CHAPTER IV.

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.
Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100).
	No. of Plate in Morton’s Work.
		Longitudinal Diameter.
			Parietal Diameter.
				Vertical Diameter.
					Frontal Diameter.
						Extreme Length of Head and Face.
							Inter-Mastoid Arch.
								Inter-Mastoid Line.
									Occipito-Frontal Arch.
										Horizontal Periphery.
											Interior Capacity.*
												Cap. of Anterior Chamber.*
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
* In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches.

(A) DOLICHOCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION LESS THAN 80 TO 100. (Continued)
Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100).
	No. of Plate in Morton’s Work.
		Cap. of Posterior Chamber.*
			Cap. of Coronal Region.
				Facial Angle.
					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.
* In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches.

(B) BRACHYCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION, 80 AND UPWARDS TO 100.
Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100).
	No. of Plate in Morton’s Work.
		Longitudinal Diameter.
			Parietal Diameter.
				Vertical Diameter.
					Frontal Diameter.
						Extreme Length of Head and Face.
							Inter-Mastoid Arch.
								Inter-Mastoid Line.
									Occipito-Frontal Arch.
										Horizontal Periphery.
											Interior Capacity.*
												Cap. of Anterior Chamber.*
66.	II	6.9	4.6	4.3	3.7	7.5	....	....	....	....	64.	17.
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 & IX	6.8	5.7	5.1	4.4	....	14.5	4.1	12.7	18.4	71.7	28.7
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.* In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches.

(B) BRACHYCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION, 80 AND UPWARDS TO 100. (Continued)
Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100).
	No. of Plate in Morton’s Work.
		Cap. of Posterior Chamber.*
			Cap. of Coronal Region.
				Facial Angle.
					REMARKS.
66.	II	47.	....	....	Peruvian Child from Atacama (ancient).
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 & IX	43.	11.4	75°	Inca Peruvian Female from Temple of 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.* In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches.

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 Crania in each Class.	Description of Crania.	Mean Longitudinal Diameter.	Mean Parietal Diameter.	Cephalic Index.
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.

No.
	Capacity (Approximate).[235]
		Circumference.
			Length.
				Breadth.
					Height.
						Breadth of Frontal.
							Index of Breadth.
								Index of Height.
									Index of Foramen Magnum.
	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.
	Frontal Arch.
		Parietal Arch.
			Occipital Arch.
				Longitudinal Arch.
					Length of Frontal.
						Length of Parietal.
							Length of Occipital.
								Zygomatic Diameter.
	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:

CRANIA.
	Horizontal Circumference.
		Longitudinal Diameter.
			Transverse Diameter.
				Internal Capacity.
					Cephalic Index or Ratio of Diameter.
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:

Number of Cranium.
	Facial Angle in Degrees.
		Internal Capacity in Cubic Inches.
			Longitudinal Diameter in Inches.
				Parietal Diameter.
					Frontal Diameter.
						Vertical Diameter.
							Inter-Mastoid Arch.
								Inter-Mastoid Line.
									Occipito-Frontal Arch.
										Horizontal Periphery.
											Diameter of Head and Face.
												Zygomatic Diameter.
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.

		Number of Crania.
			Capacity.
				Length.
					Breadth.
						Height.
							Index of Breadth.
								Index of Height.
									Width of Frontal.
										Index of Breadth.
			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.

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]

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]