Chapter VI (3)

Still further confirmation of the progress of the palæolithic man in this region is afforded by discoveries made in a rock-shelter near the headwaters of Naaman’s Creek, as early as 1866, for an account of which, and the preservation of the objects then found, we are also indebted to Mr. Cresson: “The remains of the Naaman’s Creek rock-shelter luckily fell into hands that have preserved them.... To give a detailed account of _how_ the rock-shelter was discovered would consume too much time. Let us rather consider briefly the ... contents of the shelter’s various layers.... Fortunately careful drawings of the shelter were made during its excavation between the years 1866 and 1867.... A glance shows the outcrop of the rock as it appeared before the excavations were begun in 1866. The trees show that the ground was then covered by a thick wood.... From the point that marks the innermost edge of the outcrop, overhanging the hollow, a perpendicular line dropped to the ground would measure five and one eighth feet, the height of the projection of the rock above the ground before the excavations were commenced.

“Twenty-two feet eight inches from the outcrop, measured from its inner face, there is still another outcrop.... This marks the opposite side of the hollow.... It is evident how admirably the place was adapted to the wants of the early hunters of the Delaware valley, whether it be as a shelter, or as a place of defence against their enemies.... Let us look at the layers of earth that filled it, these being intermingled with rude implements, broken bones, and charcoal, indicating that man at times had resorted to the spot.

“Layer C [the lowest]. This was composed of schist, resting on the bedrock of the shelter. A layer of aqueous gravel, of the same type as that underlying Philadelphia, rested on the decomposed schist. The greatest depth of the red gravel layer was four feet two and one fourth inches, measured from the layer of decomposed schist. Least depth of gravel observed, one foot three inches....

“Layer A [next above]. This was a layer of grayish-white brick clay mixed with yellow clay, similar to that underlying Philadelphia, on top of which was a layer mixed with sand.... Stone implements were discovered in this layer. They were but few in number and very rude, exclusively of argillite, and palæolithic in type. Greatest depth of layer, two feet one and one half inches. No implements of bone were found....

“Layer T [next above]. This was of reddish gravel, intermingled with decomposed schist, cinders, and broken bones of animals. Fragments of a human skull were found ... in this layer. A fragment of a human rib was also preserved. The fragments of the skull are covered here and there by dendritic incrustations. Rude spears and implements of argillite were found in this layer. Depth of layer, thirteen to eighteen inches.

“Layer D [next above]. Composed of reddish-yellow clay. Depth, two feet three inches. No implements.

“Layer M [next above]. In this layer were numerous implements of argillite and some of bone, intermingled with rude implements of quartzite and jasper and fragments of rude pottery, with charcoal. Greatest depth, one foot one and one half inches. Least depth, three inches.

“Layer R [next above]. Yellow clay. Greatest depth, two feet one and one half inches; least depth, eight inches. No implements.

“Layer W [next above]. This contained chipped implements; those made of jasper and quartzite predominating over those of argillite. In the lowest part of this layer were fragments of rude pottery. In the upper portion of the layer were potsherds decidedly superior in decoration and technique to those from the lower portion. Geological composition of this layer, yellow clay loam. Greatest depth, three feet four inches. Least depth, two and one half inches.

“Layer L [top]. This consists of leaf mould seven inches thick, converted into swamp muck by decomposing action of water from springs. No implements.... No remains of extinct animals were found.”[1564]

Professor Putnam thus proceeded to comment upon these discoveries: “We have a series of objects, taken from the several layers of the shelter, giving us a chronology of the utmost importance, as each period of occupation of the shelter was followed by a natural deposition, separating the different periods of occupation. The stone implements ... are taken from the lowest layer, indicating the earliest period of occupation of the rock-shelter; and ... they correspond in shape and rudeness of execution with those taken from the gravel-bed at Trenton; and like most of the latter they are all of argillite. The specimens from the second period are of argillite, and while many are chipped into slender points, they are still of very rude forms; and these in turn correspond with the argillite points found by Dr. Abbott deep down in the black soil, or resting upon the gravel, at Trenton. In the upper layers of the cave we observe ... the gradual introduction of implements chipped from jasper and quartz, and corresponding in form with those found upon the surface throughout the valley. And as a further indication of this later development, it was only in the upper layers that pottery, bone implements, and ornaments were found; the three distinct periods of occupation of the Delaware valley are thus distinctly shown; and this cave-shelter is a perfect exemplification of the results which Dr. Abbott had obtained from a study of the specimens which he has collected upon the surface, deep in the black soil, and in the gravel, at Trenton.”

* * * * *

From the accumulative force of these various lines of reasoning, the writer thinks that there is a strong probability that here, on the waters of the Delaware, man developed from the palæolithic to the neolithic stage of culture. But we cannot follow Dr. Abbott in his further conclusion (if, indeed, he still holds to it) that we are to seek the descendants of this primitive population in the Eskimos, driven north after contact with the Indians. We have failed to discover the slightest evidence to sustain this position. The hereditary enmity existing between the Eskimos and the Indians may be equally well explained upon the theory that the former are later comers to this continent, and are therefore hated by the Indian races as intruders. The two races are certainly markedly unlike.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show the development of the argillite-using people into the Indian races, with their perfected implements and weapons of the age of polished stone, it seems more reasonable to hold with Professor Dawkins that the earlier and ruder race perished before or were absorbed by a people furnished with a better equipment in the struggle for the “survival of the fittest.” The palæolithic man of the river gravels of Trenton and his argillite-using posterity the writer believes to be completely extinct.[1565]

It only remains for the writer to express his regret that he has been prevented from setting forth in detail, at the present time, the grounds upon which he has come to other conclusions which were briefly indicated at the beginning of this chapter. He can only repeat here his belief that the so-called Indians, with their many divisions into numerous linguistic families, were later comers to our shores than the primitive population, whose development he has attempted to trace; that the so-called “moundbuilders” were the ancestors of tribes found in the occupation of the soil; and that the Pueblos and the Aztecs were only peoples relatively farther advanced than the others.

