Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: A (1)

MADISONVILLE EXPLORATIONS.

Since the greater part of this work was put in type, the exploration of ancient mounds in several localities in the United States has yielded gratifying results. Most conspicuous for rich returns, both in pottery and human remains, are the researches which have recently been prosecuted with such rare intelligence and vigor by the Literary and Scientific Society of Madisonville, Ohio, in the aboriginal burying-grounds and among the mound-works of the Little Miami Valley. Through the liberality of the society and the courtesy of its secretary, Mr. Frank W. Langdon, we are enabled to present an authorized account of the explorations. We take this opportunity of expressing our obligations to the society, and especially to Mr. Langdon, who has kindly prepared the following report:

NOTICE OF SOME RECENT ARCHÆOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES IN THE LITTLE MIAMI
VALLEY. _By FRANK W. LANGDON, Secretary of the Literary and
Scientific Society of Madisonville, Ohio._

The valley of the Little Miami River, in South-western Ohio, has long been noted for the number and extent of its pre-historic earthworks, which, distributed on either side of the river, from its confluence with the Ohio to the well-known Fort Ancient and beyond, form an almost continuous chain of mounds, forts, circles, and embankments, extending for more than fifty miles, and constituting an important division of the great earthworks system of the Mississippi Valley.

Of the few publications relating more especially to the ancient works of this series, one of the most important, perhaps, is the paper by Dr. Charles L. Metz, entitled “The Prehistoric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley,”[805] accompanied by a chart showing the location and character of more than forty of these earthworks, situated in Columbia, Spencer and Anderson Townships of Hamilton County. The Hon. Joseph Cox, H. B. Whetsel, Esq., Mr. Charles F. Low, and the several other gentlemen composing the organization known as the Literary and Scientific Society of Madisonville, have also, at various times, given considerable attention to archæological investigations in this vicinity, and the valuable and interesting collections of objects of pre-historic art accumulated by these gentlemen afford abundant evidence of the long-continued occupation of this region by a numerous and somewhat intelligent people of whom we have no historic record.

A renewed interest in the subject has been recently developed by the discovery, near Madisonville, of one of the cemeteries of this unknown people, and the explorations therein by the above-named society, are perhaps among the most interesting that have ever been conducted in the Mississippi Valley.

This cemetery, which is distant about one and one-half miles south-east from Madisonville, occupies the western extremity of an elevated plateau overlooking the Little Miami River, and situated from eighty to one hundred feet above the water-line. It is bounded on the south by the river “bottom”; on the north and west by a deep ravine, through which flows a small stream known as Whisky Run; on the east the plateau slopes gradually up to the general level of the surrounding country, of which it is in fact a continuation or spur, its character of an isolated plateau being derived from its position between the eroded river valley and the deep ravine above referred to. The precipitous but well-wooded bluff which forms the southern limit of this plateau extends eastward, facing the river, for perhaps half a mile, and distributed along its edge are a number of mounds and other earthworks; at its base are the Cincinnati and Eastern and Little Miami Railways, the nearest station being Batavia Junction, distant about half a mile east of the cemetery.

The original forest still covers the site of the cemetery, and measurements of some of the principal trees are recorded by Dr. Metz in his paper before mentioned, as follows: a walnut, 15½ feet in circumference; an oak, 12 feet; a maple, 9½ feet; an elm, 12 feet. The locality has long been known to local collectors and others interested in archæological matters, as the “Pottery Field,” so called on account of the numerous fragments of earthenware strewn over the surface; and it was until recently supposed to be a place where the manufacture of pottery had been carried on by the ancient inhabitants of the valley, the fragments found being considered the _debris_. A few scattered human remains had also been found in the adjoining ravines, but it was not until some time in March, 1879, that its true character and extent as a cemetery were brought to light.

It then became apparent that some concerted action would be necessary, in order to secure the best scientific results from the discovery; and early in April excavations were begun under the auspices of the before mentioned organization, the proprietors of the premises, Messrs. A. J. and Charles K. Ferris, having kindly granted to it the exclusive privilege of making a thorough and systematic exploration of the ground. From that time until the present (July 19, 1879) excavations have been continued with a force varying from one to three men, assisted by members of the society, every foot of the ground gone over being thoroughly explored, and full notes taken as the work progressed.

The following brief outline of the results, taken from the records of the society, will but serve to convey an idea of the general features of the discovery and of its importance to archæological science, time and space not permitting a detailed account in the present connection.

Of the four or five acres of ground over which the cemetery is believed to extend, only a small segment of the south-western portion has been explored. The exploration, however, has been exceedingly thorough and comprises an extent of perhaps half an acre of ground, from which have been exhumed in all one hundred and eighty-five skeletons. Of these, however, but a small proportion are in a good or even tolerable state of preservation, as with the utmost care only about forty crania could be preserved sufficiently well for measurement. The preservation of even this number must probably be attributed to the favorable character of the soil, a compact gravelly drift, as the various surroundings, position of some skeletons under large trees, etc., all indicate for these interments a remote antiquity.

With respect to the mode of burial, this is far from being uniform. A large majority of the skeletons are found at a depth of from two to three feet, in a horizontal position, face upwards; but exceptions to this rule are numerous, many interments being made in a sitting position, and some in groups of from three to six individuals irregularly disposed. There has been no attempt in any instance at the construction of a stone coffin, but in one case the skeleton was covered with a layer of small flat limestone from the adjacent stream. The heads of those in the horizontal position are generally directed to the east or south-east; but this rule is not constant, several being found at right angles to these. It is worthy of note, however, that, with scarcely an exception, those skeletons accompanied by the finer vases, pipes and other choice relics, have their heads directed east or south-east.

During the progress of the work on April 12, a cranium, unaccompanied by other bones, was exhumed; in searching for the rest of the skeleton, a circular excavation, three and a half feet in diameter and four and a half feet in depth, was made, from which were taken bones sufficient to represent twenty-two skeletons. But two of the crania, both evidently those of females, could be preserved; they are remarkable for their whiteness and smooth texture as compared with the average crania from this cemetery. A sacrum taken from this pit has imbedded in its anterior surface, near the promontory, one of the small triangular flints known as “war arrows,” which had passed obliquely from above downwards, and to the right, necessarily penetrating the abdominal walls and viscera in order to reach its final lodging place. The bottom of the pit was paved with the common river mussel shells (_unios_), and there appeared to have been some attempt at a natural disposition of the bones, those of the lower extremities being placed at the bottom, the crania at the top.

Among the human remains from this cemetery are many possessing features of surgical and anatomical interest, as, for instance, an adult male cranium in which complete anchylosis of the atlas to the condyles has occurred, the posterior arch remaining free. Other crania show evidences of severe injury with subsequent repair, and among the long bones are several showing characteristic lesions strongly indicative of rachitis and of syphilis, a fact of considerable interest in its relation to the geographical distribution of the latter disease, and also as bearing on the theory of its introduction into Southern Europe from America in the fifteenth century.

Among the graves opened are several of children, who are usually buried in close proximity to adults, and with them are found various ornaments or toys of perforated shell, bone, etc., as well as small earthen vessels.

(Collection of W. C. Rogers, Madisonville, O.)]

