Lastly, as to the conformation of the skull, a point where (with great deference) I differ from the author of the excellent Crania Americana.—The Americans are said to be brakhy-kephalic, the Eskimo dolikho-kephalic. The American skull is of smaller, the Eskimo of larger dimensions. I make no comment on the second of these opinions. In respect to the first, I submit to the reader the following extracts from Dr. Morton's own valuable tables, premising that, as a general rule, the difference between the occipito-frontal and parietal diameters of the Eskimo is more than seven inches and a fraction as compared with five inches and a fraction, and that of the other Indians less than seven and a fraction, as compared with five and a fraction. Now, the following extract from Dr. Morton's tables shows the approach to the dolikhokephalic character on the part of twenty-four American specimens—
| Long. diam. | Parietal diam. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| [166]E. 1. | Eskimo | 5.7 | 5.4 |
| 2. | " | 7.3 | 5.5 |
| 3. | " | 7.5 | 5.1 |
| 4. | Eskimo | 6.7 | 5. |
| A. 5. | Ojibbwa | 7.3 | 5.8 |
| 6. | " | 7.2 | 5.5 |
| 7. | Potowatomi | 7.8 | 5.7 |
| 8. | Sauk | 7.5 | 5.9 |
| 9. | Missisaugi | 7. | 5.2 |
| 10. | Lenapé | 7. | 5.5 |
| 11. | " | 7.8 | 5.4 |
| 12. | Manta(?) | 7. | 5.1 |
| 13. | Quinnipeak(?) | 7. | 5.7 |
| I. 14. | Iroquois | 7.5 | 5.5 |
| 15. | " | 7.1 | 5.4 |
| 16. | " | 7.1 | 5.5 |
| 17. | Oneida | 7.5 | 5.6 |
| 18. | Cayuga | 7.8 | 5.1 |
| S. 19. | Assineboin | 7.6 | 5.8 |
| 20. | Minetari | 7.3 | 4.4 |
| 21. | Mandan | 7.1 | 5.4 |
| 22. | " | 7. | 5.3 |
| C. 23. | Choctah | 7.2 | 5. |
| 24. | Seminole | 7.1 | 5.6 |
| 25. | " | 7.3 | 5.9 |
| 26. | " | 7. | 5.5 |
| 27. | " | 7.3 | 5.6 |
| 28. | " | 7. | 5.9 |
The language, as before stated, is admitted to be the American, in respect to its grammatical structure, and can be shown to be so in respect to its vocables.
II. The Peruvians.—Here the question is more complex, the argument varying with the extent we give to the class represented by the Peruvians, and according to the test we take, i.e. according as we separate them from the other Americans on the score of a superior civilization, or on the score of a different physical conformation.
a. When we separate the Peruvians from the other Americans, on the score of a superior civilization, we generally take something more than the Proper Peruvians, and include the Mexicans in the same category.
I do not trouble the reader with telling him what the Peruvio-Mexican (or Mexico-Peruvian) civilization was; the excellent historical works of Prescott show this. I only indicate two points:—
1. The probability of its being over-valued.
2. The fact of its superiority being a matter of degree rather than kind.
Phraseology misleads us. We find certain phænomena in the social and political constitution both of Mexico and Peru which put us in mind of certain European customs, e.g. (two amongst many) the dependence of subordinate chiefs on a superior one, and the use of certain ceremonies previous to the warrior's first achievements in war. How easy is it, in such cases, to take a false impression if we illustrate the habits in question by comparisons drawn from European feudalism and chivalry, instead of from their truer analogues, the probationary tortures of tribes like the Mandans, and the constitution of such an empire as Powhattans in Virginia.