The writer further thinks that these are propositions capable, if not of being demonstrated, at least of being made to appear in a very high degree probable by means of authorities which will be found amply referred to in other chapters of this volume.

THE PROGRESS OF OPINION RESPECTING THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN AMERICA.

BY THE EDITOR.

THE literature respecting the origin and early condition of the American aborigines is very extensive; and, as a rule, especially in the earlier period, it is not characterized by much reserve in connecting races by historical analogies.[1566] Few before Dr. Robertson, in discussing the problem, could say: “I have ventured to inquire without presuming to decide.”

The question was one that allured many of the earlier Spanish writers like Herrera and Torquemada. Among the earlier English discussions is that of Wm. Bourne in his _Booke called the Treasure for Travellers_ (London, 1578), where a section is given to “The Peopling of America.” The most famous of the early discussions of the various theories was that of Gregorio Garciá, a missionary for twenty years in South America, who reviewed the question in his _Origen de los Indios de el Nuevo Mundo_ (Valencia, 1607).[1567] He goes over the supposed navigations of the Phœnicians, the identity of Peru with Solomon’s Ophir, and the chances of African, Roman, and Jewish migrations,—only to reject them all, and to favor a coming of Tartars and Chinese. Clavigero thinks his evidences the merest conjectures. E. Brerewood, in his _Enquiries touching the diversity of languages and religions_ (London, 1632, 1635), claimed a Tartar origin. In New England, where many were believers in the Jewish analogies, it is somewhat amusing to find not long after this the quizzical Thomas Morton, with what seems like mock gravity, finding the aboriginal source in “the scattered Trojans, after such time as Brutus departed from Latium.”[1568] The reader, however, is referred to other sections of the present volume for the literature bearing upon the distinct ethnical connections of the early American peoples.

The chief literary controversy over the question began in 1642, when Hugo Grotius published his _De Origine Gentium Americanarum Dissertatio_ (Paris and Amsterdam, 1642).[1569] He argued that all North America except Yucatan (which had an Ethiopian stock) was peopled from the Scandinavian North; that the Peruvians were from China, and that the Moluccans peopled the regions below Peru. Grotius aroused an antagonist in Johannes de Laet, whose challenge appeared the next year: _Joannis de Laet Antwerpiani notae ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii de origine gentium Americanarum: et observationes aliquot ad meliorem indaginem difficillimæ illius quæstionis_ (Amsterdam, 1643).[1570] He combated his brother Dutchman at all points, and contended that the Scythian race furnished the predominant population of America. The Spaniards went to the Canaries, and thence some of their vessels drifted to Brazil. He is inclined to accept the story of Madoc’s Welshmen, and think it not unlikely that the people of the Pacific islands may have floated to the western coast of South America, and that minor migrations may have come from other lands. He supports his views by comparisons of the Irish, Gallic, Icelandic, Huron, Iroquois, and Mexican tongues.

To all this Grotius replied in a second _Dissertatio_, and De Laet again renewed the attack: _Ioannis de Laet Antwerpiani responsio ad dissertationem secundam Hvgonis Grotii, de origine gentium Americanarum. Cum indice ad utrumque libellum_ (Amsterdam, 1644).[1571]

De Laet, not content with his own onset, incited another to take part in the controversy, and so George Horn (Hornius) published his _De Originibus Americanis, libri quatuor_ (Hagæ Comitis, _i. e._ The Hague, 1652; again, Hemipoli, _i. e._ Halberstadt, 1669).[1572] His view was the Scythian one, but he held to later additions from the Phœnicians and Carthaginians on the Atlantic side, and from the Chinese on the Pacific.

For the next fifty years there were a number of writers on the subject, who are barely names to the present generation;[1573] but towards the middle of the eighteenth century the question was considered in _The American Traveller_ (London, 1741), and by Charlevoix in his _Nouvelle France_ (1744). The author of an _Enquiry into the Origin of the Cherokees_ (Oxford, 1762) makes them the descendants of Meshek, son of Japhet. In 1767, however, the question was again brought into the range of a learned and disputatious discussion, reviving all the arguments of Grotius, De Laet, and Horn, when E. Bailli d’Engel published his _Essai sur cette question: Quand et comment l’America a-t-elle été peuplée d’hommes et d’Animaux?_ (5 vols., Amsterdam, 1767, 2d ed., 1768). He argues for an antediluvian origin.[1574] The controversy which now followed was aroused by C. De Pauw’s characterization of all American products, man, animals, vegetation, as degraded and inferior to nature in the old world, in an essay which passed through various editions, and was attacked and defended in turn.[1575] An Italian, Count Carli, some years later, controverted De Pauw, and using every resource of mythology, tradition, geology, and astronomy, claimed for the Americans a descent from the Atlantides.[1576] It was not till after reports had come from the Ohio Valley of the extensive earthworks in that region that the question of the earlier peoples of America attracted much general attention throughout America; and the most conspicuous spokesman was President Stiles of Yale College, in an address which he delivered before the General Assembly of Connecticut, in 1783, on the future of the new republic.[1577] In this, while arguing for the unity of the American tribes and for their affinity with the Tartars, he held to their being in the main the descendants of the Canaanites expelled by Joshua, whether finding their way hither by the Asiatic route and establishing the northern Sachemdoms, or coming in Phœnician ships across the Atlantic to settle Mexico and Peru.[1578] Lafitau in 1724 (_Mœurs de Sauvages_) had contended for a Tartar origin. We have examples of the reasoning of a missionary in the views of the Moravian Loskiel, and of a learned controversialist in the treatise of Fritsch, in 1794 and 1796 respectively.[1579]

