Chapter XLIII: Appendix: I (16)

[1481] Sometimes the gravels in which such implements were originally deposited have disappeared through denudation or other natural causes, leaving the implements on the surface. But the outside of such specimens always shows traces of decomposition, indicating their high antiquity. Other examples of implements of like shape, found on the surface in places where there has been no glacial drift, may be palæolithic, but their form is no sufficient proof of this, since they may equally well have been the work of the Indians, who are known to have fashioned similar objects.

[1482] _The Great Ice Age and its relation to the antiquity of Man_, by James Geikie, p. 416.

[1483] _An Inventory of our Glacial Drift_, by T. C. Chamberlin in the _Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxxv. p. 196. A general map of this great moraine and others representing portions of it on a large scale will be found in his “Preliminary Paper on the terminal moraine of the second glacial period,” in the _Third Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey_, by J. W. Powell (Washington, 1883).

[1484] Chamberlin, _Proc. Amer. Assoc._, _ubi sup._, p. 199.

[1485] _The place of Niagara Falls in geological history_, by G. K. Gilbert, of the U. S. Govt. Surv., in the _Proc. Amer. Assoc._, _Ibid._ p. 223; _Geology of Minnesota_ [final report], by N. H. Winchell and Warren Upham, vol. i. p. 337 (St. Paul, 1888).

[1486] _The American Naturalist_, vol. vii. p. 204.

[1487] _Ibid._ vol. x. p. 329.

[1488] _Tenth Annual Report of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology_, vol. ii. p. 30.

[1489] Second report on the palæolithic implements from the glacial drift, in the valley of the Delaware River, near Trenton, New Jersey, _Ibid._ p. 225.

[1490] A complete account of Dr. Abbott’s investigations will be found in his _Primitive Industry_, chap. 32 (Palæolithic Implements); _Tenth ann. rep. of Peabody Museum_, vol. ii. p. 30; _Eleventh Do._, _Ibid._ p. 225; _Proceedings of Boston Society of Natural History_, vol. xxi. p. 124; vol. xxiii. p. 424; _Proc. of Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1491] _Proceedings of Boston Society of Natural History_, vol. xxi. p. 148.

[1492] _Twelfth annual report of Peabody Museum_, vol. ii. p. 489.

[1493] _Proceedings of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, _Ibid._ p. 132.

[1494] _Popular Science Monthly_, January, 1889, p. 411.

[1495] _On the discovery of stone implements in the glacial drift of North America_, in the _Quart. Journ. of Science_ (London, January, 1878), vol. xv. p. 68.

[1496] _The Trenton gravel and its relation to the antiquity of man, in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia_, 1880, p. 296.

[1497] _Primitive Industry_, p. 533 _et seq._

[1498] The bibliography of Professor Wright’s publications upon this subject will be found in _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 427.

[1499] _Science_, vol. i. p. 271.

[1500] _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 435.

[1501] _Proc. Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1502] Early Man in the Delaware Valley, in the _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiv.

[1503] The Age of the Philadelphia Red Gravel, _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiv.

[1504] _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, p. 293. The preface of this volume is dated “New York, April 10, 1873.” In an article in the _North American Review_ for January, 1874 (vol. cxviii. p. 70), on “The Antiquity of the North American Indians,” he traces that race back to palæolithic times.

[1505] _Flint implements from the stratified drift of the vicinity of Richmond, Va._, in the _American Journal of Science_ (3d series), vol. xi. p. 195; quoted in Dana’s _Manual of Geology_, p. 578.

[1506] _Sixth annual report of the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota_, 1877, p. 54.

[1507] Her paper on “Ancient quartz-workers and their quarries in Minnesota,” read before the Minnesota Historical Society, February, 1880, was reprinted in _The American Antiquarian_, vol. iii. p. 18.

[1508] _Vestiges of Glacial Man in Central Minnesota_, in the _Proc. Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxii. p. 385. A more extended account of her researches will be found under the same title in the _American Naturalist_ for June and July, 1884 (vol. xviii. pp. 594 and 697). On p. 705 the writer has given at some length his opinion in regard to the artificial character of these quartz objects.

[1509] _Proc. of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 436.

[1510] In 1877, by Professor S. S. Haldeman on an island in the Susquehanna River, in Lancaster Co., Penn. (_Eleventh Rep. Peabody Mus._, vol. ii. p. 255). In 1878, by A. F. Berlin in the Schuylkill Valley, at Reading, Penn. (_American Antiquarian_, vol. i. p. 10). In 1879, by Dr. W. J. Hoffman in the valley of the Potomac, near Washington (_American Naturalist_, vol. xiii. p. 108). Subsequently by others in the same vicinity, reported by S. V. Proudfit in _The American Anthropologist_, vol. i. p. 337. By David Dodge at Wakefield, Mass., and by Mr. Frazer at Marshfield, Mass. (_Proc. of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxi. pp. 123 and 450). By the writer, in several localities in New England (_Ibid._ p. 382).

[1511] _Sixth annual report of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories_, by F. V. Hayden (1873), p. 652.

[1512] _Ibid._ (1874), p. 247.

[1513] _Ibid._ p. 254.

[1514] _Eleventh Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 257.

[1515] _Geological History of Lake Lahontan, a quaternary lake of northwestern Nevada_, by I. C. Russell, being _Monog._ No. xi. _U. S. Geol. Surv._ under J. W. Powell, p. 247 (Washington, 1885).

[1516] _Ibid._ p. 269.

[1517] _Pop. Science Monthly_, November, 1888, p. 27.

[1518] Article in the _Iconographic Encyclopædia_, on Prehistoric Archæology, by Daniel G. Brinton, vol. ii. p. 63 (Philadelphia, 1886).

[1519] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 297, where it is figured; and repeated in his _Prehistoric Man_, vol. i. p. 45.

[1520] See p. 385 of this volume.

[1521] _Memoirs of Mus. of Comp. Zoölogy at Harv. College_, vol. vi. pp. 258-288 (Cambridge, 1880).

[1522] _The Native Races of the Pacific States of North America_, by H. H. Bancroft, vol. iv. pp. 699-707.

[1523] _Transactions_ of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, vol. i. p. 232, pl. xxii, fig. 3.

[1524] _The aboriginal relics called “sinkers” or “plummets”_ in _Amer. Journal of Archæology_, vol. i. p. 105.

[1525] _The Epoch of the Mammoth and the Apparition of Man upon the Earth_, by James C. Southall, p. 399 (Philadelphia, 1878).

[1526] Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes of the United States_, vol. i. p. 101 (Philadelphia, 1851).

[1527] S. B. J. Skertchly in the _Journal Anthrop. Inst._, vol. xvii. p. 335 (Jan. 10, 1888).

[1528] _The American Naturalist_, vol. xxi. p. 459 (1887).

[1529] _Early Man in America_, in the _North American Review_, Oct., 1883, p. 340.

