
[1806] A few other references of lesser essays: D. G. Brinton’s
_Review of the data for the study of the prehistoric chronology of
America_ (Salem, 1887,—from the _Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci._, xxxvi.);
his _Recent European Contributions to the study of Amer. Archæology_
(Philad. 1883); and his _Prehistoric Archæology_ (Philad., 1886). Seth
Sweetzer on prehistoric man in the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1869,
and Haven’s _Prehistoric Amer. Civilization_ in _Ibid._, April, 1871.
J. L. Onderdonck in _Nat. Quart. Rev._ (April, 1878), xxxvi. 227.
Ernest Marceau’s “Les anciens peuples de l’Amérique” in the _Revue
Canadienne_, n. s., iv. 709. E. S. Morse in _No. Amer. Rev._, cxxxii.
602, or _Kansas Rev._, v. 90. H. Gillman’s _Ancient men of the Great
Lakes_ (Detroit, 1877).
The principal work on the South American man is Alcède d’Orbigny’s
_L’Homme Américaine_ (Paris, 1837). There are some local treatises,
like Lucien de Rosny’s _Les Antilles: étude d’ethnographie et
d’archéologie Americaines_ (Paris, 1886,—_Am. Soc. d’Ethnographie_, n.
s., ii.), and papers by Nadaillac and others in the _Materiaux_, etc.
[1807] By Theo. Lyman and Hr. de Schlagintweit.
[1808] The long article on the Races of America in Cassino’s _Standard
Nat. Hist._ (Boston, 1885), vol. vi., is based on Friedrich von
Hellwald’s _Naturgeschichte des Menschen_, but it is widely varied
in places under the supervision of Putnam and Carr. Cf. also J. C.
Prichard’s _Researches into the physical history of mankind_ (Lond.,
1841), 4th ed., vol. v., “Oceanic and American nations.”
[1809] Bandelier, in his several essays in the 2d volume of the
_Peabody Museum Reports_, speaks of his neglecting such compilations as
Bancroft’s in order to deal solely with the original sources, and the
student will find the references in his foot-notes of those essays very
full indications of what he must follow in the study of such sources.
[1810] Harrisse, _Bib. Am. Vet._; Rich, _Bibl. Nova_; Leclerc, nos.
350, 351; Pilling, p. xxviii.
[1811] Pilling, p. xii.
[1812] See Vol. II. p. 429.
[1813] _Bib. Mex. Guat_., p. 24; Pinart, no. 161. Cf. Icazbalceta on
“Las bibliotecas de Eguiara y de Beristain” in _Memorias de la Académia
Méxicana_, i. 353.
[1814] Vol. II. p. 430.
[1815] Also in Eng. transl., ii. 256.
[1816] Cf. Brinton’s _Aborig. Amer. Authors_, Philad., 1883.
[1817] See Vol. II p. 430.
[1818] Pilling, p. xxxi.
[1819] A school book, Marcius Willson’s _Amer. History_ (N. Y., 1847),
went much farther than any book of its class, or even of the usual
popular histories, in the matter of American antiquities, giving a good
many plans and cuts of ruins.
[1820] For bibliog. detail regarding the _Nat. Races_, see Pilling’s
_Proof Sheets_, p. 9. Reviews of the work are noted in _Poole’s Index_,
p. 956.
[1821] Cf., for instance, Dall’s strictures on the tribes of the N. W.
in _Contrib. to Amer. Ethnol._, i. p. 8.
[1822] Sabin, ii. 7233; Field, no. 169.
[1823] Bare mention may be made of a few other books of a general
scope: Jean Benoit Scherer’s _Recherches historiques et géographiques
sur le nouveau monde_ (Paris, 1777); D. B. Warden’s _Recherches sur
les Antiquités de l’Am. Sept._ (Paris, 1827) in _Recueil de Voyages,
publié par la Soc. Géog._ (Paris, 1825, ii. 372; cf. Dupaix, ii.);
Ira Hill’s _Antiquities of Amer. Explained_ (Hagerstown, 1831); Louis
Faliès’ _Etudes historiques et philosophiques sur les civilisations
européenne, romaine, grecque, des populations primitives de l’Amérique
septentrionale, les Chiapas, Palenqué des Nuhuas ancêtres des
Toltèques, civilisation Yucatèque, Zapotèques, Mixtèques, royaume du
Michoacan, populations du Nord-Ouest, du Nord et de l’Est, bassin
du Mississipi, civilisation Toltèque, Aztèque, Amérique du centre,
Péruvienne, domination des Incas, royaume de Quito, Océanie_ (Paris,
1872-74); Frederick Larkin’s _Ancient man in America. Including works
in western New York, and portions of other states, together with
structures in Central America_ (New York, 1880),—a book, however,
hardly to be commended by archæologists; and Charles Francis Keary’s
_Dawn of History, an introduction to prehistoric study_ (N. Y., 1887).
[1824] It is not necessary to enumerate many titles, but reference
may be made to the summary of prehistoric conditions in Zerffi’s
_Historical development of art_. It may be worth while to glance at
A. Daux’s _Etudes préhistoriques. L’industrie humaine: ses origines,
ses premiers essais et ses légendes depuis les premiers temps jusqu’au
déluge_ (Paris, 1877); Dawson’s _Fossil men_, ch. 5; Joly’s _Man before
Metals_; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 11; Dabry de
Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde_ (Paris, 1883); and
Brühl’s _Culturvölker alt-Amerika’s_, ch. 14, 16.
[1825] Cf., particularly for California, Putnam’s _Report_ in Wheeler’s
Survey.
[1826] There is some question if the early Americans ever carried on
the heavier parts of the quarrying arts, as for building-stones. Cf.
Morgan’s _Houses and House Life_, 274. They did quarry soap-stone
(Elmer R. Reynolds, Schumacher and Putnam, in _Peabody Mus. Repts._,
xii.) and mica (_Smithsonian Report_, 1879, by W. Gesner; C. D. Smith
in _Ibid._ 1876; Dr. Brinton in _Proc. Numism. and Antiq. Soc. of
Philad._, 1878, p. 18). That they quarried pipe-stone is also well
known, and the famous red pipe-stone quarry, lying between the Missouri
and Minnesota rivers, was under the protection of the Great Spirit,
so that tribes at war with one another are said to have buried their
hatchets as they approached it. Wilson, in the last chapter of the
first volume of his _Prehistoric man_, examines this pipe-carving and
tells the story of this famous quarry. He refers to the tobacco mortars
of the Peruvians in which they ground the dry leaf; and to the pipes
of the mounds in which it was smoked. Cf. J. F. Nadaillac’s _Les pipes
et le tabac_ (Paris, 1885), taken from the _Materiaux pour l’histoire
primitive de l’homme_ (ii. for 1885); and Lucien de Rosny on “Le tabac
et ses accessoires parmi les indigènes de l’Amérique,” in _Mémoires sur
l’Archéologie Américaine_, 1865, of the Soc. d’Ethnographie.
[1827] It should be remembered that the recognition of the Flint-folk
as occupying a distinct stage of development is a modern notion.
For a century and a half after European museums began to gather
stone implements they were reputed relics of Celtic art. Treatment
of American art necessarily makes part of the works of Squier and
Davis; Schoolcraft; Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_, ch. 6; Lubbock’s
_Prehistoric Times;_ Joly’s _Man before Metals_. Cf. references in
_Poole’s Index_ under “Stone Age” and “Stone Implements.”
[1828] Cf. S. D. Peet in _Amer. Antiquarian_, vii. 15.
[1829] Rau is an authority on stone implements. See further his paper
on stone implements in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1872; one on drilling
stone without metal in _Ibid._ 1868; and one on cup-shaped and other
lapidarian sculpture in the _Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology_,
vol. v. (Powell’s _Rocky Mountain Survey_, 1882). These carved,
cup-like cavities in rocks are also discussed in Wilson’s _Prehistoric
Man_, vol. i. ch. 3, where it is held that they were formed by the
grinding process in shaping the rounded end of tools. H. W. Henshaw in
the _Amer. Jour. of Archæology_ (i. 105) discusses another enigma in
the stone relics, called sinkers or plummets. Foster (_Prehist. Races_,
230) believes they were used as weights to keep the thread taut in
weaving.
[1830] Cf. also Stevens’s _Flint Chips_, 292, and Charnay, Eng.
transl., p. 70.
[1831] Cf. G. Crook “on the Indian method of making arrow-heads” in
the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1871, and C. C. Jones, Jr., on “the primitive
manufacture of spear and arrowpoints along the Savannah River” in
_Ibid._ 1879. A paper by Sellers in a later report is of importance.