The pottery ware which accompanies the skeletons is usually situated near the head and presents many features of special interest. It is made of clay, finely tempered with pounded unio shells, and much care has evidently been bestowed upon its manufacture, some pieces being scarcely thicker than an ordinary teacup. Many specimens are in a perfect condition, or nearly so, and they usually contain a single unio shell when found, the shell being evidently intended for use as a spoon. The vessels range in capacity from a third of a pint, or even smaller, up to a gallon or more, the smaller ones, as before stated, being usually found in the graves of children. They are symmetrical in shape and varied in design, some being artistically ornamented with scroll work, handles representing lizards, human heads, etc., and are almost invariably provided with four handles. Among the few exceptions to this latter rule is an eight-handled bowl (see cut), in the collection of W. C. Rogers, Esq., which is a two-story affair, apparently made by combining two distinct vessels, and then removing the bottom of the upper one. Vessels having but two handles occasionally occur, and others with holes in lieu of handles; but these are exceptions to the general rule as above noted.

The total number of vessels taken from the cemetery to date is eighty-eight. There is good reason to believe, however, that each interment has been originally accompanied by a vessel, the present disparity between the number of vessels and the number of skeletons being accounted for by the fragments thickly strewn over the surface and intermingled with the surrounding soil, which have doubtless at one time constituted portions of the missing burial urns. To the growth of trees, action of frost and rooting of hogs, the destruction of so much of this valuable ware must be attributed, and to the latter cause, irregularities observed in the disposition of some of the skeletons are probably due.

Among the other articles of utility or ornament found in the graves are twelve pipes, of various patterns, three of them being made from the Minnesota Catlinite or Red Pipestone; also stone disks, axes and chisels, flint knives and spear-heads, and many ornaments and implements of bone, such as beads, awls, needles, perforated teeth, etc., together with others of unknown uses. Two small cylinders of rolled copper, about two inches in length, and two flat pieces of the same metal an inch or more square, are among the collections, as are also two stones bearing inscriptions as follows: one, an irregular piece of sandstone, measuring about 3 × 2 × 1 inches, on the flat surface of which are cut two parallel figures made of straight lines and apparently intended to represent arrows; this specimen is now in the writer’s collection. The other stone, which is in the collection of E. A. Conkling, Esq., is a flattened dark-green boulder measuring about 3½ × 2½ inches, one side of which is completely covered with a network of lines from ⅛ to ¼ of an inch apart and crossing each other at nearly right angles, thus forming quadrangular divisions of various sizes.

An interesting feature of these excavations has been the discovery of what may be designated as “ashpits”; being circumscribed deposits of ashes, shells, sand, etc., from two to three feet in thickness, placed at varying distances below the surface. A perpendicular section made of one of these pits answers to the following description, which will serve to convey a fair idea of them all. Diameter of pit, three feet; the first eighteen inches consisted of leaf mold and sandy soil; then followed nine inches of clay, burnt earth and charcoal; next, ashes and charcoal, twelve inches; clay, three inches; white ashes, two inches; sand and unio shells, six inches; pure ashes, twelve inches; total depth, five feet two inches.

Of these ashpits, more than fifty have been opened, situated in continuous rows near the edge of the bluff. They are quite uniform in size, measuring from three to four feet in diameter and from four to six feet in depth, and with one or two exceptions have not been found in any other than the above-mentioned situation. Intermingled with the ashes are pipes, implements of bone, shell, and stone, a mastodon’s tooth, bones of various wild animals, including birds and fishes, and in some of them large sherds of pottery-ware indicating vessels of from ten to twelve gallons capacity or even larger. With the exception of a single dorsal vertebra no human remains have yet been found in these pits, unless the ashes be so considered.

From the uncharred condition of the above articles it is evident that the ashes have been placed in the pits _as ashes_, after having been burned elsewhere, as in no case do the relics or the walls of the pits show any traces of the action of fire.

With respect to the length of time that has elapsed since these interments, mention has already been made of the situation of some of the skeletons under large trees, an instance of which may be cited: On Saturday, April 5, the ground was visited by Judge Cox and Mr. Low, in company with Dr. Metz, and in excavating beneath an oak tree, six feet two inches in circumference, a skeleton was discovered, its lower extremities extending under the tree; overlying the lower extremities of this skeleton was another, its body situated directly under the trunk of the tree and the skull so surrounded and penetrated by roots as to prevent its removal except in fragments. The bones of both skeletons were much decayed and exceedingly fragile.

In forming an estimate as to the probable antiquity of these interments, the time that must necessarily have elapsed between the abandonment of the cemetery and the springing up of the forest; the age of the trees now present and of others that have fallen and decayed; the advanced state of decay in which the human remains are found; the character of the pottery-ware; and lastly, the total absence of any evidences of communication with civilization, in the shape of glass beads or other trinkets, must all be taken into account; and it does not appear at all unreasonable to conclude that the use of this ground as a cemetery probably antedates the discovery of America by Columbus.

As regards the particular race to which this people belonged,—whether they were identical with, or related to, the celebrated “stone-grave people” of Tennessee,[806] as some of their pottery-ware and the shape and dimensions of their crania would seem to indicate; or whether they were the last remnants of the once powerful nation that erected Fort Ancient and other gigantic works in this region,—these and similar queries remain as yet unanswered. More extended investigations and a careful comparison of large amounts of material from this and other localities, may be expected to assist in the solution of these obscure but interesting problems.

At the present writing excavations are still in progress, with new developments daily, and a publication of the entire results, with full details and illustrations, may be looked for in due season.

MADISONVILLE, Hamilton County, Ohio, _July_ 19, 1879.

NOTE.—An illustrated report of the continuation of the Madisonville
exploration, so remarkable in results, will be found in the
_Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History_, vol.
iii, Nos. 1, 2, and 3; also a sketch by F. W. Putnam in _Harvard
University Bulletin_ for June 1, 1881.

B.

The question as to whether man and the mastodon were contemporaneous in America, has long been a matter of dispute as the reader is aware after the perusal of our second chapter and other sources. The “elephant pipe” figured in the accompanying cut has been the means of calling fresh attention to the subject. Dr. R. J. Farquharson, of the Davenport Academy of Sciences, who kindly furnished us the photo from which our illustration is a reduction, states that six or seven years ago Mr. Peter Mare, a farmer (whose estate was situated on both sides of the line dividing Muscatine and Louisa Counties, Iowa) found the elephant pipe while plowing corn on his land in Louisa County. The finder, who had no idea of its archæological value, kept it with a number of “Indian stones,” as he termed them, until last year (1878), when it became the property of the Davenport Academy. Dr. Farquharson says: “The ancient mounds were very abundant in that vicinity (Louisa Co.), and rich in relics which are deposited on the surface of the soil (not in excavations), as we found in exploring a number. In such a case it is not strange that a mound having been gradually removed by long cultivation, the relics so deposited should be reached and turned up by the plow.” * * * “The pipe, which is of a fragile sandstone, is of the ordinary Mound-builder’s type, and has every appearance of age and usage. Of its genuineness I have no doubt. Together with the ‘Elephant mound’ of Wisconsin, the elephant head of Palenque (depicted in Lord Kingsborough’s great work), our pipe completes the series of what the French would call ‘documents’ proving the fact of the contemporaneous existence on this continent of man and the mastodon.”[807] The above facts, as stated by Dr. Farquharson, were substantially embodied in a paper read by Mr. Pratt before the Davenport Academy, April 25, 1879.

