Chapter XXIX: Appendix: I (2)

When we add to this enumeration the somewhat callow and wholly unsatisfactory contributions of Schoolcraft in the great work on the _Indian Tribes of the United States_ (1851-59), which the U. S. government in a headlong way sanctioned, we have included nearly all that had been done by American authors in this field when Bancroft published the third volume of his _Native Races_. This work constitutes the best mass of material for the student—who must not confound mythology and religion—to work with, the subject being presented under the successive heads of the origin of myths and of the world, physical and animal myths, gods, supernatural beings, worship and the future state; but of course, like all Bancroft’s volumes, it must be supplemented by special works pertaining to the more central and easterly parts of the United States, and to the regions south of Panama. The deficiency, however, is not so much as may be expected when we consider the universality of myths. “Unfortunately,” says this author, “the philologic and mythologic material for such an exhaustive synthesis of the origin and relations of the American creeds as Cox has given to the world in the Aryan legends in his _Mythology of the Aryan Nations_ (London, 1870) is yet far from complete.”

In 1882 Brinton, after riper study, again recast his views of a leading feature of the subject in his _American hero-myths; a study in the native religions of the western continent_ (Philad., 1882), in which he endeavored to present “in a critically correct light some of the fundamental conceptions in the native beliefs.” His purpose was to counteract what he held to be an erroneous view in the common practice of considering “American hero-gods as if they had been chiefs of tribes at some undetermined epoch,” and to show that myths of similar import, found among different peoples, were a “spontaneous production of the mind, and not a reminiscence of an historic event.” He further adds as one of the impediments in the study that he does “not know of a single instance on this continent of a thorough and intelligent study of a native religion made by a Protestant missionary.”[1900] After an introductory chapter on the American myths, Brinton in this volume takes up successively the consideration of the hero-gods of the Algonquins and Iroquois, the Aztecs, Mayas, and the Quichuas of Peru. These myths of national heroes, civilizers, and teachers are, as Brinton says, the fundamental beliefs of a very large number of American tribes, and on their recognition and interpretation depends the correct understanding of most of their mythology and religious life,—and this means, in Brinton’s view, that the stories connected with these heroes have no historic basis.[1901]

The best known of the comprehensive studies by a European writer is J. G. Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_ (Basle, 1855; again in 1867), in which he endeavors to work out the theory that at the south there is a worship of nature, with a sun-worship for a centre, contrasted at the north with fetichism and a dread of spirits, and these he considers the two fundamental divisions of the Indian worship. Bancroft finds him a chief dependence at times, but Brinton, charging him with quoting in some instances at second-hand, finds him of no authority whatever.

One of the most reputable of the German books on kindred subjects is the _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (Leipzig, 1862-66) of Theodor Waitz. Brinton’s view of it is that no more comprehensive, sound, and critical work on the American aborigines has been written; but he considers him astray on the religious phases, and that his views are neither new nor tenable when he endeavors to subject moral science to a realistic philosophy.[1902]

In speaking of the scope of the comprehensive work of H. H. Bancroft we mentioned that beyond the larger part of the great Athapascan stock of the northern Indians his treatment did not extend. Such other general works as Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, the sections of his _American Hero-Myths_ on the hero-gods of the Algonquins and Iroquois, and the not wholly satisfactory book of Ellen R. Emerson, _Indian myths; or, Legends, traditions, and symbols of the aborigines of America, compared with those of other countries, including Hindostan, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, and China_ (Boston, 1884), with aid from such papers as Major J. W. Powell’s “Philosophy of the North American Indians” in the _Journal of the Amer. Geographical Society_ (vol. viii. p. 251, 1876), and his “Mythology of the North American Indians” in the _First Annual Rept. of the Bureau of Ethnology_ (1881), and R. M. Dorman’s _Origin of primitive superstition among the aborigines of America_ (Philad., 1881), must suffice in a general way to cover those great ethnic stocks of the more easterly part of North America, which comprise the Iroquois, centred in New York, and surrounded by the Algonquins, west of whom were the Dacotas, and south of whom were the Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, sometimes classed together as Appalachians.[1903]

The mythology of the Aztecs is the richest mine, and Bancroft in his third volume finds the larger part of his space given to the Mexican religion.

Brinton (_Amer. Hero Myths_, 73, 78), referring to the “Historia de los Méxicanos por sus Pinturas” of Ramirez de Fuenleal, as printed in the _Anales del Museo Nacional_ (ii. p. 86), says that in some respects it is to be considered the most valuable authority which we possess,[1904] as taken directly from the sacred books of the Aztecs, and as explained by the most competent survivors of the Conquest.[1905]

We must also look to Ixtlilxochitl and Sahagún as leading sources. From Sahagún we get the prayers which were addressed to the chief deity, of various names, but known best, perhaps, as Tezcatlipoca; and these invocations are translated for us in Bancroft (iii. 199, etc.), who supposes that, consciously or unconsciously, Sahagún has slipped into them a certain amount of “sophistication and adaptation to Christian ideas.” From the lofty side of Tezcatlipoca’s character, Bancroft (iii. ch. 7) passes to his meaner characteristics as the oppressor of Quetzalcoatl.

The most salient features of the mythology of the Aztecs arise from the long contest of Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, the story of which modified the religion of their followers, and, as Chavero claims, greatly affected their history.[1906] This struggle, according as the interpreters incline, stands for some historic or physical rivalry, or for one between St. Thomas and the heathen;[1907] but Brinton explains it on his general principles as one between the powers of Light and Darkness (_Am. Hero Myths_, 65).

The main original sources on the character and career of Quetzalcoatl are Motolinía, Mendieta, Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, and these are all summarized in Bancroft (iii. ch. 7).

It has been a question with later writers whether there is a foundation of history in the legend or myth of Quetzalcoatl. Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, 180) has perhaps only a few to agree with him when he calls that hero-god a “pure creature of the fancy, and all his alleged history nothing but a myth,” and he thinks some confusion has arisen from the priests of Quetzalcoatl being called by his name.

Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_) takes issue with Brinton in deeming Quetzalcoatl on the whole an historical person, whom Ixtlilxochitl connects with the pre-Toltec tribes of Olmeca and Xicalanca, and whom Torquemada says came in while the Toltecs occupied the country. Bandelier thinks it safe to say that Quetzalcoatl began his career in the present state of Hidalgo as a leader of a migration moving southward, with a principal sojourn at Cholula, introducing arts and a purer worship. This is substantially the view taken by J. G. Müller, Prescott, and Wuttke.

