[1797] Cf. for garden beds Amer. Antiquarian, i. and vii.; Foster, 155; Bela Hubbard’s Memorials of a half century (Detroit). Shaler (Kentucky, 46) surmises that it was the buffalo coming into the Ohio Valley, and affording food without labor, that debased the moundbuilders to hunters.

[1798] Cf. Col. Whittlesey on rock inscriptions in the United States in West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tract No. 42. Col. Garrick Mallory’s special studies of pictographs are contained in the Bull. U. S. Geological Survey of the territories (1877), and in the Fourth Rept. Bur. Ethnol. Wm. McAdams includes those of the Mississippi Valley in his Records of ancient races in the Mississippi Valley (St. Louis, 1887). Cf. Hist. Mag., x. 307. Those in Ohio are enumerated in the Final Rept. of the State Board of Centennial Managers (1877), by M. C. Read and Col. Whittlesey. Cf. also the West. Res. Hist. Soc. Tracts Nos. 12, 42, 53; the Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc. (1875); and The Antiquary, ii. 15. Those in the Upper Minnesota Valley are reported on by T. H. Lewis in the Amer. Naturalist, May, 1886, and July, 1887. J. R. Bartlett in his Personal Narrative noted some of those along the Mexican boundary, and Froebel (Seven Years’ Travel, Lond., 1859, p. 519) controverts some of Bartlett’s views. Cf. Nadaillac, Les premiers hommes, ii.; J. G. Bruff on those in the Sierra Nevada in Smithson. Rept., 1872. A. H. Keane reports upon some in North Carolina in the Journal Anthropological Inst. (London), xii. 281. C. C. Jones in his Southern Indians (1873) covers the subject. Some in Brazil are noted in Ibid., Apr., 1873.

[1799] The first session of the International Congress of Prehistoric [Anthropology and] Archæology was held at Neuchâtel, and its proceedings were printed in the Materiaux pour l’histoire de l’homme. The second session was at Paris; the third at Norwich, England; the fourth at Copenhagen; and there have been others of later years. Cf. A. de Quatrefages’ Rapport sur le progrès de l’anthropologie (Paris, 1868). Quatrefages himself is one of the most distinguished of the French school, and deserves as much as any to rank as the founder of the present French school of anthropologists. Cf. his Hommes fossiles et hommes sauvages (1884). The English reader can most easily get possessed of his view, conservative in some respects, in Eliza A. Youman’s English version of his most popular book, Nat. Hist. of Man (N. Y., 1875).

[1800] Founded in Paris in 1864 by Gabriel de Mortillet, and edited after vol. v. by Eugène Trutat and Emile Cartailhac.

[1801] Cf. C. Rau’s Articles on anthropol. subjects contributed to the Annual Repts. of the Smithson. Inst., 1863-1877 (Smiths. Inst., no. 440; Washington, 1882). The Smithson. Rept., 1880 (Washington, 1881), also contains a bibliography of anthropology by O. T. Mason. A considerable list of books is prefixed to Dr. Gustav Brühl’s Culturvölker des alten Amerika, which is a collection of tracts published at different times (1875-1887) at N. Y., Cincinnati, and St. Louis.

[1802] He had surveyed the condition of the science in 1867 in his introduction to Nilsson’s Stone Age,—Primitive inhabitants of Scandinavia. Cf. also Smithsonian Report, 1862.

[1803] Figuier’s books are nearly all accessible in English. His Human Race and his World before the Deluge cover some parts of the subject.

[1804] A few minor references: Dawson’s Story of Earth and Man, ch. 14, 15. Foster’s Prehistoric Races of the U. S., ch. 1, 2. Clodd’s Childhood of the World. Gay’s Pop. Hist. U. S., ch. 1. Principal Forbes in the Edinburgh Review, July, 1863; Oct., 1870. London Quarterly Rev., Apr., 1870. Contemp. Rev., xi. Bibliotheca Sacra, Apr., 1873. Brit. Q. Rev., Ap., Oct., 1863. Lond. Rev., Jan., 1860. Lippincott’s Mag., vol. i. Nat. Q. Rev., Mar., 1876. Lakeside Monthly, vol. x., etc.

[1805] Translated by N. D’Anvers and edited by W. H. Dall, with some radical changes of text (N. Y., 1884). Cf. Lucien Carr in Science, 1885, Feb. 27, p. 176. Dall discusses the evidences of the remains of the later prehistoric man in the United States in the Smithsonian Contributions, vol. xxii.

[1806] A few other references of lesser essays: D. G. Brinton’s Review of the data for the study of the prehistoric chronology of America (Salem, 1887,—from the Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci., xxxvi.); his Recent European Contributions to the study of Amer. Archæology (Philad. 1883); and his Prehistoric Archæology (Philad., 1886). Seth Sweetzer on prehistoric man in the Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., Apr., 1869, and Haven’s Prehistoric Amer. Civilization in Ibid., April, 1871. J. L. Onderdonck in Nat. Quart. Rev. (April, 1878), xxxvi. 227. Ernest Marceau’s “Les anciens peuples de l’Amérique” in the Revue Canadienne, n. s., iv. 709. E. S. Morse in No. Amer. Rev., cxxxii. 602, or Kansas Rev., v. 90. H. Gillman’s Ancient men of the Great Lakes (Detroit, 1877).

The principal work on the South American man is Alcède d’Orbigny’s L’Homme Américaine (Paris, 1837). There are some local treatises, like Lucien de Rosny’s Les Antilles: étude d’ethnographie et d’archéologie Americaines (Paris, 1886,—Am. Soc. d’Ethnographie, n. s., ii.), and papers by Nadaillac and others in the Materiaux, etc.

[1807] By Theo. Lyman and Hr. de Schlagintweit.

[1808] The long article on the Races of America in Cassino’s Standard Nat. Hist. (Boston, 1885), vol. vi., is based on Friedrich von Hellwald’s Naturgeschichte des Menschen, but it is widely varied in places under the supervision of Putnam and Carr. Cf. also J. C. Prichard’s Researches into the physical history of mankind (Lond., 1841), 4th ed., vol. v., “Oceanic and American nations.”

[1809] Bandelier, in his several essays in the 2d volume of the Peabody Museum Reports, speaks of his neglecting such compilations as Bancroft’s in order to deal solely with the original sources, and the student will find the references in his foot-notes of those essays very full indications of what he must follow in the study of such sources.