[1530] _The Auriferous Gravels_, etc., p. 273.

[1531] _Ibid._ p. 242.

[1532] _Sixth annual report of the U. S. Geol. Surv. of the Territories_, p. 29.

[1533] _Ibid._ p. 44.

[1534] _The Auriferous Gravels_, etc., p. 281.

[1535] _The Antiquity of Man in North America_, p. 679.

[1536] _Proc. of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii, p. 269.

[1537] _Reports of Peabody Museum_, vol. iii. pp. 177, 408; iv. p. 35.

[1538] _Early Man in Britain_, by W. Boyd Dawkins, p. 167.

[1539] Dr. H. Ten Kate in _Science_, vol. xii. p. 228 (November 9, 1888).

[1540] _Notes on the Crania of the N. E. Indians_, by Lucien Carr, p. 9 (_Anniversary Memoirs of Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._), 1880.

[1541] _The Standard Natural History_, ed. by J. S. Kingsley, vol. vi. p. 143.

[1542] _The Mammoth and the Flood_, by Henry H. Howorth, p. 316 (London, 1887).

[1543] _Fossil Men and their modern Representatives_, by J. W. Dawson, p. 106 _et seq._ (London, 1880).

[1544] _Le Maconnais Préhistorique, ... ouvrage posthume par H. De Ferry ... avec notes et cet. par A. Arcelin_, Mâcon, 1870.

[1545] _The Auriferous Gravels_, etc., p. 287.

[1546] _Primitive Industry; or Illustrations of the Handiwork in Stone, Bone, and Clay of the Native Races of the Northern Atlantic Seaboard of America_, by Charles C. Abbott (Salem and Boston, 1881), p. 3.

[1547] _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiii. p. 422.

[1548] _Proc. of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1549] _Primitive Industry_, p. 253.

[1550] _Ibid._ p. 262.

[1551] _Primitive Industry_, p. 276 _et seq._

[1552] _Ibid._ p. 515, _note_.

[1553] _Proc. of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1554] Peter Kalm, _Travels into North America, translated by J. R. Forster_ (London, 1770-71), v. ii. p. 17.

[1555] _Primitive Industry_, p. 462.

[1556] _Proc. of Amer. Assoc. for Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxvii.

[1557] _Rep. of Peabody Museum_, vol. iv. p. 43.

[1558] Vol. ix. p. 363.

[1559] See Vol. II. pp. 144 and 187.

[1560] _Companions of Columbus_, p. 28.

[1561] _Flint Chips, a Guide to Prehistoric Archæology_, by Edw. T. Stevens, p. 123.

[1562] _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, by C. C. Jones, p. 320.

[1563] _Rep. of Peabody Museum_, vol. iv. p. 45.

[1564] “Early Man in the Delaware Valley,” in the _Proc. Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xxiv.

[1565] _Early Man in Britain_, p. 173.

[1566] Waitz, _Introd. to Anthropology_, Eng. trans., p. 255, points out the dangers of over-confidence in this research. Cf. also J. H. McCulloh’s _Researches_ (1829).

The best indications of the sources as respects the origin of the Americans can be found in Haven’s _Archæology of the United States_ (_Smithsonian Contributions_, vii., 1856); Bancroft’s foot-notes to his _Nat. Races_, v. ch. 1; Short, ch. 3, on the diversity of opinions; Poole’s _Index_, p. 637, and _Supplement_, p. 274. Cf. Drake’s _Book of the Indians_, ch. 2.

Without anticipating the characterization and mention of the essential books later to be indicated, some miscellaneous references may be added without much attempt at classifying them.

Among English writers: Hyde Clarke’s _Researches on prehistoric and protohistoric comparative philology, mythology, and archæology in connection with the origin of culture in America_ (London, 1875). Robert Knox’s _Races of Men_ (London, 1862); J. Kennedy in his _Probable origin of the American Indians_ (London, 1854), and in his _Essays, ethnological and linguistic_ (London, 1861); J. C. Beltrami’s _Pilgrimage in Europe and America_ (London, 1828); C. H. Smith in _Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal_, xxxviii. 1.

Some French authorities: Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, ii. 93, and his _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 10, and to the English translation W. H. Dall adds a chapter on this subject; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s introduction to his _Popul Vuh_ (section 4); Dabry de Thiersant’s _De l’origine des indiens du nouveau monde et de leur civilisation_ (Paris, 1883); M. A. Baguet’s “Les races primitives des deux Amériques” in _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. d’Anvers_, viii. 440; Domenech in _Revue Contemporaine_, 1st ser., xxxiii. 283; xxxiv. 5, 284; 2d ser., iv.; Baron de Bretton’s _Origines des peuples de l’Amérique_, in the Nancy _Compte-rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, i. 439.

Among German writers perhaps the most weighty are Theodor Waitz in his _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ (1862-66), and Carl Vogt’s _Vorlesungen über den Menschen_, translated as _Lectures on Man_ (1864).

American writers: Drake’s _Book of the Indians_, ch. 1, 2; Doddridge’s _Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of Virginia and Penna._, ch. 3; Geo. Catlin’s _Life amongst the Indians_ (1861), and his _Last Rambles_ (1867), with extracts in _Smithsonian Ann. Rept._, 1885, iii. 749; Isaac McCoy’s _Hist. of Baptist Indian Missions_ (Washington, 1840); Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, ch. 4, 11; B. H. Coate’s _Annual Discourse before the Penna. Hist. Soc._ (Philad., 1834), reviewing the various theories; also in their _Memoirs_, iii. part 2; John Y. Smith in _Wisconsin Hist. Soc. Ann. Rep._, iv. 117; Dennie’s _Portfolio_, xiii. 231, 519; xiv. 7; A. R. Grote in _Amer. Naturalist_, xi. 221 (April, 1877); C. C. Abbott in _Ibid._ x. 65.

Some Canadian writers: J. Campbell in _Quebec Lit. and Hist. Soc. Transactions_ (1880-81); Napoléon Legendre’s “Races indigénes de l’Amérique devant l’histoire” in _Proc. Royal Soc. of Canada_, ii. 25.

[1567] The book is a rare one. Field, No. 586. Sabin, vii. p. 157. Quaritch in 1885 had not known of a copy being for sale in twenty years. He then had two (Nos. 28,355-56). There is one in Harvard College Library. Garcia drew somewhat from a manuscript of Juan de Vetanzos, a companion of Pizarro, and he gives the native accounts of their origin. There was a second edition, with Barcia’s Annotations, Madrid, 1729 (Carter-Brown, iii. 432).

[1568] _New English Canaan_ (Amsterdam, 1637—C. F. Adams’ ed., 1883, pp. 125, 129).