After a drawing in Cumplido’s Mexican ed. of Prescott’s _Mexico_, vol. iii. Images of him are everywhere (Nadaillac, 273-74). Cf. Eng. transl. of Charnay, p. 87.]

Bancroft (iii. 273) finds the _Geschichte der Amer. Urreligionen_ (p. 577) of Müller to present a more thorough examination of the Quetzalcoatl myth than any other,[1908] but since then it has been studied at length by Bandelier in his _Archæological Tour_ (p. 170 etc.), and by Brinton in his _Amer. Hero Myths_, ch. 3.[1909]

* * * * *

What Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, ii. 279) calls “the inexplicable compound, parthenogenetic deity, the hideous, gory Huitzilopochtli” (Huitziloputzli, Vitziliputzli), the god of war,[1910] the protector of the Mexicans, was considered by Boturini (_Idea_, p. 60) as a deified ancient war-chief. Bancroft in his narrative (iii. 289, 294; iv. 559) quotes the accounts in Sahagún and Torquemada, and (pp. 300-322) summarizes J. G. Müller’s monograph on this god, which he published in 1847, and which he enlarged when including it in his _Urreligionen_.

Acosta’s description of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli is translated in Bancroft (iii. 292). Solis follows Acosta, while Herrera copies Gomara, who was not, as Solis contends, so well informed.

As regards the Votan myth of Chiapas, Brinton tells us something in his _American Hero Myths_ (212, with references, 215); but the prime source is the Tzendal manuscript used by Cabrera in his _Teatro Critico-Americano_.[1911] No complete translation has been made, and the abstracts are unsatisfactory. Bancroft aids us in this study of worship in Chiapas (iii. 458), as also in that of Oajaca (iii. 448), Michoacan[1912] (iii. 445), and Jalisco (iii. 447).

Reduced from a drawing in Icazbalceta’s _Coleccion de Documentos_, i. p. 384. There were two usual forms of the Mexican temple: one of this type, and the other with two niche-like pavilions on the top. Cf. drawings in Clavigero (Casena, 1780), ii. 26, 34; Eng. tr. by Cullen, i. 262, 373; Stevens’s Eng. tr. Herrera (London, 1740, vol. ii.).]

“The religion of the Mayas,” says Bancroft (iii. ch. 11), “was fundamentally the same as that of the Nahuas, though it differed somewhat in outward forms. Most of the gods were deified heroes.... Occasionally we find very distinct traces of an older sun-worship which has succumbed to later forms, introduced according to vague tradition from Anahuac.” The view of Tylor (_Anahuac_, 191) is that the “civilization,” and consequently the religions, of Mexico and Central America were originally independent, but that they came much into contact, and thus modified one another to no small extent.”

Modern scholars are not by any means so much inclined as Las Casas and the other Catholic fathers were to recognize the dogma of the Trinity and other Christian notions, which have been thought to be traceable in what the Maya people in their aboriginal condition held for faith.

The most popular of their deified heroes were Zamná and Cukulcan, not unlikely the same personage under two names, and quite likely both are correspondences of Quetzalcoatl. We can find various views and alternatives on this point among the elder and recent writers. The belief in community of attributes derives its strongest aid from the alleged disappearance of Quetzalcoatl in Goazacoalco just at the epoch when Cukulcan appeared in Yucatan. The centres of Maya worship were at Izamal, Chichen-Itza, and the island of Cozumel.

The hero-gods of the Mayas is the topic of Brinton’s fourth chapter in his _American Hero Myths_, with views of their historical relations of course at variance with those of Bancroft. As respects the material, he says that “most unfortunately very meagre sources of information are open to us. Only fragments of their legends and hints of their history have been saved, almost by accident, from the general wreck of their civilization.” The heroes are Itzamná, the leader of the first immigration from the east, through the ocean pathways; and Kukulcan, the conductor of the second from the west. For the first cycle of myths Brinton refers to Landa’s _Relation_, Cogolludo’s _Yucatan_, Las Casas’s _Historia Apologética_, involving the reports of the missionary Francisco Hernandez, and to Hieronimo Roman’s _De la Republica de las Indias Occidentales_.

After plate (reduced) in Herrera.]

The Kukulcan legends are considered by Brinton to be later in date and less natural in character, and Hernandez’s Report to Las Casas is the first record of them. Brinton’s theory of the myths does not allow him to identify the Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan hero-gods as one and the same, nor to show that the Aztec and Maya civilizations had more correspondence than occasional intercourse would produce; but he thinks the similarity of the statue of “Chac Mool,” unearthed by Le Plongeon at Chichen-Itza, to another found at Tlaxcala compels us to believe that some positive connection did exist in parts of the country (_Anales del Museo Nacional_, i. 270).[1913] “The Nahua impress,” says Bancroft (iii. 490), “noticeable in the languages and customs of Nicaragua, is still more strongly marked in the mythology. Instead of obliterating the older forms of worship, as it seems to have done in the northern parts of Central America, it has here and there passed by many of the distinct beliefs held by different tribes, and blended with the chief elements of a system which is traced to the Muyscas in South America.”

The main source of the Quiché myths and worship is the _Popul Vuh_, but Bancroft (iii. 474), who follows it, finds it difficult to make anything comprehensible out of its confusion of statement. But prominent among the deities seem to stand Tepeu or Gucumatz, whom it is the fashion to make the same with Quetzalcoatl, and Hurakan or Tohil, who indeed stands on a plane above Quetzalcoatl. Brinton (_Myths_, 156), on the contrary, connects Hurakan with Tlaloc, and seems to identify Tohil with Quetzalcoatl. Bancroft (iii. 477) says that tradition, name, and attributes connect Tohil and Hurakan, and identify them with Tlaloc.

The idol dug up in the Plaza in Mexico is here presented, after a cut, following Nebel, in Tylor’s _Anahuac_, showing the Mexican goddess of war, or death. Cf. cut in _American Antiquarian_, Jan., 1883; Powell’s _First Rept. Bur. Ethn._, 232; Bancroft, iv. 512, 513, giving the front after Nebel, and the other views after Léon y Gama. Bandelier (_Arch. Tour_, pl. v) gives a photograph of it as it stands in the court-yard of the Museo Nacional.

