The North Americans of Antiquity / Their origin, migrations, and type of civilization considered

by John T. Short

[224] Agassiz in Nott and Gliddon’s Types of Mankind, p. 78.

[225] Ibid.

[226] Manual of the Anatomy of the Vertebrated Animals, p. 420. N. Y., 1872.

[227] Note to Retzius’ article in Smithsonian Report, 1859, p. 264.

[228] As an illustration of complex classification, we have the following: “From an old and well-filled European graveyard may be selected specimens of klimocephalic (slope or saddle skull), conocephalic (cone-skull), brachycephalic (short-skull), dolichocephalic (long-skull), platycephalic (flat-skull), leptocephalic (slim-skull), and other forms of crania equally worthy of penta or hexa-syllabic Greek epithets.”—Owen (R.), Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. ii, p. 570. London, 1866, 8vo. Foster, in Pre-Historic Rates of the United States, in addition to the long and short skulls, adopts also the orthocephalic (erect-head), with the longitudinal diameter 100; he assumes the transverse diameter for dolichocephalæ to be less than 73; for orthocephalæ, to range between 74 and 79, and for brachycephalæ, 80 and upwards.

[229] Pre-Historic Man, chap. xx. 3d ed. London, 1876. 2 vols. 8vo.

[230] Dr. Wilson’s American Cranial Type in Smithsonian Report, 1862, pp. 250 et seq. Dr. Wilson clearly shows that in one set there is the characteristic Mongol auxiliary of prominent cheek bones, while in the other the bones of the face are small and delicate. In twenty-six measurements he finds proof that the Peruvians were distinct from the Mexicans. Thirty-one dolichocephalic crania as compared with twenty-two brachycephalic crania convince him of the error of Morton and establish a diversity among the tribes of the North-east. He thinks analogies are traceable between the Esquimaux and the type of elongated skull; at all events he is satisfied that the form of the skull is as little constant among the tribes of the new world as among those of the old.

[231] This author (Dr. Morton), who has given us such numerous and valuable facts, as well as the linguists who have studied these American languages with indefatigable zeal, have arrived at the conclusion that both race and language in the new world are unique. I am obliged to avow that the facts advanced by Morton himself, and that the study of numerous skulls with which he has enriched the museum of Stockholm, have conducted me to a wholly different result. I can only explain the fact by surmising that this remarkable man has allowed the views of the naturalist to be warped by his linguistic researches. For, if the form of the skull has anything to do with the question of races, we cannot fail to see that it is scarcely possible to find anywhere a more distinct distribution into dolichocephalæ and brachycephalæ than in America. It would be only necessary, in order to show this, to direct attention to certain of the delineations in his own work, where the skull of the Peruvian infant (Pl. 2), the Lenni-Lenape (Pl. 32), the Pawnee (Pl. 38), the Blackfoot (Pl. 40), etc., as clearly present the dolichocephalic form as on the other hand his Natchez (Pl. 30 and 31) and the greater part of his representations of the skulls of Chile, Peru, Mexico, Oregon, etc., are distinct types of the brachycephalic. Conclusive, however, as the plates are, I should scarcely have ventured to advance these remarks, if the rich series of our own collection, and the numerous and excellent figures of Blumenbach, Sandifort, Van der Hoeven, etc., did not declare in favor of my opinion. (Retzius in Smithsonian Report, 1859, p. 264.)

Latham, in Natural History of the Varieties of Man, p. 452, says: “As to the conformation of the skull, a point where (with great deference) I differ with the author of the excellent Crania Americana, the Americans are said to be brakhy-kephalic, the Eskimo dolikho-kephalic.” He quotes Morton’s tables to contradict his (Morton’s) conclusions.

[232] “Tried by Dr. Morton’s own definitions and illustrations, the Scioto Mound skull differs from the typical cranium in some of its most characteristic features. Instead of the low, receding, unarched forehead, it has a finely-arched frontal bone with corresponding breadth of forehead. The wedge-shaped vertex is replaced by a well-rounded arch curving equally throughout; and with the exception of the flattened occiput, due to artificial though probably undesigned compression in infancy, the cranium is a uniformly proportioned example of an extreme brachycephalic skull.”—Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, p. 127.