THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS AS VIEWED FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF SCIENCE.
Origin Theories — Indigenous Origin — Separate Creation Theory —
Dr. Morton’s Theory — Agassiz’s Views — Dr. Morton’s Cranial
Measurements Classified — Prof. Wilson’s Measurements —
Dr. Morton’s Theory of Ethnic Unity Groundless — Ethnic
Relationships — Typical Mound-skull — Crania from the River
Rouge — Dr. Farquharson’s Measurements — Crania from Kentucky
— Researches in Tennessee by Prof. Jones — Measurements —
Prof. Putnam’s Collection of Crania from Tennessee Mounds —
Low Type Crania from the Mounds — Development Observable in
Mound Crania — Head-Flattening Derived from Asia — Diseases
of the Mound-builders — Physiognomy of the Ancient Americans
— Languages — Evolution and its Bearing on the Origin of the
American — Darwin and Hæckel on the Indigenous American — The
Autochthonic Hypothesis Groundless — Unity of the Human Family
— Accepted Chronology Faulty.
The want of evidence for the theories which designate particular
nations as the first colonizers of the Western Continent, long ago
produced a feeling of distrust, which led some to repudiate all claims
for the foreign origin of the first inhabitants of this continent. This
theory, which claims for the most ancient inhabitants an autochthonic
origin, has had from time to time among its advocates some of the
most respectable ethnologists. The character of their attainments,
and in many cases their arguments in behalf of this most remarkable
hypothesis, command the respect of all who are interested in this
fascinating field of speculation.
At first it was maintained that the Creator had placed an original
pair of human beings here, as Scripture teaches that He did in the old
world.[219] Other writers equally confident that the first ancestors
of the American race were indigenous, have not so definitely expressed
themselves as to the manner of their origin.[220] The most recent phase
of the autochthonic theory is that which designates evolution as the
means by which the continent was populated with human beings, developed
from its own fauna. This latter question is now the most absorbing
of all that occupy the attention of the American Anthropologists.
But to go back to the separate creation view, we find it expressed in
general and unscientific utterances at first, mostly based on the hasty
observation of travellers who, in many cases, had little knowledge
of anthropologic or ethnic principles. In fact, the subject was not
fairly discussed and its advocacy based on satisfactory investigation
until the justly celebrated Dr. Samuel G. Morton, of Philadelphia,
issued his _Crania Americana_, containing the results of the most
diligent researches on the skulls of the Mound-builders, Mexicans,
Peruvians, and many of the known tribes of the Red Indians. In the face
of abundant proof among the crania of his own splendid collection, and
contrary to the testimony of his numerous measurements, which have
often since been used against his theory, this diligent investigator
arrived at the conclusion that the Americans were a distinct race,
originated in this continent, having a uniform cranial type (excepting
only the Eskimo), from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia.
A division, however, of this supposed homogeneous race was made by this
author into Toltecan and Barbarous nations; the former appellative
comprising all the semi-civilized peoples, while the latter embraced
the wild tribes. All were believed to have had the same origin and to
belong to the same cranial type. “It is curious to observe, however,”
remarks Dr. Morton, “that the Barbarous nations possess a larger brain
by five and a half cubic inches than the Toltecans; while, on the
other hand, the Toltecans possess a greater relative capacity of the
anterior chamber of the skull in the proportion of 42.3 to 41.8. Again
the coronal region, though absolutely greater in the Barbarous tribes,
is rather larger in proportion in the semi-civilized tribes; and the
facial-angle is much the same in both, and may be assumed for the race
at 75°.”[221] In conclusion, the author is of the opinion that the
facts contained in his work tend to sustain the following propositions:
(1) “That the American race differs essentially from all others, not
excepting the Mongolian; nor do the feeble analogies of language, and
the more obvious ones in civil and religious institutions and the
arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with
the Asiatic nations; and even these analogies may perhaps be accounted
for, as Humboldt suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from
similar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar latitudes.”
(2) “That the American nations, excepting the Polar tribes, are one
race and one species, but of two great families which resemble each
other in physical, but differ in intellectual character.” (3) “That
the cranial remains discovered in the mounds, from Peru to Wisconsin,
belong to the same race and probably to the Toltecan family.”[222]
Among the several ethnologists and naturalists who accepted without
question the conclusions reached by Morton, the chief was Agassiz,
who adopted them as auxiliary to his theory of the correspondence of
human life with certain associations in the animal kingdom.[223] They
served as a sure foundation, so far as this continent is concerned,
for his opinion that the races originated in nations. “We maintain,”
says the eminent naturalist, “that, like all organized beings, mankind
cannot have originated in single individuals, but must have been
created in that numerical harmony which is characteristic of each
species. Men must have originated in _nations_, as the bees have
originated in swarms, and as the different social plants have covered
the extensive tracts over which they have naturally spread.”[224]
This view has been enlarged upon by Messrs. Nott and Gliddon, who
argue that, “if it be conceded that there were two primitive pairs of
human beings, no reason can be assigned why there may not have been
hundreds.”[225] The uniqueness of the so-called American race not only
fails of proof, but is positively disproven by the measurements of
crania accompanying Morton’s plates, and any thoughtful person cannot
avoid surprise that so distinguished a scholar as Agassiz should
have committed himself to a theory without first submitting it to a
crucial test. That there is a great variety of type observable among
the crania figured by Morton, even a superficial examination will
show, while a more careful classification presents several facts of
interest. For this classification we consider the simple division of
the crania into long and short skulls sufficient. The question of other
divisions has been often discussed, but with Mr. Huxley we content
ourselves with the simplest classification. Referring to a particular
instance, he says, “taking the antero-posterior diameter as 100, the
transverse diameter varies from 98 or 99 to 62. The number which
thus expresses the proportion of the transverse to the longitudinal
diameter of the brain-case is called the _cephalic index_. Those
people who possess crania with a cephalic index of 80 and above are
called _brachycephali_ (short-skulled), those with a lower index are
_dolichocephali_ (long-skulled).”[226] Dr. Meigs, while accepting the
classification into long and short skulls, admits that it is open to
the objection that it forces into either and opposite classes crania
closely related to each other in type and measurement.[227] Yet it must
be admitted, that in proportion as arbitrary divisions are increased,
these difficulties are multiplied, and that this simple, twofold
classification presents the fewest.[228] In the following tables, which
contain all the measurements accompanying the plates in the _Crania
Americana_, the _cephalic index_ is placed in the left-hand column.
That a wide difference of type is apparent between the extremes of the
dolichocephalic and brachycephalic measurements, certainly cannot be
denied.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| (_A_) DOLICHOCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION |
| LESS THAN 80 TO 100. |
| |
| KEY: |
| A. _Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the |
| Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100)._ |
| B. _No. of Plate in Morton’s Work._ |
| C. _Longitudinal Diameter._ |
| D. _Parietal Diameter._ |
| E. _Vertical Diameter._ |
| F. _Frontal Diameter._ |
| G. _Extreme Length of Head and Face._ |
| H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._ |
| I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._ |
| J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._ |
| K. _Horizontal Periphery._ |
| L. _Interior Capacity._* |
| M. _Cap. of Anterior Chamber._* |
| N. _Cap. of Posterior Chamber._* |
| O. _Cap. of Coronal Region._ |
| P. _Facial Angle._ |
| |
|*In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. |D. |E. |F. |G. | H. |I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| 66. | II |6.9 |4.6|4.3|3.7|7.5|... |...| ...| ...|64. |17. |
| 72.6| IV |7.3 |5.3|5.3|4.3|8.2|14. |4.3|15. |19.8|81.5|31.5|
| 67. | V |6.7 |4.5|4.1|4.1|8.8|11.5|3.6|14.2|18. |65.5|19.7|
| 75.2| XVIII |6.9 |5.2|5.4|4.2|...|14.5|4.1|14. |19.2|78. |30. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 78.9| XXIII |7.1 |5.6|5.5|4.7|...|15. |4.1|14.8|20.3|89. |52.?|
| 73.6| XXV |7.2 |5.3|5.3|4.3|...|14.1|4.5|14.7|19.1|82. |35. |
| 79.4| XXVII |6.8 |5.4|5.5|4.3|...|15. |4.4|14.3|20.1|81.5|... |
| 78. | XXVIII|7.3 |5.8|5.5|4.8|...|15.1|4.6|14.2|20.9|94. |43. |
| 75.3| XXX |7.3 |5.5|5.5|4.3|...|14.6|4.6|14.9|21. |90. |33.5|
| 73. | XXXIV |7.8 |5.7|5.3|4.4|...|16.8|4. |15.8|22.1|98. |35.5|
| 72.4| XXXIII|6.9 |5. |5.3|4.2|...|14.3|3.9|14.4|19.8|71. |26. |
| 78.5| XXXII |7. |5.5|5.1|4.6|...|14.4|4.2|14.5|20. |78.5|33. |
