[221] Crania Americana, p. 260. Philadelphia, 1839. Folio.

[222] Dr. Morton gives the following comparative table showing the internal capacity and dimensions of the crania of different races:

RACES.
	Number of Skulls.
		Mean Internal Capacity in cubic in.
			Largest in the Series.
				Smallest in the Series.
Caucasian	52	87	109	75
Mongolian	10	83	93	69
Malay	18	81	89	64
American	147	82	100	60
Ethiopian	29	78	94	65

[223] After presenting several arguments together with accompanying proofs, Agassiz says: “This coincidence between the circumscription of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological provinces characterized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind, which the study of the geographical distribution of all the organized beings now existing upon earth has disclosed to us. It is a fact which cannot fail to throw light at some future time upon the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows that man’s physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply to man. Now there are only two alternatives before us at present: 1st. Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different races with their peculiarities, in their present distribution, are to be ascribed to subsequent changes—an assumption for which there is no evidence whatever, and leads at once to the admission that the diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution determined by a general plan established in the beginning of the creation; or 2d, we must acknowledge that the diversity among animals is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what are called human races down to their specializations as nations are distinct primordial forms of the type of man.” * * * He concludes in these words: “The laws which regulate the diversity of animals and their distribution upon earth apply equally to man within the same limits and in the same degree; and all our liberty and moral responsibility, however spontaneous, are yet instinctively directed by the All-wise and Omnipotent to fulfill the great harmonies established in Nature.”—Types of Mankind, pp. lxxv and lxxvi.

[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.

[233] Chapter II, p. 127.

[234] Henry Gillman, The Ancient Men of the Great Lakes, in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 24th meeting, at Detroit, 1875, p. 317; also American Journal of Arts and Science, 1874, vol. cvii, p. 1 et seq., and Sixth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, pp. 12–20.

[235] Opportunity did not permit to obtain the exact (absolute) capacity.

[236] Artificially perforated.

[237] Very retreating frontal.

[238] Very protuberant occipital.

[239] Artificially perforated.

[240] With epactal bone 1.5 in length. It may be interesting to mention that I find occasionally in our mounds a tendency to the formation of the epactal bone by a sudden approach of the sutures immediately below the apex of the occipital—a sort of transitional state.

[241] Recent Explorations of Mounds near Davenport, Iowa, in Proceedings of American Association for the Advancement of Science, 24th meeting, 1875, pp. 297 et seq.

[242] Dr. Farquharson considers that some of his measurements in inches are scarcely accurate enough, and gives the following table in the decimals of a metre:

No.
	Horizontal Circumference.
		Long Diameter.
			Transverse Diameter.
				Vertical Diameter.
					Capacity in Cubic Centimetres.
						Foraminal Distance.
							Foraminal Ratio.
								Ratio of Diameter.
									Mounds.
1	.546	.200	.120	.140	1190	....	....	.600	Albany, Ill.
2	.483	.162	.128	.140	1190	.062	.382	.790	Albany, Ill.
3	.495	.174	.130	.135	1020	.077	.442	.752	Albany, Ill.
7	.508	.170	.140	.125	....	....	....	.823	Albany, Ill.
8	.495	.175	.135	.140	1249	.065	.370	.771	Davenport, Mound No. 9.
9	.508	.171	.140	.140	1334	.062	.362	.818	Rock River, Ill.
10	.508	.167	.148	.140	1135	.070	.419	.886	Rock River, Ill.
11	.533	.180	.150	.145	1362	....	....	.833	Rock River, Ill.
12	.457	.167	.128	.140	1021	....	....	.766	Rock River, Ill.
13	.522	.185	.130	.150	1362	.089	.427	.702	Rock River, Ill.
14	.483	.171	.138	.140	1192	.079	.460	.807	Henry County, Ill.
15	.508	.185	.138	.145	1306	.081	.443	.745	Henry County, Ill.
16	.457	.170	.130	.140	1135	.078	.448	.764	Henry County, Ill.
17	.533	.185	.135	.146	1249	.072	.389	.703	Henry County, Ill.
18	.508	.180	....	.140	....	....	....	....	Rock River, Ill.
19	.533	.196	.140	.140	....	....	....	.704	Rock River, Ill.
20	....	.200	.128	....	....	....	....	.640	Rock River, Ill.
21	....	.180	.137	....	....	....	....	.761	Henry County, Ill.
23	....	.178	.140	.140	....	.073	.410	.730	Albany, Ill.
24	....	.184	.139	.150	....	.088	.478	.755	Rock River, Ill.
26	....	.200	....	....	....	....	....	....	Shell Bed, Rock Island.
27	.482	.170	.125	.140	936	.076	.388	.735	Albany, Ill.
28	....	.177	.135	.140	....	....	....	.762	Albany, Ill.
29	.507	.177	.130	.145	1137	.088	.440	.734	Albany, Ill.
	.503	.179	.134	.140	1188	.075	.432	.755	Mean.
	18	24	22	21	15	14	14	22	No. of skulls measured.