The earliest American with a scientific training to discuss the question was a professor in the University of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Smith Barton, a man who acquired one of the best reputations in his day among Americans for studies in this and other questions of natural history. His father was an English clergyman settled in America, and his mother a sister of David Rittenhouse. It was while he was a student of medicine in Edinburgh that he first approached the subject of the origin of the Americans, in a little treatise on American Antiquities, which he never completed.[1580] His _Papers relating to certain American Antiquities_ (Philad., 1796) consists of those read to the Amer. Philos. Soc., and printed in their _Transactions_ (vol. iv.). They were published as the earnest of his later work on American Antiquities. He argues against De Pauw, and contends that the Americans are descended—at least some of them—from Asiatic peoples still recognized. The _Papers_ include a letter from Col. Winthrop Sargent, Sept. 8, 1794, describing certain articles found in a mound at Cincinnati, and a letter upon them from Barton to Dr. Priestley. He in the end gave more careful attention to the subject, mainly on its linguistic side, and went farther than any one had gone before him in his _New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America_ (Philad., 1797; 2d ed., enlarged, 1798).[1581] The book attracted much notice, and engaged the attention in some degree of European philologists, and made Barton at that time the most conspicuous student on these matters in America. Jefferson was at that time gathering material in similar studies, but his collections were finally burned in 1801. Barton, in dedicating his treatise to Jefferson, recognized the latter’s advance in the same direction. He believed his own gathering of original MS. material to be at that time more extensive than any other student had collected in America. His views had something of the comprehensiveness of his material, and he could not feel that he could point to any one special source of the indigenous population.

During the early years of the present century old theories and new were abundant. The powerful intellect and vast knowledge of Alexander von Humboldt were applied to the problem as he found it in Middle America. He announced some views on the primitive peoples in 1806, in the _Neue Berlinische Monatsschrift_ (vol. xv.); but his ripened opinions found record in his _Vues de Cordillères et monumens des peuples indigènes de l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1816), and the Asiatic theory got a conservative yet definite advocate.

Hugh Williamson[1582] thought he found traces of the Hindoo in the higher arts of the Mexicans, and marks of the ruder Asiatics in the more northern American peoples. A conspicuous littérateur of the day, Samuel L. Mitchell, veered somewhat wildly about in his notions of a Malay, Tartar, and Scandinavian origin.[1583] Meanwhile something like organized efforts were making. The American Antiquarian Society was formed in 1812.[1584] Silliman began his _Journal of Arts and Sciences_ in 1819, and both society and periodical proved instruments of wider inquiry. In the first volume published by the Antiquarian Society, Caleb Atwater, in his treatise on the Western Antiquities, gave the earliest sustained study of the subject, and believed in a general rather than in a particular Asiatic source. The man first to attract attention for his grouping of ascertained results, unaided by personal explorations, however, was Dr. James H. McCulloh, who published his _Researches on America_ at Baltimore in 1816. The book passed to a second edition the next year, but received its final shape in the _Researches, philosophical and antiquarian, concerning the aboriginal history of America_ (1829), a book which Prescott[1585] praised for its accumulated erudition, and Haven[1586] ranked high for its manifestations of industry and research, calling it encyclopædic in character. McCulloh examines the native traditions, but can evolve no satisfactory conclusion from them as to the origin of the Americans. The public mind, however, was not ripe for scholarly inquiry, and there was not that in McCulloh’s style to invite attention; and greater popularity followed upon the fanciful and dogmatic confidence of John Haywood,[1587] upon the somewhat vivid if unsteady speculations of C. S. Rafinesque,[1588] and even upon the itinerant Josiah Priest, who boasted of the circulation of thousands of copies of his popular books.[1589] John Delafield’s _Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of America_ (N. Y., 1839) revived the theory, never quite dormant, of the descent of the Mexicans from the riper peoples of Hindostan and Egypt; while the more barbarous red men came of the Mongol stock. The author ran through the whole range of philology, mythology, and many of the customs of the races, in reaching this conclusion. A little book by John McIntosh, _Discovery of America and Origin of the North American Indians_, published in Toronto, 1836, was reissued in N. Y. in 1843, and with enlargements in 1846, _Origin of the North American Indians_, continued down to 1859 to be repeatedly issued, or to have a seeming success by new dates.[1590]

* * * * *

When Columbus, approaching the main land of South America, imagined it a large island, he associated it with that belief so long current in the Old World, which placed the cradle of the race in the Indian Ocean,—a belief which in our day has been advocated by Haeckel, Caspari and Winchell,—and imagined he was on the coasts, skirting an interior, where lay the Garden of Eden.[1591] No one had then ventured on the belief that the doctrine of Genesis must be reconciled with any supposed counter-testimony by holding it to be but the record of the Jewish race. Columbus was not long in his grave when Theophrastus Paracelsus, in 1520, and before the belief in the continuity of North America with Asia was dispelled, and consequently before the question of how man and animals could have reached the New World was raised, first broached the heterodox view of the plurality of the human race. All the early disputants on the question of the origin of the American man looked either across the Atlantic or the Pacific for the primitive seed; nor was there any necessary connection between the arguments for an autochthonous American man and a diversity of race, when Fabricius, in 1721, published his _Dissertatio Critica_[1592] on the opinions of those who held that different races had been created. From that day the old orthodox interpretation of the record in Genesis found no contestant of mark till the question came up in relation to the American man, it being held quite sufficient to account for the inferiority or other distinguishing characteristics of race by assigning them to the influence of climate and physical causes.[1593]

After a photograph, hanging in the Somerset Club, Boston; suggested to the editor by Mr. Alexander Agassiz as a satisfactory likeness.]