| 65.4| XXXV |7.8 |5.1|5.4|4.2|...|14.2|4.5|15.5|20.8|93.5|35. |
| 72. | XXXVI |7.5 |5.6|5.8|4.1|...|14.4|4.3|14.9|20.8|92.5|36. |
| 73.6| XXXVII|7.2 |5.8|5.5|4.3|...|15. |4.4|14.2|19.8|74. |32.5|
| 76. | XL |7.1 |5.4|5.1|4.3|...|13.8|4.3|14. |19.9|77. |38.?|
| 79.4| LI |7.3 |5.8|5.4|4.4|...|14.6|4.2|14.1|20.3|86.5|... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 74.6| LII |7.1 |5.3|5.5|4.8|...|14.6|4.2|14.6|20. |85.5|... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 79.7| LXI |7.1 |5.6|5.5|4.6|...|15.5|4.1|15. |20.2|87. |... |
| 75.7| LXIV |7. |5.3|5.1|4.8|...|14.6|4. |14. |20.2| |... |
| 79. | LXV |7.2 |5.7|5.1|4.5|...|... |...| ...| ...| ...|... |
| 78.2| LXVI |6.9 |5.4|5.4|4.1|...|15. |4.1|14.2|19.5|84.5|32.5|
| 74.7| ... |7.1 |5.3|5.2|4.3|...|14.4|4.2|14.5|19.9|82.6|32.8|
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
| A. | B. | N. | O. |P. | REMARKS. |
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
| 66. | II |47. |... |...|Peruvian Child from Atacama (ancient).|
| 72.6| IV |50. |16.2|73°|Ancient Peruvian Cemetery near Arica. |
| 67. | V |45.7|12.7|61°|Ancient Peruvian. |
| 75.2| XVIII |48. |14.2|76°|Female Skull from Acapacingo, Mexico. |
| | | | | | Supposed Ancient Tiahuica. |
| 78.9| XXIII |37.?|19.?|78°|Seminole Warrior from Florida. |
| 73.6| XXV |47. |12.2|77°|Cherokee Warrior. |
| 79.4| XXVII |... |... |75°|Uchee. |
| 78. | XXVIII|51. |14.7|84°|Chippeway (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 75.3| XXX |56.5|13.5|75°|Miami Chief (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 73. | XXXIV |62.5|19. |80°|Potowatamie (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 72.4| XXXIII|45. | |80°|Naumkeag from Massachusetts. |
| 78.5| XXXII |45.5|16.2|76°|Female Lenapé or Delaware. |
| 65.4| XXXV |58.5|11.5|78°|Cayuga Chief 150 years old (Iroquois).|
| 72. | XXXVI |56.5|18.4|74°|Oneida (Iroquois). |
| 73.6| XXXVII|41.5| 9.5|78°|Huron Chief. |
| 76. | XL |44.?|18.2|78°|Black Foot. |
| 79.4| LI |... |... |76°|Supposed Mound-builder, Circleville |
| | | | | | Mound. |
| 74.6| LII |... |... |79°|Supposed Mound-builder from a |
| | | | | | Mississippi River Mound. |
| 79.7| LXI |... |... |80°|From Ancient Tomb, Ottumba, Mexico. |
| 75.7| LXIV |... |... |70°|Charib of Venezuela. |
| 79. | LXV |... |... |...|Charib of St. Vincent. |
| 78.2| LXVI |52. |19. |76°|Arucanian Chief, Chili. |
| 74.7| ... |49.2|15.3|76°|Mean. |
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| (_B_) BRACHYCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION, 80 AND |
| UPWARDS TO 100. |
| |
| KEY: |
| A. _Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the |
| Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100)._ |
| B. _No. of Plate in Morton’s Work._ |
| C. _Longitudinal Diameter._ |
| D. _Parietal Diameter._ |
| E. _Vertical Diameter._ |
| F. _Frontal Diameter._ |
| G. _Extreme Length of Head and Face._ |
| H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._ |
| I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._ |
| J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._ |
| K. _Horizontal Periphery._ |
| L. _Interior Capacity._* |
| M. _Cap. of Anterior Chamber._* |
| N. _Cap. of Posterior Chamber._* |
| O. _Cap. of Coronal Region._ |
| P. _Facial Angle._ |
| |
|*In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. |D. |E. |F. |G. |H. |I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| 80. | III |6.5 |5.2|5.1|4.3|8.3|14.5|4. |13.8|18.5|72.5|26. |
| 83. | VI |6.5 |5.4|5.2|4.4|...|14.6|4. |14.4|19.5|67.5|28.5|
|100. | VII |5.4 |5.4|4.6|4. |...|... |...|... |... |61. |... |
| 98. |VIII & |6.8 |5.7|5.1|4.4|...|14.5|4.1|12.7|18.4|71.7|28.7|
| | IX | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 98.3| XI |6.1 |6. |5.5|4.7|...|16. |4.5|14.1|19.5|83. |33.5|
| 89.5| XI A |6.7 |6. |5.6|4.5|...|16.2|4.5|14.5|20.2|89. |34. |
| 92. | XI B |6.3 |5.8|5.3|4.5|...|15. |4. |13.2|19. |76.5|30. |
| 98.3| XI C |6. |5.9|5. |4.4|...|15.5|4. |13.2|19. |77. |28. |
| 81.6| XI D |6.5 |5.5|5.6|4.6|...|14.8|4.5|13.6|19.5|68.5|33. |
| 80. | XVI |7.1 |5.7|5.2|4.4|...|15.9|4. |14. |20.5|83. |39. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80. | XVII |6.8 |5.5|6. |4.6|...|15.6|4.4|14.6|19.9|89.5|33.5|
| 80. |XVII A |6.6 |5.3|5.2|4.3|...|14.6|4.1|13.6|19. |74. |28. |
| 89. | XVIII |6.4 |5.7|5.4|4.5|...|14.6|4.5|13.5|20.2|77. |30. |
| 80. | XIX |6.9 |6.6|5.9|4.2|...|15.5|4.3|14. |20. |85. |39.2|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80. | XXII |7.3 |5.9|5.8|4.6|...|15.9|4.4|15.3|20.7|93. |35.5|
| 84.3| XXIV |7. |5.9|5.8|4.5|...|14.7|4.6|14.2|20.5|91.5|44. |
| 81.4| XXVI |7. |5.7|5.3|4.6|...|15.3|4.5|14.4|20.8|94.7|42.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 82.3| XXIX |6.8 |5.6|5.5|4.2|...|14.7|4.1|14.1|19.9|86.5|36.5|
| 81.3| XXXI |7. |5.9|5.5|4.7|...|15.3|4.7|14.2|20.9|91.5|40. |
| 81.8|XXXVIII|6.6 |5.4|4.9|4.4|...|13.7|4.3|13. |19.1|70.5|31. |
| 85. | XXXIX |6.7 |5.7|5.4|4.2|...|14.7|4.4|13.5|19.8|85. |36. |
| 90. | XLI |6.5 |5.9|5.3|4.6|...|15.1|4.1|13.4|19.5|83. |37.5|
| 80.5| XLII |6.7 |5.4|5.3|4.4|...|14. |4.2|14. |19.4|74. |33. |
| 88. | XLIII |6.7 |5.9|4.6|4.7|8.3|14.2|4. |12.9|20. |69. |32.5|
| 96. | XLIV |6.2 |6. |5.3|4.6|...|14.4|4.2|13.4|19. |70. |30. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 91.3| XLV |6.9 |6.3|4.8|4.9|8.5|15.7|4. |14. |21. |92. |34. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 89.2| XLVI |6.7 |6. |4.5|5. |8.3|14.9|4.2|13. |19.8|78. |26. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 92.6| XLVII |6.8 |6.3|4.9|5.2|8.8|14.8|4.3|13. |20.4|87. |35.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 87.8|XLVIII |6.6 |5.8|5. |4.8|7.9|14.2|4.2|13. |19.5|79. |36.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 87. | XLIX |7. |6.1|4.1|4.9|8.8|13.9|4. |12.7|20.2|75. |28. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 99.9| LIII |6.6?|6. |5. |...|...|... |...|... |... |... |... |
|111.8| LIV |5.9 |6.6|5.1|4.4|...|15.6|4.4|12.4|19.6|80. |... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 84.5| LV |6.6 |5.6|5.6|4.1|...|15.2|4.4|14. |19.5|87.5|... |
| 87. | LVI |6.2 |5.4|4.9|4.3|...|14.6|3.8|13.3|18.5|74.5|30. |
| 81.1| LVII |6.9 |5.6|5.1|4.4|...|15.3|4.3|14. |19.7|79. |29.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 86.1| LVIII |6.5 |5.6|5. |4.5|...|14.7|3.8|13.2|19.2|76.5|34. |
| 84. | LIX |6.3 |5.3|5.4|4.4|...|14.3|4.2|13.5|19.2|74. |... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 89.3| LX |6.6 |5.3|5.4|4.4|...|14. |4. |14. |19.3|76. |... |
| 80.6| LXII |6.7 |5.4|5.5|4.3|...|14.5|4.1|14. |19.3|81. |35.2|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80.6|LXVIII |6.7 |5.4|4.9|4.7|...|14.2|4.9|13.4|19.5|77. |32. |
| 87. | ... |6.8 |5.7|5.1|4.5|...|14.6|4.2|13.9|19.5|79.5|37.1|
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| Forty Skulls. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----+-------+----+----+---+---+-------------------------------------+
| A. | B. | N. | O. | P. | REMARKS. |
+-----+-------+----+----+-------+-------------------------------------+
| 80. | III |46.5|14.7| 68° |Ancient Peruvian from Lake Titicaca. |
| 83. | VI |39. |10.2| 76° |Chimuyan, Peru. |
|100. | VII |... |... | ... |Inca Peruvian Child. |
| 98. |VIII & |43. |11.4| 75° |Inca Peruvian Female from Temple of |
| | IX | | | | Sun, near Lima. |
| 98.3| XI |49.5|15.7| 81° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 89.5| XI A |55.5|20.5| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 92. | XI B |46.5|12.2| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 98.3| XI C |49. |11.3| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 81.6| XI D |35.5|... | 75° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 80. | XVI |44. |17.5| 72° |Ancient Mexican from Cerro de |
| | | | | | Quesilas. |
| 80. | XVII |56. |19.5| 80° |Ancient Mexican from Tacuba. |
| 80. |XVII A |46. |11.5| 77° |Mexican Indian from Pamas tribe. |
| 89. | XVIII |47. |... | 78° |From an Ancient Tomb near Mexico. |
| 80. | XIX |45.7|13.2| 71° |Chetimaches from Cemetery in St. |
| | | | | | Mary’s parish, Louisiana. |
| 80. | XXII |57.5|25. | 72° |Seminole Warrior. |
| 84.3| XXIV |47.5|18.1| 81° |Seminole. |
| 81.4| XXVI |52.2|15.6| 72° |Skull of the Chief of the Creek |
| | | | | | Indians. |
| 82.3| XXIX |50. |15.5| 79° |Menominee Female (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 81.3| XXXI |51.5|12.7| 82° |Ottogamie (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 81.8|XXXVIII|39.5|10.6| 75° |Pawnee Female from the Platte River. |
| 85. | XXXIX |49. |16.6| 77° |Dakota Warrior. |
| 90. | XLI |45.5|14.1| 77° |Osage. |
| 80.5| XLII |41. |14. | 76° |Chinouk (natural form). |
| 88. | XLIII |36.5| 9.9| 72° |Chinouk (artificially flattened). |
| 96. | XLIV |40. |... | 70° |Klalstonl of Oregon, (artificially |
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 91.3| XLV |58. |19.3| 73° |Killemook Chief. Oregon (artificially|
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 89.2| XLVI |59. | 8.7| 70° |Clalsap, Columbia River (artificially|
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 92.6| XLVII |51.5|11.2| 68° |Kalapooyah, on Oregon River |
| | | | | | (artificial). |
| 87.8|XLVIII |42.6|... | 70° |Clickitat from Columbia River |
| | | | | | (artificially flat). |
| 87. | XLIX |47. | 6.2| 66° |Cowalitek, Columbia River |
| | | | | | (artificially flattened). |
| 99.9| LIII |... |... | 78° |Grave Creek Mound. |
|111.8| LIV |... |... | 72° |From an Alabama River Mound. Supposed|
| | | | | | Natchez (flattened). |
| 84.5| LV |... |... | 80° |Skull from a Mound in Tennessee. |
| 87. | LVI |44.5|14.5| 71° |Skull from a Mound at Santa Peru. |
| 81.1| LVII |49.5|14.1| 72° |Skull from a Tumulus in the Valley of|
| | | | | | Rimac, Peru. |
| 86.1| LVIII |42.5|13.7| 74° |Mound Skull, Valley of Rimac, Peru. |
| 84. | LIX |... |... | 76° |From an Ancient Tomb at Ottumba, |
