1880, ] Anthropology. 679 
And that the Mound Builders came originally from the same 
country is, with our present knowledge, at least a reasonable con- 
clusion.” . 
We may, without the least fear of exciting envy, give the first 
place of merit to the paper of Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, on the 
“Social organization and government of the ancient Mexicans,” 
Occupying’ 142 pages of the report, and not falling below the 
author’s communications on “The Art of War” and “The Tenure 
of Land” either in the importance of the subject or in the manner 
of treatment. All students of ancient Mexican sociology have 
felt the insecurity of Spanish chroniclers for two reasons. The most 
courtly and ceremonious people in the world could scarcely refrain 
rom the use of such terms as “knight,” “king,” etc., when speak- 
ing of the Mexican rulers; and, secondly, every inducement existed 
to magnify the glory of their own deeds by exaggerating the 
numbers, valor, and culture of the Mexicans. This practice of 
embellishing, unfortunately has been perpetuated among modern 
writers of great genius. Mr. Bandelier, acknowledging what we have 
Said above, and being profoundly impressed with the teachings 
of Mr. Morgan, ‘has set himself the task of reconstructing the his- 
tory of the ancient Mexican upon the systems of gentile organiza- 
tion contained in Morgan's “ Ancient Society.” The complicated 
nature of such a work necessarily determines the style of the 
communication ; therefore, the great preponderance of notes over 
the text is partly justified. Long familiarity with ancient authori- 
ties and the coöperation of such distinguished Mexican scholars 
as Sr. Orozco y Berra and Sr. D. J. G. Icazbalceta, have specially 
fitted Mr. Bandelier for this difficult task. The special aim in the 
Rag member of the series is best told in the author’s own 
ras; 
oMicers, subject to removal at the pleasure of their constituents ; 
that the twenty kins, for their mutual benefit had delegated their 