The strongest presentation of the case, in considering the American man a distinct product of the American soil, with no connection with the Old World[1594] except in the case of the Eskimos, was made when S. G. Morton, in 1839, printed his _Crania Americana, or a comparative view of the skulls of various aboriginal nations of North and South America_, of which there was a second edition in 1844.[1595] Here was a new test, and applied, very likely, in ignorance of the fact that Governor Pownal, in 1766, in Knox’s _New Collection of Voyages_, had suggested it.[1596] Dr. Morton had gathered a collection of near a thousand skulls from all parts of the world,[1597] and based his deductions on these,—a process hardly safe, as many of his successors have determined.[1598] The views of Morton respecting the autochthonous origin of the Indian found an able upholder when Louis Agassiz, taking the broader view of the independent creation of higher and inferior races,[1599] gave in his adhesion to the original American man (_Christian Examiner_, July, 1850, vol. xlix. p. 110). These views got more extensive expression in a publication which appeared in Philadelphia in 1854, in which some unpublished papers of Morton are accompanied by a contribution from Agassiz, and all are grouped together and augmented by material of the editors, Dr. Josiah Clark Nott[1600] of Mobile, and Mr. George R. Gliddon, long a resident in Cairo. The _Types of Mankind, or Ethnological Researches_ (Philad., 1854, 1859, 1871), met with a divided reception; the conservative theologians called it pretentious and false, and there was some color for their detraction in some rather jejune expositions of the Hebrew Scriptures contained in the book. The physiologists thought it brought new vigor to a question which properly belonged to science.[1601] Other fresh material, with some discussions, made up a new book by the same editors, published three years later, _Indigenous Races of the Earth, or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry_ (Philad. and London, 1857; 2d ed., 1857).[1602]

The theological attacks were not always void of a contempt that ill befitted the work of refutation. The most important of them were John Bachman’s _Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race_ (Charleston, S. C., 1850), with his _Notice of the Types of Mankind_ (Charleston, 1854-55); and Thomas Smyth’s _Unity of the Human Race proved by Scripture, Reason and Science_ (N. Y., 1850).[1603]

After a photograph. A heliotype of a portrait by Custer is in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Ap., 1879. Haven’s _Annual Reports_, as librarian of the Amer. Antiq. Soc., furnish a good chronological conspectus of the progress of anthropological discovery.]

The scientific attack on Morton and Agassiz, and the views they represented, was an active one, and embraced such writers as Wilson, Latham, Pickering, and Quatrefages.[1604] The same collection of skulls which had furnished Morton with his proofs yielded exactly opposite evidence to Dr. J. A. Meigs in his _Observations upon the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines_ (Philad., 1866).[1605] Two of the most celebrated of the evolutionists reject the autochthonous view, for Darwin’s _Descent of Man_ and Haeckel’s _Hist. of Creation_ consider the American man an emigrant from the old world, in whatever way the race may have developed.[1606]

From a photograph kindly furnished, on request, by Professor Wilson’s family.]

Of the leading historians of the early American peoples, Prescott, dealing with the Mexicans, is inclined to agree with Humboldt’s arguments as to their primitive connection with Asia.[1607] Geo. Bancroft, in the third volume of his _Hist. of the United States_ (1840), surveying the field, found little in the linguistic affinities, little in what Humboldt gathered from the Mexican calendars and from other developments, nothing from the Western mounds, which he was sure were natural earth-knobs and water-worn passages,[1608] and decides upon some transmission by the Pacific route from Asia, but so remote as to make the American tribes practically indigenous, so far as their character is concerned.

In 1843 another compiler of existing evidence appeared in Alexander W. Bradford in his _American Antiquities, or Researches into the origin and history of the Red Race_. His views were new. He connects the higher organized life of middle America with the corresponding culture of Southern Asia, the Polynesian islands probably furnishing the avenue of migrations; while the ruder and more northern peoples of both shores of the Pacific represent the same stock degraded by northern migrations.

In 1845 the American Ethnological Society began its publications, and in Albert Gallatin it had a vigorous helper in unravelling some of these mysteries. A few years later (1853) the United States government lent its patronage and prestige to the huge conglomerate publication of Schoolcraft, his _Indian Tribes of the United States_, which leaves the bewildered reader in a puzzling maze,—the inevitable result of a work undertaken beyond the ambitious powers of an untrained mind. The work is not without value if the user of it has more systematic knowledge than its compiler, to select, discard, and arrange, and if he can weigh the importance of the separate papers.[1609]

In 1856 Samuel F. Haven, the librarian and guiding spirit of the American Antiquarian Society, summed up, as it had never been done before, for comprehensiveness, and with a striking prescience, the progress and results of studies in this field, in his _Archæology of the United States_ (_Smithsonian Contributions_, viii., Washington, 1856).

After a photograph.]

In 1851 Professor Daniel Wilson, in his _Prehistoric Annals of Scotland_, first brought into use the designation “prehistoric” as expressing “the whole period disclosed to us by means of archæological evidence, as distinguished from what is known through written records; and in this sense the term was speedily adopted by the archæologists of Europe.”[1610] Eleven years later he published his _Prehistoric Man: Researches into the origin of civilization in the old and new world_.[1611] The book unfortunately is not well fortified with references, but it is the result of long study, partly in the field, and written with a commendable reserve of judgment. It is in the main concerned with the western hemisphere, which he assumes with little hesitation “began its human period subsequent to that of the old world, and so started later in the race of civilization.” While thus in effect a study of early man in America, its scope makes it in good degree a complement to the _Origin of Civilization_ of Lubbock.