| | | | | | Mexico. |
| 89.3| LX |... |... | 77° |From Ancient Tomb, Ottumba, Mexico. |
| 80.6| LXII |45.7|18. | 76° |Skull from a Cave at Golconda, |
| | | | | | Illinois. |
| 80.6|LXVIII |45. |11.9| 72° |Arucanian Chief from Chili. |
| 87. | ... |45. |14.2|75° 31´|Mean. |
+-----+-------+----+----+-------+-------------------------------------+
| Forty Skulls. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
It will be observed that the widest range is found between the
proportions of the skull of the Cayuga chief 100 years old (Plate XXXV)
with a cephalic index of only 65.4, and those of some of the Peruvian
crania having a cephalic index of over 98. The supposed Natchez skull
(Plate LIV) is so artificially flattened as to exclude it from the
calculation. The mean cephalic index of each of the tables exhibits a
well-defined type of the long and the short skull respectively. The
former 74.7 and the latter 87 are both far enough removed from the
dividing line (80) to leave no doubt that the types are distinct and
separate. Additional data, materially strengthening the conclusion of
the variety of types found among American crania, has been furnished by
that eminent authority Dr. Daniel Wilson.[229] The following table of
measurements in inches is based upon his extensive researches:
+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+
|_No. of| | _Mean | _Mean | |
|Crania | |Longitudinal| Parietal |_Cephalic|
|in each| _Description of Crania._ | Diameter._ |Diameter._| Index._ |
|Class._| | | | |
+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+
| 8 |Mound Crania (two from Morton, four| | | |
| | undoubtedly from the mounds) | 6.54 | 5.67 | 86.7 |
| 12 |Cave Crania | 6.62 | 5.78 | 85.7 |
| 29 |Peruvian Brachycephalic Crania | 5.97 | 5.12 | 85.7 |
| 16 |Peruvian Dolichocephalic Crania | 6.49 | 4.95 | 76.2 |
| 8 |Mexican Dolichocephalic Crania | 7.05 | 5.41 | 76.7 |
| 7 |Mexican Brachycephalic Crania | 6.56 | 5.51 | 84.0 |
| 31 |Dolichocephalic Crania of Am. | | | |
| | Indians | 7.24 | 5.47 | 75.5 |
| 22 |Brachycephalic Crania of Am. | | | |
| | Indians | 6.62 | 5.45 | 82.3 |
| 12 |Living Algonquins, Brachycephalæ | 7.25 | 6.00 | 82.7 |
| 39 |West Canadian Hurons (male) | 7.39 | 5.50 | 74.4 |
+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+
It requires no careful examination of these figures to observe that the
type of skull among the American aborigines, ancient or modern, was in
no sense constant, since among the same tribes long and short skulls
occur in almost equal numbers. This fact is especially true among the
savage Indians. Among the semi-civilized nations, however, as among the
Peruvians and Mexicans, the long and short skulls mark the successive
existence and destruction of distinct peoples having physiological
characteristics peculiar to themselves. The Peruvian elongated crania
are always found with large-boned skeletons having strong hands, while
the short or rounded crania accompany very small bones, such as were
unable to endure labor like the building of pyramids and the erection
of such edifices as are found in Peru.[230]
It is with the utmost deference to the genius, and with full
recognition of the valuable researches of Dr. Morton, that we disagree
with his conclusions and pronounce his theory without foundation in
fact. There is no evidence furnished by the measurement of crania
that an American race, as unique in itself and distinct from the rest
of mankind, ever existed.[231] One of the most interesting studies
connected with these tables, as well as other measurements made
more recently, is the question of relationship between the various
semi-civilized peoples of the ancient period. First and most naturally
the type of the mound crania attracts attention, and calls for
comparisons with the Indian type and with that of the remarkable people
of the more southern civilization.
The “Scioto Mound” skull figured by Dr. Davis in Plates xlvii and
xlviii of _The Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, was
pronounced by Dr. Morton in Dr. Meigs’ catalogue of the human crania in
the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, as
“perhaps the most admirably formed head of the American race hitherto
discovered.”
The most important measurements are as follows:
Longitudinal diameter 6.5 inches.
Parietal „ 6.0 „
Vertical „ 6.2 „
Inter-mastoid arch 16.0 „
Horizontal circumference 19.8 „
————
Cephalic index 92.3 „
The chief features as pointed out by the above-named author, are: the
elevated vertex, flattened occiput, great inter-parietal diameter,
ponderous bony structure, salient nose, large jaws and broad face.
These he pronounces to be characteristics of the American cranium. Dr.
Wilson has shown that Dr. Morton has contradicted his own previous
definition of what that type is as well as the description given by
Humboldt.[232] The propriety of selecting any single cranium as typical
of the Mound-builders would be as questionable in this connection as
it was for Dr. Morton and the authors of the _Types of Mankind_ to
designate the Scioto Mound skull as a type of the American cranium.
Until within a few years but few genuine mound skulls were accessible,
and considerable suspicion was reasonably attached to the genuineness
of several, including three or four of the so-called mound skulls in
the _Crania Americana_. Recent explorations have brought to light a
large number, of unquestioned genuineness. The Peabody Museum alone
possesses 300, and of these 200 were exhumed by Prof. F. W. Putnam.
From a number of measurements only is it possible for us to approximate
the type of the mound skull. We have already referred to the low
type skulls secured by Gen. H. W. Thomas from a mound in Dakota
Territory.[233] Unfortunately we are without measurements, but from
the description we observe that the forehead is decidedly receding,
and the orbital ridges are excessively developed. The inferior
maxillary is of unusual prominence and much more massive, as is the
entire bony structure, than in the common Indian cranium. Another
cranium of similar characteristic was exhumed from the great mound on
the River Rouge near its junction with the Detroit River, Michigan,
by Mr. Henry Gillman. From this mound several crania were taken, of
which one (though evidently adult) presented the hitherto, I think I
may say, unprecedented feature of its capacity being only fifty-six
cubic inches. The mean given by Morton and Meigs of the Indian cranium
is eighty-four cubic inches, the minimum being sixty-nine cubic
inches. This cranium, forwarded with other relics to the Peabody
Museum, presents (though in no wise deformed) the further peculiarity
of having the ridges for the attachment of the temporal muscle only
.75 of an inch apart, in this respect resembling the cranium of the
chimpanzee. It is rarely that in human crania those ridges approach
each other within a distance of two inches, while they vary from that
to four inches apart.[234] Eight crania were exhumed by Mr. Gillman
from the great mound on Rouge River, which furnished him the following
measurements:
DIMENSIONS, ETC., OF CRANIA EXHUMED FROM THE GREAT MOUND,
RIVER ROUGE, MICHIGAN.
KEY:
A. _Capacity (Approximate)._[235]
B. _Circumference._
C. _Length._
D. _Breadth._
E. _Height._
F. _Breadth of Frontal._
G. _Index of Breadth._
H. _Index of Height._
I. _Index of Foramen Magnum._
J. _Frontal Arch._
K. _Parietal Arch._
L. _Occipital Arch._
M. _Longitudinal Arch._
N. _Length of Frontal._
O. _Length of Parietal._
P. _Length of Occipital._
Q. _Zygomatic Diameter._
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| _No._ | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. |
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| 1.[236]|18.65|19.00|7.30|6.00|5.35|4.02|.822| .733|.465|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 2.[237]|18.10|19.50|7.30|5.20|5.60|3.60|.712| .767|.547|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 3. |18.00|19.50|7.00|5.40|5.60|3.95|.777| .800|.500|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 4. |18.47| |7.20|5.40|5.77|4.07|.763| .801|.479|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 5.[238]|16.54|18.50|6.90|4.70|4.94|3.74|.681| .716| |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 6.[239]|18.23|22.40|6.80|5.80|5.63|4.63|.853| .828|.397|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 7.[240]|18.82| |7.60|5.62|5.60|4.01|.739| .736|.473|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 8. |15.93|18.00|5.35|5.03|5.55|4.08|.940|1.037|.605|
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| Means. |17.84|19.48|6.93|5.40|5.50|4.01|.786| .802|.495|
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| _No._ | J. | K. | L. | M. | N. | O. | P. | Q. |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| 1.[236]|12.15|12.00|11.65|14.00|5.50|4.40|4.10| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 2.[237]|11.80|12.75|11.50|15.35|4.95|5.50|4.90|4.20|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 3. |12.65|12.20|10.30|14.60|5.00|4.75|4.85| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 4. |12.10|12.00|11.10|13.45|4.75|5.40|4.30| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 5.[238]|11.20|10.25|11.30|13.95|4.50|4.75|4.70|5.00|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 6.[239]|11.10|13.15|11.00|14.85|5.40|4.60|4.85|5.00|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 7.[240]|11.50| | | |5.10| | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 8. |11.90|12.80|11.30|13.90|4.90|4.90|4.10| |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| Means. |11.80|12.16|11.16|14.30|5.01|4.90|4.54|4.93|
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
NOTE.—The fragments of a cranium, consisting chiefly of a very
retreating frontal, and presenting traits of a low and brutal
character, reminding one of the Neanderthal skull, were found
underneath the above tabulated crania.