Gallatin (_Am. Ethn. Soc. Trans._, i. 338) describes Teoyaomiqui as the proper companion of Huitzilopochtli: “The symbols of her attributes are found in the upper part of the statue; but those from the waist downwards relate to other deities connected with her or with Huitzilopochtli.” Tylor (_Anahuac_, 222) says: “The antiquaries think that the figures in it stand for different personages, and that it is three gods: Huitzilopochtli the god of war, Teoyaomiqui his wife, and Mictlantecutli the god of hell.” Léon y Gama calls the statue Teoyaomiqui, but Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 67, thinks its proper name is rather Huitzilopochtli. Léon y Gama’s description is summarized in Bancroft, iii. 399, who cites also what Humboldt (_Vues_, etc., ii. 153, and his pl. xxix) says. Bancroft (iii. 397) speaks of it as “a huge compound statue, representing various deities, the most prominent being a certain Teoyaomiqui, who is almost identical with, or at least a connecting link between, the mother goddess” and Mictlantecutli, the god of Mictlan, or Hades. Cf. references in Bancroft, iv. 515.]

Brinton’s _Names of the gods in the Kiché myths, a monograph on Central American mythology_ (Philad. Am. Philos. Soc., 1881), is a special study of a part of the subject.

Brinton (_Myths_, etc., 184) considers the best authorities on the mythology of the Muyscas of the Bogota region to be Piedrahita’s _Historia de las Conquistas del Nuevo Reyno de Granada_ (1668, followed by Humboldt in his _Vues_) and Simm’s _Noticias historiales de las Conquistas de Tierra Firme en el Nuevo Reyno de Granada_, given in Kingsborough, vol. viii.

The mythology of the Quichuas in Peru makes the staple of chap. 5 of Brinton’s _Amer. Hero-Myths_. Here the corresponding hero-god was Viracocha. Brinton depends mainly on the _Relacion Anónyma de los Costumbres Antiguos de los Naturales del Piru, 1615_ (Madrid, 1879); on Christoval de Molina’s account of the fables and religious customs of the Incas, as translated by C. R. Markham in the Hakluyt Society volume, _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_ (London, 1873); on the _Comentarios reales_ of Garcilasso de la Vega; on the report made to the viceroy Francisco de Toledo, in 1571, of the responses to inquiries made in different parts of the country as to the old beliefs which appear in the “Informacion de las idolatras de los Incas é Indios,” printed in the _Coleccion de documentos ineditos del archivo de Indias_, xxi. 198; and in the _Relacion de Antigüedades deste Reyno del Piru_, by Juan de Santa Cruz Pachicuti.

After a cut in Squier’s _Serpent Symbol_, p. 78.]

Brinton dissents to D’Orbigny’s view in his _L’homme Américaine_, that the Quichua religion is mainly borrowed from the older mythology of the Aymaras.

Francisco de Avila’s “Errors and False Gods of the Indians of Huarochiri” (1608), edited by Markham for the Hakluyt Society in the volume called _Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas_, is a treatment of a part of the subject.

Adolf Bastian’s _Ein Jahr auf Reisen—Kreuzfahrten zum Sammelbehuf aus Transatlantischen Feldern der Ethnologie_, being the first volume of his _Die Culturländer des Alten America_ (Berlin, 1878), has a section “Aus Religion and Sitte des Alten Peru.”

VI.

ARCHÆOLOGICAL MUSEUMS AND PERIODICALS.

_By the Editor._

THE oldest of existing American societies dealing with the scientific aspects of knowledge is the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, whose _Transactions_ began in 1769, and made six volumes to 1809. A second series was begun in 1818.[1914] What are called the _Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee_ make two volumes (1819, 1838), the first of which contains contributions by Heckewelder and P. S. Duponceau on the history and linguistics of the Lenni Lenape. Its _Proceedings_ began in 1838. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences was instituted at Boston in 1780, a part of its object being “to promote and encourage the knowledge of the antiquities of America,”[1915] and its series of _Memoirs_ began in 1783,[1916] and its _Proceedings_ in 1846. These societies have only, as a rule, incidentally, and not often till of late years, illustrated in their publications the antiquities of the new world; but the American Antiquarian Society was founded in 1812 at Worcester, Mass., by Isaiah Thomas, with the express purpose of elucidating this department of American history. It began the _Archæologia Americana_ in 1820, and some of the volumes are still valuable, though they chiefly stand for the early development by Atwater, Gallatin, and others of study in this direction. In the first volume is an account of the origin and design of the society, and this is also set forth in the memoir of Thomas prefixed to its reprint of his _History of Printing in America_, which is a part of the series. The _Proceedings_ of the society were begun in 1849, and they have contained some valuable papers on Central American subjects. The Boston Society of Natural History[1917] published the _Boston Journal of Natural History_ from 1834 to 1863, and in 1866 began its _Memoirs_. Col. Whittlesey gave in its first volume a paper on the weapons and military character of the race of the mounds, and subsequent volumes have had other papers of an archæological nature; but they have formed a small part of its contributions. Its _Proceedings_ have of late years contained some of the best studies of palæolithic man. The American Ethnological Society, founded by Gallatin (New York), began its exclusive work in a series of _Transactions_ (1845-53, vols. i., ii., and one number of vol. iii.), but it was not of long continuance, though it embraced among its contributors the conspicuous names of Gallatin, Schoolcraft, Catherwood, Squier, Rafn, S. G. Morton, J. R. Bartlett, and others. Its _Bulletin_ was not continued beyond a single volume (1860-61).[1918] The society was suspended in 1871.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science began its publications with the _Proceedings_ of its Philadelphia meeting in 1848. Questions of archæology formed, however, but a small portion of its inquiries[1919] till the formation of a section on Anthropology a few years ago.

The American Geographical Society has published a _Bulletin_ (1852-56); _Journal_ (or _Transactions_) (1859), etc., and _Proceedings_ (1862-64). Some of the papers have been of archæological interest.

The Anthropological Institute of New York printed its transactions in a _Journal_ (one vol. only, 1872-73).