The comparative study of ethnological traces, to enable us to depict the earliest condition of human society, owes a special indebtedness to Edward B. Tylor, among writers in English. It is nearly twenty-five years since he first published his _Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization_,[1612] the work almost, if not quite, of a pioneer in this interesting field, and he has supplied the reader with all the references necessary to test his examples. Max Müller (_Chips_, ii. 262) has pointed out how he has vitalized his vast accumulation of facts by coherent classifications instead of leaving them an oppressive burden by simple aggregation, as his precursors in Germany, Gustav Klemm[1613] and Adolf Bastian, had done; and it is remarked that while thus classifying, he has not been lured into pronounced theory, which future accession of material might serve to modify or change. He shortly afterwards touched a phase of the subject which he had not developed in his book in a paper on “Traces of the Early Mental Condition of Man,”[1614] and illustrated the methods he was pursuing in another on “The Condition of Prehistoric Races as inferred from observations of modern tribes.”[1615]

The postulate of which he has been a distinguished expounder, that man has progressed from barbarism to civilization, was a main deduction to be drawn from his next sustained work, _Primitive Culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom_.[1616] The chief points of this further study of the thought, belief, art, and custom of the primitive man had been advanced tentatively in various other papers beside those already mentioned,[1617] and in this new work he further acknowledges his obligations to Adolf Bastian’s _Mensch in der Geschichte_ and Theodor Waitz’s _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_.[1618] He still pursued his plan of collecting wide and minute evidence from the writers on ethnography and kindred sciences, and from historians, travellers, and missionaries, as his foot-notes abundantly testify.

After a likeness in Otto Caspari’s _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, 2d ed., vol. i. (Leipzig, 1877).]

These studies of Professor Tylor abundantly qualified him to give a condensed exposition of the science of anthropology, which he had done so much to place within the range of scientific studies, by a primary search for facts and laws; and having contributed the article on that subject to the ninth edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, he published in 1881 his _Anthropology: an Introduction to the study of man and civilization_ (London and N. Y., 1881 and 1888). He maps out the new science, which has now received of late years so many new students in the scientific method, without references, but with the authority of a teacher, tracing what man has been and is under the differences of sex, race, beliefs, habits, and society.[1619] Again, at the Montreal meeting (August, 1884) of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he set down in an address the bounds of the “American Aspects of Anthropology.”[1620]

After a photograph.]

Closely following upon Tylor in this field, and gathering his material with much the same assiduity, and presenting it with similar beliefs, though with enough individuality to mark a distinction, was another Englishman, who probably shares with Tylor the leading position in this department of study. Sir John Lubbock, in his _Prehistoric Times as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and customs of modern savages_,[1621] gathered the evidence which exists of the primitive condition of man, embracing some chapters on modern savages so far as they are ignorant of the use of metals, as the best study we can follow, to fill out the picture of races only archæologically known to us. This study of modern savage life, in arts, marriages, and relationships, morals, religion, and laws, is, as he holds, a necessary avenue to the knowledge of a condition of the early man, from which by various influences the race has advanced to what is called civilization. His result in this comparative study—not indeed covering all the phases of savage life—he made known in his _Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man_.[1622] While referring to Tylor’s _Early Hist. of Mankind_ as more nearly like his own than any existing treatise, but showing, as compared with his own book, “that no two minds would view the subject in the same manner,” he instanced previous treatments of certain phases of the subject, like Müller’s _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, J. F. M’Lennan’s _Primitive Marriage_,[1623] and J. J. Bachofen’s _Das Mutterrecht_ (Stuttgart, 1861); and even Lord Kames’ _History of Man_, and Montesquieu’s _Esprit des Lois_, notwithstanding the absence in them of much of the minute knowledge now necessary to the study of the subject. These data, of course, are largely obtained from travellers and missionaries, and Lubbock complains of their unsatisfactory extent and accuracy. “Travellers,” he adds, “find it easier to describe the houses, boats, food, dress, weapons, and implements of savages than to understand their thoughts and feelings.”

After a photograph.]

The main controversial point arising out of all this study is the one already adverted to,—whether man has advanced from savagery to his present condition, or has preserved, with occasional retrogressions, his original elevated character; and this causes the other question, whether the modern savage is the degenerate descendant of the same civilized first men. “There is no scientific evidence which would justify us,” says Lubbock (_Prehist. Times_, 417), “in asserting that this kind of degradation applies to savages in general.”[1624] The most distinguished advocate of the affirmative of this proposition is Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, both in his _Political Economy_ and in his lecture on the _Origin of Civilization_ (1855), in which he undertook to affirm that no nation, unaided by a superior race, ever succeeded in raising itself out of savagery, and that nations can become degraded. Lubbock, who, with Tylor, holds the converse of this proposition, answered Whately in an appendix to his _Origin of Civilization_, which was originally given as a paper at the Dundee meeting of the British Association.[1625] The Duke of Argyle, while not prepared to go to the extent of Whately’s views, attacked, in his _Primeval Man_, Lubbock’s argument,[1626] and was in turn reviewed adversely by Lubbock, in a paper read at the Exeter meeting of the same association (1869), which is also included in the appendix of his _Origin of Civilization_. Lubbock seems to show, in some instances at least, that the duke did not possess himself correctly of some of the views of his opponents.