[1569] There is an English translation in the _Bibliotheca Curiosa_. [Edited by Edmund Goldsmidt.] (Edinburgh, 1883-85.) No. 12. _On the origin of the native races of America. To which is added, A treatise on foreign languages and unknown islands, by Peter Albinus. Translated from the Latin._ The translation is unfortunate in its blunders. Cf. H. W. Haynes in _The Nation_, Mar. 15, 1888. Grotius was b. 1583; d. 1645.

[1570] Carter-Brown, ii. 522, 523, 543.

[1571] This book is scarcer than the first (Brinley, iii. 5414-15). There is a letter addressed to De Laet, touching Grotius, in Claudius Morisotus’s _Epistolarum Centuriæ duæ_, 1656.

[1572] Brinley, iii. 5407-8. In Samuel Sewall’s _Letter Book_, i. 289, is an amusing reference to the “vanities of Hornius.”

[1573] Jo. Bapt. Poisson, _Animadversiones ad ea quæ Hugo Grotius et Joh. Lahetius de origine gentium Peruvianarum et Mexicanarum scripserunt_ (Paris, 1644); Rob. Comtæus Nortmanus, _De origine gentium Americanarum_ (Amsterdam, 1664), an academic dissertation adopting the Phœnician view; A. Mil, _De origine animalium et migratione populorum_ (Geneva, 1667); Erasmus Franciscus, _Lust- und Staatsgarten_ (Nürnberg, 1668), with a third part on the aboriginal inhabitants (Müller, 1877, no. 1150); Gottfried [Godofredus] Wagner, _De Originibus Americanis_ (Leipzig, 1669); J. D. Victor, _Disputatio historia de America_ (Jena, 1670); E. P. Ljung, _Dissertatio de origine gentium novi orbis prima_ (Stregnäs [Sweden] 1676). An essay of 1695 reprinted in the _Memoirs, Anthrop. Soc. of London_, i. 365; Nic Witsen, _Noord-en-Oost Tartarye_ (2d ed., Amsterdam, 1705), holding to the migration from northeastern Asia.

[1574] Cf. Alex. Catcott’s _Treatise on the Deluge_ (2d ed., enlarged, London, 1768), and A. de Ulloa’s _Noticias Americanas_ (Madrid, 1772, 1792), for speculations.

[1575] Cf. Sabin, xiv. 59,239, etc., for editions. The original three vols. appeared in Berlin in 1768, 1769, and 1770, respectively. The best edition, with De Pauw’s subsequent defence and Pernetty’s attack, was issued at London in three vols. in 1770:—

_Recherches philosophiques sur les Américains, ou Mémoires interessants pour servir à l’histoire de l’espèce humaine_.

_Contents_: Du climat de l’Amérique.—De la complexion altérée de ses habitants.—De la découverte du Nouveau-Monde.—De la variété de l’espèce humaine en Amérique.—De la couleur des Américains.—Des anthropophages.—Des Eskimaux; des Patagons.—Des Blafards et des Négres blancs.—De l’Orang-Outang.—Des hermaphrodites de la Floride.—De la circoncision et de l’infibulation.—Du génie abruti des Américains.—De quelques usages bizarres, communs aux deux continents.—De l’usage des flèches empoisonnées chez les peuples des deux continents.—De la religion des Américains.—Sur le grand Lama.—Sur les vicissitudes de notre globe.—Sur le Paraguai.—Défenses des recherches sur les Américains.—D. Pernetty. Dissertation sur l’Amérique et les Américains contre les recherches philosophiques de M. de Pauw.

There was an edition in French at Berlin in 1770, in 2 vols., and, with Pernetty annexed, in 1774, in 3 vols. The _Defenses_ was printed also at Berlin in 1770. These were all included in De Pauw’s _Œuvres Philosophiques_, published at Paris “_an iii_.” An English translation by J. Thomson was printed at London, 1795. Daniel Webb published some selections in English at Bath, 1789, 1795, and at Rochdale, 1806. Pernetty’s _Examen_ was printed at Berlin in 1769. There is another little tractate of this time attributed to Pernetty, _De l’Amérique et des Américains_ (Berlin, 1771), in whose humor De Pauw fares no better; but Rich has a note on the questionable attributing of it to Pernetty, and its real author was probably C. de Bonneville (cf. Hœfer).

[1576] _Delle Lettere Americane_ (_opere_, xi.-xiv., Milano, 1784-94); better known in J. B. L. Villebrune’s French translation, _Lettres Américaines_ (2 vols.; Paris and Boston, 1787); Sabin, no. 10,912. There is also a German version.

[1577] _The United States elevated to Glory and Honor._ New Haven, 1783. It is included in J. W. Thornton’s _Pulpit of the Amer. Revolution_ (Boston, 1860).

[1578] This Canaanite view, though hardly held with the scope given by Dr. Stiles, had been asserted earlier by Gomara, De Lery, and Lescarbot. Cf. _For. Quart. Rev._, Oct., 1856.

[1579] G. H. Loskiel, _Mission of the United Brethren among the Indians, trans. from the German by La Trobe_ (London, 1794). Johann Gottlieb Fritsch, _Disputatio historico-geographica in qua quæritur utrum veteres Americam noverint nec ne_ (Curæ Regnilianæ, 1796).

[1580] _Observations on some Parts of Nat. Hist._, Lond., 1787.

[1581] Pilling, _Bibliog. Siouan languages_ (1887, p. 4).

[1582] _Hist. North Carolina_, 1811-12.

[1583] Haven, _Archæol. U. States_, 35. Cf. Mitchell’s papers in the _Archæeologia Americana_, i.

[1584] There is a fair sample of the conjectural habit of the time in the paper of Moses Fiske, in the first volume of the Society’s _Transactions_, 300.

[1585] _Mexico_, Kirk’s ed., iii. 375.

[1586] _Archæol._ _U. S._, 48.

[1587] _Hist. of Tennessee_, Nashville, 1823.

[1588] Introd. to Marshall’s _Kentucky_, 1824; _The Anc. Mts. of N. & S. America_, 2d ed., 1838, etc.

[1589] _Amer. Antiq. and Discoveries in the West_, 1833, which Rafinesque thought largely taken from him. Cf. Haven on these writers, pp. 38-41; Sabin, xv. 65, 484.

[1590] Pilling, _Bibliog. Siouan languages_, pp. 47, 48.

[1591] Peschel, _Races of Men_ (London, 1876), p. 32.

[1592] Eng. transl. in _Memoirs, Anthropological Society of London_, i. 372.

[1593] There is a summary of the progressive conflict on the question of the unity and plurality of races in the introduction to Topinard’s _Anthropology_. Cf. Peschel’s _Races of Man_ (Eng. transl., N. Y., 1876), p. 6.

[1594] The idea in general was not wholly new. Capt. Bernard Romans, in his _Concise Nat. Hist. of East and West Florida_ (N. Y., 1776), had expressed the opinion “that God created an original man and woman in this part of the globe of different species from any in the other parts” (p. 38). Clavigero, in 1780, believed that the distinct linguistic traits of the Americans pointed to something like an independent origin. Cf. W. D. Whitney on the “Bearing of Languages on the Unity of Man,” in _North Amer. Review_, cv. 214.