The Archæological Institute of America was founded in Boston in 1879, and has given the larger part of its interest to classical archæology. The first report of its executive committee said respecting the field in the new world: “The study of American archæology relates, indeed, to the monuments of a race that never attained to a high degree of civilization, and that has left no trustworthy records of continuous history.... From what it was and what it did, nothing is to be learned that has any direct bearing on the progress of civilization. Such interest as attaches to it is that which it possesses in common with other early and undeveloped races of mankind.” Appended to this report was Lewis H. Morgan’s “Houses of the American Aborigines, with suggestions for the exploration of the ruins in New Mexico,” etc.,—advancing his well-known views of the communal origin of the southern ruins. Under the auspices of the Institute, Mr. A. F. Bandelier, a disciple of Morgan, was sent to New Mexico for the study of the Pueblos, and his experiences are described in the second _Report_ of the Institute. In their third _Report_ (1882) the committee of the Institute say: “The vast work of American archæology and anthropology is only begun.... Other nations, with more or less of success, are trying to do our work on our soil. It is time that Americans bestir themselves in earnest upon a field which it would be a shame to abandon to the foreigner.” Still under the pay of the Institute, Mr. Bandelier, in 1881, devoted his studies to the remains at Mexico, Cholula, Mitla, and the ancient life of those regions. At the same time, Aymé, then American consul at Merida, was commissioned to explore certain regions of Yucatan, but the results were not fortunate.

The Institute began in 1881 the publication of an _American Series_ of its _Papers_, the first number of which embodied Bandelier’s studies of the Pueblos, and the second covered his Mexican researches. In 1885 the _American Journal of Archæology_ was started at Baltimore as the official organ of the Institute, and occasional papers on American subjects have been given in its pages. The editors were called upon to define more particularly their relations to archæology in America in the number for Sept., 1888. In this they say: “The archæology of America is busied with the life and work of a race or races of men in an inchoate, rudimentary, and unformed condition, who never raised themselves, even at their highest point, as in Mexico and Peru, above a low stage of civilization, and never showed the capacity of steadily progressive development.... These facts limit and lower the interest which attaches ... to crude and imperfect human life.... A comparison of their modes of life and thought with those of other races in a similar stage of development in other parts of the world, in ancient and modern times, is full of interest as exhibiting the close similarity of primitive man in all regions, resulting from the sameness of his first needs, in his early struggle for existence.” The editors rest their reasons for giving prominence to classical archæology upon the necessity of affording by such complemental studies the means of comparison in archæological results, which can but advance to a higher plane the methods and inductions of the prehistoric archæology of America.

The American Folk-Lore Society was founded in Jan., 1888, and _The Journal of American Folk-Lore_ was immediately begun. A large share of its papers is likely to cover the popular tales of the American aborigines.

The Anthropological Society of Washington is favorably situated to avail itself of the museums and apparatus of the American government, and members of the Geological Survey and Ethnological Bureau have been among the chief contributors to its _Transactions_,[1920] which in January, 1888, were merged in a more general publication, _The American Anthropologist_. A National Geographic Society was organized in Washington in 1888.

There are numerous local societies throughout the United States whose purpose, more or less, is to cover questions of archæological import. Those that existed prior to 1876 are enumerated in Scudder’s _Catalogue of Scientific Serials_; but it was not easy always to draw the line between historical associations and those verging upon archæological methods.[1921]

The oldest of the scientific periodicals in the United States to devote space to questions of anthropology is Silliman’s _American Journal of Science and Arts_ (1818, etc.). The _American Naturalist_, founded in 1867, also entered the field of archæology and anthropology. The same may be said in some degree of the _Popular Science Monthly_ (1877, etc.), _Science_ (1883), and the _Kansas City Review_. The chief repository of such contributions, however, since 1878, has been _The American Antiquarian_ (Chicago), edited by Stephen D. Peet. Its papers are, unluckily, of very uneven value.[1922]

The best organized work has been done in the United States by the Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology, in Cambridge, Mass., and by certain departments of the Federal government at Washington.

The Peabody Museum resulted from a gift of George Peabody, an American banker living in London, who instituted it in 1866 as a part of Harvard University.[1923] It was fortunate in its first curator, Dr. Jeffries Wyman, who brought unusual powers of comprehensive scrutiny to its work.[1924] He died in 1874, and was succeeded by one of his and of Agassiz’s pupils, Frederick W. Putnam, who was also placed in the chair of archæology in the university in 1886. The _Reports_, now twenty-two in number, and the new series of _Special Papers_ are among the best records of progress in archæological science.

The creation of the Smithsonian Institution in 1846, under the bequest of an Englishman, James Smithson, and the devotion of a sum of about $31,000 a year at that time arising from that gift, first put the government of the United States in a position “to increase and diffuse knowledge among men.”[1925]

The second _Report_ of the Regents in 1848 contains approvals of a manuscript by E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis, which had been offered to the Institution for publication, and which had been commended by Albert Gallatin, Edward Robinson, John Russell Bartlett, W. W. Turner, S. G. Morton, and George P. Marsh. Thus an important archæological treatise, _The Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, comprising the results of extensive original surveys and explorations_ (Washington, 1848), became the first of the _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_. The subsequent volumes of the series have contained other important treatises in similar fields. Foremost among them may be named those of Squier on the Aboriginal Monuments of New York (vol. ii., 1851); Col. Whittlesey on _The Ancient Works in Ohio_ (vol. iii., 1852); S. R. Riggs’ _Dakota Grammar and Dictionary_ (vol. iv., 1852); I. A. Lapham’s _Antiquities of Wisconsin_ (vol. vii., 1855); S. F. Haven’s _Archæology of the United States_ (vol. viii., 1856); Brantz Mayer’s _Mexican History and Archæology_ (vol. ix., 1857); Whittlesey on _Ancient Mining on Lake Superior_ (vol. xiii., 1863); Morgan’s _Systems of Consanguinity of the human family_ (vol. xvii., 1871);—not to name lesser papers. To supplement this quarto series, another in octavo was begun in 1862, called _Miscellaneous Collections_; and in this form there have appeared J. M. Stanley’s _Catalogue of portraits of No. Amer. Indians_ (vol. ii., 1862); a _Catalogue of photographic portraits of the No. Amer. Indians_ (vol. xiv., 1878).

Of much more interest to the anthropologist has been the series of _Annual Reports_ with their appended papers,—such as Squier on _The Antiquities of Nicaragua_ (1851); W. W. Turner on _Indian Philology_ (1852); S. S. Lyon on _Antiquities from Kentucky_ (1858), and many others.

The sections of correspondence and minor papers in these reports soon began to include communications about the development of archæological research in various localities. They began to be more orderly arranged under the sub-heading of Ethnology in the Report for 1867, and this heading was changed to Anthropology in the _Report_ for 1879. Charles Rau (d. 1887) had been a leading contributor in this department, and no. 440 of the Smithsonian publications was made up of his _Articles on Anthropological Subjects, contributed from 1863 to 1877_ (Washington, 1882). No. 421 is Geo. H. Boehmer’s _Index to Anthropological Articles in the publications of the Smithsonian Institution_ (Washington, 1881). Among the later papers those of O. T. Mason of the Anthropological Department of the National Museum are conspicuous.