A sketch map given in Dawson’s _Fossil Men_, p. 48, showing his view of the probable lines of migration and distribution of the American tribes. Morgan (_Ancient Society_) makes what he calls three centres of subsistence, whence the migration proceeded which overran America. Cf. Hellwald in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866, p. 328. The question is more or less discussed in Latham’s _Man and his migrations_ (London, 1851); Chas. Pickering’s _Men and their geog. distribution_; and Oscar Peschel’s _Races of Man_ (Eng. transl., London, 1876). On the passage from the valley of the Columbia to that of the Missouri, see Humboldt’s _Views of Nature_, 35. Morgan (_No. Am. Rev._, cix.) supposes the valley of the Columbia River to be the original centre where the streams diverged, and (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 251) says there are reasons for believing that the Shoshone migration was the last which left the Columbia valley, and that it was pending at the epoch of European colonization. Morgan’s papers in the _No. Am. Rev._, Oct. 1868 and Jan. 1870, are reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_, p. 158. On a general belief in a migration from the north, see _Congrès des Amér_. (1877), ii. 50, 51. L. Simonin, in “L’homme Américain, notes d’ethnologie et de linguistique sur les indiens des Etats-Unis,” gives a map of the tribes of North America in the _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._ Feb. 1870.]

In the researches of Tylor and Lubbock, and of all the others cited above, the American Indian is the source of many of their illustrations. Of all writers on this continent, Sir John Wm. Dawson in his _Fossil Men_, and Southall in his _Recent Origin of Man_, are probably the most eminent advocates of the views of Whately and Argyle, however modified, and both have declared it an unfounded assumption that the primitive man was a savage.[1627] Morgan, in his _Ancient Society_ (N. Y., 1877), has, on the other hand, sketched the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization.

One of the defenders of the supposed Bible limits best equipped by reading, if not in the scientific spirit, has been a Virginian, James C. Southall, who published a large octavo in 1875, _The Recent Origin of Man as illustrated by geology and the modern science of prehistoric archæology_ (Philad., 1875). Three years later,—leaving out some irrelevant matters as touching the antiquity of man, condensing his collations of detail, sparing the men of science an attack for what in his earlier volume he called their fickleness, and somewhat veiling his set purpose of sustaining the Bible record,—he published a more effective little book, _The Epoch of the Mammoth and the Apparition of Man upon Earth_ (Philad., 1878). Barring its essentially controversial character, and waiving judgment on its scientific decisions, it is one of the best condensed accumulations of data which has been made. His belief in the literal worth of the Bible narrative is emphatic. He thinks that man, abruptly and fully civilized, appeared in the East, and gave rise to the Egyptian and Babylonian civilization, while the estrays that wandered westward are known to us by their remains, as the early savage denizens of Europe. To maintain this existence of the hunter-man of Europe within historic times, he rejects the prevailing opinions of the geologists and archæologists. He reverses the judgment that Lyell expresses (_Student’s Elements of Geology_, Am. ed., 162) of the historical period as not affording any appreciable measure for calculating the number of centuries necessary to produce so many extinct animals, to deepen and widen valleys, and to lay so deep stalagmite floors, and says it does. He contends that the stone age is not divided into the earlier and later periods with an interval, but that the mingling of the kinds of flints shows but different phases of the same period,[1628] and that what others call the palæolithic man was in reality the quaternary man, with conditions not much different from now.[1629] The time when the ice retreated from the now temperate regions he holds to have been about 2000 b.c., and he looks to the proofs of the action of which traces are left along the North American great lakes, as observed by Professor Edmund Andrews[1630] of Chicago, to confirm his judgment of the Glacial age being from 5,300 to 7,500 years ago.[1631] He claims that force has not been sufficiently recognized as an element in geological action, and that a great lapse of time was not necessary to effect geological changes (_Ep. of the M._, 194).[1632] He thinks the present drift of opinion, carrying back the appearance of man anywhere from 20,000 to 9,000,000 years, a mere fashion. The gravel of the Somme has been, he holds, a rapid deposit in valleys already formed and not necessarily old. The peat beds were a deposit from the flood that followed the glacial period, and accumulated rapidly (_Ep. of the M._, ch. 10). The extinct animals found with the tools of man in the caves simply show that such beasts survived to within historic times, as seems everywhere apparent as regards the mastodon when found in America. The stalagmites of the caves are of unequal growth, and it is an assumption to give them uniformly great age. The finely worked flints found among those called palæolithic; the skilfully free drawings of the cave-men; the bits of pottery discovered with the rude flints, and the great similarity of the implements to those in use to-day among the Eskimos; the finding of Roman coin in the Danish shell heaps and an English one in those of America (_Proc. Philad. Acad. Nat. Sci._, 1866, p. 291),—are all parts of the argument which satisfies him that the archæologists have been hasty and inconclusive in their deductions. They in turn will dispute both his facts and conclusions.[1633]

