Chapter IV (1)

THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS AS VIEWED FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF SCIENCE.

Origin Theories — Indigenous Origin — Separate Creation Theory —
Dr. Morton’s Theory — Agassiz’s Views — Dr. Morton’s Cranial
Measurements Classified — Prof. Wilson’s Measurements —
Dr. Morton’s Theory of Ethnic Unity Groundless — Ethnic
Relationships — Typical Mound-skull — Crania from the River
Rouge — Dr. Farquharson’s Measurements — Crania from Kentucky
— Researches in Tennessee by Prof. Jones — Measurements —
Prof. Putnam’s Collection of Crania from Tennessee Mounds —
Low Type Crania from the Mounds — Development Observable in
Mound Crania — Head-Flattening Derived from Asia — Diseases
of the Mound-builders — Physiognomy of the Ancient Americans
— Languages — Evolution and its Bearing on the Origin of the
American — Darwin and Hæckel on the Indigenous American — The
Autochthonic Hypothesis Groundless — Unity of the Human Family
— Accepted Chronology Faulty.

The want of evidence for the theories which designate particular nations as the first colonizers of the Western Continent, long ago produced a feeling of distrust, which led some to repudiate all claims for the foreign origin of the first inhabitants of this continent. This theory, which claims for the most ancient inhabitants an autochthonic origin, has had from time to time among its advocates some of the most respectable ethnologists. The character of their attainments, and in many cases their arguments in behalf of this most remarkable hypothesis, command the respect of all who are interested in this fascinating field of speculation.

At first it was maintained that the Creator had placed an original pair of human beings here, as Scripture teaches that He did in the old world.[219] Other writers equally confident that the first ancestors of the American race were indigenous, have not so definitely expressed themselves as to the manner of their origin.[220] The most recent phase of the autochthonic theory is that which designates evolution as the means by which the continent was populated with human beings, developed from its own fauna. This latter question is now the most absorbing of all that occupy the attention of the American Anthropologists. But to go back to the separate creation view, we find it expressed in general and unscientific utterances at first, mostly based on the hasty observation of travellers who, in many cases, had little knowledge of anthropologic or ethnic principles. In fact, the subject was not fairly discussed and its advocacy based on satisfactory investigation until the justly celebrated Dr. Samuel G. Morton, of Philadelphia, issued his _Crania Americana_, containing the results of the most diligent researches on the skulls of the Mound-builders, Mexicans, Peruvians, and many of the known tribes of the Red Indians. In the face of abundant proof among the crania of his own splendid collection, and contrary to the testimony of his numerous measurements, which have often since been used against his theory, this diligent investigator arrived at the conclusion that the Americans were a distinct race, originated in this continent, having a uniform cranial type (excepting only the Eskimo), from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia.