[243] Dr. Jones found skeletons six feet, and in one instance seven feet in length. (Antiquities of Tennessee, pp. 44 and 53.)

[244] Antiquities of Tennessee, p. 72; also note other similarities on p. 119.

[245] Ancient Men of the Great Lakes. Proceedings of the American Association for Advancement of Science, meeting of 1875, pp. 322–3.

[246] Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, chap. xx, pp. 145, 158, 165.

[247] The Aztecs are represented in our museum by three skulls found in an ancient cemetery near Mexico, which was uncovered in digging intrenchments to protect the Mexican capital against the armies of the United States. They are remarkable for the shortness of their axis, large flattened occiput, obliquely truncated behind, the height of the semicircular line of the temples, the shortness and trapezoid form of the parietal plane. They present an elevation or ridge along the sagittal suture; the base of the skull is very short, the face slightly prognathic, as among the Mongol Kalmucs. (Retzius in Smithsonian Report, 1859, p. 268.)

[248] Crania Americana, p. 98.

[249] See Dr. Morton in Nott & Gliddon.

[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.

[260] Retzius, Smithsonian Report, 1859, pp. 269–70.

[261] Prof. Wilson, Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, p. 221, and Retzius in the Reviews referred to in note 1, p. 180.

[262] J. B. Davis in Crania Britannica, decade iii.

[263] Races of Man (Bohn), p. 45; Dr. Nott in Types of Mankind, p. 436; Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man, vol ii, p. 221.

[264] Smithsonian Report, 1862, p. 291.

[265] Du Pratz’s History of Louisiana, vol. ii, p. 162.

[266] Adair’s History of American Indians, p. 284.

[267] On skull flattening, see Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, chap. xxi. Prof. Jones’ Antiquities of Tennessee, Smithsonian Contributions, 1876, pp. 118 et seq. Landa’s Relacion, p. 181. Catlin’s North American Indians, vol. ii, p. 40 and other places. Townsend’s Tour to the Columbia River, pp. 178 et seq. Bancroft’s Native Races as follows: I, 151, 158, 180, 210, 226–8, 256–7; Among the Mexicans, I, 651; II, 281; Central Americans, I, 717, 754; II, 681–2, 731–2, 802; IV, 304, and the accompanying literary apparatus.

[268] “This is certainly not a common disease now, and although rare, the instances of cure by bony anchylosis (the only way in which a true cure can take place), are even yet more rare. Nelaton, in his Pathologie Chirurgicale, has only been able to note twenty-five recorded cases of such an event. Now, as the space of one year is the shortest possible time allowed by authorities for such a cure to take place, and as during all this time the parts must be kept absolutely at rest, and the person so afflicted being entirely helpless, the inference is a strong one that these people were not in a savage state. They must necessarily have been in such a state, in the progress of advancement in civilization, as to be possessed of an accumulation of food, the requisite leisure of persons nursing the sick, and of dwellings sufficiently comfortable to protect them from inclemency of the weather in this latitude; without those elements of civilization those persons would inevitably have perished.”—Dr. Farquharson in Proceedings of Am. Association for Advancement of Science, vol. xxiv, p. 314.

[269] Prof. Jones, Antiquities of Tennessee, gives a good summary of the discussion from the first writers to the present time, p. 65 et seq.