We observe that only three of these crania are brachycephalic, while
the remaining five, and the mean of all, fall under the class of
dolichocephalic crania, according to our classification. Mr. Gillman
would call some of them Orthocephalic, and the mean of the eight crania
giving a cephalic index of .786 and .802 as an index of height might
properly be so classified. The same gentleman exhumed from an ancient
mound on Chambers Island, Green Bay, Wisconsin, six crania, which as
to type were equally divided into long and short skulls, while the
mean cephalic index, .817, assigned them to the brachycephalic class.
The long skulls were not far removed, however, from the dividing line
between the classes (.80). The energetic and intelligent labors of
Dr. R. J. Farquharson of the Davenport, Iowa, Academy of Sciences,
has placed within our reach measurements upon twenty-five mound
crania.[241] The following are the most important measurements in
inches:
Key:
A. CRANIA.
B. _Horizontal Circumference._
C. _Longitudinal Diameter._
D. _Transverse Diameter._
E. _Internal Capacity._
F. _Cephalic Index or Ratio of Diameter._
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
| A. | B. |C. | D. | E. | F. |
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
|Mean of Nine Crania from Albany, Ill.|19.8 |6.8|5.1 |68. |.768|
|Mean of Eleven from Rock River, Ill. |20.15|7.0|5.4 |74.48|.771|
|Mean of Four from Henry County, Ill. |19.5 |7.0|5.2 |74.47|.743|
|One from Davenport |19.5 |7.0|5.25|76.20|.752|
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
This table introduces a new feature into the investigation in hand;
the brachycephalic or the near approximation to the short skull is
displaced by a mean cephalic index of .758, indicating the well-marked
dolichocephalic type. The mean internal capacity 73.3 inches falls
considerably below the mean of mound crania as measured by Squier and
Davis, Wilson and others, from localities farther south.
The mean results of Dr. Farquharson’s measurements[242] show a greater
vertical than transverse diameter, a peculiarity of most Mississippi
mound skulls, distinguishing them from Peruvian crania. In the Ohio
Valley the brachycephalic type is quite decided, though the general
features of high receding forehead, flattened occiput, and great
transverse diameter, establish their relationship to all other North
American mound crania yet discovered. Three Ohio Valley mound skulls,
as to the genuineness of which no suspicion can be entertained,
namely the Scioto Mound cranium and two crania from the Grave Creek
Mound, give the following measurements in the mean: Longitudinal
diameter, 6.5 inches; parietal diameter, 6 inches; vertical diameter,
5.5 inches, and 90.7 as their cephalic index. The mean internal
capacity, though not obtainable with any degree of accuracy, in this
instance is no doubt from eight to ten cubic inches greater than in
the Davenport crania. With the general characteristics alike, minor
differences may in most instances be attributed to artificial pressure.
A valuable collection of mound crania was made in Kentucky for the
Smithsonian Institution and the Peabody Museum, by Mr. S. S. Lyon,
and is thoroughly reliable as a basis for measurements. Professor
Wyman, in the _Fourth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_, describes
them as follows: “The twenty-four crania measured (Table VIII) show a
mean capacity of 1313 cubic centimetres, which is greater than that
of the Peruvians, but less than that of the North American Indians
generally (viz., 1376 cubic centimetres, or 84 cubic inches). They
differ also from those of the ordinary Indians in being lighter, less
massive, in having the rough surface for muscular attachments less
strongly marked. * * * In proportions they present a very considerable
variation among themselves. Assuming the length of the skull to be
1.000, the breadth ranges from 0.712 to 0.950 of the length. The
average proportion is 0.857, which places them in the short-headed
group.”
We have already called attention to the extensive and thorough
work performed by Professor Joseph Jones in Tennessee, the report
of which was published in 1876 by the Smithsonian Institution in a
“contribution” entitled _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of
Tennessee_. Professor Jones secured above a hundred mound and stone
grave crania, mostly in the valley of the Cumberland and on the banks
of the Big Harpeth River. Some of the skeletons accompanying these
crania were of gigantic stature, a fact which is at variance with
the opinion that they were related to the diminutive race of Inca
Peruvians.[243] On the contrary, however, a strong argument for the
relationship between the Mound-builders and the Peruvians is found in
the frequent occurrence of the Inca-bone (_os inca_) so-called, on the
mound crania.[244] Mr. Henry Gillman found this same bone in one of the
crania exhumed by him from the great mound of Rouge River, Michigan,
with a disposition to its formation in several others.[245] Professor
Jones is convinced of the unity of the mound race throughout the entire
Mississippi Basin. The following table of measurements, published in
the _Antiquities of Tennessee_, is one of the most valuable which has
yet been prepared:
Key:
A. _Number of Cranium._
B. _Facial Angle in Degrees._
C. _Internal Capacity in Cubic Inches._
D. _Longitudinal Diameter in Inches._
E. _Parietal Diameter._
F. _Frontal Diameter._
G. _Vertical Diameter._
H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._
I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._
J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._
K. _Horizontal Periphery._
L. _Diameter of Head and Face._
M. _Zygomatic Diameter._
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| 1 |76.5| 75. | 6.3|5.4 |4.3 |5.5 |15. |5. |13.5 |19. | 7.5| 5.1|
| 2 |80. | 78. | 6. |5.6 |4.4 |5.4 |14.6|5.1 |13.2 |18.9| 7.2| 5.2|
| 3 |75. | 78. | 6.1|5.7 |4.3 |5.6 |15. |5.2 |13. |19. | 7.3| 5.3|
| 4 | | 82. | 6.2|5.7 |4.1 |5.5 |15.2|5.4 |14. |19. | | 5.2|
| 5 |77. | 84. | 6.5|5.8 |4.4 |5.8 |15.5|5.2 |14.3 |19.9| 7.4| 5.3|
| 6 |76. | 68. | 6.4|4.9 |3.9 |5.5 |13.9|4.5 |13.8 |18.2| 7.1| 4.6|
| 7 |81. |103. | 7. |5.9 |4.8 |6.4 |16.8|5.3 |15.7 |20.8| 7.8| 5.5|
| 8 |80. | 80. | 6.6|5.6 |4.3 |5.5 |15. |4.6 |13.8 |19.3| 7.2| 5.2|
| 9 |78. | 79. | 7. |5.2 |3.9 |5.8 |14.7|4.6 |15.2 |19.5| 7.4| 5. |
| 10 |81. | 76. | 6.3|6. |4.4 |5.4 |15.7|4.6 |13.8 |19.4| 6.8| 5.3|
| 11 |80. | 90. | 6.9|5.6 |4.3 |6. |15.7|4.8 |14.8 |20.3| 7.6| 5.5|
| 12 |77. | 80. | 6.8|5.2 |4.1 |5.8 |15. |4.7 |14.4 |19.5| 7.8| 5.2|
| 13 |82. | 81. | 6.9|5.5 |4.3 |5.7 |15. |4.8 |14. |19.6| 7.8| 5. |
| 14 | | 92. | 6.1|6.4 |4.4 |6. |16.5|5.4 |13.8 |19.8| | |
| 15 | | 79. | 6.1|5.8 |4.6 |5.5 |15. |4.8 |13.4 |18.9| | |
| 16 | | | 7.2|5.7 |4.6 |5.9 |16. |4.6 |15.2 |20.8| | |
| 17 | | | 6.1|5.5 |4.1 |4.5 |14. | |13.6 |19. | | |
| 18 | | | 6.5|5.8 |4.5 |4.6 |15. | | |19.4| | |
| 19 |82. | 79.2 | 6.7|5.5 |4.2 |5.5 |15. |4.4 |13.5 |19.1| 7.8| 5.2|
| 20 |75. | 81.4 | 6.5|5.7 |4. |5.6 |14.4|5. |13.3 |19.2| 7.1| 5.3|
| 21 |82. | 80.5 | 6.4|5.9 |4.6 |5.7 |15. |4.9 |14. |19. | 7.3| 5.4|
|Max.|82. |103. | 7.2|6.4 |4.8 |6.4 |16.8|5.4 |15.7 |20.8| 7.8| 5.5|
|Min.|75. | 68. | 6. |4.9 |3.9 |4.5 |13.9|4.4 |13. |18.2| 6.8| 4.6|
|Mean|78.8| 81.44| 6.5|5.68|4.21|5.56|15.0|4.57|13.88|19.8| 7.4| 5.2|
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
The most noticeable feature in the table aside from the mean cephalic
index .874 is the great internal capacity of cranium No. 7, which was
found in a stone grave in a mound near Nashville, with a skeleton over
six feet long. The occiput is but slightly flattened, and the general
contour of the head is symmetrically oval. Morton gives as the mean
internal capacity of fifty-two Caucasian skulls 87 cubic inches; the
largest of the series measured 109 cubic inches, and the smallest 75
cubic inches. This remarkable cranium gives an internal capacity of 103
cubic inches, vastly above the mean European skull, and only falling
six cubic inches below the largest measured by Morton. As we observed
a considerable increase in capacity in the Scioto Mound cranium,
with its ninety cubic inches, over the crania of the north-west and
north, of Michigan and Davenport, so here a most remarkable advance
upon the capacity of the Scioto cranium is presented. The evidence of
considerable development in the size of the cranium in this same race
is clear; and taken with other testimony, such as the great improvement
in art and architecture, indicates probably a movement from north to
south, and that the mound race was older in the former region than in
the latter.
In September, 1877, Prof. F. W. Putnam and Mr. Edwin Curtiss exhumed
sixty-seven crania from stone graves located in the neighborhood of
Nashville, Tennessee. These crania were measured by Miss Jennie Smith
and Mr. Lucian Carr, and the latter has tabulated and described them in
the _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_ (pp. 361 _et seq._,
Cambridge, 1878). As some interesting features occur in the tables,
we insert here Mr. Carr’s mean measurements. It will be observed that
the classification in this instance is threefold, besides the distinct
position assigned to the “much flattened” crania.
MEAN MEASUREMENTS OF SIXTY-SEVEN CRANIA FROM STONE GRAVES IN TENNESSEE.
