South America: Muyscan (Chibcha); Quichuan (Inca, Aymara); Yungan (Chimu); Antisan; Jivaran; Zaparan; Betoyan; Maku; Pana (Cashibo, Karipuna, Setebo); Ticunan; Chiquitan; Arawakan (Arua, Maypure, Vapisiana, Ipurina, Mahinaku, Layana, Kustenau, Moxo); Cariban (Bakaïri, Nahuqua, Galibi, Kalina, Arecuna, Macusi, Ackawoi); Tupi-Guaranian (Omagua, Mundurucu, Kamayura, Emerillon); Gesan (Botocudo, Kayapo, Cherentes); Charruan; Bororo; Karayan; Guaycuruan (Abipones, Mataco, Toba); Araucanian or Moluchean; Patagonian or Tehuelchean (Pilma, Yacana, Ona); Enneman (Lengua, Sanapana, Angaites); Fuegian (Yahgan, Alakaluf).
American Origins.
It is impossible to dissociate the ethnological history of the New World from that of the Old. The absence from America at any period of the world's history not only of anthropoid apes but also of the Cercopithecidae, in other words of the Catarrhini, entirely precludes the possibility of the independent origin of man in the western hemisphere. Therefore the population of the Americas must have come from the Old World. In prehistoric times there were only two possible routes for such immigration to have taken place. For the mid-Atlantic land connection was severed long ages before the appearance of man, and the connection of South America with Antarctica had also long disappeared[737]. We are therefore compelled to look to a farther extension of land between North America and northern Europe on the one hand, and between north-west America and north-east Asia on the other. We know that in late Tertiary times there was a land-bridge connecting north-west Europe with Greenland, and Scharff[738] believes that the Barren-ground reindeer took this route to Norway and western Europe during early glacial times, but that "towards the latter part of the Glacial period the land-connection ... broke down." Other authorities are of opinion that the continuous land between the two continents in higher latitudes remained until post-glacial times. Brinton[739] considered that it was impossible for man to have reached America from Asia, because Siberia was covered with glaciers and not peopled until late Neolithic times, whereas man was living in both North and South America at the close of the Glacial Age. He acknowledged frequent communication in later times between Asia and America, but maintained that the movement was rather from America to Asia than otherwise. He was therefore a strong advocate of the European origin of the American race. There is no doubt that North America was connected with Asia in Tertiary times, though some geologists assert that "the far North-west did not rise from the waves of the Pacific Ocean (which once flowed with a boundless expanse to the North Pole) until after the glacial period." In that case "the first inhabitants of America certainly did not get there in this way, for by that time the bones of many generations were already bleaching on the soil of the New World[740]." The "Miocene Bridge," as the land connecting Asia and America in late geological times has been called, was probably very wide, one side would stretch from Kamchatka to British Columbia, and the other across Behring Strait. If, as seems probable, this connection persisted till, or was reconstituted during, the human period, tribes migrating to America by the more northerly route would enter the land east of the great barrier of the Rocky Mountains. The route from the Old World to the New by the Pacific margin probably remained nearly always open. Thus, while not denying the possibility of a very early migration from North Europe to North America through Greenland, it appears more probable that America received its population from North Asia.
Fossil Man in America.
We have next to determine what were the characteristics of the earliest inhabitants of America, and the approximate date of their arrival. There have been many sensational accounts of the discoveries of fossil man in America, which have not been able to stand the criticism of scientific investigation. It must always be remembered that the evidence is primarily one of stratigraphy. Assuming, of course, that the human skeletal remains found in a given deposit are contemporaneous with the formation of that deposit and not subsequently interred in it, it is for the geologist to determine the age. The amount of petrifaction and the state of preservation of the bones are quite fallacious nor can much reliance be placed upon the anatomical character of the remains. Primordial human remains may be expected to show ancestral characters to a marked degree, but as we have insufficient data to enable us to determine the rate of evolution, anatomical considerations must fit into the timescale granted by the geologist.
Apart from pure stratigraphy associated animal remains may serve to support or refute the claims to antiquity, while the presence of artifacts, objects made or used by man, may afford evidence for determining the relative date if the cultural stratigraphy of the area has been sufficiently established.
Fortunately the fossil human remains of America have been carefully studied by a competent authority who says, "Irrespective of other considerations, in every instance where enough of the bones is preserved for comparison the somatological evidence bears witness against the geological antiquity of the remains and for their close affinity to, or identity with those of the modern Indian. Under these circumstances but one conclusion is justified, which is that thus far on this continent, no human bones of undisputed geological antiquity are known[741]." Hrdlička subsequently studied the remains of South America and says, "A conscientious, unbiased study of all the available facts has shown that the whole structure erected in support of the theory of geologically ancient man on that continent rests on very imperfectly and incorrectly interpreted data and in many instances on false premises, and as a consequence of these weaknesses must completely collapse when subjected to searching criticism.—As to the antiquity of the various archaeological remains from Argentina attributed to early man, all those to which particular importance has been attached have been found without tenable claim to great age, while others, mostly single objects, without exception fall into the category of the doubtful[742]."
The conclusions of W. H. Holmes, Bailey Willis, F. E. Wright and C. N. Fenner, who collaborated with Hrdlička, with regard to the evidence thus far furnished, are that, "it fails to establish the claim that in South America there have been brought forth thus far tangible traces of either geologically ancient man himself or of any precursors of the human race[743]." Hrdlička is careful to add, however, "This should not be taken as a categorical denial of the existence of early man in South America, however improbable such a presence may now appear."
According to J. W. Gidley[744] the evidence of vertebrate paleontology indicates (1) That man did not exist in North America at the beginning of the Pleistocene although there was a land connection between Asia and North America at that time permitting a free passage for large mammals. (2) That a similar land connection was again in existence at the close of the last glacial epoch, and probably continued up to comparatively recent times, as indicated by the close resemblance of related living mammalian species on either side of the present Behring Strait. (3) That the first authentic records of prehistoric man in America have been found in deposits that are not older than the last glacial epoch, and probably of even later date, the inference being that man first found his way into North America at some time near the close of the existence of this last land bridge. (4) That this land bridge was broad and vegetative, and the climate presumably mild, at least along its southern coast border, making it habitable for man.