[1810] Harrisse, Bib. Am. Vet.; Rich, Bibl. Nova; Leclerc, nos. 350, 351; Pilling, p. xxviii.

[1811] Pilling, p. xii.

[1812] See Vol. II. p. 429.

[1813] Bib. Mex. Guat., p. 24; Pinart, no. 161. Cf. Icazbalceta on “Las bibliotecas de Eguiara y de Beristain” in Memorias de la Académia Méxicana, i. 353.

[1814] Vol. II. p. 430.

[1815] Also in Eng. transl., ii. 256.

[1816] Cf. Brinton’s Aborig. Amer. Authors, Philad., 1883.

[1817] See Vol. II p. 430.

[1818] Pilling, p. xxxi.

[1819] A school book, Marcius Willson’s Amer. History (N. Y., 1847), went much farther than any book of its class, or even of the usual popular histories, in the matter of American antiquities, giving a good many plans and cuts of ruins.

[1820] For bibliog. detail regarding the Nat. Races, see Pilling’s Proof Sheets, p. 9. Reviews of the work are noted in Poole’s Index, p. 956.

[1821] Cf., for instance, Dall’s strictures on the tribes of the N. W. in Contrib. to Amer. Ethnol., i. p. 8.

[1822] Sabin, ii. 7233; Field, no. 169.

[1823] Bare mention may be made of a few other books of a general scope: Jean Benoit Scherer’s Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le nouveau monde (Paris, 1777); D. B. Warden’s Recherches sur les Antiquités de l’Am. Sept. (Paris, 1827) in Recueil de Voyages, publié par la Soc. Géog. (Paris, 1825, ii. 372; cf. Dupaix, ii.); Ira Hill’s Antiquities of Amer. Explained (Hagerstown, 1831); Louis Faliès’ Etudes historiques et philosophiques sur les civilisations européenne, romaine, grecque, des populations primitives de l’Amérique septentrionale, les Chiapas, Palenqué des Nuhuas ancêtres des Toltèques, civilisation Yucatèque, Zapotèques, Mixtèques, royaume du Michoacan, populations du Nord-Ouest, du Nord et de l’Est, bassin du Mississipi, civilisation Toltèque, Aztèque, Amérique du centre, Péruvienne, domination des Incas, royaume de Quito, Océanie (Paris, 1872-74); Frederick Larkin’s Ancient man in America. Including works in western New York, and portions of other states, together with structures in Central America (New York, 1880),—a book, however, hardly to be commended by archæologists; and Charles Francis Keary’s Dawn of History, an introduction to prehistoric study (N. Y., 1887).

[1824] It is not necessary to enumerate many titles, but reference may be made to the summary of prehistoric conditions in Zerffi’s Historical development of art. It may be worth while to glance at A. Daux’s Etudes préhistoriques. L’industrie humaine: ses origines, ses premiers essais et ses légendes depuis les premiers temps jusqu’au déluge (Paris, 1877); Dawson’s Fossil men, ch. 5; Joly’s Man before Metals; Nadaillac’s Les Premiers Hommes, ii. ch. 11; Dabry de Thiersant’s Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde (Paris, 1883); and Brühl’s Culturvölker alt-Amerika’s, ch. 14, 16.

[1825] Cf., particularly for California, Putnam’s Report in Wheeler’s Survey.

[1826] There is some question if the early Americans ever carried on the heavier parts of the quarrying arts, as for building-stones. Cf. Morgan’s Houses and House Life, 274. They did quarry soap-stone (Elmer R. Reynolds, Schumacher and Putnam, in Peabody Mus. Repts., xii.) and mica (Smithsonian Report, 1879, by W. Gesner; C. D. Smith in Ibid. 1876; Dr. Brinton in Proc. Numism. and Antiq. Soc. of Philad., 1878, p. 18). That they quarried pipe-stone is also well known, and the famous red pipe-stone quarry, lying between the Missouri and Minnesota rivers, was under the protection of the Great Spirit, so that tribes at war with one another are said to have buried their hatchets as they approached it. Wilson, in the last chapter of the first volume of his Prehistoric man, examines this pipe-carving and tells the story of this famous quarry. He refers to the tobacco mortars of the Peruvians in which they ground the dry leaf; and to the pipes of the mounds in which it was smoked. Cf. J. F. Nadaillac’s Les pipes et le tabac (Paris, 1885), taken from the Materiaux pour l’histoire primitive de l’homme (ii. for 1885); and Lucien de Rosny on “Le tabac et ses accessoires parmi les indigènes de l’Amérique,” in Mémoires sur l’Archéologie Américaine, 1865, of the Soc. d’Ethnographie.

[1827] It should be remembered that the recognition of the Flint-folk as occupying a distinct stage of development is a modern notion. For a century and a half after European museums began to gather stone implements they were reputed relics of Celtic art. Treatment of American art necessarily makes part of the works of Squier and Davis; Schoolcraft; Foster’s Prehistoric Races, ch. 6; Lubbock’s Prehistoric Times; Joly’s Man before Metals. Cf. references in Poole’s Index under “Stone Age” and “Stone Implements.”

[1828] Cf. S. D. Peet in Amer. Antiquarian, vii. 15.

[1829] Rau is an authority on stone implements. See further his paper on stone implements in the Smithsonian Rept., 1872; one on drilling stone without metal in Ibid. 1868; and one on cup-shaped and other lapidarian sculpture in the Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnology, vol. v. (Powell’s Rocky Mountain Survey, 1882). These carved, cup-like cavities in rocks are also discussed in Wilson’s Prehistoric Man, vol. i. ch. 3, where it is held that they were formed by the grinding process in shaping the rounded end of tools. H. W. Henshaw in the Amer. Jour. of Archæology (i. 105) discusses another enigma in the stone relics, called sinkers or plummets. Foster (Prehist. Races, 230) believes they were used as weights to keep the thread taut in weaving.

[1830] Cf. also Stevens’s Flint Chips, 292, and Charnay, Eng. transl., p. 70.