A division, however, of this supposed homogeneous race was made by this author into Toltecan and Barbarous nations; the former appellative comprising all the semi-civilized peoples, while the latter embraced the wild tribes. All were believed to have had the same origin and to belong to the same cranial type. “It is curious to observe, however,” remarks Dr. Morton, “that the Barbarous nations possess a larger brain by five and a half cubic inches than the Toltecans; while, on the other hand, the Toltecans possess a greater relative capacity of the anterior chamber of the skull in the proportion of 42.3 to 41.8. Again the coronal region, though absolutely greater in the Barbarous tribes, is rather larger in proportion in the semi-civilized tribes; and the facial-angle is much the same in both, and may be assumed for the race at 75°.”[221] In conclusion, the author is of the opinion that the facts contained in his work tend to sustain the following propositions: (1) “That the American race differs essentially from all others, not excepting the Mongolian; nor do the feeble analogies of language, and the more obvious ones in civil and religious institutions and the arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with the Asiatic nations; and even these analogies may perhaps be accounted for, as Humboldt suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from similar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar latitudes.” (2) “That the American nations, excepting the Polar tribes, are one race and one species, but of two great families which resemble each other in physical, but differ in intellectual character.” (3) “That the cranial remains discovered in the mounds, from Peru to Wisconsin, belong to the same race and probably to the Toltecan family.”[222] Among the several ethnologists and naturalists who accepted without question the conclusions reached by Morton, the chief was Agassiz, who adopted them as auxiliary to his theory of the correspondence of human life with certain associations in the animal kingdom.[223] They served as a sure foundation, so far as this continent is concerned, for his opinion that the races originated in nations. “We maintain,” says the eminent naturalist, “that, like all organized beings, mankind cannot have originated in single individuals, but must have been created in that numerical harmony which is characteristic of each species. Men must have originated in _nations_, as the bees have originated in swarms, and as the different social plants have covered the extensive tracts over which they have naturally spread.”[224] This view has been enlarged upon by Messrs. Nott and Gliddon, who argue that, “if it be conceded that there were two primitive pairs of human beings, no reason can be assigned why there may not have been hundreds.”[225] The uniqueness of the so-called American race not only fails of proof, but is positively disproven by the measurements of crania accompanying Morton’s plates, and any thoughtful person cannot avoid surprise that so distinguished a scholar as Agassiz should have committed himself to a theory without first submitting it to a crucial test. That there is a great variety of type observable among the crania figured by Morton, even a superficial examination will show, while a more careful classification presents several facts of interest. For this classification we consider the simple division of the crania into long and short skulls sufficient. The question of other divisions has been often discussed, but with Mr. Huxley we content ourselves with the simplest classification. Referring to a particular instance, he says, “taking the antero-posterior diameter as 100, the transverse diameter varies from 98 or 99 to 62. The number which thus expresses the proportion of the transverse to the longitudinal diameter of the brain-case is called the _cephalic index_. Those people who possess crania with a cephalic index of 80 and above are called _brachycephali_ (short-skulled), those with a lower index are _dolichocephali_ (long-skulled).”[226] Dr. Meigs, while accepting the classification into long and short skulls, admits that it is open to the objection that it forces into either and opposite classes crania closely related to each other in type and measurement.[227] Yet it must be admitted, that in proportion as arbitrary divisions are increased, these difficulties are multiplied, and that this simple, twofold classification presents the fewest.[228] In the following tables, which contain all the measurements accompanying the plates in the _Crania Americana_, the _cephalic index_ is placed in the left-hand column. That a wide difference of type is apparent between the extremes of the dolichocephalic and brachycephalic measurements, certainly cannot be denied.