Southall’s arraignment of the opinions generally held may introduce us to a classification of the data upon which archæologists rely to reach conclusions upon the antiquity of man, and over some of which there is certainly no prevailing consensus of opinion. We may find a condensed summary of beliefs and data respecting the antiquity of man in J. P. Maclean’s _Manual of the Antiquity of Man_ (Cincinnati, revised ed., 1877; again, 1880).[1634] The independent view and conservative spirit are placed respectively in juxtaposition in J. P. Lesley’s _Origin and Decline of Man_ (ch. 3), and in Dawson’s _Fossil Men_ (ch. 8).[1635] The opinions of leading English archæologists are found in Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_ (ch. 12), Wallace’s _Tropical Nature_ (ch. 7), and Huxley’s “Distribution of Races in Relation to the Antiquity of Man,” in _Internat. Cong. of Prehist. Archæol. Trans._ (1868). Dawkins has given some recent views in _The Nation_, xxvi. 434, and in _Kansas City Review_, vii. 344.[1636] Not to refer to special phases, the French school will be found represented in Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_ (ii. ch. 13); in Gabriel de Mortillet’s _La préhistorique antiquité de l’homme_ (Paris, 1883); Hamy’s _Précis de paléontologie humaine_; Le Hon’s _L’homme fossile_ (1867); Victor Meunier’s _Les Ancêtres d’Adam_ (Paris, 1875); Joly’s _L’homme avant métaux_ (Eng. transl. _Man before Metals_, N. Y., 1883); _Revue des Questions historiques_ (vol. xvi.). The German school is represented in Haeckel’s _Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte_; Waitz’s _Anthropologie_; Carl Vogt’s _Lectures on Man_ (Eng. transl., Lond., 1864); and L. Büchner’s _Der Mensch und seine Stellung in der Natur_ (2d ed., Leipzig, 1872; or W. S. Dallas’s Eng. translation, Lond., 1872). The history of the growth of geological antagonism to the biblical record as once understood, and the several methods proposed for reconciling their respective teaching, is traced concisely in the article on geology in M’Clintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, with references for further examination. The views there given are those propounded by Chalmers in 1804, that the geological record, ignored in the account of Genesis, finds its place in that book between the first and second verses,[1637] which have no dependence on one another, and that the biblical account of creation followed in six literal days. What may be considered the present theological attitude of churchmen may be noted in _The Speaker’s Commentary_ (N. Y. ed., 1871, p. 61).

* * * * *

The question of the territorial connection of America with Asia under earlier geological conditions is necessarily considered in some of the discussions on the transplanting of the American man from the side of Asia.

Otto Caspari in his _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_ (Leipzig, 1873), vol. i., gives a map of Asia and America in the post-tertiary period, as he understands it, which stretches the Asiatic and African continents over a large part of the Indian Ocean; and in this region, now beneath the sea, he places the home of the primeval man, and marks the lines of migration east, north, and west. This view is accepted by Winchell in his _Preadamites_ (see his map). Haeckel (_Nat. Schöpfungsgeschichte_, 1868, 1873; Eng. transl. 1876) calls this region “Lemuria” in his map. Caspari places large continental islands between this region and South America, which rendered migration to South America easy. The eastern shore of the present Asia is extended beyond the Japanese islands, and similar convenient islands render the passage by other lines of immigration easy to the regions of British Columbia and of Mexico. (Cf. Short, 507; Baldwin, App.) Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, supposes a connection at Behring’s Straits. The supposed similarity of the flora of the two shores of the Pacific has been used to support this theory, but botanists say that the language of Hooker and Gray has been given a meaning they did not intend. It is opposed by many eminent geologists. A. R. Wallace (_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, xix.) finds no ground to believe that any of the oceans contain sunken continents. (Cf. his _Geographical Distribution of Animals_ and his _Malay Archipelago_.) James Croll in his _Climate and Cosmology_ (p. 6) says: “There is no geological evidence to show that at least since Silurian times the Atlantic and Pacific were ever in their broad features otherwise than they now are.”[1638] Hyde Clarke has examined the legend of Atlantis in reference to protohistoric communication with America, in _Royal Hist. Soc. Trans._, n. s., iii. p. 1.[1639]

* * * * *

The arguments for the great antiquity of man[1640] are deduced in the main from the testimony of the river gravels, the bone caves, the peat deposits, the shell heaps, and the Lacustrine villages, for the mounds and other relics of defence, habitation, and worship are very likely not the records of a great antiquity. The whole field is surveyed with more fullness than anywhere else, and with a faith in the geological antiquity of the race, in Sir Charles Lyell’s _Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man_.[1641] With as firm a belief in the integrity of the biblical record, and in its not being impugned by the discoveries or inductions of science, we find a survey in Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_. These two books constitute the extremes of the methods, both for and against the conservative interpretation of the Bible. The independent spirit of the scientist is nowhere more confidently expressed than by J. P. Lesley (_Man’s Origin and Destiny_, Philad., 1868, p. 45), who says: “There is no alliance possible between Jewish theology and modern science.... Geologists have won the right to be Christians without first becoming Jews.” Southall[1642] interprets this spirit in this wise: “I do not recollect that the _Antiquity of Man_ ever recognizes that the book of Genesis is in existence; and yet every one is perfectly conscious that the author has it in mind, and is writing at it all the time.”[1643] The entire literature of the scientific interpretation shows that the canons of criticism are not yet secure enough to prevent the widest interpretations and inferences.

The intimations which are supposed to exist in the Bible of a race earlier than Adam have given rise to what is called the theory of the Preadamites, and there is little noteworthy upon it in European literature back of Isaac de La Peyrère’s _Praeadamitae_ (Paris and Amsterdam, 1655), whose views were put into English in _Man before Adam_ (London, 1656).[1644] The advocates of the theory from that day to this are enumerated in Alexander Winchell’s _Preadamites_ (Chicago, 1880), and this book is the best known contribution to the subject by an American author. It is his opinion that the aboriginal American, with the Mongoloids in general, comes from some descendant of Adam earlier than Noah, and that the black races come from a stock earlier than Adam, whom Cain found when he went out of his native country.[1645]

* * * * *

The investigations of the great antiquity of man in America fall far short in extent of those which have been given to his geological remoteness in Europe; and yet, should we believe with Winchell that the American man represents the pre-Adamite, while the European man does not, we might reasonably hope to find in America earlier traces of the geological man, if, as Agassiz shows, the greater age of the American continent weighs in the question.[1646]

The explicit proofs, as advanced by different geologists, to give a great antiquity to the American man, and perhaps in some ways greater than to the European man,[1647] may now be briefly considered in detail.