[1831] Cf. G. Crook “on the Indian method of making arrow-heads” in the Smithsonian Rept., 1871, and C. C. Jones, Jr., on “the primitive manufacture of spear and arrowpoints along the Savannah River” in Ibid. 1879. A paper by Sellers in a later report is of importance. Cf. Stevens’ Flint Chips, pp. 75-85, and Schumacher in Smithsonian Report, 1873. True flint was not often, if ever, used in America, but rather chert or hornstone, and quartz, though implements are found of jasper, chalcedony, obsidian, quartzite, and argillite. Cf. Rau on the stock in trade of an aboriginal lapidary in Smithsonian Rept. (1877); and Rosny’s “Recherches sur les masques, le jade et l’industrie lapidaire chez les indigènes de l’Amérique” in Arch. de la Soc. Amér. de France, n. s., vol. i. Jade or jadite implements and ornaments have been found in Central America and Mexico, and others resembling them in northwestern America; but it is not yet clear that the unworked material, such as is used in the middle America specimens, is found in America in situ. Upon the solution of this last problem will depend the value of these implements when found in America as bearing upon questions of Asiatic intercourse. Cf. Dr. A. B. Meyer in the Amer. Anthropologist (vol. i., July, 1888, p. 231), and F. W. Putnam in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., Jan., 1886, and in the Proc. Amer. Antiq. Society.

[1832] Wilson (Prehistoric Man, i. 200) points out that philology confirms it, the word for copper meaning “yellow stone.” On the question of their melting metal see letter of Prof. F. W. Putnam in Kansas City Rev. of Science, Dec. 1881; Wilson (i. 361); Foster’s Prehistoric Races, 293.

[1833] Wilson (i. 209, 227) thinks the arboreal and other evidences carry the time when these mines were worked back, at latest, to a period corresponding to Europe’s mediæval era. The earliest modern references to copper in this region are in Sagard in 1632 (Haven, p. 127) and in the Jesuit Relation of Allouez in 1666-67. Alexander Henry (Travels and Adventures in Canada) in 1765 is the earliest English explorer to mention it. Wilson holds to the belief that the present race of red Indians had no knowledge of these mining practices, but that they knew simply chance masses or exposed lodes. Wilson (i. 362) also gives reasons for supposing that the Lake Superior mines may have been a common meeting ground for all races of the continent.

[1834] Wilson, i. 205. MacLean’s Moundbuilders, ch. 6, gives a section of the shaft as when discovered.

[1835] Of the Lake Superior mines, the earliest intelligent account we have is in C. T. Jackson’s Geological Report to the U. S. Gov’t, 1849; but a more extended and connected account appeared the next year in the Report on the Geology of Lake Superior (Washington, 1850), by J. W. Foster and J. D. Whitney, which is substantially reproduced in Foster’s Prehistoric Races (1873), ch. 7. Meanwhile, Col. Charles Whittlesey had published in vol. xiii. of the Smithsonian Contributions his Ancient Mining on the shores of Lake Superior (Washington, 1863, with a map), which is on the whole the best account, to be supplemented by his paper in the Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History. Jacob Houghton supplied a description of the “ancient copper mines of Lake Superior” to Swineford’s History and Review of the mineral resources of Lake Superior (Marquette, 1876). Cf. also Annals of Science (Cleveland), i. for 1852; Dawson’s Fossil Men, 61; Baldwin’s Ancient America, 42; Wilson’s Prehistoric Man, i. 204; Dr. Harvey Read in the Dist. Hist. Soc. Report, ii. (1878); Joseph Henry in the Smithsonian Reports (1861; also in 1862); and Short, p. 89, with references.

On the mines at Isle Royale, see Henry Gillman’s “Ancient works at Isle Royale” in Appleton’s Journal, Aug. 9, 1873; Smithsonian Repts., 1873, 1874, by A. C. Davis; the Proceedings of the Amer. Asso. for the Advancement of Science, 1875; and Professor Winchell in Popular Science Monthly, Sept., 1881.

See further, on the copper implements of these ancient workers: Abbott’s Primitive Industry, ch. 28; Foster’s Prehistoric Races, 251; P. R. Hoy’s How and by whom were the copper implements made? (Racine, 1886, in Wisconsin Acad. of Science, iv. 132); J. D. Butler’s address on “Prehistoric Wisconsin” in the Wisconsin Hist. Coll., vol. vii. (see also vol. viii.), with his “Copper Age in Wisconsin” in the Proc. of the Amer. Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, and his paper on copper tools in the Wisconsin Acad. of Science, iii. 99; H. W. Haynes on “Copper implements of America” in Proc. Amer. Antiq. Soc., Oct., 1884, p. 335; Putnam on the copper objects of North and South America preserved in the Peabody Museum (Reports, xv. 83); Read and Whittlesey in the Final Report, Ohio Board Cent. Managers, 1877, ch. 3; and Poole’s Index, p. 300. Reynolds has recently in the Journal of the Anthropol. Soc. (Washington) claimed copper mining for the modern Indians.

[1836] Clavigero (Philad., Eng. transl., i. 20); Prescott, i. 138; Folsom’s ed. of Cortes’ letters, 412; Lockhart’s transl. of Bernal Diaz (Lond., 1844, i. 36).

[1837] Cf. on copper implements from Mexico: P. J. J. Valentini’s Mexican copper tools: the use of copper by the Mexicans before the Conquest; and The Katunes of Maya history, a chapter in the early history of Central America. From the German, by S. Salisbury, jr. (Worcester, 1880), from the Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., Apr. 30, 1879; F. W. Putnam in Ibid., n. s., ii. 235 (Oct. 21, 1882); Charnay, Eng. transl., p. 70; H. L. Reynolds, Jr., on the “Metal art of ancient Mexico” in Popular Science Monthly, Aug., 1887 (vol. xxxi., p. 519).

[1838] Cf. St. John Vincent Day’s Prehistoric use of iron and steel: with observations (London, 1877). This book grew out of papers printed in the Proc. Philosoph. Soc. of Glasgow (1871-75).

[1839] Cf. Dr. Washington Matthews on the “Navajo silversmiths” in the 2d Rept. Bureau of Ethnol. (Washington, 1883), p. 167.

[1840] The chief European collections are in the British Museum, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, the Louvre, and at Copenhagen, Vienna, Brussels, not to name others; and among private ones, the Christy and Evans collections in England and the Uhde in Heidelberg.

[1841] Transactions, n. s., iii. 510.

[1842] Cf. Lucien de Rosny’s “Introduction à une histoire de la céramique chez les indiens du nouveau monde” in the Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, n. s., vol. i., and Stevens’ Flint Chips, 241. Further references: Wilson’s Prehist. Man, ii. ch. 17; Catlin’s N. A. Indians, ch. 16; F. V. Hayden’s Contrib. to the Ethnog. of the Missouri Valley, 355; A. Demmin’s Hist. de la Céramique (Paris, 1868-1875); Nadaillac’s Les Premiers Hommes, and his L’Amérique préhistorique, ch. 4.