Cf. Stevens’ _Flint Chips_, pp. 75-85, and Schumacher in _Smithsonian
Report_, 1873. True flint was not often, if ever, used in America, but
rather chert or hornstone, and quartz, though implements are found of
jasper, chalcedony, obsidian, quartzite, and argillite. Cf. Rau on
the stock in trade of an aboriginal lapidary in _Smithsonian Rept._
(1877); and Rosny’s “Recherches sur les masques, le jade et l’industrie
lapidaire chez les indigènes de l’Amérique” in _Arch. de la Soc. Amér.
de France_, n. s., vol. i. Jade or jadite implements and ornaments have
been found in Central America and Mexico, and others resembling them
in northwestern America; but it is not yet clear that the unworked
material, such as is used in the middle America specimens, is found in
America _in situ_. Upon the solution of this last problem will depend
the value of these implements when found in America as bearing upon
questions of Asiatic intercourse. Cf. Dr. A. B. Meyer in the _Amer.
Anthropologist_ (vol. i., July, 1888, p. 231), and F. W. Putnam in the
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1886, and in the _Proc. Amer. Antiq.
Society_.
[1832] Wilson (_Prehistoric Man_, i. 200) points out that philology
confirms it, the word for copper meaning “yellow stone.” On the
question of their melting metal see letter of Prof. F. W. Putnam in
_Kansas City Rev. of Science_, Dec. 1881; Wilson (i. 361); Foster’s
_Prehistoric Races_, 293.
[1833] Wilson (i. 209, 227) thinks the arboreal and other evidences
carry the time when these mines were worked back, at latest, to a
period corresponding to Europe’s mediæval era. The earliest modern
references to copper in this region are in Sagard in 1632 (Haven, p.
127) and in the _Jesuit Relation_ of Allouez in 1666-67. Alexander
Henry (_Travels and Adventures in Canada_) in 1765 is the earliest
English explorer to mention it. Wilson holds to the belief that the
present race of red Indians had no knowledge of these mining practices,
but that they knew simply chance masses or exposed lodes. Wilson (i.
362) also gives reasons for supposing that the Lake Superior mines may
have been a common meeting ground for all races of the continent.
[1834] Wilson, i. 205. MacLean’s _Moundbuilders_, ch. 6, gives a
section of the shaft as when discovered.
[1835] Of the Lake Superior mines, the earliest intelligent account
we have is in C. T. Jackson’s _Geological Report to the U. S. Gov’t_,
1849; but a more extended and connected account appeared the next
year in the _Report on the Geology of Lake Superior_ (Washington,
1850), by J. W. Foster and J. D. Whitney, which is substantially
reproduced in Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_ (1873), ch. 7. Meanwhile,
Col. Charles Whittlesey had published in vol. xiii. of the _Smithsonian
Contributions_ his _Ancient Mining on the shores of Lake Superior_
(Washington, 1863, with a map), which is on the whole the best account,
to be supplemented by his paper in the _Memoirs_ of the Boston Society
of Natural History. Jacob Houghton supplied a description of the
“ancient copper mines of Lake Superior” to Swineford’s _History and
Review of the mineral resources of Lake Superior_ (Marquette, 1876).
Cf. also _Annals of Science_ (Cleveland), i. for 1852; Dawson’s _Fossil
Men_, 61; Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, 42; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_,
i. 204; Dr. Harvey Read in the _Dist. Hist. Soc. Report_, ii. (1878);
Joseph Henry in the _Smithsonian Reports_ (1861; also in 1862); and
Short, p. 89, with references.
On the mines at Isle Royale, see Henry Gillman’s “Ancient works at Isle
Royale” in _Appleton’s Journal_, Aug. 9, 1873; _Smithsonian Repts._,
1873, 1874, by A. C. Davis; the _Proceedings_ of the Amer. Asso. for
the Advancement of Science, 1875; and Professor Winchell in _Popular
Science Monthly_, Sept., 1881.
See further, on the copper implements of these ancient workers:
Abbott’s _Primitive Industry_, ch. 28; Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_,
251; P. R. Hoy’s _How and by whom were the copper implements made?_
(Racine, 1886, in _Wisconsin Acad. of Science_, iv. 132); J. D.
Butler’s address on “Prehistoric Wisconsin” in the _Wisconsin Hist.
Coll._, vol. vii. (see also vol. viii.), with his “Copper Age in
Wisconsin” in the _Proc. of the Amer. Antiquarian Society_, April,
1877, and his paper on copper tools in the _Wisconsin Acad. of
Science_, iii. 99; H. W. Haynes on “Copper implements of America”
in _Proc. Amer. Antiq. Soc._, Oct., 1884, p. 335; Putnam on the
copper objects of North and South America preserved in the Peabody
Museum (_Reports_, xv. 83); Read and Whittlesey in the _Final Report,
Ohio Board Cent. Managers_, 1877, ch. 3; and _Poole’s Index_, p.
300. Reynolds has recently in the _Journal of the Anthropol. Soc._
(Washington) claimed copper mining for the modern Indians.
[1836] Clavigero (Philad., Eng. transl., i. 20); Prescott, i. 138;
Folsom’s ed. of Cortes’ letters, 412; Lockhart’s transl. of Bernal Diaz
(Lond., 1844, i. 36).
[1837] Cf. on copper implements from Mexico: P. J. J. Valentini’s
_Mexican copper tools: the use of copper by the Mexicans before the
Conquest; and The Katunes of Maya history, a chapter in the early
history of Central America. From the German, by S. Salisbury, jr._
(Worcester, 1880), from the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr. 30, 1879;
F. W. Putnam in _Ibid._, n. s., ii. 235 (Oct. 21, 1882); Charnay, Eng.
transl., p. 70; H. L. Reynolds, Jr., on the “Metal art of ancient
Mexico” in _Popular Science Monthly_, Aug., 1887 (vol. xxxi., p. 519).
[1838] Cf. St. John Vincent Day’s _Prehistoric use of iron and steel:
with observations_ (London, 1877). This book grew out of papers printed
in the _Proc. Philosoph. Soc. of Glasgow_ (1871-75).
[1839] Cf. Dr. Washington Matthews on the “Navajo silversmiths” in the
_2d Rept. Bureau of Ethnol._ (Washington, 1883), p. 167.
[1840] The chief European collections are in the British Museum, the
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, the Louvre, and at Copenhagen,
Vienna, Brussels, not to name others; and among private ones, the
Christy and Evans collections in England and the Uhde in Heidelberg.
[1841] _Transactions_, n. s., iii. 510.
[1842] Cf. Lucien de Rosny’s “Introduction à une histoire de la
céramique chez les indiens du nouveau monde” in the _Archives de la
Soc. Amér. de France_, n. s., vol. i., and Stevens’ _Flint Chips_,
241. Further references: Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. ch. 17; Catlin’s
_N. A. Indians_, ch. 16; F. V. Hayden’s _Contrib. to the Ethnog. of
the Missouri Valley_, 355; A. Demmin’s _Hist. de la Céramique_ (Paris,
1868-1875); Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, and his _L’Amérique
préhistorique_, ch. 4.
[1843] For the Atlantic coast, papers by Abbott (_American Naturalist_,
Ap. 72, etc.), later more comprehensively treated in his _Primitive
Industry_, ch. 11; and for the middle Atlantic region, a paper by
Francis Jordan, Jr., in the _Amer. Philosoph. Soc. Proc._ (1888, vol.
xxv.). For Florida, _Schoolcraft in the New York Hist. Soc. Proc._,
1846, p. 124. For the moundbuilders, Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_,
p. 237, and in _Amer. Naturalist_, vii. 94 (Feb., 1873); Nadaillac,
ch. 4; and Putnam in _Amer. Nat_., ix. 321, 393, and _Peabody Mus.
Repts._, viii. For the Mississippi Valley in general, Edw. Evers in
_The Contributions to the archæology of Missouri_; W. H. Holmes in the
_Fourth Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, an improvement of a paper
in the _Proc. of the Davenport Acad. of Sciences_, vol. iv. Joseph
Jones in the _Smithsonian Contrib._, xxii., and Putnam in the _Peabody
Mus. Repts_., have described the pottery of Tennessee. The _Pacific R.
R. Repts/_ yield us something; and Putnam (_Reports_) was the first
to describe the Missouri pottery. J. H. Devereux treats the pottery
of Arkansas in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1872. On the Pueblo pottery,
see papers of W. H. Holmes and F. H. Cushing in the _Fourth Rept. Bur.
of Ethn_. (pp. 257, 743); and James Stevenson’s illustrated catalogue
in the _Third Rept._, p. 511. F. W. Putnam (_Amer. Art Review_, Feb.,
1881), supplementing his work in vol. vii. of Wheeler’s Survey,
thinks that the present Pueblo Indians make an inferior ware to their
ancestors’ productions. The pottery of the cliff-dwellers is described
in Hayden’s _Annual Rept._ (1876). Paul Schumacher explains the method
of manufacturing pottery and basket-work among the Indians of Southern
California in the _Peabody Museum Rept._, xii. 521. O. T. Mason’s
papers in recent _Smithsonian Reports_ and in the _Amer. Naturalist_
are among the best investigations in this direction.