Key:
A. _Number of Crania._
B. _Capacity._
C. _Length._
D. _Breadth._
E. _Height._
F. _Index of Breadth._
G. _Index of Height._
H. _Width of Frontal._
I. _Index of Breadth._
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
| | |A.| B. |C. |D. |E. | F. | G. |H.| G. |
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
| | | | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | | | 5| |
|1|Dolichocephali| 5|1325|184|132|142|.716|.775|94|.730 and under.|
| | | | 6 | 18| 16| 11| | |18| |
|2|Orthocephali |18|1346|172|134|141|.775|.819|89|.740 @ .800 |
| | | | 15 | 29| 28| 18| | |29| |
|3|Brachycephali |29|1284|165|141|142|.856|.865|90|.800 @ .900 |
| | | | 7 | 15| 15| 8 | | |15| |
|4|Much Flattened|15|1461|156|152|145|.973|.907|93|.900 and over. |
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
Mr. Carr calls attention to the fact that while the classified crania
as a whole are brachycephali, still from twenty-three to thirty-three
per cent. of the whole cannot be considered as falling within that
group. Whether the five dolichocephali in the table belonged to the
same race cannot be determined. They were buried together, for Prof.
Putnam found a long and a short skull side by side in the same grave.
Mr. A. J. Conant (see _Commonwealth of Missouri_, St. Louis, 1877, 8vo,
pp. 106–7) discovered in a mound in South-eastern Missouri two crania
belonging to skeletons buried in regular order, with a large number of
other skeletons at the bottom of the mound, which differed strangely
from all others found in that locality. The forehead was entirely
wanting, and the contour of the top of one of the skulls was almost
flat. It closely resembles the Neanderthal skull. Mr. Conant thought
it at first to be an intrusive burial, but careful examination proved
it to have been placed in position before the building of the mound,
and to have been interred with as much care as was bestowed upon any of
the other occupants of the mound. Vases, drinking vessels and food-pans
accompanied it as they did all the other skeletons.
Mr. Carr thinks such crania as he has pointed out belonged to
individuals who were conquered in war, or adopted or introduced into
the tribe by intermarriage. Mr. Conant considers that the low type
cranium which he discovered belonged to a very ancient race, the
predecessors of the Mound-builders, and not far removed from the
palæolithic races of Europe.
The mound skulls are readily distinguishable from those of the Red
Indian. Only in the Davenport crania and the five dolichocephali
from Tennessee do we see any approximation as to form. However, the
remaining characteristics of the Davenport crania establish the fact
that they belonged to people of the mounds. In our classification of
Dr. Morton’s measurements, it will be observed that only two _supposed_
mound skulls appear among the dolichocephali (long skulls, A), and
too much doubt is attached to their genuineness to admit of their use
in drawing inferences. All the remainder belong to the savage tribes
except three Peruvians of the ancient race of the region of Titicaca.
In the table of brachycephali but few of the savage tribes are
represented, except those which practice artificial compression to the
extent of deformity. The mound skull as compared with the Inca Peruvian
presents few resemblances, except that both generally belong to the
brachycephalic class, and the singular and important fact already
mentioned that the Inca bone has been found in North American mound
crania. It is possible that when more extensive research is made, this
distinguishing feature may lead to the conclusion that the races were
one or closely related. On the other hand, the massive bony structure
of some of the mound crania does not correspond with the facial bones
of the Inca crania, which are very light and delicate. Prof. Wilson
has pointed out the additional fact that the vertical diameter of the
Peruvian short crania is not so great as that of the mound and Mexican
short skulls, but a reference to the Professor’s own tables shows that
the mean difference amounts only to thirty-seven-hundredths of an inch,
altogether too small a variation to serve as the basis for ethnic
generalizations.[246] Few if any similarities can be traced between
the dolichocephali of Peru and the brachycephalic Mound-builders, the
only resemblances being the heavy bony structure possessed in common
by both races. The crania of the dolichocephali of Peru are pronounced
of a Mongol cast and form, and are in every respect unlike the mound
crania. Turning our attention, however, to the ancient Mexican crania,
we find, so far as we are able to judge from the limited number
of skulls which have come into the possession of ethnologists, a
parallelism in measurements and resemblance in the various distinctive
features, such as flattened occiput, broad transverse diameter,
retreating forehead, strong bony structure, and a remarkable agreement
in vertical diameter with those of the mounds of the Mississippi Basin,
which point unmistakably to the closest relationship. Seven Mexican
brachycephali measured by Prof. Wilson in the Boston and Philadelphia
collections previously referred to, gave a mean vertical diameter
of 5.55 inches.[247] Four Mound-builder crania measured by the same
investigation gave precisely the same result, while the remaining
measurements varied from each other but slightly. In confirmation of
this result it is worthy of notice that the mean vertical diameter of
the twenty-one mound and stone grave crania from Tennessee varied from
that of the Mexican crania by only one one-hundredth of an inch (5.56).
When Dr. Morton began his investigations, he was disposed to recognize
the existence of distinct races, represented by the dolichocephalic
and brachycephalic crania of Peru.[248] But in later years, and at
a period subsequent to the issue of his justly celebrated work,
he concluded that the Peruvian elongated head was the product of
artificial compression and not the distinguishing mark of an ancient
race which long antedated the Incas.[249] Prof. Wilson has thoroughly
discussed this subject, and from a series of investigations, conducted
on a much more extensive scale than those of Dr. Morton, he has
shown conclusively that the distinguished craniologist was quite
mistaken as to the facts upon which he based his later views.[250]
Much valuable information was afforded Prof. Wilson by the researches
and collections of John H. Blake, Esq., made during that gentleman’s
residence in Peru, as well as the extensive collection of Dr. J. C.
Warren of Boston. Prof. Wilson points out the essential difference
between the compressed and the naturally dolichocephalic cranium in
these words: “Few who have had extensive opportunities of minutely
examining and comparing normal and artificially formed crania, will,
I think, be prepared to dispute the fact that the latter are rarely,
if ever, symmetrical. The application of pressure on the head of the
living child can easily be made to change its natural contour, but it
cannot give to its artificial proportions that harmonious repetition
of corresponding developments on opposite sides which may be assumed
as the normal condition of the unmodified cranium. But in so extreme
a case as the conversion of a brachycephalic head averaging about 6.3
inches longitudinal diameter by 5.3 inches parietal diameter into a
dolichocephalic head of 7.3 by 4.9 inches diameter, the retention
of anything like the normal symmetrical proportions is impossible.
Yet the dolichocephalic Peruvian crania present no such abnormal
irregularities as could give plausibility to the theory of their form
being an artificial one, while peculiarities in the facial proportions
confirm the idea that it is of ethnic origin and not the product
of deformation.” Besides these differences there are peculiarities
of a structural nature sufficient in themselves to distinguish the
Peruvian long from the short crania. The former is small, narrow and
decidedly long; the forehead is low and retreating, and two-thirds
of the brain-cavity lies behind the occipital foramen. The superior
maxillary is protruding and holds the incisor teeth obliquely. The
weight of the bony structure also exceeds that in the brachycephalic.
Though both classes are found artificially compressed, yet they are
always distinguishable from each other. One of the best illustrations
of this fact, and one already used by Prof. Wilson, is afforded in
contrasting two dolichocephalic crania, both obtained by Mr. Blake
in his explorations of the ancient cemeteries of Arica and Atacama.
Both are evidently of children; one is in its normal condition,
symmetrical, and when viewed from above presents the outlines of a
graceful oval form, while the other was subjected to such compression
as to throw the volume of the brain backward and to greatly deform the
frontal bone.[251] A slight tendency to assume the dog-shaped head of
the Chinooks of the Columbia River is manifest, where deformation is
carried to such an extent as to produce monstrosities. However, even
then, the normal brachycephalic type of skull of the Chinooks is not
transformed to the dolichocephalic, since the base of the cranium
remains comparatively unaffected while distension takes place in a
posterior and upward direction. Mr. Squier in his _Peru_ (p. 580,
Appendix), has shown that circular compression produces a symmetrical
effect in the same direction.
The custom of artificially flattening the head has, upon investigation,
been shown not to be peculiar alone to the aborigines of America,
but to have been practised by many of the semi-civilized peoples of
antiquity in different parts of Europe and Asia. Hippocrates, in
his treatise _De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis_, has described this savage
practice among a people whom he calls _Machrocephali_, supposed to have
inhabited the region near the Palus Mæotis, in the vicinity of the
Caucasus. He says, “The custom stood thus: as soon as the child was
born, they immediately fashioned its soft and tender head with their
hands, and by the use of bandages and proper arts, forced it to grow
lengthwise, by which the spherical figure of the head was prevented
and the length increased.” Strabo refers to a people occupying a
portion of Western Asia, who were addicted to the same custom and
had foreheads projecting beyond their beards.[252] Pliny places them
in Asia Minor,[253] while Pomponius Mela places the Machrocephali on
the Bosphorus.[254] Blumenbach has figured in his first decade, a
compressed skull obtained by him from Russia and probably originally
from one of the tumuli of the Crimean Bosphorus, where it is supposed
to have been exhumed during the Russian occupation. In 1843, Rathke
figured and described in Müller’s _Archiv für Anatomie_, another
example of the compressed human crania, obtained from an ancient
grave near Kertsch in the Crimea. In 1820, Count August von Brenner
obtained on his estate at Fuersbrunn near Grafenegg in Austria, a
skull of similar characteristics. This was, upon examination, decided
to have belonged to an Avarian Hun. Prof. Retzius described it in
the _Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Stockholm in
1844_, adducing arguments to strengthen that supposition. Dr. Tschudi,
however, conceived the idea that it might have been a Peruvian skull
which had been brought to Europe as a curiosity during the reign of
Charles V. and afterwards thrown aside. His communication appeared in
Müller’s _Archiv für Anatomie_. The opinion of the learned traveller
was, however, subsequently reversed by the discovery at Atzgersdorf,
near Vienna, of another and similar cranium. More recently others have
come to light at the Village of St. Roman in Savoy, and in the Valley
of the Doubs near Mandense. Dr. Fitzinger has probably investigated
this subject with more thoroughness than any other writer, and has
shown in his articles in the _Transactions of the Imperial Academy of
Vienna_, that this custom was native to the Scythian region in the
vicinity of the Mœtian Moor, and prevailed in the Caucasus and along
the shores of the Black and Caspian seas and the Bosphorus. Among the
most interesting relics cited as sustaining his views is an ancient
medal struck in commemoration of the destruction of Aquileia by Attila
the Hun in A. D. 452, and bearing the bust of that “Scourge of God.”