[1843] For the Atlantic coast, papers by Abbott (American Naturalist, Ap. 72, etc.), later more comprehensively treated in his Primitive Industry, ch. 11; and for the middle Atlantic region, a paper by Francis Jordan, Jr., in the Amer. Philosoph. Soc. Proc. (1888, vol. xxv.). For Florida, Schoolcraft in the New York Hist. Soc. Proc., 1846, p. 124. For the moundbuilders, Foster’s Prehistoric Races, p. 237, and in Amer. Naturalist, vii. 94 (Feb., 1873); Nadaillac, ch. 4; and Putnam in Amer. Nat., ix. 321, 393, and Peabody Mus. Repts., viii. For the Mississippi Valley in general, Edw. Evers in The Contributions to the archæology of Missouri; W. H. Holmes in the Fourth Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, an improvement of a paper in the Proc. of the Davenport Acad. of Sciences, vol. iv. Joseph Jones in the Smithsonian Contrib., xxii., and Putnam in the Peabody Mus. Repts., have described the pottery of Tennessee. The Pacific R. R. Repts/ yield us something; and Putnam (Reports) was the first to describe the Missouri pottery. J. H. Devereux treats the pottery of Arkansas in the Smithsonian Rept., 1872. On the Pueblo pottery, see papers of W. H. Holmes and F. H. Cushing in the Fourth Rept. Bur. of Ethn. (pp. 257, 743); and James Stevenson’s illustrated catalogue in the Third Rept., p. 511. F. W. Putnam (Amer. Art Review, Feb., 1881), supplementing his work in vol. vii. of Wheeler’s Survey, thinks that the present Pueblo Indians make an inferior ware to their ancestors’ productions. The pottery of the cliff-dwellers is described in Hayden’s Annual Rept. (1876). Paul Schumacher explains the method of manufacturing pottery and basket-work among the Indians of Southern California in the Peabody Museum Rept., xii. 521. O. T. Mason’s papers in recent Smithsonian Reports and in the Amer. Naturalist are among the best investigations in this direction.

[1844] For some special phases, see S. Blondel’s Recherches sur les bijoux des peuples primitifs ... Méxicains et Péruviens (Paris, 1876); F. W. Putnam’s Conventionalism in Ancient American Art (Salem, 1887, from the Bull. Essex Inst., xviii., for 1886); Mexican masks in Stevens’ Flint chips, 328; S. D. Peet on “Human faces in aboriginal art,” in the American Antiquarian (May, 1886, or viii. 133); the description of terra-cotta figures in Herman Strebel’s Alt-Mexico. A terra-cotta vase in the Museo Nacional is figured in Brasseur’s Popol Vuh (1861).

It is not known that stringed instruments were ever used, notwithstanding the suggestion of the twanging of the bow-string; but museums often contain specimens of musical pipes used by the aborigines. The opening chapter of J. F. Rowbotham’s Hist. of Music (London, 1885) gives what evidence we have, with references, as to kinds of music common to the American aborigines, and their fictile wind instruments. Cf. A. J. Hipkins’ Musical instruments, historic, rare, and unique. The selection, introduction, and descriptive notes by A. J. Hipkins; illustrated by William Gibb (Edinburgh, 1888); H. T. Cresson on Aztec music in the Proc. Acad. Nat. Sciences (Philad., 1883); and Wilson’s Prehistoric Man (ii. 37), with the references in Bancroft’s index (v. p. 717).

In Nott and Gliddon’s Indigenous Races of the Earth (Philad., 1857) there is a section by Francis Pulszky on “Iconographic researches on human races and their art.”

[1845] Mrs. Zelia Nuttall’s essay on some Mexican feather-work preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna appeared in the Archæol. and Ethnolog. Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. i. no. 1 (Cambridge, 1888), and here she discusses the question if this is a standard or head-dress, and holds it to have been a head-dress. The contrary view is taken by F. von Hochstetter in his Ueber Mexicanische Reliquien aus der Zeit Montezuma’s (Vienna, 1884), who supposes it to have been among the presents sent by Cortes in 1519 to Charles V., in the possession of whose nephew it is known to have been in 1596.

[1846] Cf. Horatio Hale on The Origin of Primitive Money (N. Y., 1886,—from the Popular Science Monthly, xxviii. 296); W. B. Weedon’s Indian Money as a factor in New England Civilization (Baltimore, 1884),—Johns Hopkins (University Studies); Ashbel Woodward’s Wampum (Albany, 1878); Ernst Ingersoll in the Amer. Naturalist (May, 1883); and the cuts of wampum belts in the Second Rept. Bur. Ethnology (pp. 242, 244, 246, 248, 252, 254).

[1847] Cf. D. G. Brinton’s The lineal measures of the Semi-civilized nations of Mexico and Central America. Read before the American Philosophical Society, Jan. 2, 1885 (Philadelphia, 1885).

[1848] Wilson’s Prehistoric Man, i. ch. 6.

[1849] Wilson, i. 168. See post, Vol. II. 508, for an old cut of a raft under sail.

[1850] Peabody Mus. Rept., ii. 602-8.

[1851] Chips, ii. 248. Cf. Dabry de Thiersant’s Origine des indiens (Paris, 1883), p. 187.

[1852] It has been a question whether the palæolithic man talked, and it has been asserted and denied, from the character of certain inferior maxillary bones found in caves, that he had the power of articulate speech. Dr. Brinton has recently, from an examination of the lowest stocks of linguistic utterances now known, endeavored to set forth “a somewhat correct conception of what was the character of the rudimentary utterances of the race.” Cf. Brinton, Language of the Palæolithic Man, Philadelphia, 1888; Mortillet, La préhistorique Antiquité de l’Homme (Paris, 1883); H. Steinthal, Der Ursprung der Sprache (Berlin, 1888). Horatio Hale, on “The origin of languages and the antiquity of speaking man,” in the Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc., xxxv. 279, cites the views of some physiologists to show that the pre-glacial man could not talk, because there are only rudimentary signs of the presence of important vocal muscles to be discovered in the most ancient jaw-bones which have been found. Rau inferred that the totally diverse character, as he thought, of the American tongues indicated strongly that the earliest man could not articulate (Contrib. to N. A. Ethnology, v. 92). For other somewhat wild speculations, see Col. E. Carette’s Etude sur les temps antéhistoriques, La Langage (Paris, 1878).