C.

THE CHARNAY EXPLORATION.

The exploring expedition under French and American patronage, led by M. Désiré Charnay, began its labors in Mexico, May 1st, 1880, and continued them nearly a year. During this time a large number of ruins, scattered over the area extending from Teotihuacan and Tollan, on the north, and Palenque, on the south, are reported to have been examined. How thorough the examination was, or how scientifically accurate were the published reports, it would at present (September, 1881) be impossible to determine. Suffice it to say that they are generally viewed with distrust, partly on account of the disjointed, haphazard form in which they have appeared in the _North American Review_ (September, 1880-June, 1881—doubtless without blame on the part of the editor), where the splendid heliotype illustrations have been rendered nearly valueless by the frequent omission, from the text and elsewhere, of descriptive reference; and partly on account of the over-confident style of the writer. It is to be hoped that the ground for criticism may be removed when M. Charnay shall formally publish his reports.

It would be superfluous in this connection to summarize his work, since his papers are accessible to all.

It is worthy of note, however, that he reports Teotihuacan, on the authority of several authors, to have contained twenty-seven thousand dwellings, besides its temples, and that the heaps of ruins which remain justify the statement. The whole area of five or six miles in diameter was found covered with heaps of ruins. Cement roadways, containing broken pottery, seemed to afford evidence of occupancy in even a more ancient epoch than that in which Teotihuacan was founded. Excavations revealed two halls of a supposed temple at the base of one of the pyramids. One of these halls is reported to be nearly fifty feet square, in the middle of which stood six pillars which had served to sustain the roof. At Tula, the ancient capital of Tollau, north-west of the city of Mexico, hitherto so fruitless of archæological, and especially of architectural remains, M. Charnay made remarkable discoveries of pyramids, and several Toltec houses of immense proportions, one of which contained forty-three apartments, besides corridors and a staircase. Sculptures were numerous, and bricks of burnt clay, twelve inches long by five inches wide, were found to have been used in constructing stairways.

Near the village of Comalcalco, thirty-five or forty miles north-west of San Juan Bautista, the capital of Tabasco, vast ruins were discovered, particularly pyramids, towers, and edifices, all forest-grown, equalling and even surpassing in proportions those at Palenque. Upon a pyramid 115 feet high an edifice of brick and mortar 234 feet in length was explored.

At the village of Palenque, M. Charnay found the two bas-reliefs seen by Waldeck and Stephens a half century ago, now built into the outer wall of a church (see this work, p. 391).

At the ancient city itself the explorer discovered the ruins to be more extensive than ever heretofore supposed, and estimates that it would require the labor of five hundred men for six months, under the direction of a corps of topographers, simply to determine the general plan of the city. Eight hundred and sixty-one square feet of casts of bas-reliefs were taken. It was ascertained at Palenque, by breaking off portions of the vesture upon the stucco reliefs, that the human body had in all cases been first carefully modeled, and that the drapery had subsequently been superposed. Whether this fact throws light simply upon the process employed, or indicates a reaction or evolution in art, is equally interesting and uncertain.

D.

HOUSE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS AND PUEBLOS.

Among the unsolved problems of American archæology is that of the use to which the extensive systems of embankments attributed to the Mound-builders were put. The Newark (Ohio) system of works, now covering two miles square, but formerly presenting twelve miles of embankment, reaching at some points a height of thirty-five feet, with sufficient width for a carriage-way on top, has been a veritable sphinx to all inquirers. Nor does it stand alone in an architectural aspect. Its square is precisely of the dimensions of a similar figure found at Hopetown, in the Scioto Valley. Its circles are connected with squares or octagons, a typical combination of features generally prevalent in mound structures. Furthermore, its trenches are all within the enclosures. The probability is that the clew to the solution of the problem has come to light. The discovery of what are pronounced to be mound-works, in connection with the Pueblo ruins of Colorado and New Mexico and Arizona, has given us the hint. Mr. Wm. H. Holmes in “A Notice of the Ancient Ruins of South-western Colorado, examined during the Summer of 1875,”[808] shows us the Mound and Pueblo ruin in close proximity. In describing a ruined village on the Rio La Plata, he says: “North of this, about 300 feet, is a truncated rectangular mound, 9 or 10 feet in height and 50 feet in width by 80 in length. On the east end, near one of the angles, is a low, projecting pile of débris that may have been a tower. There is nothing whatever to indicate the use of this structure. Its flat top and height give it more the appearance of one of the sacrificial mounds of the Ohio Valley than any other observed in this part of the West. It may have been, however, only a raised foundation, designed to support a superstructure of wood or adobe.... South of this, and occupying the extreme southern end of the terrace, are a number of small circles and mounds, while an undetermined number of diminutive mounds are distributed among the other ruins.” Mr. W. H. Jackson, in the same document (p. 29) that contains Mr. Holmes’ report, mentions the remains of “many circular towns” on a high plateau between the Montezuma and the Hovenweep. The year following, the lamented scholar, Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, acting on the suggestion or originating a hypothesis of his own, announced in the _North American Review_ for July, 1876, what has since been called his “Pueblo Theory.” A fuller exposition of his views were embodied in his paper “On Houses of the American Aborigines,” published in the _Report of the Archæological Institute of America for 1879–1880_. Mr. Morgan illustrates the prevalence of communal houses among the aborigines east of the Mississippi, citing the long houses of the Iroquois; and west of the river the communal lodges of the Minnitares and Mandans, and of Columbia River Indians seen by Lewis and Clark in 1805. The writer further illustrates the communal architecture of the aborigines by discussions relating to the joint tenement houses of the Pueblos of New Mexico and Arizona. Having thus laid his foundation, he applies the communal idea and its expression in the Mandan and Pueblo structures in a conjectural restoration of the mound villages. He supposes that, as adobe would not withstand the frosts and rains of the Ohio Valley, the Mound-builder people resorted to the structure of wooden edifices. He says: “They might have raised these embankments of earth, enclosing circular, rectangular, or square areas, and constructed their long houses upon them.” Mr. Morgan would build upon the squares and circles houses having a wooden framework, upon which turf and grass were placed both upon roof and sides. In order that this should be possible, the sides are supposed to have been inclined at the same angle with the embankment, the superstructure being a continuation of the earthern foundation so far as outline and geometrical figure is concerned. To preserve analogy with the closed, windowless ground-storey of New Mexico Pueblos, Mr. Morgan supposes that the outer side or sides of the edifice were closed, presenting only blank walls of heavy turf or gravel to view; while the walls facing within the enclosure were windowed, and pierced with doors. The entrances to the enclosures, he supposes, were guarded with palisades. There the defensive feature of the Pueblo house was preserved. In his elaborate work, the “Houses and House Life of the American Aborigines,”[809] that last touch of a vanished hand, the author has discussed at length the development of the joint tenement house among the Mound-builders. After illustrating the principle, as applied in the restoration of High Bank works (Ross County, Ohio), he adds: “These embankments, therefore, require triangular houses of the kind described, and long houses as well, covering their entire length. But the interior plan might have been different; for example, the passage-way might have a long exterior wall, and the stalls or apartments on the court side, and but half as many in number; and, instead of one continuous house, in the interior, 450 feet in length, it might have been divided into several, separated from each other by cross partitions. The plan of life, however, which we are justified in ascribing to them, from known usages of Indian tribes in a similar condition of advancement, would lead us to expect large households formed on the basis of kin, with the practice of communism in living in each household, whether large or small.” The plausibility of Mr. Morgan’s hypothesis is, to say the least, striking. However, his supposition that the Mound-builders and Pueblos were of the same race, is not unattended with difficulties. Conspicuous among them is the marked dissimilarity of the ceramic ornament employed by the two peoples. Nothing is more stable than the art of a race or age. Nothing more truly reveals the inner life of a people than its pottery. The Mound-builders and Pueblos each had their ceramic types. But they were wholly unlike—apparently the work of unrelated races. Yet, community of burial, as well as community of residence, to which may be added similarity of cranial type, are facts that declare for Mr. Morgan’s hypothesis as to the relation of the peoples in question.[810]

INDEX.