[1595] Cf. Jeffries Wyman in _No. Am. Rev._, li.

[1596] Cardinal Wiseman’s _Lectures_, 5th ed., London, p. 158.

[1597] Described in _Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc._, ii. The collection went to the Acad. of Natural Sciences in Philad., and is examined by Dr. J. Austin Meigs in its _Proc._, 1860. Cf. Meigs’s _Catalogue of human crania in the Acad. Nat. Sci._ (Philad., 1857).

[1598] Morton’s latest results are given in a paper, “The physical type of the American Indian,” left unfinished, but completed by John S. Phillips, and printed in Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes_, ii. He also printed _An Inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of the Aboriginal Race of America_ (Boston, 1842; Philad., 1844); and _Some Observations in the Ethnography and Archæology of the American Aborigines_ (N. Haven, 1846,—from the _Amer. Jour. of Science_, 2d ser., ii.). Cf. _Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc._ ii. 219. Cf. Allibone’s _Dictionary_, ii. 1376. It is certainly evident that skull capacity is no sure measure of intelligence, and the Indian custom of misshaping the head offers some serious obstacles in the study. Cf. Nadaillac, _L’Amér. préhist._, 512; L. A. Gosse, _Les déformations artificielles du crane_ (Paris, 1855); Daniel Wilson’s “Indications of Ancient Customs suggested by certain cranial forms,” in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._ (1863); Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde_, p. 12; W. F. Whitney, on “Anomalies, injuries and diseases of the bones of the native races of No. America,” in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, xviii. 434. On the difficulties of the study see Lucien Carr in _Ibid._ xi. 361; Flower in the _Journal Anthropological Institute_, May, 1885; Dawson, _Fossil Men_, chap. 7. Further see: Anders Retzius, on “The Present State of Ethnology in relation to the form of the human skull,” in _Smithson. Rept._, 1859; Waitz’s _Introd. to Anthropology_, Eng. transl., pp. 233, 261; Carl Vogt’s _Lectures on Man_ (lect. 2); A. Quatrefages and E. T. Hamy, _Crania Ethica_ (Paris, 1873-77); Nott and Gliddon, _Types of Mankind_; Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhist._, ch. 9, and _Les premiers hommes_, i. ch. 3.

[1599] An anonymous book, _The Genesis of Earth and Man_ (Edinburgh, 1856), places the negro as the primal stock, and traces out the higher races by variation.

[1600] Dr. Nott had given some indication of his views in “An Examination of the physical history of the Jews in its bearing on the question of the Unity of the Races” (_Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, iii. 1850).

[1601] Cf. References in Allibone, i. 678; _Poole’s Index_, p. 796.

[1602] The editor’s collaborateurs were Alfred Maury, Francis Palszky, J. Aitken Meigs, J. Leidy, and Louis Agassiz. Nott had in the interval since his previous book furnished an appendix on the unity or plurality of Races to the English transl. of Gobineau’s _Moral Diversity of Races_ (Philad., 1856).

[1603] Haven gives a summary of the arguments of each (p. 90, etc.). For various views on this side see Southall’s _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. ii. 36, 37, and his _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 2, where he allows that the proofs from traditions and customs are not conclusive; George Palmer’s _Migration from Shinar; or, the Earliest Links between the Old and New Continents_ (London, 1879); Edward Fontaine’s _How the World was Peopled_ (N. Y., 1876); Dr. Samuel Forrey in _Amer. Biblical Repository_, July, 1843; McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, under “Adam”; Henry Cowles’ _Pentateuch_ (N. Y., 1874),—not to name many others. See _Poole’s Index_, 1073.

[1604] Wilson’s first criticism was in the _Canadian Journal_ (1857); then in the _Edinburgh Philosophical Journal_ (Jan., 1858); in the _Smithsonian Rept._ (1862), p. 240, on the “American Cranial Type;” and in his _Prehist. Man_ (ii. ch. 20). Latham’s _Nat. Hist. of the Varieties of Man_. Charles Pickering’s _Races of Men_ (1848). The orthodox monogenism of A. de Quatrefages is expressed in his _De l’unité de l’espèce humaine_ (Paris, 1864, 1869); in his _Hist. générale des Races humaines_ (Paris, 1887); in his _Human Species_ (N. Y., 1879), and in papers in _Revue des Cours Scientifiques_, 1864-5, 1867-8; in his _Nat. Hist. of Man_ (Eng. transl., N. Y., 1875); in _Catholic World_, vii. 67; and in _Popular Science Monthly_, i. 61.

Cf. further, Retzius in _Archives des Sciences Naturelles_ (Genève, 1845-52); Col. Chas. Hamilton Smith’s _Nat. Hist. Human Species_ (1848); Dawson in _Leisure Hour_, xxiii. 813, and in his _Fossil Men_, p. 334, who holds the biblical account to be “the most complete and scientific;” Figuier’s _World before the Deluge_ (N. Y., 1872), p. 469. Geo. Bancroft sees no signs to reverse the old judgment respecting a single human race.

[1605] He found all three varieties of skulls in America: the long-headed (dolichocephalic), the short-headed (brachycephalic), and the medium (mesocephalic). He found the long heads to predominate, except in Peru. Meigs had earlier studied the subject in his _Observations on the Form of the Occiput_ (Philad., 1860). Cf. Busk in _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._, April, 1873; Wyman, in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, 1871.

[1606] H. H. Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, v. 129, 131, gives references on the autochthonous theory. It is held by Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, ii. 117; Fred. von Hellwald in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1866; Bollaert’s “Contribution to an Introduction to the Anthropology of the New World” in _Memoirs, Anthrop. Society of London_, ii. 92; F. Müller, _Allgemeine Ethnographie_; and Simonin, _L’homme Américain_ (Paris, 1870). F. W. Putnam (_Report_ in _Wheeler’s Survey_, vii. p. 18) says: “The primitive race of America was as likely autochthonous and of Pliocene age as of Asiatic origin.” The autochthonous view is probably losing ground. Dall, in ch. 10, appended to the English translation of Nadaillac’s _Prehistoric America_, sums up the prevailing arguments against it. Cf. also Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des Indiens du Nouveau Monde_, ch. 1.

[1607] Cf. also Prescott’s _Essays_, 224.

[1608] This view has necessarily been abandoned in his later editions. Cf. orig. ed., iii. 307; and final revision, ii. 130.

[1609] Haven at the end of his second chapter tries to place Schoolcraft, and he does better than one would expect, at that day. For Schoolcraft’s special notes on Antiquities see his vol. i. p. 44; ii. 83; iii. 73; iv. 113; v. 85, 657. For bibliography see Pilling, Sabin, Field, etc.