The head represented in profile is of precisely the same shape as those
of the other Avir skulls, having a flattened form in a vertical and
oblique direction. Thierry in his _Attila_ has traced the origin of
the custom of flattening the skull, to the Huns, who, descending from
their home upon the steppes of Northern Asia, left their remains upon
many a field in Europe. One of these deformed skulls was discovered in
1856 by J. Hudson Barclay, in a large cavern near the Damascus Gate
at Jerusalem. The skeleton was of unusually large size and decayed,
but the skull, which was pretty well-preserved, was brought to this
country and is preserved in the collection of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia.[255] Dr. J. Atkinson Meigs concluded, upon
careful examination, that its occiput had been flattened by pressure
during childhood. The testimony of Dr. Tschudi, rendered undesignedly,
amounts to the best of evidence of the transition of this custom from
the eastern shores of Asia to Peru, and this isolated instance has been
strengthened beyond question or doubt by the abundant proof which has
been brought to light since attention was directed to the subject.[256]
In referring to the methods by which artificial compression was
brought about in America, Prof. Wilson remarks: “Trifling as it may
appear, it is not without interest to have the fact brought under our
notice by the disclosures of ancient barrows and cysts, that the same
practice of nursing the child and carrying it about, bound to a flat
cradle-board, prevailed in Britain and the North of Europe long before
the first notices of written history reveal the presence of man beyond
the Baltic or the English Channel, and that in all probability the
same custom prevailed continuously from the shores of the German Ocean
to Behring Straits.”[257] Dr. L. A. Gosse testifies to the prevalence
of the same custom among the Caledonians and Scandinavians of the
earliest times,[258] and Dr. Thurman has treated the same peculiarity
of the early Anglo-Saxon.[259] It is a matter of no little surprise
to the inquirer in this field to learn that this system of skull
distortion introduced into Southern Europe by the Asiatic hordes which
overran it in the fifth century has been perpetuated, though somewhat
modified, and at present is in vogue in the south of France.[260] The
distinguished Dr. Foville, in charge of the Asylum for Insane in the
Department Seine-Inférieure and Charenton, has figured this process in
his work on the _Anatomy of the Nervous System_, as well as a number
of skulls which have striking Peruvian resemblances. The artificial
form in this case is produced by the use of peculiar head-dresses
or bandages.[261] The Egyptians placed a pillow under the neck and
not for the head; hence the elongated crania characteristic of the
race, and it is not a little remarkable that the Feejee Islanders
have the same custom at the present day. The Kankas of the Sandwich
Islands produce the flattened occiput by supporting the infant’s head
always in the palm of the hand.[262] The South Sea Islanders have a
flattened occiput, as Pickering describes it, projecting but slightly
beyond the line of the neck.[263] Prof. Wilson comments upon this fact
as follows: “Traces of purposed deformation of the head among the
islanders of the Pacific, have an additional interest in their relation
to one possible source of the South American population by Oceanic
migration, suggested by philological and other independent evidence.
But for our present purpose the peculiar value of these modified skulls
lies in the disclosures of influences operating alike undesignedly,
and with a well-defined purpose, in producing the very same cranial
conformation among races occupying the British Islands in ages long
anterior to earliest history, and among the savage tribes of America
and the simple islanders of the Pacific in the present day.”[264] It
is a well-known fact that flattening the skull has prevailed from the
earliest times in most parts of the American Continent, especially on
the Pacific coast. From the extreme north to Southern Peru, flattening
the skulls was regarded as an artistic improvement on nature and was
practised with a maternal solicitude, if we judge from the customs
of the modern Chinooks, deserving of a higher aim. More centrally
and toward the Atlantic border the custom was not so carefully and
generally practised, unless we may except the case of the Natchez, who
carried it to almost the extreme reached at present by the Columbia
River tribes. The object of this strange transformation is believed
to have been twofold, “to give,” as Torquemada supposes, in referring
to the Peruvians, “a fierce appearance in war,” and to obtain the
mark of a royal and dominant race, a fashion which seems to have
been transmitted without a variation, from its Mongol source. The
Chinooks consider it the mark of superiority, and will not permit the
tribes subject to them to practise it. Mr. Paul Cane, has illustrated
this subject with drawings made during his visit to the Columbia
and Vancouver’s Island, while Dr. Pickering, Mr. Hale and others,
have described the hideous and beastly aspect of the singular people
practising the deformation. Skull flattening among the American tribes
may be classified as intentional and unintentional. To the class of
intentionally flattened skulls we may assign those of the twenty or
more tribes of the North-west coast, the Natchez, the ancient Mayas,
the Peruvians, and some of the more central and eastern South American
tribes. The North-western flatheads subject the head of a child during
the first eight or ten months of its life to pressure produced by means
of a cradle or cradle-board, provided with a board which rests upon
the forehead and tied down upon it by means of cords extending to the
foot of the cradle, while the other end is connected to the head of the
cradle with a hingelike attachment.
[Illustration: Chinooks (Flat-heads), After Catlin.]
The Natchez produced the artificial form by bandaging the infant’s head
to a well-cushioned cradle-board by means of strips of deer-skin.[265]
The Caribs bandaged the head with pieces of wool, and gave it a very
quadrangular shape. The Choctaws produced artificial compression by
means of a bag of sand.[266] The unintentional flattening of the
skull arose from the quite general use of the cradle-board without
any board for pressure, or the custom common among many American
tribes of the mother suckling the child over her shoulder, a practice
widely prevalent in Africa and among savage nations. In the former
instance it is but reasonable to suppose that the form of a tender and
pliable skull would be modified more or less by the shape of the hard
cradle-board, and by the position in which it was placed upon its rest.
This fact accounts for the slight occipital compression of the mound
skulls and also for the irregularity of the flattening in many cases.
The latter process, that of nursing the child from its position on the
shoulder or back would no doubt subject the head to a slight pressure,
perhaps in most cases in a lateral direction.
The general prevalence of the unnatural custom of flattening the skull
on the eastern border-land of Europe and among the numerous tribes of
the western coast of America, together with its presence in Polynesia
as a connecting link, we think justifies us in concluding that it
originated among the wild hordes of the northern steppes of Asia, from
which centre it spread in lines of radiation until it reached the
remote localities in which recent research has found it.[267] This fact
is suggestive of a remote intercourse between peoples separated by seas
and mountains, if it does not serve as an argument for the unity and
common origin of the human family.
A careful examination of the remains of the pre-historic races other
than the measurement of crania has contributed largely to our fund of
information concerning their life and habits. Science has rendered us
pretty familiar with some of the diseases to which they were subject.
Dr. Farquharson has described a singular manifestation of disease of
the cervical vertebræ, shown in a peculiar roughening of the articular
surfaces, and also by a true or bony anchylosis of these points. He
concludes that the people of the mounds must have been possessed of a
considerable degree of civilization and facilities for the care of the
sick during a long period, in order to have effected the cure which
the condition of the bones indicate had taken place.[268] One of the
most alarming discoveries, however, is that which apparently shows
the general prevalence of syphilis. That this loathsome disease was
common among the various tribes of Equinoctial America is attested to
by the discoverers and their successors, and has been much commented
upon, and held by some authors to have been of American origin. The
most recent supporter of this view is Professor Jones, to whom we have
already referred.[269] He found in most of the mounds which he explored
in Tennessee bones bearing syphilitic nodes, and believes them to be
the oldest traces of the disease in existence. Dr. Farquharson made
similar discoveries in the Iowa and Illinois mounds. Prof. Putnam,
however, attributes the nodes to other diseases. That flattening of the
leg-bone or tibia, peculiar to pre-historic man in Europe, and perhaps
the result of rugged exertion in climbing mountains and traversing
the country with that rapidity which the chase required where the
horse is wanting, is more noticeable in the remains of some of the
Mound-builders than in any other people. This peculiarity of the tibia
called platycnemism, is probably a provision of nature, securing a
firmer and better defined process upon which the muscles of the leg
could fasten themselves, and its prominence among the people of the
mounds indicates the possession of great pedestrian powers.[270]
The singular custom of perforating the skull after death (and possibly
during life) is shown to have been in vogue by the discovery of a
number of crania at the River Rouge Mound in Michigan with artificial
apertures. No light as yet has been thrown upon the significance
of this strange practice.[271] The nearest approach to the natural
condition and characteristic physiognomy of the pre-historic
inhabitants of this continent, is observable in the Peruvian mummies
collected in latitude 18° 30´ S., on the shore of the Bay of Chacota,
near Arica, by Mr. Blake, and transferred by him to Boston. Many
others have since been exhumed, and though embalmed and buried in a
climate which preserves the brightest colors of the garments with
which they were enshrouded, still the shrivelled condition of the
corpses furnishes us the assurance that their type of features can
never be truly recovered from nature. Dr. Morton has figured the head
of one of these mummies in Plate I of the _Crania Americana_, from
which the physiognomy may be partially restored by the aid of a vivid
imagination. Notwithstanding the temptation which presents itself, and
one which has been sufficiently indulged already, it would certainly
be idle to speculate as to what that type might have been. However,
one feature of the Peruvian mummies has been preserved true to life,
and is of the greatest value in determining ethnic relations. The
silicious sand and marl of the plain southward of Arica, where the
most remarkable cemeteries are situated, is slightly impregnated with
common salt as well as nitrate and sulphate of soda. These conditions,
together with the dry atmosphere rivalling that of Egypt, and in which
fleshy matter dries without putrefaction, the human hair has been
perfectly preserved, and comes to us as one of the best evidences of
the diversity of the American races yet produced. In general it is a
lightish brown, and of a fineness of texture which equals that of the
Anglo-Saxon race.[272] Straight, coarse, black hair is universally
characteristic of the Red Indians, and is known to be one of the last
marks of race to disappear in intermarriage with Europeans. The ancient
Peruvians appear, from numerous examples of hair found in their tombs,
to have been an auburn-haired race. Garcilasso, who had an opportunity
of seeing the body of the king Viracocha, describes the hair of that
monarch as snow-white.[273] Haywood has described the discovery at
the beginning of this century of three mummies in a cave on the south
side of the Cumberland River, near the dividing line of Smith and
Wilson Counties in Tennessee. They were buried in baskets, as Humboldt
has described some of the Peruvians to bury, and the color of their
skin was said to be fair and white, and their hair auburn and of a
fine texture.[274] The same author refers to several instances of the
discovery of mummies in the limestone and saltpetre caves of Tennessee
with light yellowish hair.[275] Prof. Jones supposes that the light
color of these so-called mummies of Tennessee and Kentucky was due to
the action of lime and saltpetre.[276]
We have every reason to believe that the men of the mounds were
capable of executing in sculptures reliable representations of
animate objects. The perfection of the stone carvings, as well as the
terra-cotta moulded figures of animals and birds obtained from the
mounds, have excited the wonder and admiration of their discoverers.