[1844] For some special phases, see S. Blondel’s _Recherches sur les
bijoux des peuples primitifs ... Méxicains et Péruviens_ (Paris, 1876);
F. W. Putnam’s _Conventionalism in Ancient American Art_ (Salem, 1887,
from the _Bull. Essex Inst._, xviii., for 1886); Mexican masks in
Stevens’ _Flint chips_, 328; S. D. Peet on “Human faces in aboriginal
art,” in the _American Antiquarian_ (May, 1886, or viii. 133); the
description of terra-cotta figures in Herman Strebel’s _Alt-Mexico_. A
terra-cotta vase in the Museo Nacional is figured in Brasseur’s _Popol
Vuh_ (1861).
It is not known that stringed instruments were ever used,
notwithstanding the suggestion of the twanging of the bow-string;
but museums often contain specimens of musical pipes used by the
aborigines. The opening chapter of J. F. Rowbotham’s _Hist. of Music_
(London, 1885) gives what evidence we have, with references, as to
kinds of music common to the American aborigines, and their fictile
wind instruments. Cf. A. J. Hipkins’ _Musical instruments, historic,
rare, and unique. The selection, introduction, and descriptive notes
by A. J. Hipkins; illustrated by William Gibb_ (Edinburgh, 1888); H.
T. Cresson on Aztec music in the _Proc. Acad. Nat. Sciences_ (Philad.,
1883); and Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_ (ii. 37), with the references in
Bancroft’s index (v. p. 717).
In Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races of the Earth_ (Philad., 1857)
there is a section by Francis Pulszky on “Iconographic researches on
human races and their art.”
[1845] Mrs. Zelia Nuttall’s essay on some Mexican feather-work
preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna appeared in the _Archæol.
and Ethnolog. Papers of the Peabody Museum_, vol. i. no. 1 (Cambridge,
1888), and here she discusses the question if this is a standard or
head-dress, and holds it to have been a head-dress. The contrary view
is taken by F. von Hochstetter in his _Ueber Mexicanische Reliquien
aus der Zeit Montezuma’s_ (Vienna, 1884), who supposes it to have
been among the presents sent by Cortes in 1519 to Charles V., in the
possession of whose nephew it is known to have been in 1596.
[1846] Cf. Horatio Hale on _The Origin of Primitive Money_ (N. Y.,
1886,—from the _Popular Science Monthly_, xxviii. 296); W. B. Weedon’s
_Indian Money as a factor in New England Civilization_ (Baltimore,
1884),—Johns Hopkins (University Studies); Ashbel Woodward’s _Wampum_
(Albany, 1878); Ernst Ingersoll in the _Amer. Naturalist_ (May, 1883);
and the cuts of wampum belts in the _Second Rept. Bur. Ethnology_ (pp.
242, 244, 246, 248, 252, 254).
[1847] Cf. D. G. Brinton’s _The lineal measures of the Semi-civilized
nations of Mexico and Central America. Read before the American
Philosophical Society, Jan. 2, 1885_ (Philadelphia, 1885).
[1848] _Wilson’s Prehistoric Man_, i. ch. 6.
[1849] Wilson, i. 168. See _post_, Vol. II. 508, for an old cut of a
raft under sail.
[1850] _Peabody Mus. Rept._, ii. 602-8.
[1851] _Chips_, ii. 248. Cf. Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens_
(Paris, 1883), p. 187.
[1852] It has been a question whether the palæolithic man talked,
and it has been asserted and denied, from the character of certain
inferior maxillary bones found in caves, that he had the power of
articulate speech. Dr. Brinton has recently, from an examination of
the lowest stocks of linguistic utterances now known, endeavored to
set forth “a somewhat correct conception of what was the character of
the rudimentary utterances of the race.” Cf. Brinton, _Language of the
Palæolithic Man_, Philadelphia, 1888; Mortillet, _La préhistorique
Antiquité de l’Homme_ (Paris, 1883); H. Steinthal, _Der Ursprung der
Sprache_ (Berlin, 1888). Horatio Hale, on “The origin of languages
and the antiquity of speaking man,” in the _Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.
Proc_., xxxv. 279, cites the views of some physiologists to show
that the pre-glacial man could not talk, because there are only
rudimentary signs of the presence of important vocal muscles to be
discovered in the most ancient jaw-bones which have been found. Rau
inferred that the totally diverse character, as he thought, of the
American tongues indicated strongly that the earliest man could
not articulate (_Contrib. to N. A. Ethnology_, v. 92). For other
somewhat wild speculations, see Col. E. Carette’s _Etude sur les temps
antéhistoriques, La Langage_ (Paris, 1878).
[1853] Morgan thought he had found a test in his _Systems of
consanguinity and affinity of the Human Family_ (Washington, 1871).
[1854] _Journal Anthropological Inst._, v. 216.
[1855] _Science of Language_, i. 326.
[1856] For recognition of it in American philology, see Bancroft, iii.
670, and Short, 471.
[1857] Cf. Waitz, _Introd. to Anthropology_ (Eng. transl.), p. 238;
Wedgwood, _Origin of Language_; Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, ch.
8; Tylor’s _Anthropology_, ch. 6; Topinard’s _Anthropologie_; J. P.
Lesley’s _Man’s Origin and Destiny_ (who considers the test so far a
failure); William D. Whitney’s “Testimony of language respecting the
unity of the human race,” in the _North American Review_, July, 1867.
[1858] The “Lenguas y naciones Americanas” forms part of the first
volume of Lorenzo Hervas’s _Catálogo de las Lenguas de las Naciones
Conocidas, y numeracion, division, y clases de estas segun la
diversidad de sas idiomas y dialectos_ (Madrid, 1800-1805, in 6 vols.),
which served in some measure Johann Severin Vater, and J. C. Adelung in
their _Mithridates, oder Allgemeine Sprachenkunde_ (Berlin, 1806-17, in
4 vols.) and his _Analekten der Sprachenkunde_ (Leipzig, 1821).
There has more been done so far to map out the ethnological fields of
middle America than to determine those of the more northern parts.
Cf. the map in Orozco y Berra’s _Geografía de las lenguas de Mexico_
(1864), and that in V. A. Malte-Brun’s paper in the _Compte Rendu,
Cong. des Américanistes_, 1877, ii. 10. The maps in Bancroft’s _Native
Races_, ii. and v., will serve ordinary readers. For the broader
northern field, see the papers by L. H. Morgan and George Gibbs in the
_Smithsonian Reports_, 1861, 1862. The Bureau of Ethnology have in
preparation such a map, and they mark on it, it is understood, about
seventy distinct stocks.
Cf. Horatio Hale on “Indian migrations as evidenced by language,” in
the _Amer. Antiquarian_, v. 18, 108 (Jan., April, 1883), and issued
separately, Chicago, 1883. Lucien Adam criticised the views of Hall in
the Copenhagen _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Amér._, 1883, p. 123.
[1859] _Nat. Races_, iii. 558.
[1860] Cf. _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1879.
[1861] _Fossil Men_, 310.
[1862] A prominent feature is the process of uniting words lengthwise,
so to speak, which gives a single utterance the import of a
sentence. This characteristic of the American languages has been
called polysynthetic, incorporative, holophrastic, aggregative, and
agglutinative. H. H. Bancroft instances the word for letter-postage
in Aztec as being “Amatlacuilolitquitcatlaxtlahuilli,” which really
signifies by its component parts, “payment received for carrying a
paper on which something is written.” Cf. Brinton’s _On polysynthesism
and incorporation as characteristic of American languages_ (Philad.,
1885).
[1863] Hayden says: “The dialects of the western continent, radically
united among themselves and radically distinguished from all others,
stand in hoary brotherhood by the side of the most ancient vocal
systems of the human race.”
[1864] Morgan, in his _Systems of Consanguinity_, contends for this
linguistic unity, though (in 1866) he admits that “the dialects and
stock languages have not been explored with sufficient thoroughness.”
[1865] Gallatin says of them: “They bear the impress of primitive
languages, ... and attest the antiquity of the population,—an
antiquity the earliest we are permitted to assume.” This was of course
written before the geological evidences of the antiquity of man were
understood, and the remoteness referred to was a period near the great
dispersion of Babel.
[1866] The appendix of this work has a good general summary of the
Ethnography and Philology of America, by A. H. Keane.
[1867] The interlinking method of communication between tribes of
different languages is what is called sign or gesture language, and
the study of it shows that in much the same forms it is spread over
the continent. It has been specially studied by Col. Garrick Mallery.
Cf. his papers in the _Amer. Antiquarian_, ii. 218; _Proc. Amer.