[1853] Morgan thought he had found a test in his Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the Human Family (Washington, 1871).

[1854] Journal Anthropological Inst., v. 216.

[1855] Science of Language, i. 326.

[1856] For recognition of it in American philology, see Bancroft, iii. 670, and Short, 471.

[1857] Cf. Waitz, Introd. to Anthropology (Eng. transl.), p. 238; Wedgwood, Origin of Language; Lubbock, Origin of Civilization, ch. 8; Tylor’s Anthropology, ch. 6; Topinard’s Anthropologie; J. P. Lesley’s Man’s Origin and Destiny (who considers the test so far a failure); William D. Whitney’s “Testimony of language respecting the unity of the human race,” in the North American Review, July, 1867.

[1858] The “Lenguas y naciones Americanas” forms part of the first volume of Lorenzo Hervas’s Catálogo de las Lenguas de las Naciones Conocidas, y numeracion, division, y clases de estas segun la diversidad de sas idiomas y dialectos (Madrid, 1800-1805, in 6 vols.), which served in some measure Johann Severin Vater, and J. C. Adelung in their Mithridates, oder Allgemeine Sprachenkunde (Berlin, 1806-17, in 4 vols.) and his Analekten der Sprachenkunde (Leipzig, 1821).

There has more been done so far to map out the ethnological fields of middle America than to determine those of the more northern parts. Cf. the map in Orozco y Berra’s Geografía de las lenguas de Mexico (1864), and that in V. A. Malte-Brun’s paper in the Compte Rendu, Cong. des Américanistes, 1877, ii. 10. The maps in Bancroft’s Native Races, ii. and v., will serve ordinary readers. For the broader northern field, see the papers by L. H. Morgan and George Gibbs in the Smithsonian Reports, 1861, 1862. The Bureau of Ethnology have in preparation such a map, and they mark on it, it is understood, about seventy distinct stocks.

Cf. Horatio Hale on “Indian migrations as evidenced by language,” in the Amer. Antiquarian, v. 18, 108 (Jan., April, 1883), and issued separately, Chicago, 1883. Lucien Adam criticised the views of Hall in the Copenhagen Compte Rendu, Cong. des Amér., 1883, p. 123.

[1859] Nat. Races, iii. 558.

[1860] Cf. Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., April, 1879.

[1861] Fossil Men, 310.

[1862] A prominent feature is the process of uniting words lengthwise, so to speak, which gives a single utterance the import of a sentence. This characteristic of the American languages has been called polysynthetic, incorporative, holophrastic, aggregative, and agglutinative. H. H. Bancroft instances the word for letter-postage in Aztec as being “Amatlacuilolitquitcatlaxtlahuilli,” which really signifies by its component parts, “payment received for carrying a paper on which something is written.” Cf. Brinton’s On polysynthesism and incorporation as characteristic of American languages (Philad., 1885).

[1863] Hayden says: “The dialects of the western continent, radically united among themselves and radically distinguished from all others, stand in hoary brotherhood by the side of the most ancient vocal systems of the human race.”

[1864] Morgan, in his Systems of Consanguinity, contends for this linguistic unity, though (in 1866) he admits that “the dialects and stock languages have not been explored with sufficient thoroughness.”

[1865] Gallatin says of them: “They bear the impress of primitive languages, ... and attest the antiquity of the population,—an antiquity the earliest we are permitted to assume.” This was of course written before the geological evidences of the antiquity of man were understood, and the remoteness referred to was a period near the great dispersion of Babel.

[1866] The appendix of this work has a good general summary of the Ethnography and Philology of America, by A. H. Keane.

[1867] The interlinking method of communication between tribes of different languages is what is called sign or gesture language, and the study of it shows that in much the same forms it is spread over the continent. It has been specially studied by Col. Garrick Mallery. Cf. his papers in the Amer. Antiquarian, ii. 218; Proc. Amer. Asso. Adv. Science, Saratoga meeting, 1880; and at length in the First Annual Rept. Bur. of Ethnology (1881). He notes his sources of information on pp. 395, 401. He had earlier printed under the Bureau’s sanction his Introduction to the Study of Sign Language (Washington, 1880). The subject is again considered in the Third Rept. of the Bureau, p. xxvi. Cf. also W. P. Clark’s Indian Sign-language, with Explanatory Notes (Philad., 1885). Morgan (Systems of Consanguinity, 227) expresses the opinion that it has the germinal principle “from which came, first, the pictographs of the northern Indians and of the Aztecs; and, secondly, as its ultimate development, the ideographic and possibly the hieroglyphic language of the Palenqué and Copan monuments.”

In addition to languages and dialects, we have a whole body of jargons, a conventional mixture of tongues, adduced by continued intercourse of peoples speaking different languages. They grew up very early, where the French came in contact with the aborigines, and Father Le Jeune mentions one in 1633 (Hist. Mag., v. 345). The Chinook jargon, for instance, was, if not invented, at least developed by the Hudson Bay Company’s servants, out of French, English, and several Indian tongues (whose share predominates), to facilitate their trade with the natives, and does not contain, at an outside limit, more than 400 or 500 words. There is some reason to believe that the Indian portion of this jargon is older, however, than the English contact (Bancroft, iii. 632-3; Gibbs’s Chinook Dictionary; Horatio Hale in Wilkes’ U. S. Explor. Exped.).

[1868] See the section on “Americana,” with a foot-note on linguistic collections. Haven summed up what had been done in this field in 1855 in his Archæology of the U. S. p. 53.

[1869] There is a less extensive survey, but wider in territory, in Short’s North Americans of Antiquity, ch. 10.

[1870] Vol. III. p. 355.

[1871] See Pilling’s Proof-sheets.

[1872] Duponceau’s report in Heckewelder, Hist. Acc. of the Indian Nations, 1819, is in the Mass. Hist. Coll., 1822. Pickering says that Duponceau was the earliest to discover and make known the common characteristics of the American tongues.

[1873] These are enumerated in the appendix of The Calendar of the Sparks MSS., issued by the library of Harvard University. They are also cited with some in other depositories by Pilling in his Proof-sheets.