It was evidently a favorite pastime for those primitive artists to
reproduce the human features, for effigies and masks have often been
exhumed together with other sculptures. The perfection of the animal
representations furnish us the assurance that their sculptures of the
human face were equally true to nature.[277] The accompanying figures
of sculpture and masks together with those found in the sculpture
of the Mayas and Nahuas, shown in a future chapter, furnish us with
a twofold argument: first, that an American type of physiognomy as
such did not exist; that, upon the contrary, it was as variable
and diversified as can now be found among the peoples of Europe or
elsewhere; second, that a strong resemblance between some of the
sculptures of the mounds and those of Mexico exist. It is a remarkable
fact that those of Palenque furnish the most striking likeness to
those of the Mississippi Valley.[278] There is, perhaps, no means of
ascertaining of what color the pre-historic Americans were, certainly
not of the Mound-builders; but judging from the great variety of tints
and shades that prevail among the wild tribes of North America alone,
we may conclude that no argument in favor of an _American_ race can be
based upon color.[279]
[Illustration: Mound Sculptures: upper left-hand figure from a
shell-heap near Mobile, Ala., the others from Tennessee mounds.]
The Menominees, sometimes called the “White Indians,” formerly occupied
the region bordering on Lake Michigan, around Green Bay. The whiteness
of these Indians, which is compared to that of white mulattoes, early
attracted the attention of the Jesuit missionaries, and has often been
commented upon by travellers.[280] While it is true that hybridity
has done much to lighten the color of many of the tribes, still the
peculiarity of the complexion of this people has been marked from the
first time a European encountered them. Almost every shade, from the
ash color of the Menominees, through the cinnamon red, copper and
bronze tints, may be found among the tribes formerly occupying the
territory east of the Mississippi—the remnants of some of which are now
in the Indian Territory and others in the North-west—until we reach
the dark-skinned Kaws of Kansas, who are nearly as black as the negro.
The Indians in Mexico are known as the “black people,” an appellation
designed to be descriptive of their color. Viollet le Duc is of the
opinion that the builders of the great remains in Southern Mexico
and Yucatan belonged to two different branches of the human family,
a light-skinned and dark-skinned race respectively.[281] The variety
of complexion is as great in South America as among the tribes of the
northern portion of the continent.
Probably one of the most incontrovertible arguments against American
ethnic unity is that which rests upon the unparalleled diversity of
language which meets the philologist everywhere. The monosyllable and
the most remarkable polysyllables known to the linguist; synthetic and
analytic families of speech, simplicity and complexity of expression,
all seem to have sprung up and developed into permanent and in some
cases beautiful and grammatical systems side by side with each other
until the Babel of the Pentateuch is realized in the indescribable
confusion of tongues. The actual number of American languages and
dialects is as yet unascertained, but is estimated at nearly thirteen
hundred, six hundred of which Mr. Bancroft has classified in his
third volume of the _Native Races of the Pacific States_. It is true
that the American languages present a few features quite peculiar to
themselves (which will be treated hereafter), but as language is never
constant, is not a pyramid with its unchanging architectural plan, but
is a plant which passes through such transitions in the process of its
growth as to lose entirely some of the elements which it possessed
at first, so we may as reasonably expect that in the course of time
certain peculiarities incident to certain climatic conditions, certain
phases of nature and certain types of civilization, should develop
themselves as distinguishing features of the speech of the continent.
The very fact that language is unstable—is a matter of growth—renders
the argument that these peculiarities indicate unity of the American
race valueless; while, on the other hand, the fact that here we have
a greater number and variety of languages than is to be found in any
of the other grand divisions of the earth, is strong evidence of a
diversity more radical than that which simply arises from tribal
affiliations. In view of the wide differences existing between the
native Americans themselves in every feature which admits of being
subjected to a scientific test, we are forced to the conclusion, solely
resting on the evidence in the case, that the theory of American ethnic
unity is a delusion, an infatuating theory which served only to blind
its advocates as to the plain facts, and led them into grave errors
which will become all the more palpable as scientific investigation
progresses.
As yet no substantial reason for considering the ancient occupant
of this continent as peculiar in himself, and as unlike the rest
of mankind, has been set forth. Nothing in the American’s physical
organization points to an origin different from that to which each
of the species of the _genus homo_ may be assigned. Whatever truth
there may be in the diverse origin of the black and white race, the
separate creation theory, in so far as it maintains that the Creator
originated upon the soil of this continent a peculiar and separate
race of men, must in the eyes of this age of criticism lack evidence,
and be assigned to its place with thousands of others which from time
immemorial have been contributing to the construction of a foundation
reef which will ultimately rise like a bold headland above the dark
waters of uncertainty into the realm of truth.
A few students of American Anthropology have solved the question of
the origin of the ancient population upon the hypothesis of its having
developed from a lower order in the animal kingdom, itself indigenous
to the Western Continent. One of the most distinguished representatives
of this school, perhaps, is Frederick von Hellwald of Vienna, who
states his views as follows: “I am unable to give in my adhesion to the
theory which assumes that the original seat of the human races must be
sought in higher Asia or somewhere else, whence mankind are supposed to
have spread themselves gradually over the whole globe; an assumption
which is contradicted in the most decisive manner by the peopling of
the new world. It is impossible to enter here into all the hypotheses
which have been framed for the explanation of a fact so perplexing to
the Biblical students of the sixteenth century, and of course later
times; it is enough to say that thus far not one of them have been
found to correspond even approximately to the demands of science, and
that theory is probably in every point of view the most tenable and
exact which assumes that man, like the plant, a mundane being, made
his appearance generally upon earth when our planet had reached that
stage of its development which unites in itself the conditions of man’s
existence. In conformity with this view, I regard the American as an
Autochthon.”[282] This subject resolves itself into two questions:
(1) Is the origin of the human race by the processes of development
from a lower order of animal an ascertained fact? (2) If so, does
the American continent furnish any species of ape or any known fauna
from which man could have developed? It is taken for granted that
the reader is fully familiar with Darwinism (the origin of species
by means of natural selection, the joint result of the independent
researches of Darwin and Wallace) and Lamarckism (the theory of man’s
descent from the ape),[283] both of which have been so enthusiastically
advocated by Spencer, Huxley, Hæckel and many others. Their works and
the magnificent array of facts which their patient researches have
accumulated command our admiration, even if full assent cannot be given
to all their conclusions.
The first question: _Is the origin of the human race by the processes
of development from a lower order of animal an ascertained fact?_
would at first seem to require a lengthy discussion at our hands. But
in a special work on a subject altogether foreign to the question,
such a discussion would certainly be out of place. Even if this were
not true, the above question as stated requires no discussion. We
believe that no advocate of the hypothesis of evolution could be found
so sanguine or so unguarded, who would come forward and answer the
question in the affirmative. On the contrary, we believe the question
would call forth an honest negative from the great body of scientists
who hold to the hypothesis of evolution. Obstinacy alone could deny
that the groups of facts which have been brought to our knowledge, the
occasional well-marked transitional forms[284] which are turning up,
the unquestionable tendency in species to vary, and possibly of their
varieties slowly to form new species under modified surroundings,
point to a principle, a law in nature, which may be characterized
as the law of development or evolution. But on the other hand, the
hypothesis that such a law exists, or, if you please, the fact that it
exists, does not imply that it is _universal in its application_ or
that it has _extended through all the realm of nature_. Indeed, pure
justice to the advocates of the hypothesis requires the statement that
they have never made such a claim.[285] The fact that such eminent
scientists as Mivart and Wallace deny the development of man from a
lower order, is sufficient evidence that the hypothesis in its widest
bearing is not accepted by all, much less is an ascertained “fact.”
It appears, therefore, that the first question being unsettled, and
as yet incapable of solution, the argument turns upon the second
question: _Does the American Continent furnish any species of ape or
any known fauna from which man could have developed?_ Before answering
the question in the light of present knowledge, it will be of interest
to note the reply made by the late Professor Joseph Henry to the view
of Frederick von Hellwald, quoted on a preceding page. His estimate of
the probabilities of man developing from the lower orders of animals
in more than one locality on the globe is expressed as follows:
“The spontaneous generation of either plants or animals, although a
legitimate subject of scientific inquiry, is as yet an unverified
hypothesis. If, however, we assume the fact that a living being will
be spontaneously produced when all the physical conditions necessary
to its existence are present, we must allow that in the case of man,
with his complex and refined organization, the fortuitous assembly of
the multiform conditions required for his appearance would be extremely
rare, and from the doctrine of probabilities could scarcely occur more
than at one time and in one place on our planet; and further, that
this place would most probably be somewhere in the northern temperate
zone. Again, the Caucasian variety of man presents the highest physical
development of the human family; and as we depart either to the north
or south, from the latitude assumed as the origin of the human race
in Asia, we meet with a lower and lower type until at the north we
encounter the Esquimaux, and at the south the Bosjesman and the Tierra
Fuegian. The derivation of these varieties from the original stock
is philosophically explained on the principle of the variety in the
offspring of the same parents, and the better adaptation and consequent
chance of life of some of these to the new conditions of existence in
a more northern or southern latitude.”[286] As a direct answer to the
question, however, we can do nothing more than refer to the opinions of
the two greatest advocates of evolution. “In order to form a judgment
on this head,” says Mr. Darwin, “with reference to man, we must glance
at the classification of the Simiadæ. This family is divided by almost
all naturalists into the Catarhine group, or old world monkeys, all
of which are characterized (as the name expresses) by the peculiar
structure of the nostrils, and by having four pre-molars in each jaw;
and into the Platyrhine group or new world monkeys (including two very
distinct sub-groups), all of which are characterized by differently
constructed nostrils and by having six molars in each jaw. Some
other small differences might be mentioned. Now man unquestionably
belongs, in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils, and in
some other respects, to the Catarhine or old world division; nor does
he resemble the Platyrhines more closely than the Catarhines in any
characters, excepting in a few of not much importance and apparently
of an adaptive nature. Therefore, it would be against all probability
to suppose that some ancient new world species had varied, and had
thus produced a man-like creature with all the distinctive characters
proper to the old world division, losing at the same time all its own
distinctive characters. There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt
that man is an offshoot from the old world Simian stem, and that under
a genealogical point of view he must be classed with the Catarhine
division.”[287] Such was Mr. Darwin’s opinion in 1871; and that the
views of evolutionists have not changed since that time as to this
question, we call attention to the words of the distinguished Professor
Hæckel in his _History of Creation_, which are as follows: “Probably
America was first peopled from North-eastern Asia by the same tribe
of Mongols from whom the Polar men (Hyperboreans and Esquimaux) have
also branched. This tribe first spread in North America, and from
thence migrated over the isthmus of Central America down to South
America, at the extreme south of which the species degenerated very
much by adaptation to the very unfavorable conditions of existence.