Asso. Adv. Science_, Saratoga meeting, 1880; and at length in the
_First Annual Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_ (1881). He notes his sources of
information on pp. 395, 401. He had earlier printed under the Bureau’s
sanction his _Introduction to the Study of Sign Language_ (Washington,
1880). The subject is again considered in the _Third Rept._ of the
Bureau, p. xxvi. Cf. also W. P. Clark’s _Indian Sign-language, with
Explanatory Notes_ (Philad., 1885). Morgan (_Systems of Consanguinity_,
227) expresses the opinion that it has the germinal principle “from
which came, first, the pictographs of the northern Indians and of the
Aztecs; and, secondly, as its ultimate development, the ideographic and
possibly the hieroglyphic language of the Palenqué and Copan monuments.”
In addition to languages and dialects, we have a whole body of jargons,
a conventional mixture of tongues, adduced by continued intercourse of
peoples speaking different languages. They grew up very early, where
the French came in contact with the aborigines, and Father Le Jeune
mentions one in 1633 (_Hist. Mag._, v. 345). The Chinook jargon, for
instance, was, if not invented, at least developed by the Hudson Bay
Company’s servants, out of French, English, and several Indian tongues
(whose share predominates), to facilitate their trade with the natives,
and does not contain, at an outside limit, more than 400 or 500 words.
There is some reason to believe that the Indian portion of this jargon
is older, however, than the English contact (Bancroft, iii. 632-3;
Gibbs’s _Chinook Dictionary_; Horatio Hale in Wilkes’ _U. S. Explor.
Exped._).
[1868] See the section on “Americana,” with a foot-note on linguistic
collections. Haven summed up what had been done in this field in 1855
in his _Archæology of the U. S._ p. 53.
[1869] There is a less extensive survey, but wider in territory, in
Short’s _North Americans of Antiquity_, ch. 10.
[1870] Vol. III. p. 355.
[1871] See Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_.
[1872] Duponceau’s report in Heckewelder, _Hist. Acc. of the Indian
Nations_, 1819, is in the _Mass. Hist. Coll._, 1822. Pickering says
that Duponceau was the earliest to discover and make known the common
characteristics of the American tongues.
[1873] These are enumerated in the appendix of _The Calendar of the
Sparks MSS._, issued by the library of Harvard University. They
are also cited with some in other depositories by Pilling in his
_Proof-sheets_.
[1874] Also in J. B. Scherer’s _Recherches historiques et géographiques
sur le Nouveau Monde_ (Paris, 1777).
[1875] We know little of what Jefferson might have accomplished, for
his manuscripts were burned in 1801 (Schoolcraft’s _Ind. Tribes_, ii.
356). As early as 1804 the U. S. War Department issued a list of words,
for which its agents should get in different tribes the equivalent
words. Gallatin used these results. Different lists of test words have
been often used since. George Gibbs had a list. The Bureau of Ethnology
has a list.
[1876] Cf. synopsis in Haven’s _Archæol. U. S._, p. 65.
[1877] For Hale’s later views see his _Origin of language and antiquity
of speaking man_ (Cambridge, 1886), from the _Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv.
Science_, xxxv.; and his _Development of language_ (Toronto, 1888),
from the _Proc. Canadian Inst._, 3d ser., vi.
[1878] Among other workers in the northern philology may be named
Schoolcraft in his _Indian Tribes_ (ii. and iii. 340), who makes no
advance upon Gallatin; W. W. Turner in the _Smithsonian Report_, vi.;
R. S. Riggs adds a Dacota bibliography to his _Grammar and Dictionary
of the Dacota language_ (Washington, Smiths. Inst., 1852); George Gibbs
in the _Smithsonian Repts._ for 1865 and 1870, and as collaborator in
other studies, of which record is made in J. A. Stevens’ memoir of
Gibbs, first printed in the _N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, and then in the
_Smithsonian Report_ for 1873; F. W. Hayden’s _Contributions to the
ethnography and philology of the Indian tribes of the Missouri Valley_
(Philad., 1862), being vol. xiii. of the _Trans. Amer. Philosophical
Soc._
A contemporary of Gallatin, but a man sorely harassed, as others
see him, with eccentricities and unstableness of head, was C.
F. Rafinesque, who had nevertheless a certain tendency to acute
observation, which prevents his books from becoming wholly worthless.
His first publication was an introduction to Marshall’s _History
of Kentucky_, which he printed separately as _Ancient History, or
Annals of Kentucky, with a survey of the ancient monuments of North
America, and a tabular view of the principal languages and primitive
nations of the whole earth_ (Frankfort, Ky., 1824). In this he makes a
comparison of four principal words from fourteen Indian tongues with
thirty-four primitive languages of the old world. In 1836 he printed
at Philadelphia _The American Nations, or outlines of their general
history, ancient and modern, including the whole history of the earth
and mankind in the western hemisphere; the philosophy of American
history; the annals, traditions, civilization, languages, etc., of all
American nations, tribes, empires and states_ (in two volumes).
[1879] It embraces:
FIRST SERIES: No. 1. J. G. Shea, _French Onondaga Dictionary_.
2. G. Mengarini, _Selish or Flat-head Grammar_.
3. B. Smith, _Grammatical Sketch of the Heve language_.
4. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta, _Grammar of the Mutsun language_.
5. B. Smith, _Grammar of the Pima or Névome language_.
6. M. C. Pandosy, _Grammar and Dictionary of the Yakama language_.
7. B. Sitjar, _Vocabulary of the language of the San Antonio Mission_.
8. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta, _Vocabulary or phrase-book of the Mutsun
language_.
9. Abbé Maillard, _Grammar of the Micmaque language_.
10. J. Bruyas, _Radices Verborum Iroqæorum_.
11. G. Gibbs, _Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Clallam and Lummi_.
12. G. Gibbs, _Dictionary of the Chinook jargon_.
13. G. Gibbs, _Alphabetical Vocabulary of the Chinook language_.
SECOND SERIES: 1. W. Matthews, _Grammar and Dictionary of the language
of the Hidatsa_.
2. W. Matthews, _Hidatsa-English Dictionary_.
The first series was printed in New York, 1860-63; the second, 1873-74.
There is full bibliographical detail in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_.
[1880] The following are already published:
1. _The Chronicles of the Mayas_, ed. by Brinton.
2. _The Iroquois Book of Rites_, ed. by Horatio Hale.
3. _The Comedy-ballet of Gueguence_, ed. by Brinton.
4. _The National Legend of the Creeks_, ed. by Albert S. Gatschet.
5. _The Lenâpé and their Legends._
6. _The Annals of the Cakchiquels_, ed. by Brinton.
[1881] This series contains:
1. Juan de Albornoz, _Arte de la lengua Chiapaneca y Doctrina Cristiana
por Luis Barrientos_ (Paris, 1875).
2. P. E. Pettitot, _Dictionnaire de la langue Dènè-Dindjie_ (Paris,
1876).
3. P. E. Pettitot, _Vocabulaire Français-Esquimau_ (Paris, 1876).
4. P. Franco, _Noticias de los Indios del Departamento de Veragua_,
etc. (San Francisco, 1882).
Pilling (_Proof-sheets_, 589, 1042-1044) gives an account of Pinart’s
published and MS. linguistic collections, as well as (p. 587) of
Francisco Pimentel’s _Las Lenguas indígenas de México_ (Mexico,
1862-65).
[1882] It embraces:
1. E. Uricoechea, _Lengua Chibcha_ (Paris, 1871).
2. Eujenio Castillo i Orozco, _Vocabulario Paéz-Castellano_, etc.
(Paris, 1877).
3. Raymond Breton, _Grammaire Caraïbe, ed. par L. Adam et Ch. Leclerc_
(Paris, 1878).
4. _Ollantai, drame, trad. par Pacheco Zegarra_ (Paris, 1878).
5. R. Celedon, _La Lengua goajra, con una introd. por E. Uricoechea_
(Paris, 1878).
6. L. Adam et V. Henry, _La Lengua Chiquita_ (Paris, 1880).
7. Antonio Magio, _La Lengua de los Indios Baures_ (Paris, 1880).
8. J. Crevaux, P. Sagot, et L. Adam, _Langues de la région des Guyanes_
(Paris, 1882).
9. J. D. Haumonté, Parisot, et L. Adam, _La Langue Taensa_ (Paris,
1882). This has been pronounced a deception.
10. Francisco Pareja, _La Lengua Timuquana_, 1614 (Paris, 1886).
[1883] Cf. Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, pp. 217-218.
[1884] Brinton (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 60), referring to Father Cuoq’s
_Lexique de la langue Iroquoise_, speaks of that author as “probably
the best living authority on the Iroquois.” Pilling, _Proof-sheets_,
185, etc., gives the best account of his writings. Cf. Mrs. E. A. Smith
on the Iroquois in _Journal Anthropolog. Inst._, xiv. 244.
