[250] Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, chap. xx.
[251] See especially Eleventh Annual Report Peabody Museum, pp. 294–304.
[252] Geography, book i, chap. ii, § 35, and book xi, chap, xi, § 7.
[253] Natural History, book vii, chap. iv.
[254] De Situ Orbis, lib. i, chap. xix, l. 78 (ed. 1782).
[255] Description of a Deformed Fragmentary Skull found in an Ancient Quarry-cave at Jerusalem, by Dr. J. A. Meigs, Transactions of Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, 1859.
[256] We can no longer doubt, then, that this practice of giving an artificial form to the skull has subsisted from a remote epoch among the Oriental nations. As Thierry, moreover, pronounces it to be a Mongol usage, I have submitted the question in the memoir before spoken of, whether this fact does not speak in favor of an ancient communication between the old and the new world? Such a communication seems, indeed, to be now placed beyond doubt by the proofs which have been accumulated from time to time, through the efforts of numerous and zealous inquirers. It would seem likely that the usage in question has been introduced by the Mongols into America, where it has become diffused even among tribes not of the Mongol stock. (Retzius in Smithsonian Report, 1859, p. 270; also the same author in Arch. des Sciences Naturelles, Geneva, 1860; Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science, 1867, and Edinburgh Phil. Journal, new series, vol. vii.)
[257] Smithsonian Report, 1862, p. 286.
[258] Essai sur les Deformations Artificielles du Crâne, p. 74.
[259] Crania Britannica, chap. iv, p. 38.