A.

Abbott, discoveries in New Jersey. 127–8;
view of Eskimo, 128.

Aboriginal painting of sun, 65;
trade, 98;
Rau on, 98.

Aborigines, American, 21.

Acolhuas, Nahua tribe, 256.

Agassiz on Floridian jaw-bone, 112;
on origin of nations, 158–9;
on physical life and nature, 158;
views of untenable, 159, 516.

Ages of stone and bronze in Mississippi valley, 27.

Age of trees on mounds, 104.

Agglutination in languages, 471.

Alabama mounds, 71–72.

Alaska, climate of, 511.

Aleutian islands, 509;
migration by, 509.

Alleghany Mts., boundary of Mound country, 58.

Alligator mound, 34.

Allighewi, 102.

Allouez, Father, on aboriginal copper, 92–3.

Al-Mamoun, state of learning during kalifate of, 132.

Altar mounds, 37;
Squier and Davis on, 83–87;
stratification of, 83–84;
Prof. Andrews on, 83, n. 1.

Alton, mounds at, 41.

Amaquemecan, Chichimec home, 248, 256.

American civilization (ancient) contrasted with that of Britons, 520.
“Bottom,” recent discoveries in, 43–44.
languages, number and variety of, 190;
instability of, 190.
race not unique, 165;
of old world origin, 201–2.

Anahuac, 249.

Analogies in geographical names, 497.
in religion, 459–68.
of ceremonial law, 463.
Scandanavian and Mexican, 464.
Hindoo and Mexican, 465.
Greek and Mexican, 466.
Egyptian and Mexican, 467.

Anchylosis (bony) observed in mound-builder remains, 184.

Ancient copper mines, 89–94.

Ancient forts of New York, 28;
of Lake Erie, 28;
Col. Whittlesey on, 28;
Dr. Foster on, 28.

Anderson’s, W. M., “Calendar Stone,” 70.

Andrews, E. B., explorations by, 55.

Antiquity of man, chap. ii;
testimony of geology, 102;
in Europe, 24, n. 1.

Antiquity of mounds, 101, 103, 104.
Red man, 22.

Antipodes, St. Augustine on, 132;
Aristarchus of Samos on, 132.

Apes, American group of, 194.

Ararat, Mt., 497.
the Mexican, 261–63.

Arch, pueblo, 292.

Architecture, analogies in, real and fancied, 339.
Maya, 340–55.
classification of styles, 340.
Palenque, 340;
Yucatan style, 346;
Uxmal, 347.
Kabah, 352;
Zayi, 353;
Labná, 354.
Quiché, 355–59.
Nahua, 359–83;
Mitla, 360–64.
Maya and Nahua compared, 381.

Architectural progress in mound works, 79–80.

Argyll, Duke of, on Negroid type, 197.

Art, unity of style in savage, 196.
high order at Palenque, 389, 392;
at Uxmal, 393, 395;
at Copan, 404.
Palenque and Egyptian compared, 418.

Astronomical knowledge of Aztecs, 455.
Mound-builders, 94–6.

Atlantic Ocean, floor of, 502, 505.
submerged land ridge of, 503.
mean depths of, 502.
sea-board, changes in level of, 504.
continent, 505.

Atlantis, Platonic, tradition of, 142, 498–505.
Brasseur de Bourbourg on, 498–500.
Legends of from _Popol Vuh_ and _Codex Chimalpopoca_, 499.
Retzius on, 500;
Unger, 501;
Heer, 501.

Atolls of the Pacific, 507;
Dana and Le Conte on, 507–8.

Atoyac, Mexican river, 234.

Autochthones, mound-builders not, 97.

Autochthon, the American an, 192.

Autochthonic origin of Americans, 155.

Axayacatl, Mexican king, 452.

Azores, volcanic character of, 503.

Aztec calendar, 446–59;
year, 447;
months, 447;
weeks and days, 448;
inter-calation, 448;
Ritual year, 449, 455;
Lords of night, 449.
Stone, 450;
lunar reckoning, 455.
chronology, 458.

Aztec language, richness of, 471, 480, 481;
extent of, 480, 492.
the classic tongue, 480;
ancient and modern, 481.
grammar, 481–85;
Lord’s prayer in, 485.
traces of north of Mexico, 486–90, 491.
elements in Nootka languages, 491.

Aztec picture-writing, 428–33.

Aztec springs, 300, 324–26;
Aztec-Sonora languages, 487–8.

“Aztec theory,” the, 331.

Aztecs, migrations of, 259–263;
date of, 259;
stations, 260–61;
southern origin of considered, 266, n. 1.

Aztlan, Nahua home, 257–9, 518;
location of, 257–9, 264–65.
description of by Duran, 258.

Aztlan, Wis., mound works at, 36.

B.

Babel myths, 140;
tower of, 205;
Cholula, 235–37.

Bacab myth, 465.

Balam-Agab, Quiché progenitor, 214.

Balam-Quitzé, Quiché progenitor, 214.

Baldwin, J. D., on mounds of North-west, 31, 32.

Bancroft, H. H., on Hue hue Tlapalan, 251–53.
resumé of Toltec annals by, 255.
observations on Cox-cox myth, 263.
on Maya chronology, 438.
on Aztec language, 476, n. 2.

Baptism, Mexican, 462.

Barber, E. A., 305.

Barrandt on Dakota mounds, 31.

Basque and Maya languages compared, 476;
Dr. Farrar on, 476, n. 2.

Bartlett’s exploration of Casas Grandes, 276–83.

Bayou St. John, earthworks on, 76.

Beard mound, 56.

Bearded men at Chichen-Itza, 401.

Beau Relief in Stucco, 388.

Becker, J. H., on traditions of Nahua Mound-builders, 102, n.;
on ancient home of Nahuas, 248;
on Toltec migration, 248–50.

Behring’s Straits, Bancroft’s remarks on, 147.
width and depth of, 510;
Lyell and Herschel on, 510;
Hellwald on migration by, 511;
Dall, W. H., on migration _via_, 512, n. 1.

Berthoud, E. L., stone implements collected by, 124.

Big Harpeth valley works, 60–65.

Blake, J. H., collection of Peruvian skulls by, 176–7.

Bollaert’s interpretation of hieroglyphics, 425.