The last series is the _Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology_, placed by Congress in the charge of the Smithsonian. The _Reports of the American Historical Association_ will soon be begun under the same auspices.

Major J. W. Powell, the director of the Bureau of Ethnology, said that its purpose was “to organize anthropologic research in America.”[1926] It published its first report in 1881, and this and the later reports have had for contents, beside the summary of work constituting the formal report, the following papers:—

Vol. i.: J. W. POWELL. The evolution of language.—Sketch of the mythology of the North American Indians.—Wyandot government.—On limitations to the use of some anthropologic data.—H. C. YARROW. A further contribution to the study of mortuary customs among the North American Indians.—E. S. HOLDEN. Studies in Central American picture-writing.—C. C. ROYCE. Cessions of land by Indian tribes to the United States: illustrated by those in Indiana.—G. MALLERY. Sign language among North American Indians compared with that among other peoples and deaf-mutes.—J. C. PILLING. Catalogue of linguistic manuscripts in the library.—Illustration of the method of recording Indian languages. From the manuscripts of J. O. Dorsey, A. S. Gatschet, and S. R. Riggs.

Vol. ii.: F. H. CUSHING. Zuñi fetiches.—_Mrs._ E. A. SMITH. Myths of the Iroquois.—H. W. HENSHAW. Animal carvings from mounds of the Mississippi Valley.—W. MATTHEWS. Navajo silversmiths.—W. H. HOLMES. Art in shell of the ancient Americans.—J. STEVENSON. Illustrated catalogue of the collections obtained from the Indians of New Mexico and Arizona in 1879;—Illustrated catalogue of the collections obtained from the Indians of New Mexico in 1880.

Vol. iii.: CYRUS THOMAS. Notes on certain Maya and Mexican manuscripts.—W. (C.) H. DALL On masks, labrets, and certain aboriginal customs, with an inquiry into the bearing of their geographical distribution.—J. O. DORSEY. Omaha sociology.—WASHINGTON MATTHEWS. Navajo weavers.—W. H. HOLMES. Prehistoric textile fabrics of the United States, derived from impressions on pottery;—Illustrated catalogue of a portion of the collections made by the Bureau of Ethnology during the field season of 1881.—JAMES STEVENSON. Illustrated catalogue of the collections obtained from the Pueblos of Zuñi, New Mexico, and Wolpi, Arizona, in 1881.

Vol. iv.: GARRICK MALLERY. Pictographs of the North American Indians.—W. H. HOLMES. Pottery of the ancient Pueblos;—Ancient pottery of the Mississippi Valley;—Origin and development of form and ornament in ceramic art.—F. H. CUSHING.. A study of Pueblo pottery as illustrative of Zuñi culture growth.

Vol. v.: CYRUS THOMAS. Burial mounds of the northern sections of the United States.—C. C. ROYCE. The Cherokee nation of Indians.—WASHINGTON MATTHEWS. The Mountain Chant: a Navajo ceremony.—CLAY MACCAULEY. The Seminole Indians of Florida.—_Mrs._ TILLY E. STEVENSON. The religious life of the Zuñi child.

* * * * *

What is known as the United States National Museum is also in charge of the Smithsonian Institution,[1927] and here are deposited the objects of archæological and historical interest secured by the government explorations and by other means. The linguistic material is kept in the Bureau of Ethnology. The skulls and physiological material, illustrative of prehistoric times, are deposited in the Army Medical Museum, under the Surgeon-General’s charge.

Major Powell, while in charge of the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, had earlier prepared five volumes of _Contributions to Ethnology_, all but the second of which have been published. The first volume (1877) contained W. H. Dall’s “Tribes of the Extreme Northwest” and George Gibbs’ “Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon.” The third (1877): Stephen Powers’ “Tribes of California.” The fourth (1881): Lewis H. Morgan’s “Houses and house life of the American Aborigines.” The fifth (1882): Charles Rau’s “Lapidarian sculpture of the Old World and in America,” Robert Fletcher’s “Prehistoric trephining and cranial Amulets,” and Cyrus Thomas on the Troano Manuscript, with an introduction by D. G. Brinton.

Among the _Reports_ of the geographical and geological explorations and surveys west of the 100th meridian conducted by Capt. Geo. M. Wheeler, the seventh volume, _Report on Archæological and Ethnological Collections from the vicinity of Santa Barbara, California, and from ruined pueblos of Arizona and New Mexico and certain Interior Tribes_ (Washington, 1879), was edited by F. W. Putnam, and contains papers on the ethnology of Southern California, wood and stone implements, sculptures, musical instruments, beads, etc.; the Pueblos of New Mexico, their inhabitants, architecture, customs, cliff houses and other ruins, skeletons, etc.; with an _Appendix_ on Linguistics, containing forty Vocabularies of Pueblo and other Western Indian Languages and their classification into seven families.

The _Reports_ of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, under the charge of F. V. Hayden, brought to us in those of 1874-76 the knowledge of the cliff-dwellers, and they contain among the miscellaneous publications such papers as W. Matthews’ _Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa Indians_ and W. H. Jackson’s _Descriptive Catalogue of photographs of No. Amer. Indians_.

There are other governmental documents to be noted: _The Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana in 1852_, by R. B. Marcy and G. B. McClellan (Washington, 1854), contains a vocabulary of the Comanches and Witchitas, with some general remarks by W. W. Turner. There is help to be derived from the geographical details, and from something on ethnology, in the _Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean_ (Washington, 1856-60, in 12 vols.); in W. H. Emory’s _Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey_ (Washington, 1857-58, in 2 vols.); J. H. Simpson’s _Report of Explorations across the great basin of the territory of Utah in 1859_ (Washington, 1876); J. N. Macomb’s _Report of the Exploring Expedition from Santa Fé to the Junction of the Grand and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado of the West in 1859_ (Washington, 1876).