[1885] The languages covered are: Dakota, Chibcha, Nahuatl, Kechua,
Quiché, Maya, Montagnais, Chippeway, Algonquin, Cri, Iroquois,
Hidatsa, Chacta, Caraïbe, Kiriri, Guarani. Adam has been one of the
leading spirits in the Congrès des Américanistes. There was published
in 1882, as a part of the _Bibliothèque linguistique Américaine, a
Grammaire et Vocabulaire de la langue taensa, avec textes traduits et
commentés par F. D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam_. It was printed from
a manuscript said to have been discovered in 1872, in the library of
Mons. Haumonté. Dr. Brinton, finding, as he claimed, that Adam had been
imposed upon, printed in the _American Antiquarian_, March, 1885, “The
Tænsa Grammar and Dictionary, a Deception Exposed,” the points of which
were epitomized by Professor H. W. Haynes in the _American Antiquarian
Society Proceedings_ (April, 1885), and Adam answered in _Le Tænsa,
a-t-il été forgé de toutes pièces_ (Paris, 1885).
The languages of the southern and southwestern United States have been
particularly studied by Albert S. Gatschet, among whose publications
may be named _Zwölf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nord Amerikas_ (Weimar,
1877); _The Timucua language_ of Florida (Philad., 1878, 1880);
_The Chumeto language_ of California (Philad., 1882); _Der Yuma
Sprachstamm_ of Arizona and the neighboring regions (Berlin, 1877,
1883); _Wortverzeichniss eines Viti-Dialectes_ (Berlin, 1882); _The
Shetimasha Indians of St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana_ (Washington, 1883);
but his most important contribution is the linguistic, historic,
and ethnographic introduction to his _Migration Legend of the Creek
Indians_ (Philad., 1884), in which he has surveyed the whole compass of
the southern Indians. The extent of Mr. Gatschet’s studies will appear
from Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, pp. 285-292, 955.
[1886] _Contents_.—1. Sur quelques familles de langues du Méxique.
2. Sur différents idiomes de la Nouvelle-Espagne. 3. Sur la
famille de langues Tapijulapane-Mixe. 4. Sur la famille de langue
Pirinda-Othomi. 5. Sur les lois phonétiques dans les idiomes de la
famille Mame-Huastèque. 6. Sur le pronom personnel dans les idiomes
de la famille Maya-Quiché. 7. Sur l’étude de la prophétie en langue
Maya d’Ahkuil-Chel. 8. Sur le système de numération chez les peuples
de la famille Maya-Quiché. 9. Sur le déchiffrement des écritures
calculiformes du Mayas. 10. Sur les signes de numération en Maya.
Pilling (_Proof-sheets_, pp. 145-148, 904-906) enumerates many of the
separate publications.
[1887] Brinton has printed _The philosophical grammar of the American
languages as set forth by Wilhelm von Humboldt, with a translation of
an unpublished memoir by him on the American verb_ (Philad., 1885).
The great work of A. von Humboldt and Bonpland, _Voyage aux régions
équinoxiales du nouveau continent_ (Paris, 1816-31), gives some
linguistic matter in the third volume.
[1888] These are enumerated in the list in Bancroft, i.; in Field,
nos. 208-218; and in Leclerc, _Index_; with more detail in Pilling’s
_Proof-sheets_, pp. 102-110, 894-896. Cf. also Sabin, iii. nos. 9,521
etc.
[1889] Brinton, who possesses his papers, published a Memoir of him in
the _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1884. His publications and MS. collections
are given in Pilling’s _Proof-sheets_, PP. 72, 73, 879-881.
[1890] He cites (iii. 725-26) many opinions; and quotes Sahagún as
saying that the Apalaches were Nahuas and spoke the Mexican tongue
(_Ibid_. iii. 727). Is this any evidence of the Floridian immigration?
[1891] A considerable body of literature in this language has come
down to us. Bancroft (iii. 728) enumerates a number of the principal
religious manuals, etc. Icazbalceta in the first volume of his
_Bibliografia Mexicana_ (Mexico, 1886), in cataloguing the books issued
in Mexico before 1600, includes all that were printed in the native
tongue. Brinton gives some account of such native authors in his
_Aboriginal American authors and their productions, especially those in
the native languages. A chapter in the history of literature_ (Philad.,
1883). Cf. his paper in the _Congrès des Amér._, Copenhagen, 1883, p.
54. Bancroft (iii. 730) gives some citations as to its literary value.
Brinton has illustrated this quality in some of his lesser monographs,
as in his _Ancient Nahuatl Poetry_ (Philad., 1887); and in his _Study
of the Nahuatl language_ (1886), in which he gives specimens and
enumerates the dictionaries and texts. He says there are more than a
hundred authors in it (_Amer. Antiquarian_, viii. 22). Icazbalceta has
collected many Nahua MSS., and his brother-in-law, Francisco Pimentel,
has used them in his _Cuadro descriptivo y comparativo de las Lenguas
indigenas de México_ (1862), of which there is a German translation
by Isidor Epstein (N. Y., 1877). This is based on a second augmented
edition (Mexico, 1874-75), in which the tongues of northern Mexico
are better represented, and a general classification of the languages
is added. Pimentel (i. 154) asserts that it is a mistake to suppose
that the Chichimecs spoke Nahua. Cf., however, Bancroft (iii. 724) and
Short, 255, 480. Pimentel’s opinions are weighty, and follow in this
respect those of Orozco y Berra, Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl; but later,
Veytia had maintained the reverse.
Lucien Adam includes the Nahua in his _Etudes sur six langues
Américaines_ (Paris, 1878). Aubin wrote “Sur la langue Méxicaine et la
philologie Américaine” in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_, n.
s., vol. i. Brasseur contributed various articles on Mexican philology
to the _Revue Orientale et Américaine_. Dr. C. Hermann Berendt formed
an _Analytical Alphabet for the Mexican and Central America languages_
(N. Y., 1869). Buschmann has a study in the _Mémoirs de l’Académie de
Berlin_, and separately, _Ueber die Astekischen Ortsnamen_ (Berlin,
1853). Henri de Charencey in his _Mélanges de Philologie_ (Paris,
1883) has a paper “Sur quelques familles de langues du Méxique.” V.
A. Malte-Brun gave in the _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Américanistes_,
1877 (vol. ii. p. 10), a paper “La distribution ethnographique des
nations et des langues au Méxique.” Reference has been made elsewhere
to the important publication of Manuel Orozco y Berra, _Geografia
de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México, precedidos de un
ensayo de classificacion de las mismas lenguas y de apuntes para las
inmigraciones de las tribus_ (Mexico, 1864). The work is said to be
the fruit of twelve years’ constant study, and to have been based in
some part on MSS. belonging to Icazbalceta, dating back to the latter
part of the sixteenth century (enumerated in _Peab. Mus. Repts._, ii.
559). There is some adverse criticism. Peschel (_Races of Men_, 438)
thinks the linguistic map of Mexico in Orozco y Berra’s work the only
good feature in the book, since the author spreads old errors anew
in consequence of his unacquaintance with Buschmann’s researches. A
series of linguistic monographic essays on the Aztec names of places
is embraced in Dr. Antonio Peñafiel’s _Nombres Geografico de Mexico.
Catalogo alfabetico de los nombres de lugar pertenecientes al idioma
“Nahuatl” estudio jeroglifico de la matricula de los tributos del
codice Mendocino_ (Mexico, 1885). In the _Archives de la Soc. Amér.
de France_, n. s., 179, iii. there is an essay by Siméon, “La langue
Méxicaine et son histoire.”
The affiliation of the Aztec with the Pueblo stocks is traced
by Bancroft, iii. 665, who follows out the diversities of those
stocks (pp. 671, 681). Cf. for various views Morgan’s _Systems
of Consanguinity_, 260; Buschmann’s _Die Völker und Sprachen Neu
Mexico’s_, and _First Rept. Bur. of Ethnology_, p. xxxi.
[1892] Some authorities give fourteen dialects of the Maya. Cf. the
table in Bancroft, iii. 562, etc., and the statements in Garcia y
Cubas, translated by Geo. F. Henderson as _The Republic of Mexico_.
It is still spoken in the greatest purity about the Balize, as is
commonly said; but Le Plongeon goes somewhat inland and says he found
it “in all its pristine purity” in the neighborhood of Lake Peten. Le
Plongeon, with that extravagance which has in the end deprived him of
the sympathy and encouragement due to his noteworthy labors, says, “One
third of this Maya tongue is pure Greek,” following Brasseur in one of
his vagaries, who thought he found in 15,000 Maya vocables at least
7,000 that bore a striking resemblance to the language of Homer.