Books used by Mayas, 420.
by Aztecs, 428.

Bourbeuse River, mastodon discovered at, 116.

Brasseur de Bourbourg, estimate of by Bancroft, 142, n. 1.
on the Platonic Atlantis, 142, 498–500;
on Igh and Imox, 205, n. 1;
on Maya hieroglyphics, 421–25;
on religious analogies, 467–8;
on Scandinavian and Maya languages, 476.

Brachycephalic crania classified, 162–3.

Brazil, accidental discovery of by Cabral, 506.

Brentwood, Tenn., stones graves at, 60.

Brick, sun-dried, from mounds, 72–75.

Brinton, Dr., phonetic alphabet, 427;
Buddha and Quetzalcoatl compared by, 466.

Brown, Thos., mounds of, 63–4.

Browne, Ross, explorations by, 282–3.

Buckle, on learning in Spain, 133, n. 2.

Buddhist missionaries in America, 148–50.

Burial, “intrusive” in mounds, 85;
ceremony, 40;
in stone coffins, 60;
vase from Mexico, 410.

Butler, J. W., on Chaac-Mol, 399.

Buschmann’s researches on American languages, 487–88.
Sonora family, 487;
on Aztec element in Nootka language, 491.

C.

Cabots, 22.

Cabral, discovery of Brazil by, 506.

Cabrera on the origin of the Votanites, 208–9;
on Votanic document, 207.

Cahita, language of New Mexico, 487.

Cahokia mound, 41.

Calapooya language, traces of Aztec in, 490.

Calaveras Co. (Cal.) cranium, 125;
views of Whitney, Wyman and others on, 125.

Calendar systems, mound-builder, 40.
Maya, 435–45;
days, 436;
months, 437;
the Katun, 439–40;
Ahau Katun, 441;
succession of, 442.
Nahua or Mexican, its construction, 243, 446–59;
perfection of, 519;
year, 447;
days and weeks, 448;
inter-calation, 448;
Ritual year, 449;
lords of night, 449;
Calendar Stone, 408–9;
interpreted by Gama, Chevero and Valentini, 450–58;
history, 452–3, 457.

California, traces of antiquity of man in, 125.

California languages and their affinities to Chinese, 495;
Japanese, 496.

Canals constructed by Mound-builders, 98–100.

Caras or Carians ancient navigators, 507;
Brasseur on, 507.

Carr’s Measurements of Crania, 173;
on low-type mound crania, 174.

Carter, 22;
Carter, Dr. J. Van A., on stone implements, 24, n. 1.

Carthaginian colonization of America, 145–6

Cara Gigantesca, 404.

Casa del Ecó, 312.
Gobernador (Uxmal), 347–50.
Grande of Zayi, 353.
de Monjas, sculptures of, 394.

Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, 276;
Aztec station at, 277.
of the Gila, 284.

Cataclysm, traditions of a, 499.

Cave explorations, 26.
dwellings, 292–311, 313.
village of Rio Chelley, 313.
shelters of San Juan, 319.
fortresses of Rio Mancos, 320.

Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, Toltec king, 272.

Cemetery, aboriginal, 65.

Centennial Report of Ohio Arch. Asso., 82.

Centla, pyramid of, 365–6.

Cephalic index of crania, 160.

Ceremonial law, analysis of, 463.

Chaac-Mol, statue of, 397–400.

Chaco Valley, ruined pueblo in, 291;
peculiarity of architecture, 292.

Chalcas, Nahua tribe, 256.

Chalco, lake, 264.

Challenger, voyage of, 502;
“Challenger plateau,” 502–3.

Chalcatzin, Toltec chief, 244.

Chamber, interior in mound, 75.

Chanes, ancient races, 206.

Charencey, 425.

Chelly Cañon, antiquities of, 293;
cave-village of, 313–14;
house in, 315.

Chevero, interpretation of Mexican Calendar Stone by, 450–2.

Chiapan architecture, 340.

Chiapas, ancient civilization of, 203.

Chichen-Itza, antiquities of, 353–5, 397–403;
mural paintings at, 401.

Chichilticale, “red house,” 281.

Chichimecs, Mexican nation, 243;
dynasty of, 254;
language of, 255, 480;
Pimentel on, 255–6.

Chicomoztoc (Chichimostoc) Nahua home, 256–7;
identical with “seven caves,” 261, n.; 264–66.

Chihuahua, Casas Grandes of, 275;
original descriptions of, 276;
material and dimensions of, 276–77.

Children’s graves in Tennessee, 66–8.

Chimalhuacan, Toltec station, 245.

Chinook language, traces of Aztec in, 490, n. 3.

Cholula pyramid, 235;
not related to a flood, 235, 237;
origin according to Duran, 236, 368–70.

Christ myth in Yucatan, 231, 464.

Christy collection, Mosaic knife from, 412.

Chinese colonization of America, 148.

Chronology, accepted faulty, 199, 200;
Duke of Argyll on, 200.
Maya, 435–45;
adjusted to ours, 443–45.

Cibola, seven cities of, 288.

Cincinnati mound-works. 44–6;
tablet, 44–6.

Circumcision, 463.

Cists, stone, 60.

Civilization, American contrasted with that of ancient Britons, 520.

Clallam and Lummi languages, Aztec element in, 490.

Clarke, Robert, on Cincinnati Tablet, 44–6.
on Morgan’s Pueblo theory, 55, n. 2.

Classification of crania, 160–3.
of mound-works by Squier and Davis, and Foster, 81.
of mound relics by Rau, 82, n. 1.

Clavigero, views on origin of Americans, 140, n. 1.
on first colonists of America, 204.

Cliff-dwellers, 293;
their traditional history, 302.

Cliff-dwellings of the Mancos Cañon, 298–99, 319.
McElmo Cañon, 302.
Hovenweep, 305–7.
San Juan, 307, 308, 319.
and Rock Shelters on San Juan, 309.
house of Chelly Cañon, 315.
in Montezuma Cañon, 316.

Cloth from mounds, 37, 43.

Coast level, elevation and depression of, 405.

Coffins, stone, 60.

Columbus, 22;
stern-post of ship seen by, 506.

Colonists, first in Mexico, 242.

Color, variety in human races, 197, 198;
Darwin on origin of, 199.

Color of ancient Americans, 189;
Pritchard on, 189, n. 2.

Colorado River, ruins in Grand Cañon of, 285.
Major Powell’s exploration, 285–87.

Colorado Chiquito, antiquities of, 287.

Columbia River languages, 492.

Conant, A. J., explorations by, 76, 77;
on ancient canals, 98, 100.

Conflict of science and dogmatism, 131.

Confusion of tongues, 238.

Connett mound, 56.

Conquest of Xibalba, 222–5.

Copan, 221;
ruins of, 356–59;
sculpture of, 404–5.

Copper in mounds, 85;
ancient mines of, 89–94;
theory of Mexican supply, 93, 493.
relics from Wisconsin, 99.

Cora language and its relation to Aztec, 486–7.

Cosmogonic egg, 416, 419, 465.

Coronado’s journey to New Mexico, 281, n. 1.

Cox, Prof., discoveries cited, 75.

Cox-cox, Mexican Noah, 262, n. 1.

Cox-cox, Bancroft’s observations on, 263, 454.