[1610] Again he says: “Man may be assumed to be prehistoric wherever his chroniclings of himself are undesigned, and his history is wholly recoverable by induction. The term has, strictly speaking, no chronological significance; but in its relative application corresponds to other archæological, in contradistinction to geological periods.” Of America he says: “A continent where man may be studied under circumstances which seem to furnish the best guarantee of his independent development.” Dawkins (_Cave hunting_, 136) says: “For that series of events which extends from the borders of history back to the remote age, where the geologist, descending the stream of time, meets the archæologist, I have adopted the term _prehistoric_.”

The divisions of prehistoric time now most commonly employed are: For the oldest, the Palæolithic age, as Lubbock first termed it, which, with a shadowy termination, has an unknown beginning, covering an interval geologically of vast extent. It is the primitive stone age, the epoch of flint-chippers; and but a single positive vestige of any community of living is known to archæologists: the village of Solutré, in Eastern France, being held by some to be associated with man in this earlier stage of his development. This stone period is sometimes divided in Europe into an earlier and later period, representing respectively the men of the river drift and of the caves. In the first period, called sometimes that of the race of Canstadt, and by Mortillet the Chellean period, we have, as is claimed, a savage hunter race, represented by the Neanderthal skull; and because in two jaw-bones discovered the genial tubercle is undeveloped, a school of archæologists contend that the race was speechless (Horatio Hale’s “Origin of Language,” in _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, xxxv., Cambridge, 1886; and separate, p. 31). This theory, however, seems to rest on a misconception. Cf. Topinard on the jaw-bone from the Naulette cave in the _Revue d’Anthropologie_, 3d ser. i., p. 422 (1886). It is held that the ethnical relations of this race are unknown, and it is not palpably connected with the race of the later period, the race of the caves, which archæologists, like Carl Vogt, Lartet, and Christy, call the cave-bear epoch, as its evidences are found in the cave deposits of Europe.

A front view of a Hochelagan skull, surrounded by the outline, on a larger scale, of the Cro-magnon skull.]

This cave race is represented by the Cro-magnon skull, and, as Dawkins holds, is perpetuated to-day by the Eskimo, and was very likely also represented in the Guanches of the Canary Islands. Quatrefages calls it the race of Cro-magnon; and the vanishing of it into the Neolithic people is obscure. It is claimed by some, but the evidence is questionable, that the development of the muscles of speech make this race the first to speak, and that thus man, as a speaking being, is probably not ten thousand years old.

The interval before the shaped and polished stone implements were used may have been long in some places, and the gradation may have been confused in others; and it is indeed sometimes said that the one and the other condition exist in savage regions at the present day, as many archæologists hold that they have always existed, side by side, though this proposition is also denied. Indeed, it is a question if the terms of the archæologist, signifying ages or epochs, have any time value, being rather characteristics of stages of development than of passing time. Those who find the ruder implements to stand for a people living with the cave-bear find, as they contend, a shorter-headed race producing these finer stone implements, and call it the Reindeer epoch. One of Lubbock’s terms, the Neolithic age, has gained larger acceptance as a designation for this period since 1865, when he introduced it. With these polished stones we first find signs of domestic animals and of the practice of agriculture. Any considerable collection of these stone implements and ornaments will present to the observer great varieties, but with steady types, of such implements as axes, celts, hammers, knives, drills, scrapers, mortars and pestles, pitted stones, plummets, sinkers, spear-points, arrow-heads, daggers, pipes, gorgets,—not to name others.

On the American stone age, see Nadaillac, _Les premiers hommes_, p. 37; L. P. Gratacap in _Amer. Antiquarian_, iv.; and W. J. McGee, in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, Nov., 1888, for condensed views; but the student will prefer the more enlarged views of Rau, Abbott and others.

[1611] Cambridge, Eng., 1862; revised, 1865; and largely rewritten, London, 1876. Cf. his “Pre-Aryan American Man,” in the _Roy. Soc. Canada Trans._, i., 2d sect., 35, and his “Unwritten History” in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1862).

[1612] London, 1865, 1870; N. Y., 1878.

[1613] Tylor speaks of Klemm’s _Allgemeine Culturgeschichte der Menschheit_ and his _Allgemeine Culturwissenschaft_ as containing “invaluable collections of facts bearing on the history of civilization.”

[1614] _Royal Inst. of Gt. Brit. Proc._, reprinted in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1867.

[1615] _Internat. Cong. Prehist. Archæol. Trans._, 1868.

[1616] London, 1871; 2d ed., 1874, somewhat amplified; Boston, 1874; N. Y., 1877.

[1617] See preface to _Primitive Culture_, 1st ed.

[1618] Vols. iii. and iv. of this treatise (Leipzig, 1862-64) are given to “Die Amerikaner,” and are provided with a list of books on the subject, and ethnological maps of North and South America. Brinton (_Myths_, p. 40) thinks it the best work yet written on the American Indians, though he thinks that Waitz errs on the religious aspects. Waitz has fully discussed the question of climate as affecting the development of people, and this is included with full references in that part of his great work which in the English translation is called an _Introduction to Anthropology_. Wallace and other observers contend that the direct efficacy of physical conditions is overrated, and that climate is but one of the many factors. F. H. Cushing discusses the question of habitation as affected by surroundings in the _Fourth Ann. Rept. Bur. of Ethnol._, p. 473.

[1619] Cf. Quatrefages’ _Les Progrès de l’Anthropologie_ (Paris, 1868), and Paul Topinard’s _Anthropology_ (English translation, London, 1878). Quatrefages (_Human Race_, New York, 1879) explains the anthropological method (p. 27).

[1620] Given in _Popular Science Monthly_, Dec., 1884, p. 152; and in the same periodical p. 264, is an account and portrait of Tylor.

[1621] London, N. Y., 1865; 2d ed. somewhat enlarged, Lond., 1869; and later. Part of this work had appeared earlier in the _National Hist. Review_, 1861-64, including a paper (ch. 8) on No. Amer. Archæology in Jan., 1863, which was reprinted in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1862, and was translated in the _Revue Archéologique_, 1865.

This book of Lubbock’s and Tylor’s correlative work probably represent the best dealing with the subject in English; and some such book as Jas. A. Farrer’s _Primitive Manners and Customs_ (N. Y., 1879) will lead up to them with readers less studious. The English reader may find some comparative treatments in the English version of Waitz’s _Introd. to Anthropology_ (p. 284), etc.; much that is suggestive and in some way supplemental to Tylor and Lubbock in Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_; some vigorous and perhaps sweeping characterizations in Lesley’s _Origin and Destiny of Man_ (ch. 6); and other aspects in Winchell’s _Preadamites_ (ch. 26), Foster’s _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._ (ch. 9), F. A. Allen in _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, 1877, vol. i. 79. Humboldt points out the non-pastoral character of the American tribes (_Views of Nature_, ii. 42). Helps’ _Realmah_ deals with the prehistoric condition of man.

