[300] Descent, vol. i, p. 233, Bradford (A. W.) discusses the origin of color and other racial peculiarities, and attributes to the tendency of a species to vary, and cites the production of Albinoes, Xanthous, and Sedigidi or six-fingered individuals. “It must be admitted,” he says, “that this theory is sufficiently supported by an irrefragable mass of testimony to establish the original unity of the human race, and to indicate that varieties of mankind are descended from the same primitive stock.”—American Antiquities, pp. 238–9.
[301] See instances in Darwin’s Descent, vol. i, p. 234; Nott and Gliddon’s Types of Mankind, p. 68, and especially Pouchet’s Plurality of the Human Race (trans.), p. 60.
[302] “I doubt not that there will be found continuous and uninterrupted causes which shall explain all the diversities of the different branches of the human family without the necessity of resorting to independent creations.”—Foster’s Pre-Historic Races, p. 355.
[303] See an excellent treatment of this subject by the Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, pp. 94 et seq.
[304] “When speaking in a former work of the distinct races of mankind, I remarked that if all the leading varieties of the human family sprang originally from a single pair (a doctrine to which then, as now, I could see no valid objection), a much greater lapse of time was required for the slow and gradual formation of such races as the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro, than was embraced in any of the popular systems of chronology.”—Sir Charles Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, p. 385. Dr. J. P. Thompson says: “For such works [alluding to Babel] and especially for founding such an empire as was ancient Egypt, there was need of centuries for the growth of a population in numbers and resources, equal to the gigantic structures that crown the banks of the Nile. The less than two centuries between Archbishop Usher’s date of the cessation of the flood, and Piazzi Smith’s calculation of the date of the great pyramid, was far too short an interval for results upon a scale so magnificent. * * * Either then we must place the flood much farther back upon the chronological scale, or must admit not only that it was not universal in territorial extent, which is altogether probable, but that it was not universal in the destruction of mankind, which would seem to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the sacred record.”—Man in Genesis and Geology, p. 100. New York, 1870. 12mo.
[305] See Humboldt’s Essai Polit., vol. i, p. 79, Paris, 1811. He considers not only the Red Indians, but the Toltecs and Aztecs, to be of Asiatic Origin. See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Nat. Civil. Ant., tom. i, p. 27. McCullough’s Researches, Phil. and Ant., pp. 175 et seq. Crowe, The Gospel in Central America, p. 61. Bradford, American Antiquities, in chapter xii, gives his reasons for declaring the Americans to have been a “primitive and cultivated branch of the human family.” Mayer (Brantz) in Mexico as it Was, p. 260, expresses his agreement with the opinion entertained by Bradford. Carver, in Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, repeats the opinion of Charlevoix, that the Americans are of old world origin. Tylor, Anahuac, London, 1861, p. 104, says: “On the whole, the most probable view of the origin of the Mexican tribes seems to be the one ordinarily held, that they really came from the old world, bringing with them several legends, evidently the same as the histories recorded in the book of Genesis.”
[306] “La teoria de la diversidad especifica de razas es tan intenible, que sin mas decir podemos, dejar esta cuestion, la cual ultimamente, en especial en Norte-América, ha escitado alguna controversia. Quédanos, pues, un origen primordial para toda la raza humana y entonces la cuestion es, saber de qué tronco ó familia del antiguo continente se pobló el nuevo, ó bien vice-versa, que tambien es possible, aunque improbable, que del que llamamos nuevo se haya poblado el viego continente.”—Ezequiel Uricoechea in Soc. Mex. Bol. 2d. ep. iv, 1854, p. 128. “For my own part I have long been convinced of the consanguinity between the brachycephalæ of America and those of Asia and the Pacific islands, and that this characteristic type may be traced uninterruptedly through the long chain of tribes inhabiting the west coast of the American Continent from Behring Straits to Cape Horn.”—Retzius, Smithsonian Report, 1859, p. 267.
[307] “The era of their existence as a distinct and isolated race must probably be dated as far back as that time which separated into nations the inhabitants of the old world, and gave to each branch of the human family its primitive language and individuality.”—J. C. Prichard’s Natural History of Man, p. 356. London, 1845.
[308] Hist. Ant. del Messico (Eng. trans., 1807), vol. i.
[309] “Quoique Votan soit le veritable fondateur de la civilisation et de l’empire des Quichés, le Codex Chimalpopoca, attribue néanmoins la fondation de l’empire à son Igh ou Ik, appelé par les Mexicains Ehecatl ou Cipactonac, parceque ce prince vint le premir amener une colonie sur le continent américain. Cipactonac est composé de Cipactli, et de Tonacayo. Le premier vient de ce un, Ipan, sur ou au-dessus, et tlactli, qui est le corps humain, c’est-à-dire, Un homme supérieur aux autres hommes, ou encore de notre race, toutes choses qui conviennent parfaitement au père de la race des chànes. Tonacayo, veut dire notre chair ou le corps humain, le mot tout entier Cipactonac ayant la signification suivante: ‘Celui qui est sorti du premier de notre race.’ Ehecatl est en mexicain l’air, ou le souffle, Igh ou Ik, en langua maya et tzendale. Dans les calendriers d’Oxaca, Soconusco, Chiappas et d’Yucatan, il suit immediatement le nom de Nin, Imos ou Imox, comme celui d’Ehecatl suit dans le mexicain celui de Cipactli.”—Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas, note, p. 71. He then proceeds to sustain his conclusions by citing analogies between the name and its significance among the Egyptians.