_Crania Americana_, measurements of, classified, 161–3.

Cranial measurements, 159–60.

Crania from mounds, testimony of, 105–6.
River Rogue, 167;
measurements by Gillman, 168.
Davenport, Farquharson’s measurements, 169–70;
from Ohio, 170;
from Kentucky, 171;
from Tennessee, 171;
comparison, 174;
compression of common, 178, 184;
among Chinooks, 182;
among other American tribes, 183.

Cranium, low type, discovered by Conant, 174.

Cremation probable, 85.

Cristone of McElmo Cañon, 301.

Cross, subterranean temple of, 363.
Tablet of, 390.

Cruciform works at Trenton, Wis., 35.

Crux Ansata at Palenque, 416–17.

Cukulcan culture hero, 230–31, 272, 394, 457.

Culhuacan, 226.

Culhuas (Nahuas) sometimes applied to Mayas, 209.

Curtiss, Ed., explorations by, 65.

D.

Dablon, Father, on aboriginal use of copper, 92–3.

Dakota mounds, 31, n. 2.

Dall, W. H., on migration by Behring’s Straits, 512, n. 1.

Dana, J. D., review of Dr. Koch’s discoveries, 120.

Darwin on old world origin of Americans, 194.

Davenport Academy, explorations conducted by, 37–40.

Davenport Tablet, 38, 40.

Davenport mound crania, 169–70.
elephant pipe, Appendix B.

Days, Maya, 436–38.

Deguignes, 148.

Deluge myths, Mexican, 262–3, notes.
Tezpi, 263, n.;
Analogies, 460.

Development of American Race (see Evolution).

Dickson, Dr., examination of “Mammoth Ravine” by, 113–14.

Diseases of Mound-builders, 184.

Dogmatism and science, 131.

Dolechocephalic crania classified, 161.

“Dolphin Rise,” the, 501.

Domenech, Abbé, note on works, 139, n. 4.

Dowler, Dr., skeleton discovered by, 123;
estimate of antiquity, 123.

Drake, account of works at Cincinnati by, 44.

Drift (modified), fossil from, 121.

Dwellings of Mound-builders, 67.

E.

Earth, globular form discovered, 133.

Echevarria y Veitia on the origin of the Americans, 138.

Eckstein, Baron de, on the Caras, 507.

Eden, Mexican analogies with, 460.

Edificios de Quemada, 379.

Education of Aztec children, 432.

Effigy mounds of Wisconsin, 33–36;
of Ohio, 34;
of Georgia, 35.

Egypt and Teotihuacan compared, 383.

Egyptian influence on American civilization, 147.

Egyptian painting, 197.

Egyptian Tau at Palenque, 416.

El Castillo, pyramid, 366.

Elephant mound. 35–6;
“Trunk,” 385, 395;
pipe, 530.

El Moro, ruins on, 290.

Elyria cave, Whittlesey on, 26.

Engleman, Dr. J. G., 43.

Enoch, H. R., discovery by, 44.

Epsom Creek, antiquities of, 315;
elevated tower on, 316.

Eric the Red, 153.

Ericson, 32.

Eskimo, the first occupants of America, 512.

Estufa (Pueblo sanctuary), 292;
entrance peculiar, 322.

Etowah valley mounds, 72.

Europe, antiquity of man in, 24, n. 1.

Evolution, origin of the Americans by, 191;
views of Hellwald on, 191;
regarded improbable by Hæckel and Darwin, 195.

F.

Fanaticism of early writers on America, 133.

Farquharson, Dr., reports by, 38.

Farrar, Dr. W., on American language, 470.

Feathered Serpent (Quetzalcoatl, Gucumatz Cukulcan), 272, 394, 457.

Festival of the Mexican Cycle, 456.

Flood myths of the Mexicans, 262, n. 1, 499;
of Pueblos, 335–6.

Floors of burnt clay, 66.

Florida, ancient home of Mayas, 517.

Floridian jaw-bone, Agassiz and Pourtales on, 112–13.

Fontaine, Mr., on Tennessee valley mounds, 71.

Forchhammer on Indian languages, 496.

Forest growth on mounds, 104.

Forshey, Prof. C. G., on southern mounds, 77–79.

Fort Ancient, 51;
Judges Dunlevy and Force on, 51, 52.

Fortifications (ancient) in New York, on the Lakes, and in Butler
Co., Ohio, 50;
in Miami valley, 51, 75.

Foster’s _Pre-historic Races_, importance of, 100, n. 2.

Foster, Dr. J. W., on Cahokia mound, 42;
classification of mound-works by, 81;
on Indian traditions, 102;
on age of “New Orleans skeleton,” 124.

Fossil from drift, Jersey Co., Ill., 121;
Foster’s observations on, 121.

Fremont, Montezuma legend by, 334.

Frio, Cape, distance from Africa, 506.

Fuentes, description of Copan by, 356.

Funeral ceremony, 39, 40.

Fusang, 148–51;
views of Neuman on, 149;
Bretschneider, 150;
Klaproth, 150;
D’Eichthal, 151.

G.

Gama, Leon y, on Mexican Calendar Stone, 450–55.

Garcia on origin of Americans, 136–7.

Gardner, J. Starke, on Dolphin and Challenger ridges, 503.

Gass, Rev. J., discoveries of, 37, 40.

Gemelli Carreri, migration map of, 261–3.

Geometrical knowledge of Mound-builders, 49.

Geographical names, analogies in, 497.

Gest, Mr. E., 46.

Giants, race of, 232;
destruction of, 235.

Gila river, Casa Grande of, 279.
accounts of, 279;
ground plan of, 281.
view of, 283.

Gillman, Henry, explorations of, 29.
on crania from River Rogue, 167–8.
on crania from Chamber’s Island, 169.

Goazacoalco (various spellings) river and province, 251.

Gobernador, Casa del, 347–50.

Grammar of Maya language, 477–9.

Aztec language, 481–85.

Grave Creek mound, 87.

Gravier on Northmen, 153.

Gray, Asa, on American and European flora, 501;
on Asiatic flora, 513.

Graphic systems, see Hieroglyphics.

Great Serpent, mound-work, 34, 70.

Grecques at Mitla, 363.

Greek analogies of religion, 466.

Greek colonization of America, 146;
advocates of, 146.

Greek gods in Yucatan, 467.

Green County, Missouri, mound, 74.

Greenland, subsidence of coast, 504.

“Grimm’s Law,” 471–488.

Grote, Prof. A. R., observations on Eskimo, 128, 512.

Guatemalians, origin and flood myths of, 228–9.

Gucumatz, Quiché, deity, 213, 222, 226, 227.
search for maize by, 241, 272.

Gulf Stream, 505.

H.

Hacavitz, mountain and deity, 215–16.

Hæckel, on origin of Americans, 195.

Hair of ancient Americans, 186.

Hair-cloth from mounds, 43.

Hanno’s naval expeditions, 145.

Hands, prints of ancient cliff-dwellers, 312.

Haywood, mummies described by, 187.

Head-flattening, history of, 178–80;
practiced in America, 180–84;
Prof. Wilson on, 180;
among the Chinooks, 182;
among Mound-builders, 183.

Headlee, Dr., cited, 75, n.