Oldest of all may perhaps be placed the gold-drift of California, with its human remains, and chief among them the Calaveras skull, which is claimed to be of the Pliocene (tertiary) age; but it must be remembered that Powell and the government geologists call it quaternary. It was in February, 1866, that in a mining shaft in Calaveras County, California, a hundred and thirty feet below the surface, a skull was found imbedded in gravel, which under the name of the Calaveras skull has excited much interest. It was not the first time that human remains had been found in these California gravels, but it was the first discovery that attracted notice. It was not seen _in situ_ by a professional geologist, and a few weeks elapsed before Professor Josiah Dwight Whitney, then state geologist of California, visited the spot, and satisfied himself that the geological conditions were such as to make it certain that the skull and the deposition of the gravel were of the same age. The relic subsequently passed into the possession of Professor Whitney, and the annexed cut is reproduced from the careful drawing made of it for the _Memoirs of the Museum of Comp. Zoölogy_ (Harvard University), vol. vi. He had published earlier an account in the _Revue d’Anthropologie_ (1872), p. 760.[1648] This interesting relic is now in Cambridge, coated with thin wax for preservation, but this coating interferes with any satisfactory photograph. The volume of _Memoirs_ above named is made up of Whitney’s _Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California_ (1880), and at p. ix he says: “There will undoubtedly be much hesitancy on the part of anthropologists and others in accepting the results regarding the Tertiary Age of man, to which our investigations seem so clearly to point.” He says that those who reject the evidence of the Calaveras skull because it was not seen _in situ_ by a scientific observer forget the evidence of the fossil itself; and he adds that since 1866 the other evidence for tertiary man has so accumulated that “it would not be materially weakened by dropping that furnished by the Calaveras skull itself.”

What Whitney says of the history and authenticity of the skull will be found in his paper on “Human remains and works of art of the gravel series,” in _Ibid._ pp. 258-288. His conclusions are that it shows the existence of man with an extinct fauna and flora, and under geographical and physical conditions differing from the present,—in the Pliocene age certainly. This opinion has obtained the support of Marsh and Le Conte and other eminent geologists. Schmidt (_Archiv für Anthropologie_) thinks it signifies a pre-glacial man. Winchell (_Preadamites_, 428) says it is the best authenticated evidence of Pliocene man yet adduced. On the contrary, there are some confident doubters. Dawkins (_No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883) thinks that all but a few American geologists have given up the Pliocene man, and that the chances of later interments, of accidents, of ancient mines, and the presence of skulls of mustang ponies (introduced by the Spaniards) found in the same gravels, throw insuperable doubts. “Neither in the new world nor the old world,” he says, “is there any trace of Pliocene man revealed by modern discovery.” Southall and all the Bible advocates of course deny the bearing of all such evidence. Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 345) thinks the arguments of Whitney inconclusive. Nadaillac (_L’Amérique préhistorique_, 40, with a cut, and his _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. 435) hesitates to accept the evidence, and enumerates the doubters.[1649]

* * * * *

Footprints have been found in a tufa bed, resting on yellow sand, in the neighborhood of an extinct volcano, Tizcapa, in Nicaragua. One of the prints is shown in the annexed cut, after a representation given by Dr. Brinton in the _Amer. Philosoph. Soc. Proc._ (xxiv. 1887, p. 437). Above this tufa bed were fourteen distinct strata of deposits before the surface soil was reached. Geologists have placed this yellow sand, bearing shells, from the post-Pliocene to the Eocene. The seventh stratum, going downwards, had remains of the mastodon.[1650]

Some ancient basket work discovered at Petit Anse Island, in Louisiana, has been figured in the _Chicago Acad. of Sciences, Transactions_ (i. part 2). Cf. E. W. Hilgard, in _Smithsonian Contributions_, no. 248.

* * * * *

Foster rather strikingly likens what we know of the history of the human race to the apex of a pyramid, of which we know neither the height nor extent of base. Our efforts to trace man back to his beginning would be like following down the sides of that pyramid till it reaches a firm base, we know not where. Many geologists believe in a great ice-sheet which at one time had settled upon the northern parts of America, and covered it down to a line that extends across Pennsylvania, Ohio, and westerly in a direction of some variableness. There are some, like Sir William Dawson,[1651] who reject the evidence that persuades others. Prof. Whitney (_Climatic Changes_, 387) holds that it was a local phenomenon confined in America to the northeastern parts. The advocates look to Dr. James Geikie[1652] as having correlated the proofs of the proposition as well as any, while writers like Howorth[1653] trace the resulting phenomena largely to a flood.

How long ago this was, the cautious geologist does not like to say;[1654] nor is he quite ready to aver what it all means.[1655] Perhaps, as some theorize, this prevailing ice showed the long winter brought about by the precession of the equinoxes, as has long been a favorite belief, with the swing of ten thousand years, more or less, from one extreme to the other.[1656]

Others believe that we must look back 200,000 years, as James Croll[1657] and Lubbock do, or 800,000 and more, as Lyell did at first, and find the cause in the variable eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, which shall account for all the climatic changes since the dawn of what is called the glacial epoch, accompanying the deflection of ocean currents, as Croll supposes, or the variations in the disposition of sea and land, as Lyell imagines.[1658] This great ice-sheet, however extensive, began for some reason to retreat, at a period as remote, according as we accept this or the other estimate, as from ten thousand to a hundred thousand years.

* * * * *

That the objects of stone, shaped and polished, which had been observed all over the civilized world, were celestial in origin seems to have been the prevalent opinion,[1659] when Mahudel in 1723 and even when Buffon in 1778 ventured to assign to them a human origin.[1660]

In the gravels which were deposited by the melting of this more or less extended ice-sheet, parts of the human frame and the work of human hands have been found, and mark the anterior limit of man’s residence on the globe, so far as we can confidently trace it.[1661] Few geologists have any doubt about the existence of human relics in these American glacial drifts, however widely they may differ about the age of them.[1662]