[1874] Also in J. B. Scherer’s Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le Nouveau Monde (Paris, 1777).

[1875] We know little of what Jefferson might have accomplished, for his manuscripts were burned in 1801 (Schoolcraft’s Ind. Tribes, ii. 356). As early as 1804 the U. S. War Department issued a list of words, for which its agents should get in different tribes the equivalent words. Gallatin used these results. Different lists of test words have been often used since. George Gibbs had a list. The Bureau of Ethnology has a list.

[1876] Cf. synopsis in Haven’s Archæol. U. S., p. 65.

[1877] For Hale’s later views see his Origin of language and antiquity of speaking man (Cambridge, 1886), from the Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Science, xxxv.; and his Development of language (Toronto, 1888), from the Proc. Canadian Inst., 3d ser., vi.

[1878] Among other workers in the northern philology may be named Schoolcraft in his Indian Tribes (ii. and iii. 340), who makes no advance upon Gallatin; W. W. Turner in the Smithsonian Report, vi.; R. S. Riggs adds a Dacota bibliography to his Grammar and Dictionary of the Dacota language (Washington, Smiths. Inst., 1852); George Gibbs in the Smithsonian Repts. for 1865 and 1870, and as collaborator in other studies, of which record is made in J. A. Stevens’ memoir of Gibbs, first printed in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., and then in the Smithsonian Report for 1873; F. W. Hayden’s Contributions to the ethnography and philology of the Indian tribes of the Missouri Valley (Philad., 1862), being vol. xiii. of the Trans. Amer. Philosophical Soc.

A contemporary of Gallatin, but a man sorely harassed, as others see him, with eccentricities and unstableness of head, was C. F. Rafinesque, who had nevertheless a certain tendency to acute observation, which prevents his books from becoming wholly worthless. His first publication was an introduction to Marshall’s History of Kentucky, which he printed separately as Ancient History, or Annals of Kentucky, with a survey of the ancient monuments of North America, and a tabular view of the principal languages and primitive nations of the whole earth (Frankfort, Ky., 1824). In this he makes a comparison of four principal words from fourteen Indian tongues with thirty-four primitive languages of the old world. In 1836 he printed at Philadelphia The American Nations, or outlines of their general history, ancient and modern, including the whole history of the earth and mankind in the western hemisphere; the philosophy of American history; the annals, traditions, civilization, languages, etc., of all American nations, tribes, empires and states (in two volumes).

[1879] It embraces:

First Series: No. 1. J. G. Shea, French Onondaga Dictionary.

2. G. Mengarini, Selish or Flat-head Grammar.

3. B. Smith, Grammatical Sketch of the Heve language.

4. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta, Grammar of the Mutsun language.

5. B. Smith, Grammar of the Pima or Névome language.

6. M. C. Pandosy, Grammar and Dictionary of the Yakama language.

7. B. Sitjar, Vocabulary of the language of the San Antonio Mission.

8. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta, Vocabulary or phrase-book of the Mutsun language.

9. Abbé Maillard, Grammar of the Micmaque language.

10. J. Bruyas, Radices Verborum Iroqæorum.

11. G. Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabularies of the Clallam and Lummi.

12. G. Gibbs, Dictionary of the Chinook jargon.

13. G. Gibbs, Alphabetical Vocabulary of the Chinook language.

Second Series: 1. W. Matthews, Grammar and Dictionary of the language of the Hidatsa.

2. W. Matthews, Hidatsa-English Dictionary.

The first series was printed in New York, 1860-63; the second, 1873-74. There is full bibliographical detail in Pilling’s Proof-sheets.

[1880] The following are already published:

1. The Chronicles of the Mayas, ed. by Brinton.

2. The Iroquois Book of Rites, ed. by Horatio Hale.

3. The Comedy-ballet of Gueguence, ed. by Brinton.

4. The National Legend of the Creeks, ed. by Albert S. Gatschet.

5. The Lenâpé and their Legends.

6. The Annals of the Cakchiquels, ed. by Brinton.

[1881] This series contains:

1. Juan de Albornoz, Arte de la lengua Chiapaneca y Doctrina Cristiana por Luis Barrientos (Paris, 1875).

2. P. E. Pettitot, Dictionnaire de la langue Dènè-Dindjie (Paris, 1876).

3. P. E. Pettitot, Vocabulaire Français-Esquimau (Paris, 1876).

4. P. Franco, Noticias de los Indios del Departamento de Veragua, etc. (San Francisco, 1882).

Pilling (Proof-sheets, 589, 1042-1044) gives an account of Pinart’s published and MS. linguistic collections, as well as (p. 587) of Francisco Pimentel’s Las Lenguas indígenas de México (Mexico, 1862-65).

[1882] It embraces:

1. E. Uricoechea, Lengua Chibcha (Paris, 1871).

2. Eujenio Castillo i Orozco, Vocabulario Paéz-Castellano, etc. (Paris, 1877).

3. Raymond Breton, Grammaire Caraïbe, ed. par L. Adam et Ch. Leclerc (Paris, 1878).

4. Ollantai, drame, trad. par Pacheco Zegarra (Paris, 1878).

5. R. Celedon, La Lengua goajra, con una introd. por E. Uricoechea (Paris, 1878).

6. L. Adam et V. Henry, La Lengua Chiquita (Paris, 1880).

7. Antonio Magio, La Lengua de los Indios Baures (Paris, 1880).

8. J. Crevaux, P. Sagot, et L. Adam, Langues de la région des Guyanes (Paris, 1882).

9. J. D. Haumonté, Parisot, et L. Adam, La Langue Taensa (Paris, 1882). This has been pronounced a deception.

10. Francisco Pareja, La Lengua Timuquana, 1614 (Paris, 1886).

[1883] Cf. Pilling’s Proof-sheets, pp. 217-218.

[1884] Brinton (Amer. Hero Myths, 60), referring to Father Cuoq’s Lexique de la langue Iroquoise, speaks of that author as “probably the best living authority on the Iroquois.” Pilling, Proof-sheets, 185, etc., gives the best account of his writings. Cf. Mrs. E. A. Smith on the Iroquois in Journal Anthropolog. Inst., xiv. 244.