[270] “This flattening of the leg-bone was of a degree unheard of—I might almost say undreamt of—in any other part of this country or of the world. In many of the more extreme cases of those flattened tibiæ with sabre-like curvature which I had exhumed at the Rouge, the transverse diameter was only 0.48 of the antero-posterior, less than half, while in that most marked and isolated case recorded by Broca, from the cave at Cro-Magnon, France, it was 0.60. In the chimpanzee and gorilla the compression is 0.67. Shortly afterward, even this extreme degree of compression was cast in the shade by my bringing to light from a mound on the Detroit River, rich in relics, among a number of the flattened tibiæ, two specimens of this bone in which the latitudinal indices were respectively 0.42 and 0.40.”—Henry Gillman in Proceedings American Association for Advancement of Science, vol. xxiv, pp. 316–17. The Sixth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Dr. Jeffries Wyman. The American Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3d series, vol. vii, January 1874. Gillman in Smithsonian Report for 1873, and Dr. Farquharson in Proceedings of A. A. A. S., vol. xxiv, p. 313. 1875.

[271] Gillman in American Naturalist for August, 1875, and Proceedings of A. A. A. Science, 1875, p. 327.

[272] Prof. Wilson has pathetically described the disinterment of a Peruvian family, consisting of the father, mother and child, and has especially dwelt upon the color and qualities of the hair as distinguishing them from the Red Indians. (Pre-Historic Man, pp. 440 et seq.)

[273] Commentarios Reales, book v, chap. xxix; book iii, chap. xx.

[274] Haywood’s Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, p. 191.

[275] Haywood, op. cit., pp. 163–6, 169, 100, 148–9, 338–9. On the mummies of Lexington, Kentucky, see Atwater’s Archæologia Americana, p. 318. Mammoth Cave, p. 359, et passim.

[276] Antiquities of Tennessee, p. 5.

[277] Squier and Davis’ Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley, pp. 243 et seq. Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man, vol. i, pp. 365 et seq. Charles Rau, Smithsonian Contributions No. 287, 1876, pp. 84, 55. Prof. Joseph Jones’ Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee, passim, Smithsonian Contributions, No. 259.

[278] Bryant’s History of United States, vol. i, chap. ii.

[279] Prichard, Researches into the Physical Hist. of Mankind, 4th ed., 1841, vol. i, p. 269, after reviewing the question of the unity of the American race, remarks: “It will be easy to prove that the American races, instead of displaying a uniformity of color in all climates, show nearly as great a variety in this respect as the nations of the old continent; that there are among them white races with a florid complexion inhabiting temperate regions, and tribes black or of very dark hue in low and inter-tropical countries; that their stature, figure and countenances are almost equally diversified. Of these facts I shall collect sufficient evidence when I proceed to the ethnography of the American nations.” He fulfils this promise ably enough in vol. v, pp. 289, 374, 542, and other places. We respectfully refer the reader to the facts there accumulated.

[280] Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man, vol. ii, p. 189.

[281] See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 262, note, where reference is made to Charnay, Ruines Amér., pp. 32, 45, 97, 103.

[282] The American Migration, by Frederick von Hellwald. Smithsonian Report for 1866, pp. 329, 330.

[283] Jean Lamarck, Philosophic Zoologique, etc., Paris, 1809, 2 vols., and Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres, 1815.

[284] See Hæckel, History of Creation, vol. ii, pp. 255–6, and Professor Huxley’s reference to the genus Equus (embracing the horse, ass and zebra from specimens collected by Prof. Marsh). New York Lectures, September, 1876.

[285] Dr. McCosh in Popular Science Monthly, November, 1876, p. 88; Darwin’s Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 192 (New York ed.).

[286] Smithsonian Report, 1866.

[287] Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 188. Also, “The Simiadæ then branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.”—Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 204. Again, “We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the old world.”—Descent of Man, vol. ii, p. 372.

[288] History of Creation, (N. Y. ed.), 1876, vol. ii, p. 318.

[289] “Nowhere can lines of demarcation be so clearly drawn, so imperceptibly do the families of mankind blend at their circumferences. The various classifications which have been attempted are so many proofs of unity of origin; and their confliction shows the fallacy of the theory of diversity. * * * * We cannot admit that mankind can have diversity of origin while so united by one great plan. If a species or variety of the genus homo sprang up in Europe and another in America by agency of conditions existing in those localities, it would be beyond probability that they should both be formed on the same plan.”—H. Tuttle’s Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man Scientifically Considered, pp. 34–5. Boston, 1866, 12mo.

[290] Darwin’s Descent of Man, vol. i, p. 224, and Nilsson’s The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia, Lubbock’s trans., 1868, p. 104.

[291] See Early History of Fire, by Prof. N. Joly of the Faculty of Toulouse in Popular Science Monthly, November, 1876, p. 17; also Darwin, as above cited.