Ancient America, in Notes on American Archaeology, John D. Baldwin [ereader with dictionary TXT] 📗

they are entirely distinct from Mound-Builders and Pueblos, 60, 65; their barbarism original, 61. “Inscription Rock,” 78. Inscriptions in Central America written in Maya characters, 196; written perhaps in an old form of speech from which the Maya family of dialects was derived, 196; attempts to decipher them, 292. Iron, names for, in ancient Peru, 248. Israelitish theory of ancient America, 166-7. Keweenaw Point, a copper district, 44. Kukulcan, his worship, 220, 293. Lake Peten in the forest, Maya settlement there, 95; Ursua’s road from Yucatan to the lake, 95. Landa wrote on the Mayas of Yucatan, 191; preserved the Maya alphabet, with explanations, 191. Languages in Mexico and Central America, 200, 205; three groups, 216; probably not radically distinct, 206, 216; the most important group supposed to be Colhuan, 205. Las Casas on Central American annalists, 187-8; what he says of the old books and their destruction, 188. Maize, did Indians get it from Mound-Builders? 35. Malays, their ancient empire, 167-8; their navigation of the Pacific, 168; spread of their dialects, 168; came to America, 169, 170, 272; El Masúdí on the Malays, 168; were not civilizers in America, 170-1; ruins of Malayan cities in Java, 163-9. Manco-Capac a fiction of the Incas, 260-1; discarded by Montesinos and other early Spanish writers, 261, 269. Mandan Indians supposed Mound-Builders, 74. Mayas first seen by Columbus, 209; their phonetic alphabet preserved, 191; descendants of the first civilizers, 170. Mexican cities noticed by Spaniards, 211, 215; what Montezuma said of his building materials, 209. Mexican “picture-writing” a peculiarity of the Aztecs, 221; much inferior to the Maya writing, 221; something like it at Chichen-Itza, 143; Aztecs could not have left such inscriptions as those seen in the ruined cities, 221. Mexican ruins in the central region, 89-92; Tulha, 89; Xochicalco, 89, 90; Papantla, 91, 92; Cholula, 90; Teotihuacan, 90; pyramids with galleries, 91; unexplored antiquities in this region, 91. Mining works of Mound-Builders, 43-6; mining method of the Mound-Builders, 43; ound, 44, 46; they left a detached mass of copper in a mine, 43-4; antiquity of their mining works, 46, 53, 64. Mitla, its ruins show refined skill in the builders, 118, 121; the decorations, 121; present state of the ruins, 117-122. Montesinos, Fernando, explored and studied Peru fifteen years, 261; unequaled in knowledge of its antiquities and traditional history, 263; his means of information, 262; how historical narratives and poems were preserved by the amautas, 263; how literature can be preserved by trained memory, 262-3; Homer and the Vedas, 262-3. Montesinos on Peruvian history, 264-7; there were three distinct periods, 264; he rejects the Manco-Capac fable, 264; does not begin the history with such stories, 264; reports 64 kings in the first period, 264; his account of the Peruvian sovereigns, 264-7; the art of writing existed in the older time, 265; how the first period closed, 266; the second period, for 1000 years, a period of invasions, divisions, small states, and general decline of civilization, 264, 267; in this period the art of writing was lost, 267; in it the 26 successors of the 64 kings were merely kings of Tambotoco, 266; how this period ended, 267-8; the third period began with Rocca, the first Inca, 267; why Montesinos has not been duly appreciated, 268-9; his facts stand apart from his theories, 268; probabilities favor his report of three periods, 270-1. Montezuma on his building-material, 209. Morgan, Lewis H., on the Indians, 59, 60, 66. Mound-Builders, their national name unknown, 14, 57; their mound-work and its uses, 17-19; like mound-work in Mexico and Central America, 70, 71, 72; their civilization, 33-39; used wood for building material, 70, 71; their inclosures, 19-24; their works at the south, 24, 27; their principal settlements, 30, 31, 34; their border settlements, 52; had commerce with Mexico, 73; relics of their manufactures, 40, 41, 61; their long stay in the country, 51-55; were not ancestors of wild Indians, 58-61; came from Mexico, 70; were connected with Mexico through Texas, 73; probably were Toltecs, 74, 200-3. Muyscas, their civilization, 271. Nahuatl or Toltec chronology, 203-4. Natchez Indians, were they degenerate Mound-Builders, 58, 56. Northmen in America, 279-85;