[1622] London, N. Y., 1870; 2d ed.; 3d ed., 1875; 4th ed., 1882,—each with additions and revisions.

[1623] Cf. his _Studies in Anc. Hist._ He elucidates the early practice of capturing a wife, and controverts Morgan’s _Ancient Society_. Cf. W. F. Allen in _Penn. Monthly_, June, 1880.

[1624] Cf. also his “Early Condition of Man,” in _British Ass. Proc._, 1867; and Lyell’s _Principles of Geology_, 11th ed., ii. 485; Dawkins in _No. Amer. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 348.

[1625] Darwin took Lubbock’s side, _Descent of Man_, i. 174. Bradford, in his _American Antiquities_, held the barbarous American to be a degraded remnant of a society originally more cultivated; and a similar view was held by S. F. Jarvis in his _Discourse_ before the New York Hist. Soc. (Proc., iii., N. Y., 1821). Cf. Büchner’s _Man_, Eng. transl., 67, 276. Rawlinson (_Antiquity of man historically considered_) considers savagery a “corruption and degradation,—the result of adverse circumstances during a long period.”

[1626] N. Y., 1869; originally in _Good Words_, Mar.-June, 1868.

[1627] Dawson’s _Fossil Men and their modern representatives_ (London, 1880, 1883) is “an attempt to illustrate the characters and conditions of prehistoric men in Europe by those of the American races.” A conservative reliance on the biblical record, as long understood, characterizes Dawson’s usual speculations. Cf. his _Nature and the Bible_, his _Story of the Earth_, his _Origin of the World_, and his _Address_ as president of the geological section of the Amer. Association in 1876. He confronts his opponents’ views of the long periods necessary to effect geographical changes by telling them that in historic times “the Hyrcanian ocean has dried up and Atlantis has gone down.”

[1628] Dawson (_Fossil Men_, 218) says: “I think that American archæologists and geologists must refuse to accept the distinction of a palæolithic from a neolithic period until further evidence can be obtained.”

[1629] These are very nearly the views of Winchell in his _Preadamites_, p. 420.

[1630] Cf. his papers in _Methodist Quarterly_, xxxvi. 581; xxxvii. 29.

[1631] This is also considered important evidence by Dawson, as well as Winchell’s estimate, in his _5th Report, Minnesota Geol. Survey_ (1876), of the 8,000 or 9,000 years necessary for the falls of St. Anthony to have worked back from Fort Snelling. Edw. Fontaine’s _How the World was peopled_ (N. Y., 1872) is another expression of this recent-origin belief.

[1632] This cataclysmic element of force, as opposed to the gradual uniformity theory of Lyell, finds expounders in Huxley and Prestwich, and is the burden of H. H. Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_ (London, 1887) in its palæontological and archæological aspects, its geological aspects having been touched by him so far only in some papers in the _Geological Mag._ This great overthrow of the gigantic animals, during which the man intermediate between the palæolithic and neolithic age lived, was not universal, so that the less unwieldy species largely saved themselves; and it was in effect the scriptural flood, of which traditions were widely preserved among the North American tribes (_Mammoth and the Flood_, 307, 444).

[1633] Southall answered his detractors in the _Methodist Quarterly_, xxxvii. 225. Geo. Rawlinson (_Antiq. of Man historically considered, Present Day Tract, No. 9_, or _Journal of Christian Philosophy_, April, 1883) speaks of the antiquity of prehistoric man as involving considerations “to a large extent speculative” as to limits, “that are to be measured not so much by centuries as by millenia.” He condenses the arguments for a recent origin of man.

[1634] There is a cursory survey in John Scoffern’s _Stray leaves of science and folk lore_ (London, 1870).

[1635] Cf. his papers in _Leisure Hour_, xxiii. 740, 766; xxvi. 54.

[1636] Current periodical views can be traced in Poole’s _Index_ (vols. i. and ii.) under “Man,” “Races,” “Prehistoric,” etc.

The views of the cosmogonists, running back to the beginning of the sixteenth century, are followed down to the birth of modern geology in Pattison’s _The Earth and the Word_ (Lond., 1858), and condensed in M’Clintock & Strong’s _Cyclopædia_ (iii. 795).

[1637] _Verse 1._ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

_Verse 2._ And the earth was without form and void, etc.

[1638] Cf. also J. D. Whitney’s _Climatic Changes_. The present proportion of land to water is reckoned as four is to eleven. The ocean’s average depth is variously estimated at from eleven to thirteen times that of the average elevation of land above water, or as 11,000 or 13,000 feet is to 1,000 feet. The bulk of water on the globe is computed at thirty-six times the cubic measurement of the land above water (_Ibid._ 194, 209).

[1639] For an extended discussion of the Atlantis question, see _ante_, ch. 1.

[1640] It is enough to indicate the necessary correlation of this subject with the transformation theory of J. B. A. Lamarck as enunciated in his _Philosophie Zoologique_ (Paris, 1809; again, 1873), which Cuvier opposed; and with the new phase of it in what is called Darwinism, a theory of the survival of the fittest, leading ultimately to man. Lyell (_Principles of Geology_, 11th ed., ii, 495) presents the diverse sides of the question, which is one hardly germane to our present purpose.

[1641] London, 1863, 3 eds., each enlarged; Philad., 1863. In his final edition Lyell acknowledges his obligations to Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Man_ and John Evans’s _Anc. Stone Implements_. His final edition is called: _The geological evidences of the antiquity of man, with an outline of glacial and post-tertiary geology and remarks on the origin of species with special reference to man’s first appearance on the earth_. 4th ed., revised (London, 1873).

[1642] _Recent Origin of Man_, p. 10.

[1643] Another way of looking at it gives reasons for this omission: “The first chapter of Genesis is not a geological treatise. It is absolutely valueless in geological discussion, and has no value whatever save as representing what the Jews borrowed from the Babylonians, and as preserving for us an early cosmology” (Howorth’s _Mammoth and the Flood_, Lond., 1887, p. ix). Between Lyell and Gabriel de Mortillet (_La préhistorique Antiquité de l’Homme_, Paris, 1881) on the one hand and Southall on the other, there are the more cautious geologists, like Prestwich, who claim that we must wait before we can think of measuring by years the interval from the earliest men. (Cf. “Theoretical considerations on the drift containing implements,” in _Roy. Soc. Philos. Trans._, 1862)

[1644] Cf. _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr., 1873, p. 33.

[1645] Winchell’s book is an enlargement of an article contributed by him to M’Clintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia of Biblical literature_, etc. (vol viii., 1879),—the editors of which, by their foot-notes, showed themselves uneasy under some of his inferences and conclusions, which do not agree with their conservative views.