There were also published, under the auspices of the government, the conglomerate and very unequal work of Henry R. Schoolcraft, _Historical and Statistical Information respecting the history, conditions, and prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, collected and prepared under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs_ (Philad., 1851-57, in 6 vols., with a trade edition of the same date). An act of Congress (March 3, 1847) authorized its publication. As reissued it is called _Archives of aboriginal knowledge, containing original papers laid before Congress, respecting the Indian tribes of the United States_ (Philadelphia, 1860, ’68, 6 vols.). It has the following divisions: General history.—Manners and customs.—Antiquities.—Geography.—Tribal organization, etc.—Intellectual capacity.—Topical history.—Physical type.—Language.—Art.—Religion and mythology.—Demonology, magic, etc.—Medical knowledge.—Condition and prospects.—Statistics and population.—Biography.—Literature.—Post-Columbian history.—Economy and statistics. An edition of vols. 1-5 (1856) is called _Ethnological researches respecting the Red Men of America, Information respecting the history_, etc. The sixth volume is in effect a summary of the preceding five.[1928]

At a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a committee was charged with preparing a memorial to Congress, urging action to insure the preservation of certain national monuments. There is a summary of their report in _Science_, xii. p. 101.

* * * * *

Of all European countries, the most has been done in France, by way of periodical system and corporate organizations, to advance the study of American anthropology, ethnology, and archæology. The _Annales des voyages, de la géographie et de l’histoire, traduits de toutes les langues Européennes; des relations originales, inédites_,[1929] the publication of which was begun by Malte-Brun in 1808 and continued to 1814, and the _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, begun in 1819 and continued with a slightly varying title till 1870, are sources occasionally of much importance. At a later day, Edouard Lartet and others have used the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_ as a medium for their publications. We hardly trace here, however, any corporate movement before the institution of the Société de Géographie de Paris in 1820. In 1824 it issued the first volume of its _Recueil de Voyages et de Mémoires_, which reached seven volumes in 1864, and had included (vol. ii.) an account of Palenqué and the researches of Warden on the antiquities of the United States. Since this society began the issue of its _Bulletin_ in 1827, it has occasionally given assistance in the study of American archæology.

The earliest distinctive periodical on the subject was the _Revue Américaine_, of which, in 1826-27, three volumes, in monthly parts, were published in Paris.[1930] In 1857 a movement was inaugurated which engaged first and last the coöperation of some eminent scholars in these studies, like Aubin, Buschmann, V. A. Malte-Brun, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, Jomard, Alphonse Pinart, Cortambert, Léon de Rosny, Waldeck, Abbé Domenech, Charencey, etc. The active movers were first known as the Comité d’Archéologie Américaine, and they issued an _Annuaire_ (1863-67) and one volume, at least, of _Actes_ (1865), as well as a collection of _Mémoires sur l’archéologie Américaine_ (1865). This organization soon became known as the Société Américaine de France, and under the auspices of this name there has been a series of publications of varying designation.[1931] Its _Annuaire_ began in 1868, and has been continued. The general name of _Archives de la Société Américaine de France_ covers its other publications, which more or less coincide with the _Revue Orientale et Américaine par Léon de Rosny_, the first series of which appeared in Paris in 10 vols., in 1859-65, followed by a second, the first volume of which (vol. xi. of the whole) is called _Revue Américaine, publié sous les auspices de la Société d’Ethnographie et du Comité d’Archéologie Américaine_, and is at the same time the fourth volume of the _Actes de la Société d’Ethnographie Américaine et Orientale_. The whole series is sometimes cited as the _Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie_.[1932] The series, already referred to, of the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France_ is made up thus: Première série: vol. i., _Revue Orientale et Américaine_; ii., _Revue Américaine_; iii. and iv., _Revue Orientale et Américaine_.[1933] The nouvelle série has no sub-titles, and the three volumes bear date 1875, 1876, 1884.

The student of comparative anthropology will resort to the _Materiaux pour l’histoire positive et philosophique_ (later _primitive et naturelle_) _de l’homme_, the publication of which was begun at Paris in 1864 by Gabriel de Mortillet, and has been continued by Trutot, Cartailhac, Chautre, and others. This publication has contained abstracts of the proceedings of an annual gathering in Paris, whose _Comptes rendu_ have been printed at length as of the _Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques_ (1865, etc.).[1934]

Léon de Rosny published but a single volume of a projected series, _Archives paléographiques de l’Orient et de l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1870-71), which contains some papers on Mexican picture-writing. Rosny and others, who had been active in the movement begun by the Comité d’Archéologie Américaine, were now instrumental in organizing the periodical gathering in different cities of Europe, which is known as the _Congrès international des Américanistes_. The first session was held at Nancy in 1875, and its _Compte Rendu_ was published in two volumes (Nancy and Paris, 1876). The second meeting was at Luxembourg in 1877 (_Compte Rendu_, Paris, 1878, in 2 vols.); the third at Brussels in 1879 (_Compte Rendu_); the fourth at Madrid in 1881 (_Congreso internacional de Américanistas. Cuarta reunion_, Madrid, 1881); the fifth at Copenhagen (_Compte Rendu_, Copenhagen, 1884); and others at Chalons-sur-Marne, Turin, and Berlin. The papers are printed in the language in which they were read.

The _Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie_ (founded in 1859) began to appear in 1881, and its third volume (1882) is entitled _Les Documents écrits de l’Antiquité Américaine, compte rendu d’une mission scientifique en Espagne et en Portugal, par Léon de Rosny, avec une carte et 10 planches_. The fourth volume is P. de Lucy-Fossarieu’s _Ethnographie de l’Amérique Antarctique_ (Paris, 1884). In the second volume of a new series there is an account by V. Devaux of the work in American ethnology done by Lucien de Rosny as a preface to a posthumous work[1935] of Lucien de Rosny, _Les Antilles, étude d’Ethnographie et d’Archéologique Américaines_ (Paris, 1886).

Latterly there has been a consolidation of interests among kindred societies under the name of Institution Ethnographique, whose initial _Rapport annuel sur les récompenses et encouragements décernés en 1883_ was published at Paris in 1883. This society now comprises the Société d’Ethnographie, Société Américaine de France, Athénée Oriental, and Société des Etudes Japonaises.