But it is also possible that Mongols and Polynesians emigrated from
the west and mixed with the former tribe. In any case the aborigines
of America came over from the old world, and did not, as some suppose,
in any way originate out of American apes. Catarhine or narrow-nosed
apes never at any period existed in America.”[288] The same argument
holds good if it be ascertained that both man and apes developed from
a common ancestor. With these authoritative utterances from the most
celebrated representatives of the development school, we shall rest the
fanciful hypothesis of the autochthonic origin of the ancient American
population. Some who may not concur in our opinion as to the question
of man’s development from lower animal forms, may be willing to admit
that the Americans had an old world origin, which certainly, in the
light of facts, is the only rational view.[289] The unity of the human
family is a theory, if not a fact, which is supported by a mass of
testimony of the most diversified character. The habits and customs,
the sympathies, the wants and fears, the simpler arts, as well as most
bodily proportions, point to a relationship which finds its easiest
explanation in a unity of origin. It is chiefly, however, in the ruder
arts that this correspondence of style or type is observable. No better
illustration of this offers itself than the similarity of form or
forms in which flint arrow-heads are found in all parts of the world.
It would be impossible for the most expert archæologists to assign a
promiscuous collection of flint weapons to the various quarters of the
globe from which they may have been gathered, simply on the ground of
characteristic forms.[290] The common methods of producing fire by
means of friction, employed with but slight variation among people
the most remotely separated,[291] is an inexplicable fact, except on
the ground of an early community of residence or identical inventive
genius. The universality of certain architectural forms such as the
pyramid, and the singular fact that they have generally been used for
places of sepulture, offers an argument in the same direction. The
fact indicates either an early community of residence or identity of
mental organization. The physical resemblances of all races in certain
stable features which have never been known to change, indicate a
divergence from a common centre—from one type. The slight differences
in the type of skull which characterize some nations from others, is
no argument against original unity, since those peculiarities are
certainly of more recent origin than the unknown events which at a
remote period scattered men over the face of the earth.[292] Probably
no difference between the races of men has been considered so essential
as that of color, for none has furnished such reasonable ground for
the views of polygenists as the marked contrast between the African
and Caucasian types. Years ago the view that color was the result of
tropical climate was abandoned,[293] for the Eskimo and Lapps are
almost as dark as many Africans, and their residence under the arctic
circle has continued from a remote antiquity. Upon the other hand every
variation in color, from the darkest to the lightest possible shades,
exist among African tribes. The antiquity of the negro type as we
now see it, is unquestionably considerable. As proof of this we have
the oft-referred to argument from Egyptian paintings. In a temple at
Beyt-el-Welee, in Nubia, constructed in the reign of Rameses II, is a
painting which has been reproduced by Bonomi, in which a negro kneels
at the feet of Sethos I, father and predecessor of Rameses II. All the
peculiarities of the Negroid type are conspicuous; the blackness of the
color, the thickness of lips, flatness of nose and woolliness of hair
which pertain to the African of to-day are unquestionably present.[294]
The painting representing this remarkable ethnic fact is 3200 years
old, dating from 1400 years before Christ. The Duke of Argyll, on the
authority of Prof. Lepsius, states that in earlier representations of
the negro, referable to the “Twelfth Dynasty” or about 1900 B. C., the
negro color is strongly marked, but not the negro features.[295] It
is a question whether this fact indicates a transition from one type
to another, or whether the painting is a true representation of the
Nubians, who are known not to have flat noses or projecting lips. It
is supposed also that the unskillfulness of the artists may account
for the absence of the typal lines.[296] Hieroglyphic writings have
been found dating about 2000 years B. C., in which mention is made of
the employment of Negro or black troops by an Egyptian king in the
prosecution of a great war.[297] At that remote period, when Abraham
was almost the sole representative of the Jewish race, the negro type
had multiplied and developed into strong tribes, which were important
factors in the military contests of the oldest of powers—the Egyptian.
Notwithstanding this seeming permanence of type, it is well known that
of all physical conditions, color is the most liable to change in
every organism. Many animals under domestication change their color
entirely.[298] In our Southern States it was observed that house-slaves
of the third generation presented quite a markedly different appearance
from field slaves.[299] This was owing as much, no doubt, to different
food and different habits of life as to protection from the sun, though
many different races have quite the same color while their habits of
life are as different as well could be imagined. Of this class, the
Eskimo, Chinese, and Fuegeans are examples. However, the fact that
color is variable even in a slight degree, indicates that considerable
if not radical changes might be brought about during a great length
of time. Mr. Darwin has furnished the most rational solution of the
question, which he describes briefly as follows: “Various facts which
I have elsewhere given, prove that the color of the skin and hair is
sometimes correlated in a surprising manner with a complete immunity
from the action of certain vegetable poisons and from the attack
of parasites. Hence it occurred to me that negroes and other dark
races might have acquired their dark tints by the darker individuals
escaping during a long series of generations from the deadly influence
of the miasmas of their native countries.”[300] This doctrine of the
survival of only the fittest, while all the weaker and perhaps lighter
complexioned individuals of a race gradually succumbed to the deadly
influence of climate, no doubt will explain the origin of the dark
races, known to enjoy a special immunity against yellow and other
fevers.[301] At all events, the formation of the distinctive features
of races requires a great lapse of time. The geologist asks for time
in which to account for the formation of strata, and the intelligent
world now grants it to him without limit, and just as reasonably may
the ethnologist ask for time in which to account for the formation of
racial types.[302] Nor need the most literal interpreter of Genesis
object to this demand on the ground of any conflict with the letter
even of the historic narrative of the Pentateuch. The accepted
chronology, based on Archbishop Usher’s interpretation, is no part of
the text of Genesis. It is purely the product of his inadvertence and
the blindness of many others of his school of Biblical chronologists.
It is evident that the rules of interpretation applied to the tenth
chapter of Genesis, according to which the names of the descendants
of Noah’s sons are taken to represent individuals only, cannot hold.
The probabilities are that they represent considerable tribes or
nations. This probability is an established fact in the sixteenth
and subsequent verses. In the fifteenth verse we learn that Canaan,
the grandson of Noah, “begat Sidon, his first-born, and Heth.” Here
the writer seems to refer to individuals, but it is probable that he
alludes even to the origin of tribes. In the sixteenth verse we are
not left in doubt on the subject, for there he no longer speaks of
individuals or generations but of the growth of nations. He immediately
adds after the above quotation, “and [begat] the Jebusite, and the
Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the
Sinite,” etc., etc.[303] The account makes no pretensions at chronology
or at furnishing data for any system, and the constructions put upon
its condensed account of the origin and growth of nations during an
indefinite lapse of time by short-sighted interpreters, are unwarranted
and certainly do injustice to the oldest of our histories. When we
go back of the birth of Christ two thousand years—to the time of
Abraham—this is as far as we can tread with certainty in the light of
History. This period has been aptly designated by the Duke of Argyll as
“Time absolute.” But when we go back of 2000 B. C., we are compelled
to walk in a twilight glimmer, with only the dim rays from occasional
cuneiform inscriptions, and the condensed accounts contained in
Genesis, falling across our uncertain pathway. This period the above
able writer has chosen to call “Time relative,” and the probabilities
are that its measure is double if not treble that of the portion of
“Time absolute” which precedes the Christian Era. An additional fact in
this connection which strengthens the preceding is, that the three most
ancient versions of the Pentateuch—the Hebrew, the Samaritan and the
Septuagint—vary considerably in their statements as to the ages of many
of the patriarchs at the birth of their sons. So wide is the difference
in this respect between the Hebrew and Septuagint versions that their
chronologies cannot be reconciled at all, the latter allowing a period
of eight hundred years more than the former from Adam to Abraham; such
being the case, it is impossible to arrive at the time of the flood or
the origin of the race. These contradictions in versions, however, do
not in any way impeach the historic authority of the Pentateuch, since
it is in no sense a chronology any more than it is a work on geographic
or astronomic science. The known antiquity of Egypt and China, to say
nothing of the facts revealed by geology concerning man’s antiquity,
can never be reconciled with Usher’s system, which is in no sense the
true chronology of any known version of the Pentateuch.[304]
In this chapter we have seen that there is nothing to indicate that the
Americans owe their origin to a special act of creation, and further,
if they originated by the process of development (for which there is no
sufficient evidence), that it was not upon the American continent. We
are supported in these conclusions by the most respectable writers on
American Ethnology[305] and Antiquities. That the American population
is of old world origin there can be little doubt; but from whence it
came, and to what particular people or peoples it owes its birth, is
quite another question.[306] That view seems open to least objections
which maintains that the Western Continent received its population at
a comparatively early period in the history of the race, before the
peoples of Western Europe and Eastern Asia had assumed their present
national characteristics or fully developed their religious and social
customs.[307]