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| (_A_) DOLICHOCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION |
| LESS THAN 80 TO 100. |
| |
| KEY: |
| A. _Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the |
| Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100)._ |
| B. _No. of Plate in Morton’s Work._ |
| C. _Longitudinal Diameter._ |
| D. _Parietal Diameter._ |
| E. _Vertical Diameter._ |
| F. _Frontal Diameter._ |
| G. _Extreme Length of Head and Face._ |
| H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._ |
| I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._ |
| J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._ |
| K. _Horizontal Periphery._ |
| L. _Interior Capacity._* |
| M. _Cap. of Anterior Chamber._* |
| N. _Cap. of Posterior Chamber._* |
| O. _Cap. of Coronal Region._ |
| P. _Facial Angle._ |
| |
|*In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. |D. |E. |F. |G. | H. |I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| 66. | II |6.9 |4.6|4.3|3.7|7.5|... |...| ...| ...|64. |17. |
| 72.6| IV |7.3 |5.3|5.3|4.3|8.2|14. |4.3|15. |19.8|81.5|31.5|
| 67. | V |6.7 |4.5|4.1|4.1|8.8|11.5|3.6|14.2|18. |65.5|19.7|
| 75.2| XVIII |6.9 |5.2|5.4|4.2|...|14.5|4.1|14. |19.2|78. |30. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 78.9| XXIII |7.1 |5.6|5.5|4.7|...|15. |4.1|14.8|20.3|89. |52.?|
| 73.6| XXV |7.2 |5.3|5.3|4.3|...|14.1|4.5|14.7|19.1|82. |35. |
| 79.4| XXVII |6.8 |5.4|5.5|4.3|...|15. |4.4|14.3|20.1|81.5|... |
| 78. | XXVIII|7.3 |5.8|5.5|4.8|...|15.1|4.6|14.2|20.9|94. |43. |
| 75.3| XXX |7.3 |5.5|5.5|4.3|...|14.6|4.6|14.9|21. |90. |33.5|
| 73. | XXXIV |7.8 |5.7|5.3|4.4|...|16.8|4. |15.8|22.1|98. |35.5|
| 72.4| XXXIII|6.9 |5. |5.3|4.2|...|14.3|3.9|14.4|19.8|71. |26. |
| 78.5| XXXII |7. |5.5|5.1|4.6|...|14.4|4.2|14.5|20. |78.5|33. |
| 65.4| XXXV |7.8 |5.1|5.4|4.2|...|14.2|4.5|15.5|20.8|93.5|35. |
| 72. | XXXVI |7.5 |5.6|5.8|4.1|...|14.4|4.3|14.9|20.8|92.5|36. |
| 73.6| XXXVII|7.2 |5.8|5.5|4.3|...|15. |4.4|14.2|19.8|74. |32.5|
| 76. | XL |7.1 |5.4|5.1|4.3|...|13.8|4.3|14. |19.9|77. |38.?|
| 79.4| LI |7.3 |5.8|5.4|4.4|...|14.6|4.2|14.1|20.3|86.5|... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 74.6| LII |7.1 |5.3|5.5|4.8|...|14.6|4.2|14.6|20. |85.5|... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 79.7| LXI |7.1 |5.6|5.5|4.6|...|15.5|4.1|15. |20.2|87. |... |
| 75.7| LXIV |7. |5.3|5.1|4.8|...|14.6|4. |14. |20.2| |... |
| 79. | LXV |7.2 |5.7|5.1|4.5|...|... |...| ...| ...| ...|... |
| 78.2| LXVI |6.9 |5.4|5.4|4.1|...|15. |4.1|14.2|19.5|84.5|32.5|
| 74.7| ... |7.1 |5.3|5.2|4.3|...|14.4|4.2|14.5|19.9|82.6|32.8|
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+

+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
| A. | B. | N. | O. |P. | REMARKS. |
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
| 66. | II |47. |... |...|Peruvian Child from Atacama (ancient).|
| 72.6| IV |50. |16.2|73°|Ancient Peruvian Cemetery near Arica. |
| 67. | V |45.7|12.7|61°|Ancient Peruvian. |
| 75.2| XVIII |48. |14.2|76°|Female Skull from Acapacingo, Mexico. |
| | | | | | Supposed Ancient Tiahuica. |
| 78.9| XXIII |37.?|19.?|78°|Seminole Warrior from Florida. |
| 73.6| XXV |47. |12.2|77°|Cherokee Warrior. |
| 79.4| XXVII |... |... |75°|Uchee. |