[1885] The languages covered are: Dakota, Chibcha, Nahuatl, Kechua, Quiché, Maya, Montagnais, Chippeway, Algonquin, Cri, Iroquois, Hidatsa, Chacta, Caraïbe, Kiriri, Guarani. Adam has been one of the leading spirits in the Congrès des Américanistes. There was published in 1882, as a part of the Bibliothèque linguistique Américaine, a Grammaire et Vocabulaire de la langue taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par F. D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam. It was printed from a manuscript said to have been discovered in 1872, in the library of Mons. Haumonté. Dr. Brinton, finding, as he claimed, that Adam had been imposed upon, printed in the American Antiquarian, March, 1885, “The Tænsa Grammar and Dictionary, a Deception Exposed,” the points of which were epitomized by Professor H. W. Haynes in the American Antiquarian Society Proceedings (April, 1885), and Adam answered in Le Tænsa, a-t-il été forgé de toutes pièces (Paris, 1885).

The languages of the southern and southwestern United States have been particularly studied by Albert S. Gatschet, among whose publications may be named Zwölf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nord Amerikas (Weimar, 1877); The Timucua language of Florida (Philad., 1878, 1880); The Chumeto language of California (Philad., 1882); Der Yuma Sprachstamm of Arizona and the neighboring regions (Berlin, 1877, 1883); Wortverzeichniss eines Viti-Dialectes (Berlin, 1882); The Shetimasha Indians of St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana (Washington, 1883); but his most important contribution is the linguistic, historic, and ethnographic introduction to his Migration Legend of the Creek Indians (Philad., 1884), in which he has surveyed the whole compass of the southern Indians. The extent of Mr. Gatschet’s studies will appear from Pilling’s Proof-sheets, pp. 285-292, 955.

[1886] Contents.—1. Sur quelques familles de langues du Méxique. 2. Sur différents idiomes de la Nouvelle-Espagne. 3. Sur la famille de langues Tapijulapane-Mixe. 4. Sur la famille de langue Pirinda-Othomi. 5. Sur les lois phonétiques dans les idiomes de la famille Mame-Huastèque. 6. Sur le pronom personnel dans les idiomes de la famille Maya-Quiché. 7. Sur l’étude de la prophétie en langue Maya d’Ahkuil-Chel. 8. Sur le système de numération chez les peuples de la famille Maya-Quiché. 9. Sur le déchiffrement des écritures calculiformes du Mayas. 10. Sur les signes de numération en Maya.

Pilling (Proof-sheets, pp. 145-148, 904-906) enumerates many of the separate publications.

[1887] Brinton has printed The philosophical grammar of the American languages as set forth by Wilhelm von Humboldt, with a translation of an unpublished memoir by him on the American verb (Philad., 1885). The great work of A. von Humboldt and Bonpland, Voyage aux régions équinoxiales du nouveau continent (Paris, 1816-31), gives some linguistic matter in the third volume.

[1888] These are enumerated in the list in Bancroft, i.; in Field, nos. 208-218; and in Leclerc, Index; with more detail in Pilling’s Proof-sheets, pp. 102-110, 894-896. Cf. also Sabin, iii. nos. 9,521 etc.

[1889] Brinton, who possesses his papers, published a Memoir of him in the Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., 1884. His publications and MS. collections are given in Pilling’s Proof-sheets, PP. 72, 73, 879-881.

[1890] He cites (iii. 725-26) many opinions; and quotes Sahagún as saying that the Apalaches were Nahuas and spoke the Mexican tongue (Ibid. iii. 727). Is this any evidence of the Floridian immigration?

[1891] A considerable body of literature in this language has come down to us. Bancroft (iii. 728) enumerates a number of the principal religious manuals, etc. Icazbalceta in the first volume of his Bibliografia Mexicana (Mexico, 1886), in cataloguing the books issued in Mexico before 1600, includes all that were printed in the native tongue. Brinton gives some account of such native authors in his Aboriginal American authors and their productions, especially those in the native languages. A chapter in the history of literature (Philad., 1883). Cf. his paper in the Congrès des Amér., Copenhagen, 1883, p. 54. Bancroft (iii. 730) gives some citations as to its literary value. Brinton has illustrated this quality in some of his lesser monographs, as in his Ancient Nahuatl Poetry (Philad., 1887); and in his Study of the Nahuatl language (1886), in which he gives specimens and enumerates the dictionaries and texts. He says there are more than a hundred authors in it (Amer. Antiquarian, viii. 22). Icazbalceta has collected many Nahua MSS., and his brother-in-law, Francisco Pimentel, has used them in his Cuadro descriptivo y comparativo de las Lenguas indigenas de México (1862), of which there is a German translation by Isidor Epstein (N. Y., 1877). This is based on a second augmented edition (Mexico, 1874-75), in which the tongues of northern Mexico are better represented, and a general classification of the languages is added. Pimentel (i. 154) asserts that it is a mistake to suppose that the Chichimecs spoke Nahua. Cf., however, Bancroft (iii. 724) and Short, 255, 480. Pimentel’s opinions are weighty, and follow in this respect those of Orozco y Berra, Sahagún, Ixtlilxochitl; but later, Veytia had maintained the reverse.

Lucien Adam includes the Nahua in his Etudes sur six langues Américaines (Paris, 1878). Aubin wrote “Sur la langue Méxicaine et la philologie Américaine” in the Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, n. s., vol. i. Brasseur contributed various articles on Mexican philology to the Revue Orientale et Américaine. Dr. C. Hermann Berendt formed an Analytical Alphabet for the Mexican and Central America languages (N. Y., 1869). Buschmann has a study in the Mémoirs de l’Académie de Berlin, and separately, Ueber die Astekischen Ortsnamen (Berlin, 1853). Henri de Charencey in his Mélanges de Philologie (Paris, 1883) has a paper “Sur quelques familles de langues du Méxique.” V. A. Malte-Brun gave in the Compte Rendu, Cong. des Américanistes, 1877 (vol. ii. p. 10), a paper “La distribution ethnographique des nations et des langues au Méxique.” Reference has been made elsewhere to the important publication of Manuel Orozco y Berra, Geografia de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México, precedidos de un ensayo de classificacion de las mismas lenguas y de apuntes para las inmigraciones de las tribus (Mexico, 1864). The work is said to be the fruit of twelve years’ constant study, and to have been based in some part on MSS. belonging to Icazbalceta, dating back to the latter part of the sixteenth century (enumerated in Peab. Mus. Repts., ii. 559). There is some adverse criticism. Peschel (Races of Men, 438) thinks the linguistic map of Mexico in Orozco y Berra’s work the only good feature in the book, since the author spreads old errors anew in consequence of his unacquaintance with Buschmann’s researches. A series of linguistic monographic essays on the Aztec names of places is embraced in Dr. Antonio Peñafiel’s Nombres Geografico de Mexico. Catalogo alfabetico de los nombres de lugar pertenecientes al idioma “Nahuatl” estudio jeroglifico de la matricula de los tributos del codice Mendocino (Mexico, 1885). In the Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, n. s., 179, iii. there is an essay by Siméon, “La langue Méxicaine et son histoire.”