[1646] Lois Agassiz advanced (1863) this view of the first emergence of land in America, in the _Atlantic Monthly_, xi. 373; also in _Geol. Sketches_, p. 1,—marking the Laurentian hills along the Canadian borders of the United States as the primal continent. Cf. Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, ch. 9. Mortillet holds that so late as the early quaternary period Europe was connected with America by a region now represented by the Faröes, Iceland, and Greenland. Some general references on the antiquity of man in America follow:—Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_. Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, ch. 2. Nadaillac, _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 8. Foster, _Prehistoric Races of the U. S._, and _Chicago Acad. of Sciences, Proc._, i. (1869). Joly, _Man before Metals_, ch. 7. Emil Schmidt, _Die ältesten Spuren des Menschen in Nord Amerika_ (Hamburg, 1887). A. R. Wallace in _Nineteenth Century_ (Nov., 1887, or _Living Age_, clxxv. 472). _Pop. Science Monthly_, Mar., 1877. An epitome in _Science_, Apr. 3, 1885, of a paper by Dr. Kollmann in the _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_. F. Larkin, _Ancient Man in America_ (N. Y., 1880). The biblical record restrains Southall in all his estimates of the antiquity of man in America, as shown in his _Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 36, and _Epoch of the Mammoth_, ch. 25.

[1647] Hugh Falconer (_Palæontological Memoirs_, ii. 579) says: “The earliest date to which man has as yet been traced back in Europe is probably but as yesterday in comparison with the epoch at which he made his appearance in more favored regions.”

[1648] Cf. also Putnam’s _Report_ in Wheeler’s Survey, 1879, p. 11.

[1649] Cf. H. H. Bancroft, iv. 703: Short, 125, etc.

[1650] Dr. Brinton concludes that since the region is one of a rapid deposition of strata, the tracks may not be older than quaternary. The track here figured was 9½ inches long; some were 10 inches. The maximum stride was 18 inches. Cf. Dr. Earl Flint in _Amer. Antiquarian_ (vi. 112), Mar., 1884, and (vii. 156) May,1885; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, 1884, p. 356; 1885, p. 414; _Amer. Ant. Soc. Proc._, 1884, p. 92.

[1651] _Story of the Earth and Man._

[1652] _The Great Ice-Age, and its Relations to the Antiquity of Man_ (1874).

[1653] _Mammoth and the Flood._

[1654] “We cannot fix a date, in the historical sense, for events which happened outside history, and cannot measure the antiquity of man in terms of years.” Dawkins in _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 338. Tylor (_Early Hist. of Mankind_, 197) says “Geological evidence, though capable of showing the lapse of vast periods of time, has scarcely admitted of these periods being brought into definite chronological terms.” Prestwich (_On the geol. position and age of flint-implement-bearing beds_, London, 1864,—from the _Roy. Soc. Phil. Trans._) says: “However we extend our present chronology with respect to the first appearance of men, it is at present unsafe and premature to count by hundreds of thousands of years.” Southall (_Recent Origin of Man_, ch. 33) epitomizes the extreme views of the advocates of glaciation in the present temperate zone.

[1655] Cf. Louis Agassiz, _Geological Sketches_ (1865), p. 210; 2d series (1886), p. 77.

[1656] J. Adhémer, _Revolutions de la Mer_, who advocates this theory, connects with it the movement of the apsides, and thinks that it is the consequent great accumulation of ice at the north pole which by its weight displaces the centre of gravity; and as the action is transferred from one pole to the other, the periodic oscillation of that centre of gravity is thus caused. The theory no doubt borrows something of its force with some minds from the great law of mutability in nature. That it is a grand field for such theorizers as Lorenzo Burge, his _Preglacial Man and the Aryan Race_ shows; but authorities like Lyell and Sir John Herschel find no sufficient reason in it for the great ice-sheet which they contend for. Cf. H. Le Hon’s _Influence des lois cosmiques sur la climatologie et la géologie_ (Bruxelles, 1868). W. B. Galloway’s _Science and Geology in relation to the Universal Deluge_ (Lond., 1888) points out what he thinks the necessary effects of such changes of axis. J. D. Whitney (_Climatic changes of later geological times, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zoöl._, vii. 392, 394) disbelieves all these views, and contends that the most eminent astronomers and climatologists are opposed to them.

[1657] Of the manifold reasons which have been assigned for these great climatic changes (Lubbock, _Prehistoric Times_, 391, and Croll, _Discussions_, enumerates the principal reasons) there is at least some considerable credence given to the one of which James Croll has been the most prominent advocate, and which points to that reduction of the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit which in 22,000 years will be diminished from the present scale to one sixth of it, or to about half a million miles. This change in the eccentricity induces physical changes, which allow a greater or less volume of tropical water to flow north. In this way the once mild climate of Greenland is accounted for (Wallace’s _Island Life_). Croll first advanced his views in the Philosophical Mag., Aug., 1864; but he did not completely formulate his theory till in his _Climate and time in their geological relations, a theory of secular changes of the earth’s climate_ (N. Y., 1875). It gained the acquiescence of Lyell and others; but a principal objector appeared in the astronomer Simon Newcomb (_Amer. Jl. of Sci. and Arts_, April, 1876; Jan., 1884; _Philosoph. Mag._, Feb., 1884). Croll answered in _Remarks_ (London, 1884), but more fully in a further development of his views in his _Discussions on Climate and Cosmology_ (N. Y., 1886). Whitney’s _Climatic Changes_ argues on entirely different grounds.

[1658] _Principles of Geology_, ch. 10-13, where he gives a secondary place to the arguments of Croll.

[1659] Emile Cartailhac’s _L’Age de pierre dans les souvenirs et superstitions populaires_ (Paris, 1877).

[1660] Joly, _L’Homme avant les métaux_, or in the English transl., _Man before Metals_, ch. 2. Nadaillac (_Les Premiers Hommes_, i. 127) reproduces Mahudel’s cuts.

[1661] Foster, _Prehistoric Races_, 50, notes some obscure facts which might indicate that man lived back of the glacial times, in the Miocene tertiary period. These are the discoveries associated with the names of Desnoyers and the Abbé Bourgeois, and familiar enough to geologists. They have found little credence. Cf. Lubbock’s _Prehistoric Times_, 410, and his _Scientific Lectures_, 140; Büchner’s _Man_, p. 31; Nadaillac’s _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii, 425; and _L’Homme tertiaire_ (Paris, 1885); Peschel’s _Races of Men_, p. 34; Edward Clodd in _Modern Review_, July, 1880; Dawkins’ _Address_, Salford, 1877, p. 9; Joly, _Man before Metals_, 177. Quatrefages (_Human Species_, N. Y., 1879, p. 150) assents to their authenticity. Many of these look to the later tertiary (Pliocene) as the beginning of the human epoch; but Dawkins (_No. Am. Rev._, cxxxvii, 338; cf. his _Early Man in Britain_, p. 90), as well as Huxley, say that all real knowledge of man goes not back of the quaternary. Cf. further, Quatrefages, _Introd. à l’étude des races humaines_ (Paris, 1887), p. 91; and his _Nat. Hist. Man_ (N. Y., 1874), p. 44.