[1893] The bibliographies will add to this enumeration. The _Pinart
Catalogue_ (pp. 98-100) gives a partial list. Only some of the more
important monographs upon features of the Maya language can be
mentioned: Father Pedro Beltran de Santa Rosa’s _Arte del idioma Maya_
(Mexico, 1746) was so rare that Brasseur did not secure it, but Leclerc
catalogues it (no. 2,280), as well as the reprint (Merida, 1859) edited
by José D. Espinosa. There is a study of the Maya tongues included
in a paper printed first by Carl Hermann Berendt in the _Journal of
the Amer. Geog. Soc._ (viii. 132, for 1876), which was later issued
separately as _Remarks on the centres of ancient civilization in
Central America and their geographical distribution_ (N. Y., 1876).
It is accompanied by a map. (Cf. also his “Explorations in Central
America” in the _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867.) Brasseur included in his
_Manuscrit Troano_ (Paris, 1869-70), and later published separately, a
_Dictionnaire, Grammaire et Chrestomathie de la langue Maya_ (Paris,
1872); the dictionary containing 10,000 words, the grammar being
a translation from Father Gabriel de Saint Bonaventure, while the
chrestomathy was a gathering of specimens ancient and modern, of the
language. Brasseur, in his mutable way, found in the first season
of his studies the Greek, Latin, English, German, Scandinavian, not
to name others, to have correspondences with the Maya, and ended in
deriving them from that tongue as the primitive language. (Cf. Short,
476.) Dr. Brinton has a paper on _The Ancient Phonetic Alphabet of
Yucatan_ (N. Y., 1870), and he read at the Buffalo meeting (1886) of
the Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science a paper on the phonetic
element of the graphic system of the Mayas, etc., which is printed in
the _American Antiquarian_, viii. 347. In the introduction of his _Maya
Chronicles_ (Philad., 1882) he examines the language and literature of
the Mayas. He refers to a “Disertacion sobre la historia de la lengua
Maya o Yucateca” by Crescencio Carrello y Ancona in the _Revista de
Merida_, 1870. Charencey has printed various special papers, like a
_Fragment de Chrestomathie de la langue Maya antique_ (Paris, 1875)
from the _Revue de Philologie et d’Ethnographie_, and a paper read
before the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes (_Compte
Rendu_, p. 379), “De la formation des mots en lengua Maya.” Landa’s
_Relation_ as published by Brasseur (Paris, 1864) is of course a
leading source.
Of the Quiché branch of the Maya we know most from Brasseur’s _Popul
Vuh_ and from his _Gramatica de la lengua Quiché_ (Paris, 1862), in
the appendix of which he printed the _Rabinal Achi_, a drama in the
Quiché tongue. Father Ildefonso José Flores, a native of the country,
was professor of the Cakchiquel language in the university of Guatemala
in the last century, and published a _Arte de la lengua metropolitana
del Reyno Cakchiquel_ (Guatemala, 1753), which was unknown to later
scholars, till Brasseur discovered a copy in 1856 (Leclerc, no.
2,270). The literature of the Cakchiquel dialect is examined in
the introduction to Brinton’s _Grammar of the Cakchiquel language_
(Philad., 1884), edited for the American Philosophical Society. Cf.
Brinton’s little _treatise On the language and ethnologic position of
the Xinca Indians of Guatemala_ (Philadelphia, 1884); his _So-called
Alaguilac language of Guatemala_ in the _Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc._,
1887, p. 366; and Otto Stoll’s _Zur Ethnographie der Republik
Guatemala_ (Zurich, 1884).
We owe to Brinton, also, a few discussions of the Nicaragua tongues,
both in their Maya and Aztec relations. He has discussed the local
dialect of this region in the introduction of _The Güegüence; a comedy
ballet in the Nahuatl-Spanish dialect of Nicaragua_ (Philadelphia,
1883), and in his _Notes on the Mangue, an extinct dialect formerly
spoken in Nicaragua_ (Philadelphia, 1886).
[1894] Notwithstanding this commonness of origin, if such be the case,
there is a striking truth in what Max Müller says: “The thoughts of
primitive humanity were not only different from our thoughts, but
different also from what we think their thoughts ought to have been.”
[1895] See Vol. IV. p. 295.
[1896] Such are Sagard’s _Histoire du Canada_ (1636); Nicolas Perrot’s
_Mémoire sur les Mœurs, Coutumes et Religion des Sauvages_, involving
his experience from 1665 to 1699; Lafitau’s _Mœurs des Sauvages_
(1724), and the like.
[1897] Bancroft (iii. 136) says: “It does not appear, notwithstanding
Mr. Squier’s assertion to the contrary, that the serpent was actually
worshipped either in Yucatan or Mexico.” Cf. Brinton’s _Myths_, ch. 4;
Chas. S. Wake’s _Serpent Worship_ (London, 1888); and J. G. Bourke’s
_Snake-dance of the Moquis of Arizona; being a narrative of a journey
from Santa Fé, New Mexico, to the villages of the Moqui Indians of
Arizona, with a description of the manners and customs of this peculiar
people, to which is added a brief dissertation upon serpent-worship in
general, with an account of the tablet dance of the Pueblo of Santo
Domingo, New Mexico, etc._ (London, 1884).
[1898] Brinton (_Myths_, etc., 141) declares sun-worship, which some
investigators have made the base of all primitive religions, to be but
a “short and easy method with mythology,” and that “no one key can
open all the arcana of symbolism.” He refers to D’Orbigny (_L’Homme
Américain_), Müller (_Amer. Urreligionen_), and Squier (_Serpent
Symbol_) as supporting the opposing view. We may find like supporters
of the sun as a central idea in Schoolcraft, Tylor, Brasseur. Cf.
Bancroft’s _Native Races_ (iii. 114) in opposition to Brinton.
[1899] This monotheism is denied by Brinton (_Myths of the New
World_, 52). “Of monotheism, either as displayed in the one personal
definite God of the Semitic races, or in the dim pantheistic sense
of the Brahmins, there was not a single instance on the American
continent,”—the Iroquois “Neu” and “Hawaneu,” which, as Brinton says,
have deceived Morgan and others, being but the French “Dieu” and “Le
bon Dieu” rendered in Indian pronunciation (_Myths of the New World_,
p. 53). The aborigines instituted, however, in two instances, the
worship of an immaterial god, one among the Quichuas of Peru and
another at Tezcuco (_Ibid._ p. 55).
Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 185), examining the _Hist. de los Méxicanos
por sus Pinturas_ (_Anales del Museo_, ii. 86), Motolinía, Gómara,
Sahagún, Tobar, and Durán, finds no trace of monotheism till we come
to Acosta. Torquemada speaks of supreme _gods_; and Bandelier thinks
that Ixtlilxochitl, in conveying the idea of a single god, evidently
distorts and disfigures Torquemada.
Bancroft (iii. 198) accords honesty to Ixtlilxochitl’s account of the
religion of the Tezcucan ruler Nezahualcoyotl, as reaching the heights
of Mexican monotheistic conception, because he thinks his descendants,
if he had fabled, would never have ended his description with so pagan
a statement as that which makes the Tezcucan recognize the sun as his
father and the earth as his mother.
Max Müller tells us that we should distinguish between monotheism and
henotheism, which is the temporary preeminence of one god over the host
of gods, and which was as near monotheism as the American aborigines
came.
[1900] He also masses the evidence which shows, as he thinks, that
“on Catholic missions has followed the debasement, and on Protestant
missions the destruction, of the Indian race.” _Amer. Hero-Myths_, pp.
206, 238.
[1901] Unfortunately, Brinton enforces this view and others with a
degree of confidence that does not help him to convince the cautious
reader, as when he speaks of the opinions of those who disagree with
him as “having served long enough as the last refuge of ignorance”
(_Amer. Hero-Myths_, 145).
[1902] The whole question of comparative mythology involves in its
broad aspects the subject of American myths. The literature of this
general kind is large, but reference may be made to Girard de Rialle’s
_La Mythologie Comparée_ (Paris, 1878); for the idea of God, Dawson’s
_Fossil Men_, ch. 9 and 10; Lubbock’s _Origin of Civilization_, ch. 4,
5, 6; J. P. Lesley’s _Man’s origin and destiny_, ch. 10; and for the
geographical distribution of myths, Tylor’s _Early Hist. of Mankind_,
ch. 12; Max Müller’s _Chips_, vol. ii.; and in a general way, Brinton’s
_Religious sentiment, its source and aim_ (N. Y., 1876). Reference may
also be made to Joly’s _Man before Metals_, ch. 7; Dabry de Thiersant’s
_Origine des indiens_ (Paris, 1883); and G. Brühl’s _Culturvölker
Alt-Amerikas_ (Cincinnati, 1876-78), ch. 10 and 19. Brinton (_Myths_,
210) tracks the Deluge myth among the Indians, and Bancroft gives many
instances of it (_Native Races_, v., index). Brinton thinks a paper by
Charencey, “Le Déluge d’après les traditions indiennes de l’Amérique
du Nord,” in the _Revue Américaine_, a help for its extracts, but
complains of its uncritical spirit.