The affiliation of the Aztec with the Pueblo stocks is traced by Bancroft, iii. 665, who follows out the diversities of those stocks (pp. 671, 681). Cf. for various views Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity, 260; Buschmann’s Die Völker und Sprachen Neu Mexico’s, and First Rept. Bur. of Ethnology, p. xxxi.

[1892] Some authorities give fourteen dialects of the Maya. Cf. the table in Bancroft, iii. 562, etc., and the statements in Garcia y Cubas, translated by Geo. F. Henderson as The Republic of Mexico. It is still spoken in the greatest purity about the Balize, as is commonly said; but Le Plongeon goes somewhat inland and says he found it “in all its pristine purity” in the neighborhood of Lake Peten. Le Plongeon, with that extravagance which has in the end deprived him of the sympathy and encouragement due to his noteworthy labors, says, “One third of this Maya tongue is pure Greek,” following Brasseur in one of his vagaries, who thought he found in 15,000 Maya vocables at least 7,000 that bore a striking resemblance to the language of Homer.

[1893] The bibliographies will add to this enumeration. The Pinart Catalogue (pp. 98-100) gives a partial list. Only some of the more important monographs upon features of the Maya language can be mentioned: Father Pedro Beltran de Santa Rosa’s Arte del idioma Maya (Mexico, 1746) was so rare that Brasseur did not secure it, but Leclerc catalogues it (no. 2,280), as well as the reprint (Merida, 1859) edited by José D. Espinosa. There is a study of the Maya tongues included in a paper printed first by Carl Hermann Berendt in the Journal of the Amer. Geog. Soc. (viii. 132, for 1876), which was later issued separately as Remarks on the centres of ancient civilization in Central America and their geographical distribution (N. Y., 1876). It is accompanied by a map. (Cf. also his “Explorations in Central America” in the Smithsonian Rept., 1867.) Brasseur included in his Manuscrit Troano (Paris, 1869-70), and later published separately, a Dictionnaire, Grammaire et Chrestomathie de la langue Maya (Paris, 1872); the dictionary containing 10,000 words, the grammar being a translation from Father Gabriel de Saint Bonaventure, while the chrestomathy was a gathering of specimens ancient and modern, of the language. Brasseur, in his mutable way, found in the first season of his studies the Greek, Latin, English, German, Scandinavian, not to name others, to have correspondences with the Maya, and ended in deriving them from that tongue as the primitive language. (Cf. Short, 476.) Dr. Brinton has a paper on The Ancient Phonetic Alphabet of Yucatan (N. Y., 1870), and he read at the Buffalo meeting (1886) of the Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science a paper on the phonetic element of the graphic system of the Mayas, etc., which is printed in the American Antiquarian, viii. 347. In the introduction of his Maya Chronicles (Philad., 1882) he examines the language and literature of the Mayas. He refers to a “Disertacion sobre la historia de la lengua Maya o Yucateca” by Crescencio Carrello y Ancona in the Revista de Merida, 1870. Charencey has printed various special papers, like a Fragment de Chrestomathie de la langue Maya antique (Paris, 1875) from the Revue de Philologie et d’Ethnographie, and a paper read before the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes (Compte Rendu, p. 379), “De la formation des mots en lengua Maya.” Landa’s Relation as published by Brasseur (Paris, 1864) is of course a leading source.

Of the Quiché branch of the Maya we know most from Brasseur’s Popul Vuh and from his Gramatica de la lengua Quiché (Paris, 1862), in the appendix of which he printed the Rabinal Achi, a drama in the Quiché tongue. Father Ildefonso José Flores, a native of the country, was professor of the Cakchiquel language in the university of Guatemala in the last century, and published a Arte de la lengua metropolitana del Reyno Cakchiquel (Guatemala, 1753), which was unknown to later scholars, till Brasseur discovered a copy in 1856 (Leclerc, no. 2,270). The literature of the Cakchiquel dialect is examined in the introduction to Brinton’s Grammar of the Cakchiquel language (Philad., 1884), edited for the American Philosophical Society. Cf. Brinton’s little treatise On the language and ethnologic position of the Xinca Indians of Guatemala (Philadelphia, 1884); his So-called Alaguilac language of Guatemala in the Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 1887, p. 366; and Otto Stoll’s Zur Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala (Zurich, 1884).

We owe to Brinton, also, a few discussions of the Nicaragua tongues, both in their Maya and Aztec relations. He has discussed the local dialect of this region in the introduction of The Güegüence; a comedy ballet in the Nahuatl-Spanish dialect of Nicaragua (Philadelphia, 1883), and in his Notes on the Mangue, an extinct dialect formerly spoken in Nicaragua (Philadelphia, 1886).

[1894] Notwithstanding this commonness of origin, if such be the case, there is a striking truth in what Max Müller says: “The thoughts of primitive humanity were not only different from our thoughts, but different also from what we think their thoughts ought to have been.”

[1895] See Vol. IV. p. 295.

[1896] Such are Sagard’s Histoire du Canada (1636); Nicolas Perrot’s Mémoire sur les Mœurs, Coutumes et Religion des Sauvages, involving his experience from 1665 to 1699; Lafitau’s Mœurs des Sauvages (1724), and the like.

[1897] Bancroft (iii. 136) says: “It does not appear, notwithstanding Mr. Squier’s assertion to the contrary, that the serpent was actually worshipped either in Yucatan or Mexico.” Cf. Brinton’s Myths, ch. 4; Chas. S. Wake’s Serpent Worship (London, 1888); and J. G. Bourke’s Snake-dance of the Moquis of Arizona; being a narrative of a journey from Santa Fé, New Mexico, to the villages of the Moqui Indians of Arizona, with a description of the manners and customs of this peculiar people, to which is added a brief dissertation upon serpent-worship in general, with an account of the tablet dance of the Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico, etc. (London, 1884).