Closely allied to the Chinese theory is that so enthusiastically advocated by Ranking, who maintains that the Mongol emperor Kublai Khan, in the thirteenth century sent a large fleet against Japan, but that the vast armada was destroyed by a tempest, and a portion of its ships were wrecked on the shores of Peru.[209] The first Inca he believes was the son of Kublai Khan. It is a well-known fact that the Mongol fleet was dispersed by a storm, but there are grave objections to the opinion that any of the vessels were cast upon the shores of South America. No tradition was found among the Peruvians only three centuries later concerning the Incas or any other people having reached their shores by the accident of shipwreck, or who could be identified as of Asiatic origin. It is true the Incas may have designed to keep their human origin as well as their misfortunes a secret, that they might the better set up their claim to imperial and divine honors among the people whom they sought to subjugate by that most powerful ally to ambition—superstition. Mr. Ranking wrote a very plausible book, but often fell into errors of credulity and unrestrained enthusiasm which leaves many of his statements open to suspicion. The theory cannot be accepted without additional and more satisfactory proof.[210] Should it prove to be true, it certainly cannot throw light upon the origin of the population, but only on a phase of civilization. Humboldt, Tschudi, Viollet-le-Duc, Count Stolberg and other writers have pointed out striking analogies between the religion of Southern Asia, especially of India and that of Mexico.[211] If the argument from analogy is to be relied on, there is abundant reason to believe that Buddhism in a modified form had permeated the religious systems of the new world with its mystic element besides grafting upon them some of its better and more humane institutions.
These are all the colonization claims worth mentioning, which date back far enough to account for the ancient civilization. Of the second class (those too recent to have made much impression on the existing state of things) there are three. The earliest of these as to date, is the claim which credits the Irish with the colonization of the Atlantic coast from North Carolina to Florida. “White-Man’s Land,” so often located in this country, is no doubt imaginary. The obscure and unsatisfactory chronicle which forms the basis of this claim destroys its own authority by the statement that White-Man’s Land was six days’ sail from Ireland.[212] Another legend set forth by Broughton, which claims that St. Patrick preached the Gospel in the “Isles of America,” carries its own refutation upon its face by the use of the word America in its text.[213] The Scandinavian discovery of America is a well-known fact, and requires no discussion here. The Codex Flatioiensis, as expounded by the learned Prof. Rafn in the Antiquitates Americanæ, has, no doubt, set at rest the whole matter. Humboldt, in reviewing the evidence upon which the claim is founded, sums it up in these words: “The discovery of the northern part of America by the Northmen cannot be disputed. The length of the voyage, the direction in which they sailed, the time of the sun’s rising and setting, are accurately given. While the caliphate of Bagdad was still flourishing under the Abbassides, and while the rule of the Samanides, so favorable to poetry, still flourished in Persia, America was discovered about the year 1000 by Lief, son of Eric the Red, at about 41½° north latitude.” No evidence of a substantial character has been produced to show that the Scandinavians left any impress upon the American civilization. It is true, Brasseur de Bourbourg, when he first began his labors in the field of American archæology expressed such an opinion, but we believe he never repeated it in the latter years of his life.[214] The learned Abbé was guilty of many contradictions, and this may be considered one of them. The most positive claims in this direction are advanced by two recent authors, M. Gravier[215] and Prof. Anderson,[216] the former attributing the Aztec civilization to Norse influence. He cites the discovery in Brazil of an ancient city near Bahia, in which was found the statue of a man pointing with his forefinger to the North Pole; of course, according to M. Gravier, he was a Northman.[217] Several authorities for the discovery of Norse remains in the United States might be cited, but the unwarrantable arguments of most of them add nothing to the already established fact of Norse colonization in the tenth century of our era. Another Pre-Columbian claim to the discovery of America is that which declares Madoc-Ap-owen and his Welsh countrymen to have reached this continent in 1170 A.D. The chronicle on which the claim is based, is wanting in authority. A translation of it, taken from a history of Wales by Dr. Powell, was published by Hakluyt, in 1589. As this claim can have no relation to our subject, we refrain from a discussion of it here.[218] The only remaining theory, and probably the most important of all, because of its purely scientific character, which presents itself for our consideration, is that which not only considers the civilization of ancient America to have been indigenous, but also claims the inhabitants themselves to have been autochthonic; in a word, that by process of evolution or in some other way, the first Americans were either developed from a lower order in the animal kingdom or were created on the soil of this continent. As the latter theory involves a denial of the unity of the race, it requires a separate and critical examination.
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. | ||||||||||||