We find sufficient data of the aboriginal belief in the future life
both in Bancroft’s final chapter (vol. iii. part i.) and in Brinton’s
_Myths_, ch. 9. Brinton delivered an address on the “Journey of the
soul,” which is printed in the _Proceedings_ (Jan., 1883) of the
Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia.
[1903] In studying the mythology of these tribes we must depend mainly
on confined monographs. Mrs. E. A. Smith treats the myths of the
Iroquois in the _Second Annual Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_. Charles
Godfrey Leland has covered _The Algonquin legends of New England;
or, myths and folk-lore of the Micmac, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot
tribes_ (Boston, 1884). Brinton has a book on _The Lenâpé and their
legends_ (Philad., 1885); and one may refer to the _Life and Journals
of David Brainard_. S. D. Peet has a paper on “The religious beliefs
and traditions of the aborigines of North America” in the _Journal
of the Victoria Institute_ (London, 1888, vol. xxi. 229); one on
“Animal worship and Sun worship in the east and west compared” in the
_American Antiquarian_, Mar., 1888; and a paper on the religion of the
moundbuilders in _Ibid._ vi. 393. The _Dahcotah, or life and legends
of the Sioux around Fort Snelling_ (N. Y., 1849) of Mrs. Mary Eastman
has been a serviceable book. S. R. Riggs covers the mythology of the
Dakotas in the _Amer. Antiquarian_ (v. 147), and in this periodical
will be found various studies concerning other tribes.
[1904] Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 185, calls it the earliest statement
of the Nahua mythology.
[1905] There is more or less of original importance on the Aztec myths
in Alfredo Chavero’s “La Piedra del Sol,” likewise in the _Anales_
(vol. i.). Cf. also the “Ritos Antiguos, sacrificios e idolatrias de
los indios de la Nueva España,” as printed in the _Coleccion de doc.
ined. para la hist. de España_ (liii. 300).
Bancroft (vol. iii. ch. 6-10), who is the best source for reference,
gives also the best compassed survey of the entire field; but among
writers in English he may be supplemented by Prescott (i. ch. 3,
introd.); Helps in his _Spanish Conquest_ (vol. ii.); Tylor’s
_Primitive Culture_; Albert Réville’s _Lectures on the origin and
growth of religion as illustrated by the native religions of Mexico and
Peru_, translated by P. H. Wicksteed (London, 1884, being the Hibbert
lectures for 1884); on the analogies of the Mexican belief, a condensed
statement in Short’s _No. America of Antiq._, 459; a popular paper in
_The Galaxy_, May, 1876. Bandelier intended a fourth paper to be added
to the three printed in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._ (vol. ii.), namely,
one on “The Creeds and Beliefs of the Ancient Mexicans,” which has
never, I think, been printed.
Among the French, we may refer to Ternaux-Compans’ _Essai sur la
théogonie Méxicaine_ (Paris, 1840) and the works of Brasseur. Klemm’s
_Cultur-Geschichte_ and Müller’s _Urreligionen_ will mainly cover the
German views. Of the Mexican writers, it may be worth while to name
J. M. Melgar’s _Examen comparativa entre los signos simbolicos de las
Teogonias y Cosmogonias antiguas y los que existen en los manuscritos
Méxicanos_ (Vera Cruz, 1872).
The readiest description of their priesthood and festivals will be
found in Bancroft (ii. 201, 303, with references). Tenochtitlan is said
to have had 2,000 sacred buildings, and Torquemada says there were
80,000 throughout Mexico; while Clavigero says that a million priests
attended upon them. Bancroft (iii. ch. 10) describes this service.
There is a chance in all this of much exaggeration.
The history of human sacrifice as a part of this service is the subject
of disagreement among the earlier as well as with the later writers.
Bancroft (iii. 413, 442) gives some leading references. Cf. Prescott
(i. 77) and Nadaillac (p. 296). Las Casas in his general defence of the
natives places the number of sacrifices very low. Zumárraga says there
were 20,000 a year. The Aztecs, if not originating the practice, as is
disputed by some, certainly made much use of it.
[1906] _Anales del Museo Nacional_, ii. 247; Bancroft, iii. 240, 248.
[1907] Bandelier thinks Durán the earliest to connect St. Thomas with
Quetzalcoatl. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 456.
[1908] Müller agrees with Ixtlilxochitl that Quetzalcoatl and Huemac
were one and the same, and that Ternaux erred in supposing them
respectively Olmec and Toltec deities. Cf. Brasseur’s _Palenqué_, 40,
66. Cf. D. Daly on “Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican Messiah” in _Gentleman’s
Mag._, n. a., xli. 236.
[1909] For the later views in general see Clavigero, Tylor, Brasseur
(_Nations Civil._, i. 253), Prescott (i. 62), Bancroft (iii. 248, 263;
v. 24, 200, 255, 257), and Short (267, 274).
[1910] The god Paynal was a sort of deputy war-god. See H. H.
Bancroft’s _Native Races_.
[1911] Cf. references in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, ii. 571; Short, p. 206.
[1912] Cf. _Relacion de las ceremonias y Ritos de Michoacan_, a
manuscript in the library of Congress, of which there is a copy in
Madrid, which is printed in the _Coleccion de doc. ined. para la hist.
de España_, liii.
[1913] For further modern treatment see Schultz-Sellack’s “Die
Amerikanischen Götter der vier Weltgegenden und ihre Tempel in
Palenque” in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, xi.(1879); Brasseur’s
Landa, p. lx; Ancona’s _Yucatan_ (i. ch. 10); Powell’s _First Report
Bureau of Ethnology_; for sacrifices, Nadaillac (p. 266); and for
festivals and priestly service, Bancroft (ii. 689). For Yucatan
folk-lore, see Brinton in _Folk-lore Journal_ (vol. i. for 1883).
[1914] _First series_: vol. iv., W. Sargent on articles from an old
grave at Cincinnati, exhumed in 1794; vol. v., G. Turner on the same;
vol. vi., W. Dunbar on the Indian sign language; J. Madison on remains
of fortifications in the west; B. S. Barton on affinities of Indian
words. _New series_: vol. i., H. H. Brackenridge on Indian populations
and tumuli; C. W. Short on an Indian fort near Lexington, Ky.; vol.
iii., D. Zeisberger on a Delaware grammar; vol. iv., J. Heckewelder on
Delaware names, etc.
[1915] It celebrated its centennial in 1880, when an impromptu address
was delivered by R. C. Winthrop, which is printed by this society,
and is also contained, with a statement of the occasion of it, in his
_Speeches and Addresses_, 1878-1886. For a record of the interest
in archæological studies about 1790, see _Reports_ of the American
Philosophical Society, xxii. no. 119.
[1916] _First series_: vol. i., S. H. Parsons on discoveries in
the western country; vol. iii., E. A. Kendall and J. Davis on an
examination of the much controverted inscription of the so-called
Dighton Rock; E. Stiles on an Indian idol. _New series_: vol. i.,
Rasle’s Abenaki dictionary; vol. v., W. Sargent’s plan of the Marietta
mounds, etc.
[1917] This society published the original edition of S. G. Morton’s
_Inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of the aboriginal race
of America_ (2d ed., Philadelphia, 1844), which glances at their moral
and intellectual character, their habits of interment, their maritime
enterprise, and their physical condition.
[1918] Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1564.
[1919] Vol. ii., S. S. Haldeman on linguistic ethnology; vol. iii., J.
C. Nott and L. Agassiz on the unity of the human race; vol. v., Col.
Whittlesey on ancient human remains in Ohio; vol. vi., J. L. Leconte on
the California Indians; vol. xi., Whittlesey on ancient mining at Lake
Superior; Morgan on Iroquois laws of descent; D. Wilson on a uniform
type of the American crania; vol. xiii., Morgan on the bestowing
of Indian names; vol. xvii., Whittlesey on the antiquity of man in
America; W. De Haas on the archæology of the Mississippi Valley; W. H.
Dall on the Alaska tribes; vol. xix., Dall on the Eskimo tongue, etc.
[1920] _Abstracts of the Transactions prepared by J. W. Powell_
(Washington, 1879, etc.).
[1921] The student will find some general help, at least, from
the publications of such as these: the Peabody Academy of Science
(Salem, Mass.), _Memoirs_, 1869, etc.; Essex Institute (Salem,
Mass.), _Bulletin_, 1869, and _Proceedings_, 1848, etc.; Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences, _Memoirs_, 1810-16; _Transactions_,
1866, etc.; the Lyceum of Natural History, became in 1876 the New
York Academy of Sciences, _Annals_, 1823, etc.; _Proceedings_,
1870, etc.; Transactions; the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of
Philadelphia, _Proceedings_; Wyoming Historical and Geological Society,
_Proceedings and Collections_ (Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 1884, etc.); the
Cincinnati Society of Natural History, _Journal_ and _Proceedings_,
1876; Indianapolis Academy of Sciences, _Transactions_, 1870, etc.;
Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, _Bulletin_, 1870,
and _Transactions_, 1870; Davenport (Iowa) Academy of Science,
_Proceedings_, 1867; St. Louis Academy of Science, _Transactions_,
1856; Kansas Academy of Science, _Transactions_, 1872; California
Academy of Sciences, _Proceedings_, 1854, etc., and _Memoirs_,
1868, etc.; Geographical Society of the Pacific, its official organ
_Kosmos_,—not to name others.