Winchell (McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia_, viii. 491-2, and in his _Preadamites_) concisely classes the evidences of tertiary man as “Preglacial remains erroneously supposed human,” and “Human remains erroneously supposed pre-glacial;” but he confines these conclusions to Europe only, allowing that the American non-Caucasian man might, perhaps, be carried back (p. 492) into the tertiary age.

Cf. on the tertiary (Pliocene) man, E. S. Morse in _Amer. Naturalist_, xviii. 1001,—an address at the Philad. meeting, Am. Asso. Adv. Science and his earlier paper in the _No. Amer. Rev._; C. C. Abbott in _Kansas City Rev._, iii. 413 (also see iv. 84, 326); _Cornhill Mag._, li. 254 (also in _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, xxvii. 103, and _Eclectic Mag._, civ. 601). Dr. Morton believed that the Eocene man, of the oldest tertiary group, would yet be discovered. Agassiz, in 1865 (_Geol. Sketches_, 200), thought the younger naturalists would live to see sufficient proofs of the tertiary man adduced. S. R. Pattison (_Age of Man geologically considered in Present Day Tract, no. 13_, or _Journal of Christ. Philos._ July, 1883) does not believe in the tertiary man, instancing, among other conclusions, that no trace of cereals is found in the tertiary strata, and that these strata show other conditions unfavorable to human life. His conclusions are that man has existed only about 8,000 years, and that it is impossible for geological science at present to confute or disprove it. In his view man appeared in the first stage of the quaternary period, was displaced by floods in the second, and for the third lived and worked on the present surface.

[1662] Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, 4th ed., ch. 18. Daniel Wilson, on “The supposed evidence of the existence of interglacial man,” in the _Canadian Journal_, Oct., 1877. Nadaillac’s _L’Amérique préhistorique_, ch. 1; _Les Premiers Hommes_, ii. ch. 10; and his _De la période glaciaire et de l’existence de l’homme durant cette période en Amérique_ (Paris, 1884), extracted from _Matériaux_, etc. G. F. Wright on “Man and the glacial period in America,” in _Mag. West. Hist._ (Feb., 1885), i. 293 (with maps), and his “Preglacial man in Ohio,” in the _Ohio Archæol. and Hist. Quart._ (Dec., 1887), i. 251. Miss Babbitt’s “Vestiges of glacial man in Minnesota,” in the _Amer. Naturalist_, June, July, 1884, and _Amer. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._ xxxii. 385.

[1663] Howorth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 323, considers them flood-gravels instead, in supporting his thesis.

[1664] _Pop. Science Monthly_, xxii. 315. _Smithsonian Rept._, 1874-75. Reports of progress, etc., in the _Peabody Museum Reports_, nos. x. and xi. (1878, 1879). Prof. N. S. Shaler accompanies the first of these with some comments, in which he says: “If these remains are really those of man, they prove the existence of interglacial man on this part of our shore.” He is understood latterly to have become convinced of their natural character. J. D. Whitney and Lucien Carr agree as to their artificial character (_Ibid._ xii. 489). Cf. Abbott on Flint Chips (refuse work) in the _Peab. Mus. Rept._, xii. 506; H. W. Haynes in _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, Jan., 1881; F. W. Putnam in _Peab. Mus. Rept._, no. xiv. p. 23; Henry Carvell Lewis on _The Trenton gravel and its relation to the antiquity of man_ (Philad., 1880); also in the _Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia_ (1877-1879, pp. 60-73; and 1880, p. 306). Abbott has also registered the discovery of a molar tooth (_Peabody Mus. Rept._, xvi. 177), and the under jaw of a man (_Ibid._ xviii. 408, and _Matériaux_, etc., xviii. 334.) On recent discoveries of human skulls in the Trenton gravels, see _Peab. Mus. Rept._ xxii. 35. The subject of the Trenton-gravels man, and of his existence in the like gravels in Ohio and Minnesota, was discussed at a meeting of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist., of which there is a report in their _Proceedings_, vol. xxiii. These papers have been published separately: _Palæolithic man in eastern and central North America_ (Cambridge, 1888). CONTENTS:—Putnam, F. W. Comparison of palæolithic implements.—Abbott, C. C. The antiquity of man in the valley of the Delaware.—Wright, G. F. The age of the Ohio gravel-beds.—Upham, Warren. The recession of the ice-sheet in Minnesota in its relation to the gravel deposits overlying the quartz implements found by Miss Babbitt at Little Falls, Minn.—Discussion and concluding remarks, by H. W. Haynes, E. S. Morse, F. W. Putnam. Cf. also _Amer. Antiquarian_, Jan., 1888, p. 46; Th. Belt’s _Discovery of stone implements in the glacial drift of No. America_ (Lond., 1878, and _Q. Jour. Sci._ xv. 63; Dawkins in _No. Am. Rev._, Oct., 1883, p. 347.)

[1665] Cf. also _Peabody Mus. Repts._, xix. 492; _Science_, vii. 41; _Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Proc._, xxi. 124; _Matériaux_, etc. xviii. 334; _Philad. Acad. Nat. Sciences, Proc._ (1880, p. 306). Abbott refers to the contributions of Henry C. Lewis of the second Geol. Survey of Penna. (_Proc. Philad. Acad. Nat. Sciences_, and “The antiquity and origin of the Trenton gravels,” in Abbott’s book), and of George H. Cook in the _Annual Reports_ of the New Jersey state geologist. Abbott has recently summarized his views on the “Evidences of the Antiquity of Man in Eastern North America,” in the _Am. Asso. Adv. Sci. Proc._, xxxvii., and separately (Salem, 1888).

[1666] Figuier, _Homme Primitif_, introd.

[1667] The references are very numerous; but it is enough to refer to the general geological treatises: Vogt’s _Lectures on Man_, nos. 9, 10; Nadaillac’s _Les Prem. Hommes_, ii. 7; Dawkins in _Intellectual Observer_, xii. 403; and Ed. Lartet, _Nouvelles recherches sur la coexistence de l’homme et des grands mammifères fossiles, réputés caractéristiques de la dernière période geologique_, in the _Annales des Sciences Naturelles_, 4^e série, xv. 256. Buffon first formulated the belief in extinct animals from some mastodon bones and teeth sent to him from the Big Bone Lick in Kentucky, about 1740, and Cuvier first applied the name mastodon, though from the animal’s resemblance to the Siberian mammoth it has sometimes been called by the latter name. There are in reality the fossil remains of both mastodon and mammoth found in America. On the bones from the Big Bone Lick see Thomson’s _Bibliog. Ohio_, no. 44.