| 78. | XXVIII|51. |14.7|84°|Chippeway (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 75.3| XXX |56.5|13.5|75°|Miami Chief (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 73. | XXXIV |62.5|19. |80°|Potowatamie (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 72.4| XXXIII|45. | |80°|Naumkeag from Massachusetts. |
| 78.5| XXXII |45.5|16.2|76°|Female Lenapé or Delaware. |
| 65.4| XXXV |58.5|11.5|78°|Cayuga Chief 150 years old (Iroquois).|
| 72. | XXXVI |56.5|18.4|74°|Oneida (Iroquois). |
| 73.6| XXXVII|41.5| 9.5|78°|Huron Chief. |
| 76. | XL |44.?|18.2|78°|Black Foot. |
| 79.4| LI |... |... |76°|Supposed Mound-builder, Circleville |
| | | | | | Mound. |
| 74.6| LII |... |... |79°|Supposed Mound-builder from a |
| | | | | | Mississippi River Mound. |
| 79.7| LXI |... |... |80°|From Ancient Tomb, Ottumba, Mexico. |
| 75.7| LXIV |... |... |70°|Charib of Venezuela. |
| 79. | LXV |... |... |...|Charib of St. Vincent. |
| 78.2| LXVI |52. |19. |76°|Arucanian Chief, Chili. |
| 74.7| ... |49.2|15.3|76°|Mean. |
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| (_B_) BRACHYCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION, 80 AND |
| UPWARDS TO 100. |
| |
| KEY: |
| A. _Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the |
| Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100)._ |
| B. _No. of Plate in Morton’s Work._ |
| C. _Longitudinal Diameter._ |
| D. _Parietal Diameter._ |
| E. _Vertical Diameter._ |
| F. _Frontal Diameter._ |
| G. _Extreme Length of Head and Face._ |
| H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._ |
| I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._ |
| J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._ |
| K. _Horizontal Periphery._ |
| L. _Interior Capacity._* |
| M. _Cap. of Anterior Chamber._* |
| N. _Cap. of Posterior Chamber._* |
| O. _Cap. of Coronal Region._ |
| P. _Facial Angle._ |
| |
|*In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. |D. |E. |F. |G. |H. |I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| 80. | III |6.5 |5.2|5.1|4.3|8.3|14.5|4. |13.8|18.5|72.5|26. |
| 83. | VI |6.5 |5.4|5.2|4.4|...|14.6|4. |14.4|19.5|67.5|28.5|
|100. | VII |5.4 |5.4|4.6|4. |...|... |...|... |... |61. |... |
| 98. |VIII & |6.8 |5.7|5.1|4.4|...|14.5|4.1|12.7|18.4|71.7|28.7|
| | IX | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 98.3| XI |6.1 |6. |5.5|4.7|...|16. |4.5|14.1|19.5|83. |33.5|
| 89.5| XI A |6.7 |6. |5.6|4.5|...|16.2|4.5|14.5|20.2|89. |34. |
| 92. | XI B |6.3 |5.8|5.3|4.5|...|15. |4. |13.2|19. |76.5|30. |
| 98.3| XI C |6. |5.9|5. |4.4|...|15.5|4. |13.2|19. |77. |28. |
| 81.6| XI D |6.5 |5.5|5.6|4.6|...|14.8|4.5|13.6|19.5|68.5|33. |
| 80. | XVI |7.1 |5.7|5.2|4.4|...|15.9|4. |14. |20.5|83. |39. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80. | XVII |6.8 |5.5|6. |4.6|...|15.6|4.4|14.6|19.9|89.5|33.5|
| 80. |XVII A |6.6 |5.3|5.2|4.3|...|14.6|4.1|13.6|19. |74. |28. |
| 89. | XVIII |6.4 |5.7|5.4|4.5|...|14.6|4.5|13.5|20.2|77. |30. |
| 80. | XIX |6.9 |6.6|5.9|4.2|...|15.5|4.3|14. |20. |85. |39.2|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80. | XXII |7.3 |5.9|5.8|4.6|...|15.9|4.4|15.3|20.7|93. |35.5|
| 84.3| XXIV |7. |5.9|5.8|4.5|...|14.7|4.6|14.2|20.5|91.5|44. |
| 81.4| XXVI |7. |5.7|5.3|4.6|...|15.3|4.5|14.4|20.8|94.7|42.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 82.3| XXIX |6.8 |5.6|5.5|4.2|...|14.7|4.1|14.1|19.9|86.5|36.5|
| 81.3| XXXI |7. |5.9|5.5|4.7|...|15.3|4.7|14.2|20.9|91.5|40. |
| 81.8|XXXVIII|6.6 |5.4|4.9|4.4|...|13.7|4.3|13. |19.1|70.5|31. |
| 85. | XXXIX |6.7 |5.7|5.4|4.2|...|14.7|4.4|13.5|19.8|85. |36. |
| 90. | XLI |6.5 |5.9|5.3|4.6|...|15.1|4.1|13.4|19.5|83. |37.5|
| 80.5| XLII |6.7 |5.4|5.3|4.4|...|14. |4.2|14. |19.4|74. |33. |
| 88. | XLIII |6.7 |5.9|4.6|4.7|8.3|14.2|4. |12.9|20. |69. |32.5|