* * * * *

In England, organized efforts for the record of knowledge began with the creation of the Royal Society, though certain sporadic attempts had earlier been known. America was represented among its founders in the younger John Winthrop, and Cotton Mather was a contributor to its transactions, and there has occasionally been a paper in its publications of interest to American archæologists.[1936] The Society of Antiquaries began to print its _Archæologia_ in 1779 and its _Proceedings_ in 1848, and the American student finds some valuable papers in them. The British Association for the Advancement of Science began its _Reports_ with the meeting of 1831, and it has had among its divisions a section of anthropology. In 1830 the Royal Geographical Society began its _Journal_ with a preliminary issue (1830-31, in 2 vols.), though its regular series first came out in 1832. Its _Proceedings_ appeared in 1855, and both publications are a conspicuous source in many ways relating to early American history.[1937] Closely connected with its interest has been the publication begun under the editing of C. R. Markham, and called successively _Ocean Highways_ (1869-73, vol. i.-v.), with an added title of _Geographical Review_ (1873-74), and lastly as _The Geographical Magazine_ (vol. i.-iii., 1874-76).

The Ethnological Society published four volumes of a _Journal_[1938] between 1844 and 1856, and resuming published two more volumes in 1869-70. Its contents are mainly of interest in comparative study, though there are a few American papers, like D. Forbes’s on the Aymara Indians of Peru. This society’s _Transactions_ was issued in two volumes, 1859-60; and again in seven volumes, 1861-69.

Meanwhile, some gentlemen, not content with the restricted field of the Ethnological Society, founded in London an Anthropological Society, which began the publication of _Memoirs_ (1863-69, in 3 vols.); and in this publication Bollaert issued his papers on the population of the new world, on the astronomy of the red man, on American paleography, on Maya hieroglyphics, on the anthropology of the new world, on Peruvian graphic records,—not to name other papers by different writers. The _Transactions_ and _Journal_ of the society, as well as the _Popular Magazine of Anthropology_ (1866), made part in one form or another of the _Anthropological Review_, begun in 1863, and discontinued in 1870, when the _Journal of Anthropology_ succeeded, but ceased the next year. The _Proceedings_ of the society make one volume, 1873-75, under the title of _Anthropologia_, and the society also maintained a series of translations of foreign treatises, the first of which was Theodor Waitz’s _Introduction to Anthropology_, ed. from the German by J. F. Collingwood (1863); and this was followed by a version by James Hunt, the president of the society, of Professor Carl Vogt’s _Lectures on Man, his place in Creation and in the history of the Earth_ (1864), and by other works of Broca, Pouchet, Blumenbach, etc.

What is known as the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland united some of these separate endeavors and began its _Journal_ in 1871. The _Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society_ has also at times been the channel by which some of the leading anthropologists have published their views, and a few papers of archæological import have been given in the _Transactions_ (1884, etc.) of the Royal Historical Society. Professedly broader relations belong to the _Transactions_ (_Comptes rendus_) of the International Congress of prehistoric (anthropology and) archæology, which began its sessions in 1866.[1939] The latest summary is the _Archæological Review, a journal of historic and prehistoric antiquities_, edited by G. L. Gomme, of which the first number appeared in March, 1888, which has for a main feature a bibliographical record of past and current archæological literature.[1940]

It is, however, in the volumes of the Hakluyt Society’s publications, beginning in 1847, in the annotated reprint of the early writers on American nations and on the European contact with them, that the most signal service has been done in England to the study of the early history of the new world. They are often referred to in the present History.

* * * * *

In Germany a _Magazin für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen_ was published at Zittau as early as 1788-1791.

Wagner published at Vienna, in 1794-96, two volumes of _Beiträge zur philosophischen Anthropologie_; and Heynig’s _Psychologisches (zugleich Anthropologisches) Magazin_ was published at Altenburg in 1796-97.

The Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaft began its _Abhandlungen_ in 1804, but it was not till long after that date that Buschmann and others used it as a channel of their views.

Vertuch’s _Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik_ (Weimar, 1807) only reached a single number.

The _Zeitschrift für physische Aerzte_, which was published by Nasse, at Leipzig, 1818-22, was succeeded by the _Zeitschrift für die Anthropologie_ (Leipzig, 1823-24), and this was followed by a single volume, _Jahrbücher für Anthropologie_ (Leipzig, 1830).

Bran’s _Ethnographisches Archiv_ was published at Jena from 1818 to 1829.

It was not till after 1860 that the new interest began to manifest itself, though Fechner’s _Centralblatt für Naturwissenschaften und Anthropologie_ was published at Leipzig in 1853-54.

Ecker’s _Archiv für Anthropologie_ was published at Braunschweig in 1866-68, which came in 1870 under the direction of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, which also began a _Correspondenzblatt_ in 1870, and a series, _Allgemeine Versammlung_, in 1873. This is the most important of the German societies.

Bastian’s _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_ was begun at Berlin in 1869, and later added a _Supplement_.

The Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Vienna began its _Mittheilungen_ in 1870; and in 1887 the Prähistorische Commission of the Kais. Akad. der Wissenschaften at Vienna printed the first number of its _Mittheilungen_.

The _Verein für Anthropologie_ in Leipzig published but a single number of a _Bericht_ in 1871.

The Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte continued its _Verhandlungen_ for 1871-72 only; and the Göttinger Anthropologischer Verein made but a bare beginning (1874) of its _Mittheilungen_.

The _Bericht_ of the Museum für Völkerkunde was begun in Leipzig in 1874.

The Münchener Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte began the publication of _Beiträge_ in 1876.

In all these publications there have been papers interesting to American archæologists, if only in a comparative way, and at times American subjects have been frequent, especially in later years. The publications of zoölogical and geographical societies have in some respects been at times of equal interest, but it has not been thought worth while to enumerate them.[1941]

The Königliche Museum at Berlin has a considerable collection of American antiquities, which has been fostered by Humboldt and others, and the ethnological department has made some important publications like those relating to _Amerika’s Nordwestküste_.[1942]

Waitz in his _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (vol. iii.; _Die Amerikaner_, Th. i., Leipzig, 1862) has enumerated the literature of American anthropology upon which he depended.

* * * * *

The interest in most of the other European countries is more remotely American. The Museum of Ethnography at St. Petersburg is not without some objects of interest.[1943]

In Sweden the Antropologiska Sällskapet of Stockholm began a _Tidsskrift_ in 1875; but it affords little assistance to the Americanist except in comparative study.[1944]

The student will find some suggestions in a little tract by J. J. A. Worsaae, _De l’organisation des musées historico-archéologiques dans le Nord et ailleurs. Traduit par E. Beauvois_ (Copenhagen, 1885), which is extracted from the _Mémoires de la société royale des antiquaires de Nord, 1885_.

There has begun recently in Leyden an _Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie. Herausg. von Krist. Bahnson, Guido Cora [etc.]_ (Leiden, 1888).