In British America we may refer to the Natural History Society of
Montreal, publishing _The Canadian Naturalist_, 1857, etc.; the
Canadian Institute, _Proceedings_; the Royal Society of Canada,
_Proceedings_; the Nova Scotia Institute of Natural Science,
_Proceedings and Transactions_, 1867,—not to mention others; and among
periodicals the _Canadian Monthly_, the _Canadian Antiquarian_, and the
_Canadian Journal_.
[1922] The tendency of general periodicals to questions of this
kind is manifest by the references in _Poole’s Index_, under such
heads as American Antiquities, Anthropology, Archæology, Caves
and Cave-dwellers, Ethnology, Lake Dwellings, Man, Mounds and
Moundbuilders, Prehistoric Races, etc.
[1923] The history of its incipiency and progress can be gathered from
the _Reports_ of the Museum, with summaries in those numbered i., xi.
and xix.
[1924] Cf. Waldo Higginson’s _Memorials of the Class of 1833, Harvard
College_, p. 60, and the contemporary tributes from eminent associates
noted in _Poole’s Index_, p. 1434.
[1925] The documentary history, by W. J. Rhees, of the Smithsonian
Institution, forms vol. xvii. of its _Miscellaneous Collections_. Cf.
J. Henry on its organization in the _Proceedings_ of the Amer. Asso.
for the Adv. of Science, vol. i. A _Catalogue of the publications of
the S. I. with an alphabetical index of articles_, by William J. Rhees
(Washington, 1882), constitutes no. 478 of its series.
The early management of the Smithsonian decided that the “knowledge”
of its founder meant science, and from the start gave not a little
attention to archæology as a science. When the Bureau of Ethnology
became a part of the Institution, and its _Reports_ included papers
necessarily historical as well as archæological, the way was prepared
for a broader meaning to the term “knowledge,” and as a significant
recognition of the allied field of research the present government of
the Smithsonian gave hearty concurrence to the act of Congress which in
Dec., 1888, made also the American Historical Association, which had
existed without incorporation since 1884, a section of the Smithsonian
Institution.
[1926] Its mound explorations have been conducted by Cyrus Thomas;
those among the Pueblos of the southwest by James Stevenson (d.
1888); while Major Powell himself has controlled personally the body
of searchers in the linguistic fields (_American Antiquarian_, viii.
32). It would seem that its profession “to organize anthropological
research” is not to its full extent true, since the physiological side
of the subject seems to be left in Washington to the Army Medical
Museum.
[1927] Cf. Charles Rau’s _Archæological Collections of the United
States National Museum_ (1876) in _Smithsonian Contributions_, xx.,
with many illustrative woodcuts; and a paper by Ernest Ingersoll in
_The Century_, January, 1885. Cf. also F. W. Putnam’s contribution on
American Archæological Collections in the _American Naturalist_, vii.
29.
[1928] B. P. Poore’s _Descriptive Catal. Govt. Pub._, p. 593; Field’s
_Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1379; Allibone’s _Dictionary_, iii. p. 1952,
for references and opposing criticisms. Some of the condemnation of
the book is too sweeping, for amid its ignorance, confusion, and
indiscrimination there is much to be picked out which is of importance.
Cf. Parkman’s _Jesuits_, p. lxxx; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii.
ch. 19; Brinton’s _Myths_, p. 40. Cf. on Schoolcraft’s death (with a
portrait) _Historical Mag._, April, 1865; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1865.
F. S. Drake’s _Indian Tribes of the United States_ (Philad., 1884)
is, with some additional matter, a rearrangement of Schoolcraft, the
omission to acknowledge which on the title-page being an unworthy
bibliographical deceit. Schoolcraft’s rivalry of Geo. Catlin and his
ignoring of Catlin’s work is commented on at some length by Donaldson
in the _Smithsonian Inst. Report_, 1885, part ii. pp. 373-383.
[1929] For full details of this and other publications mentioned in
this paper, see S. H. Scudder’s _Catalogue of Scientific Serials,
1633-1876_, published by the library of Harvard University in 1879.
[1930] Sabin, xvii., no. 70354. The Congrès Archéologique de France
began its Séances générales in 1834, but the interest of its _Comptes
rendus_ for Americanists is for comparative illustration. The two
volumes of _Mémoires de la Société Ethnologique_ (Paris, 1841-45)
contain nothing bearing directly on American archæology. Much the same
may be said of the _Annales Archéologiques fondées par Didron aîné_, in
1844, and continued to 1870; of the _Bulletin Archéologique_ (1844-46)
of the Athénæum Français, and of its continuation, the _Bulletin
Archéologique Français_ (1846-56); and of the _Annales_ of the Institut
Archéologique (1844, etc.).
[1931] _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1876.
[1932] A _Revue Ethnographique_ was begun in 1869. A Societé
Ethnologique, publishing _Bulletin_ (1846-47) and _Mémoires_ (1841-45),
is a distinct organization.
[1933] S. H. Scudder, in his _Catalogue of Scientific Serials_,
no. 1528, endeavors to put into something like orderly arrangement
the exceedingly devious devices of duplication of this and allied
publications.
[1934] A _Revue d’Anthropologie_ was begun at Paris, under the
direction of Broca, in 1872. A Société d’Anthropologie began two
series, _Bulletins_ and _Mémoires_, in 1860. Mortillet conducted
_L’Homme_ from 1883 to 1887, when he and his associates in this work
suspended its publication to devote themselves to a _Dictionnaire des
Sciences Anthropologiques_ and to a _Bibliothèque Anthropologique_.
[1935] Rosny died April 23, 1871.
[1936] Its publications began in 1665. Cf. synopsis in Scudder’s
_Catalogue_, pp. 26-27. Cf. C. A. Alexander on the origin and history
of the Royal Society, in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1863.
[1937] Some of the local societies deal to some extent in American
subjects; _e. g._, the _Journal of the Manchester Geographical
Society_, begun in 1885.
[1938] Not to be confounded with _The Ethnological Journal_, vol.
i., 1848-49, and vol. ii., 1854, incomplete; and _The Ethnological
Journal_, 1 vol., 1865-66.
[1939] Cf. J. R. Bartlett on an Antwerp meeting, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc._, 1868.
[1940] Such periodicals as _Nature_ and _Popular Science Review_ show
how anthropological science is attracting attention.
[1941] See Scudder’s _Catalogue_.
[1942] The third volume of Bastian’s _Culturländer des Alten America_
(Berlin, 1886) comprises “Nachträge und Ergänzungen aus den Sammlungen
des Ethnologischen Museums.”
[1943] _Congrès des Américanistes, Compte Rendus_, Nancy, ii. 271.
[1944] Cf. Oscar Montelius, _Bibliographie de l’archéologie
préhistorique de la Suède pendant le 19e siècle, suivie d’un exposé
succinct des sociétés archéologiques suédoises_ (Stockholm, 1875).
[1945] It is described by Tylor in his _Anahuac_, ch. 9; by
Brocklehurst in his _Mexico to-day_, ch. 21; by Bandelier in the
_American Antiquarian_ (1878), ii. 15; in Mayer’s _Mexico_; and in
the summary of information (fifteen years old, however) in Bancroft’s
_Mexico_, iv. 553, etc., with references, p. 565, which includes
references to the Uhde collection at Heidelberg, the Christy collection
in London (Tylor), that of the American Philosophical Society in
Philadelphia (_Trans._, iii. 570), not to name the Mexican sections
of the large museums of America and Europe. Henry Phillips, Jr.
(_Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc._, xxi. p. 111) gives a list of public
collections of American Archæology. There are some private collections
mentioned in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, Nouv. Ser._,
vol. i. A. de Longperier’s _Notice des Monuments dans la Salle des
Antiquités Américaines_ (Paris, 1880) covers a part of the great
Paris exhibition of that year. Something is found in E. T. Stevens’s
_Flint Chips, a guide to prehistoric archæology as illustrated in the
Blackmore Museum_ [at Salisbury, England], London, 1870.
[1946] There is an account of Mendoza in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._,
April, 1888, p. 172.
[1947] _Coleccion de las Antigüedades Mexicanas que ecsisten en
el Museo Nacional, litografiadas por Frederico Waldeck_ (Mexico,
1827—fol.); Sabin, iv. 15796. See miscellaneous references on Mexican
relics in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 565.
* * * * * *
Transcriber’s note:
—Obvious errors were corrected.