Hearths (ancient) in Ohio valley, 122.

Helena, Missouri, sun-dried bricks at, 75.

Hellwald, F. von, and copper in Mexico, 93.

Herrera on origin of Americans, 137.

Heroic period of American history, 515.

Hieroglyphics, from the mounds, 419.
of cliff-dwellers, 420;
of Mayas, 420–28;
Landa’s key to, 223–25.
Mexican, 429–34.

Hill, S. W., on ancient copper mines, 91.

Hindoo and Mexican analogies, 465.

Hiram and Solomon’s fleet, 154.

Hitchcock, Prof. Ed., on age of Mississippi delta, 128.

Hivites, ancestors of Votanites, 208–9, n.

Hoei-Shin, report on Fusang, 148.

Holmes, W. H., explorations of, 297, 305, 317.
on Rio de la Plata, 318;
mound-works reported, 318;
discoveries on San Juan, 319.
in Mancos Cañon, 320–24.

Hooker, Sir Joseph, 43.

Hopetown works, 49.

Hosea, S. M., on sacrificial mounds, 74, n. 2.

Houses of Mound-builders, 67.

Hovenweep, ruined city of, 304;
niche stairway of, 306;
cliff-house of, 307.

Howland, H. R., discoveries by, in “American bottom,” 43–4.

Huastecs, Maya nation, 234.

Hueman (Huematzin), Toltec astrologer and leader, 245, 253.

Hue hue Tlapalan, ancient Nahua home, 238, 240, 248;
date of migration from, 240, 241, 244, 245, n., 458;
location of, 244, 518.
in Mississippi Valley, 253;
not in North-west, 253.

Huehuetan, in Chiapas. 206.

Huemac, Toltec king, 268.

Hueyxalan, Toltec station, 245.

Humboldt, William von, on Aztec language, 486.

Humphries and Abbott’s estimate of age of Mississippi delta, 124.

Hunahpu, Quiché, hero, 222;
exploits of, 222–3.

Hunab Ku (only god), 231.

Hunbatz, 223.

Hun Came, 222–24.

Hunchouen, 228.

Hunhunahpu, Quiché, chief, 222–3.

Hurakan, Quiché, deity, 212, 222, 226.

I.

Iaia, tradition of, 499, n.

Igh, one of the first colonists of Chiapas, 204.

Imox, one of the first colonists of Chiapas, 204.

Inca-bone, 173.

India and Mexico, religious analogies of, 465.

Indiana mounds, 57, n. 2.

Indigenous Americans, 155.
views of writers on, 156.

Infant burial in Tennessee, 60, 66.

Ingersoll, Mr., tradition of cliff-dwellers recorded by, 302–4.

Intercalary days, 445, 455.

Interglacial race, 512–516.
relics from Waynesville, Ohio, 126;
President Orton on, 126–7.

Interglacial man in New Jersey, 127–8.

Iqi-Balam, Quiché, deity, 214–15.

Irish colonists of America, 152.

Israel, lost tribes of in America, 135–6;
views of Duran on, 135;
Thorowgood, 136;
L’Estrange, 136;
Garcia, 137;
Pineda, 138;
Echevarria y Veitia and Kingsborough, 143.

Isle Royal, copper mines on, 91;
Henry Gillman 91, n. 1;
Foster on, 92–3;
Aboriginal use of copper, 92–3.

Issaquena County, Mississippi, mounds, 70;
Anderson’s Calendar Stone from, 70.

Ixtlilxochetl’s _Relaciones_, 240, 250.

J.

Jackson, W. H., discoveries by in the McElmo and Mancos cañons, 294.
in the Hovenweep, 305–7.

Janos river, antiquities of, 278.

Japanese and American affinities, 496.
colonization of America, 148.

Jaredites, colonists of America, 144.

Jaw-bone from Florida, Agassiz and Count Pourtales on, 112–13.

Jewish theory of colonization, 143.

Jewish and Mexican historical analogies, 461.

Jones, George, on Phœnician colonization of America, 146;
estimate of his work, 146, n. 2.

Jones, Prof. Joseph, Mound explorations in Tennessee, 171–3;
cranial measurements by, 172.

K.

Kabah, peculiarity of architecture at, 352.

Kamucu, Quiché national song, 217.

Kennebec valley mound, 28.

Kennon, Col., on Aleutian islands, 509.

Kentucky mound crania, 171.

Kinich-Kakmó, queen of Chichen-Itza, 400.

Kingsborough’s fancied analogies, 460–65.

Kitchens of the Mound-builders, 76.

Kitchen-middens, see _Shell-heaps_.

Knapp, S. O., discovery of ancient copper mines by, 89.

Koch, Dr., discoveries of, 116–121;
J. D. Dana on, 120–21;
Koch, valuable services of, 121, n. 2.

Kuro-suvo, or Japan current, 509.

L.

Labná, architecture of, 353.

Lake Superior copper mines, 90–92.

Lamnites, colonists of America, 144.

Landa’s Alphabet, 423–25.
Maya days and months, 436–7.

Languages (American), multiplicity of, 190, 469;
instability of, 493–4, n. 1.
survival of the fittest, 470.
the Maya-Quiché, 472;
classification of, 472;
stability of the Maya, 473.
the oldest American, 473;
Orozco y Berra on, 473, 493;
Maya-Quiché characteristics, 474;
Dr. Le Plongeon on, 474.
the Aztec, 479–90;
epitome of grammar, 481–85;
affinities to Asiatic, 495–96;
bearing on migrations, 486.

Lapham, Dr., survey of mound-works in Wisconsin, 34–5.

Lascarbot on origin of Americans, 137.

Las Casas, on origin of Guatemalians, 228.
on flood myth, 228;
on creation myth, 228, n.;
on Christ myth, 231.

Latham on Morton’s theories, 165, n.

Lautverschiebung, 471, 488.

Leather relic from mound, 56.

Le Conte, Prof., on changes of coast level, 504.

Legendary period of American history, level, 515.

Leidy, Prof. Joseph, on stone implements, 24.

L’Estrange on origin of Americans, 136.

Leroux, M., discoveries of, 284.

Le Plongeon, Dr., explorations in Yucatan, 396–403;
on Maya language, 474–77;
on analogies between Yucatan and Canary Islands, 500.

Liberty, Ohio, works at, 48.

Lief, Norse discoverer of America, 153.

Lord’s prayer in Maya, 479.
in Aztec, 485.

Louisiana mounds, 77–79.
Prof. C. G. Forshey on, 77;
pyramidal mounds, 78.

Low type crania from mounds, 174.

Lund, Dr., explorations by, 116.

Lyell, Sir Charles, on remains at Santos River, Brazil, 113;
observations on Natchez bone, 113–14;
on age of Mississippi delta, 123;
on New Orleans skeleton, 123.

M.

McElmo Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 300, 302.
square tower in, 301;
triple-walled tower of, 224.

McGuire on antiquity of Red man, 27, n.

McKinley, William, mounds described by, 73.

Madisonville explorations, 523.

Mahucutah, Quiché progenitor, 214.

Maize, discovery of, 241.

Man, antiquity of in South America, 109–10, 129;
four creations of, 214.

Man’s influence on nature, 110–11;
measure of antiquity, 110;
Martius on, 111, n.;
Dr. Brinton on, 111;
Dr. Meigs on Santos River remains, 113.