In Italy the _Archivio per l’Antropologia et la Etnologia_ was begun at Florence in 1871, and was later made the organ of the Società Italiana di Antropologia di Etnologia. There is an occasional paper in the _Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana_, published at Rome.

In Spain the Sociedad Antropológica Española began at Madrid the publication of its _Revista de Antropologia_ in 1875.

The session of the Congrès des Américanistes at Madrid in 1881 gave a new life in Spain to the study of American archæology and history, and out of this impulse there was begun a _Biblioteca de los Americanistas, publícala D. Justo Zaragoza; Editor D. Luis Navarro_; and the series has been begun with the _Recordacion florida, discurso del reino de Guatemala_, an hitherto unpublished work (1690) of Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzmán, edited by Justo Zaragoza; and with the _Historia de Venezuela_, being a third edition of the work of José de Oviedo y Baños, edited by C. F. Duro.

The Museo Nacional in Mexico has grown to have a proper importance,[1945] since the Mexican government has prevented the further exportation of archæological relics. It was founded in 1824 by Fathers Icaza and Gondra, but it owes its creation largely to the skill of Professor Gumesindo Mendoza, its curator, by whose death it lost much.[1946] There is a tendency to draw to it other collections. There was a beginning made to publish illustrations of the relics in the museum sixty years ago, but it came to little,[1947] and it was not until recently the publication of _Anales del Museo Nacional de Méjico_ was begun that there seemed to be a proper effort made. The periodicals _Revista Mexicana_ (1835), and _Museo Mexicano_ (1843-45) have done something to illustrate the subject,—not to name others of less importance. The principal periodical source farther south, the _Registro Yucatéco_, only ran to four volumes, published at Merida in 1845-46.

The most conspicuous archæological repository in South America is that of the National Museum at Rio de Janeiro, whose published _Mémoires_ contain important contributions to Brazilian Archæology.

* * * * *

_The editor must be understood as approaching the purely archæological side of the study of Aboriginal America, as a student of the literature pertaining to it, rather than as a critic of phenomena. He has not proceeded even in this course without consultation with Professors Putnam, Haynes, and Brinton, with Mr. Lucien Carr and with Señor Icazbalceta._

INDEX.

[Reference is commonly made but once to a book, if repeatedly mentioned in the text; but other references are made when additional information about the book is conveyed.]

AA, VAN DER, _Voyagien_, xxxv.

Abancay, 236.

Abbot, C. C., associates the rude implements of Trenton with Eskimos,
106, 366;
his discoveries in the Delaware gravels considered, 330 _et seq._;
_Implements in the river-drift at Trenton_, 333;
_Supposed palæolithic implements from the valley of the Delaware_,
334, 388;
on the pre-Indian race, 336;
importance of his discoveries, 356;
on the origin of Americans, 369;
on the tertiary man, 387;
researches in the Trenton gravels, 388;
finds a molar tooth, 388;
and a human jaw, 388;
_Antiq. of Man in the Delaware Valley_, 388;
_Evidences of the Antiq. of Man_, 388;
on archæological frauds, 403;
_Primitive Industry_, 358, 416;
on Atlantic coast pottery, 419.

Abbott, _Brief Description_, 109.

Abelin, J. P., _Theatrum Europeum_, xxxiii.
_See_ Gottfried, J. L.

Abenaki, 322.

Abert, J. W., _Examination of New Mexico_, 396.

Acagchemem, 328.

Acaltecs, 191.

Achilles Tatius, _Isagoge_, 8.

Acolhua, forms a confederacy, 147.

Acolhuacan conquered, 147.

Acoma, 396.

Acora, burial-tower at, 248;
cut, 249.

Acosta, José de, in De Bry, xxxii;
_East and West Indies_, 45, 262;
_Historia_, 155, 262;
corresponds with Tobar, 155;
in Peru, 262;
_Concilium Limense_, 268;
_Nueva Granada_, 282.

Adair, Jas., _Amer. Indians_, 116, 320, 424;
on the lost tribes, 116;
on the mounds, 398.

Adam, Lucien, on Fousang, 80;
opposes Irish connection with Mexico, 83;
on the Eskimo language, 107;
on the Quichua, 281;
criticises Horatio Hale, 422;
edits the Taensa grammar, 426;
_Le Taensa_, 426;
_Etudes sur six langues_, 425, 427;
_Lengua Chiquita_, 425;
_Examen grammatical_, 425.

Adam of Bremen on Vinland, 89;
_Hist. Eccles._, 89, 94.

Adam, a race earlier than, 384.

Adams, Davenport, _Beneath the Surface_, 412.

Adelung, J. C., xxxv, 422.

Adhémer, _Rev. de la Mer_, 387.

Aelian, _Varia Historia_, 21, 40, 42.

Aeneas Silvius, 26.

Æschylus, _Prometheus Bound_, 13.

Africa, ancient views of its extension south of the equator, 7, 10;
circumnavigated, 7;
migrations from, to America, 116;
its people in Yucatan, 370.

Agassiz, Alex., _Cruises of the Blake_, 17.

Agassiz, Louis, on the autochthonous American man, 373;
portrait, 373;
his views attacked, 374;
on the earliest land above water, 384;
_Geol. Sketches_, 384.

Agatharcides, _Geography_, 34.

Agnese map (1554), 53.

Agnew, S. A., 410.

Agriculture in pre-Spanish America, 173, 417;
in Peru, 252.

Ahuitzotl, 148.

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty, 306.

Alabama, shell-heaps, 393;
mounds, 410.

Alaguilac language, 428.

Alaska, 77;
caves, 391;
Indians, 328.

Albany, treaty at (1674), 304;
(1684), 304.

Albinus, P., 370.

Albornoz, J. de, _Lengua Chiapaneca_, 425.

Albyn, Cornelis, _Nieuwe Weerelt_, xxv.

Alcavisa, 224.

Alcedo, Ant. de, _Bibl. Amer._, ii.

Alcobasa, 265.

Aleutian islands, as a route from Asia, 78;
caves, 391;
shell-heaps, 393.

Alexander, C. A., on the Royal Society, 442.

Algonquins, trace of the Northmen among, 99;
hero-gods, 430;
legends of, 431.

Allan, John, his library, xiii.

Allard, Latour, 192.

Allday, Jacob, 107.

Allen, Chas., _Stockbridge Indians_, 323.

Allen, Edw. G., iv.