Man of recent origin in America, 130;
Lubbock’s remarks on, 130;
Foster on, 130, n.

Manchester stone fort, 59.

Mancos Cañon, cliff-houses of, 294, 295, 298, 299;
watch-tower of, 296–97, 300;
cave-fortresses of, 320–24.

Manuscripts of Mayas, 421.
Troano MS, 422.
of Mexicans, 429;
Mendoza Codex, 431–33.

Maps, Aztec migration, 261–63.

Marietta mounds, 54.

Marsh, Prof. O. C., exploration by, 87–9.

Mastodon discovered by Dr. Koch, 116–18.

Mayas, traditional origin of, chap. v.;
earliest home, 210;
venerable civilization, 519;
architecture of, 340–55;
sculpture, 384–403;
compared to Egyptian, 415;
calendar of, 435–45;
Katun or Cycle, 439–40;
Ahau Katun, 442;
intercalary days, 445;
system adjusted to our chronology, 443–45;
observations of Landa, Perez, Bancroft and Delaport on, 443–45.

Maya-Quiché languages classified, 472;
stability of, 473;
antiquity of, 474–5.

Maya Grammar, 477–79;
Maya, Lord’s prayer in, 479.

Maya and Hebrew compared, 475.
compared to Scandinavian languages, 476.
compared to the Basque, 476;
to West African languages, 477.

Maya writing, see Hieroglyphics.

Mazatepec, Toltec station, 246.

Mecitl (or Mixi), Aztec leader, 259.

Meigs on mean of Indian cranium, 167.

Melgar on two idols near Mexico, 416;
on Maya language, 475.

Menominees, “White Indiana,” 189.

Mexican baptism, 462–3;
crania, 175.
Calendar, divisions of time, 446;
the Cycle, 446;
festival of, 456;
months, 447;
New Year, 447.
Calendar Stone, 450;
its interpreters, 450;
dates furnished by, 458;
Lunar reckoning, 455.

Mexican language, see Aztec language.

Mexico, pyramid of, 374;
sculpture from, 408–11;
vases from, 410;
vases in the United States National Museum, 413–415.

Miami Valley, aboriginal cemetery in, 523.

Miamisburgh mound, 52.

Mica, use of by Mound-builders, 98.

Michigan mounds, 29.

Migration, the first to America, 512.
conditions favorable in North-west, 513.
Becker on, 513–14.
of the Quichés, 215.
of the Tolteca, 244–251.
of the Aztecs, 259–63;
of Tarascos, 261.

Migration map of Boturini, 433.
of Gemelli Carreri, 261–63, 483.
Gemelli interpreted by Ramirez, 262.

Minas Geraes, caves of, 116.

Mississippi delta, age of, 122–24;
estimate by Lyell, 122;
by Dr. Dowler, 123;
by Dr. Hitchcock, 123;
by Humphries and Abbott, 123.

Mississippi mounds, 69–70, 71.

Mitchell, Dr. A., explorations cited, 73.

Mitla, antiquities of, 361–62.

Mizteco-Zapotec languages, 479.

Miztecs, Mexican tribe. 234.

Mongol colonization of America, 151.

Monjas, Casa de, 350.

Montezuma Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 316.

Montezuma, culture-hero, 333;
legend of his birth, 334;
legend concerning by Papagoes chief, 334;
Montezuma II., Mexican emperor, 453;
languages of his empire, 480.

Months, Maya, 437–39.

Monosyllabism, 495.

Moqui towns, Becker on origin, 332;
name, 332;
Lieutenant Ives’ description of, 326–30;
pottery, 327;
interior of dwellings, 328.

Moqui language, Aztec traces in, 489.

Mooshahueh, Moqui town, 328.

Morgan, L. H., Pueblo theory of, 55;
Robert Clarke on, 53, n.

Mormon colonisation of America, 144;
Bancroft on, 144.

Morton, Dr., classification of American races by, 157–59;
table of cranial measurements by, 158, n. 1;
views untenable, 159–165, 516;
measurements of _Crania Americana_ classified, 161–63.

Moody, J., on Rockford Tablet, 44.

Moss, Captain, 302.

Mosaics at Mitla, 362–3.

Mosaic knife, 412.

Mosaic deluge, Mexican analogies with, 460.

Mound-builders, geographical distribution of works, 27;
Mica mines of, 28;
copper mines of, 92–94.
no tradition of, 102–3;
Mound-builders and Indians distinct, 65.
language of, 492;
diseases of, 184.

Mound-works at St. Clair river, 30;
in British Columbia, 30;
in Oregon, 31;
Bonhomme’s island, 31;
Missouri valley, 31, 33;
on Butte prairies, 31, n. 1;
in Dakota, 31, n. 2;
in Wisconsin, 33;
at Davenport, 37;
heart of country, 40;
St. Louis and American bottom, 41;
in Ohio, 48;
at Newark, 53–55;
in Wabash valley, 57, n. 2;
in Tennessee, 58–68;
in North and South Carolina, 67;
in Mississippi, 67;
in Alabama, 71;
in Georgia, 72, 73;
in Missouri, 74–77;
in Louisiana, 77–79;
in Texas, 78;
antiquity of, 101;
abandonment, 101–5, 458–9;
age of vegetation on, 104;
of Mancos Cañon, 294;
in Vera Paz, 359;
in Tehuantepec, 360;
in Vera Cruz, 364.

Mound crania, condition of a measure of antiquity, 105–6;
typical mound skull, 166.

Mound sculptures, 187–9.

Mugeres Isla, statue from, 403.

Müller, Max, 471.

Mummies from Peru, 186.
from Tennessee, 187.

Mural paintings at Chichen-Itza, 401.

N.

Nachan, “city of serpents,” 205.

Nahua architecture, 359–83.
sculpture, 406–15.

Nahua Calendar, 445–459.
writers on, 445, n. 3.
analogies with calendars of Asia and Egypt, 459.

Nahua language, see Aztec language.
ancient and modern, 480, 481, 486, 493–4, n. 1.
elements of in language of North-west, 491.
the probable language of Mound-builders, 492.
spoken in Florida, 493;
analogies to, 494.

Nahua nations, origin of, 232.
predecessors of in Mexico, 232.
chronology of according to _Codex Chimalpopoca_ and _Popol Vuh_,
241, 250.
their arrival at Panuco, 242.
extent of territory in Mexico, 248.
migrations of, 244, 251, 517.
southern origin considered, 252.

Nahuatlacas, seven Nahua tribes, 256–9.

Najera on the Otomi and the Chinese, 494–5.

Nashville, Tenn., mounds near, 62, 65, 67.

Natchez pelvic bone, discovered by Dr. Dickson, 113.
Lyell’s observations on, 113–14.
Foster’s observations on, 114, n. 4.

Negroid type, ancient, 197.

Nemontemi, Aztec intercalary days, 455.

Neolithic age in America, 23.

Nephites, colonists of America, 144.

Newark, Ohio, works at, 53–55.

New Jersey, traces of inter-glacial man in, 127–8.

New Madrid, Missouri, great mound near, 75–76.

New Orleans, ancient skeleton discovered at, 123.

New York, ancient forts of, 28.