| 96. | XLIV |6.2 |6. |5.3|4.6|...|14.4|4.2|13.4|19. |70. |30. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 91.3| XLV |6.9 |6.3|4.8|4.9|8.5|15.7|4. |14. |21. |92. |34. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 89.2| XLVI |6.7 |6. |4.5|5. |8.3|14.9|4.2|13. |19.8|78. |26. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 92.6| XLVII |6.8 |6.3|4.9|5.2|8.8|14.8|4.3|13. |20.4|87. |35.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 87.8|XLVIII |6.6 |5.8|5. |4.8|7.9|14.2|4.2|13. |19.5|79. |36.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 87. | XLIX |7. |6.1|4.1|4.9|8.8|13.9|4. |12.7|20.2|75. |28. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 99.9| LIII |6.6?|6. |5. |...|...|... |...|... |... |... |... |
|111.8| LIV |5.9 |6.6|5.1|4.4|...|15.6|4.4|12.4|19.6|80. |... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 84.5| LV |6.6 |5.6|5.6|4.1|...|15.2|4.4|14. |19.5|87.5|... |
| 87. | LVI |6.2 |5.4|4.9|4.3|...|14.6|3.8|13.3|18.5|74.5|30. |
| 81.1| LVII |6.9 |5.6|5.1|4.4|...|15.3|4.3|14. |19.7|79. |29.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 86.1| LVIII |6.5 |5.6|5. |4.5|...|14.7|3.8|13.2|19.2|76.5|34. |
| 84. | LIX |6.3 |5.3|5.4|4.4|...|14.3|4.2|13.5|19.2|74. |... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 89.3| LX |6.6 |5.3|5.4|4.4|...|14. |4. |14. |19.3|76. |... |
| 80.6| LXII |6.7 |5.4|5.5|4.3|...|14.5|4.1|14. |19.3|81. |35.2|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80.6|LXVIII |6.7 |5.4|4.9|4.7|...|14.2|4.9|13.4|19.5|77. |32. |
| 87. | ... |6.8 |5.7|5.1|4.5|...|14.6|4.2|13.9|19.5|79.5|37.1|
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| Forty Skulls. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----+-------+----+----+---+---+-------------------------------------+
| A. | B. | N. | O. | P. | REMARKS. |
+-----+-------+----+----+-------+-------------------------------------+
| 80. | III |46.5|14.7| 68° |Ancient Peruvian from Lake Titicaca. |
| 83. | VI |39. |10.2| 76° |Chimuyan, Peru. |
|100. | VII |... |... | ... |Inca Peruvian Child. |
| 98. |VIII & |43. |11.4| 75° |Inca Peruvian Female from Temple of |
| | IX | | | | Sun, near Lima. |
| 98.3| XI |49.5|15.7| 81° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 89.5| XI A |55.5|20.5| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 92. | XI B |46.5|12.2| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 98.3| XI C |49. |11.3| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 81.6| XI D |35.5|... | 75° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 80. | XVI |44. |17.5| 72° |Ancient Mexican from Cerro de |
| | | | | | Quesilas. |
| 80. | XVII |56. |19.5| 80° |Ancient Mexican from Tacuba. |
| 80. |XVII A |46. |11.5| 77° |Mexican Indian from Pamas tribe. |
| 89. | XVIII |47. |... | 78° |From an Ancient Tomb near Mexico. |
| 80. | XIX |45.7|13.2| 71° |Chetimaches from Cemetery in St. |
| | | | | | Mary’s parish, Louisiana. |
| 80. | XXII |57.5|25. | 72° |Seminole Warrior. |
| 84.3| XXIV |47.5|18.1| 81° |Seminole. |
| 81.4| XXVI |52.2|15.6| 72° |Skull of the Chief of the Creek |
| | | | | | Indians. |
| 82.3| XXIX |50. |15.5| 79° |Menominee Female (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 81.3| XXXI |51.5|12.7| 82° |Ottogamie (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 81.8|XXXVIII|39.5|10.6| 75° |Pawnee Female from the Platte River. |
| 85. | XXXIX |49. |16.6| 77° |Dakota Warrior. |
| 90. | XLI |45.5|14.1| 77° |Osage. |
| 80.5| XLII |41. |14. | 76° |Chinouk (natural form). |
| 88. | XLIII |36.5| 9.9| 72° |Chinouk (artificially flattened). |
| 96. | XLIV |40. |... | 70° |Klalstonl of Oregon, (artificially |
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 91.3| XLV |58. |19.3| 73° |Killemook Chief. Oregon (artificially|
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 89.2| XLVI |59. | 8.7| 70° |Clalsap, Columbia River (artificially|
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 92.6| XLVII |51.5|11.2| 68° |Kalapooyah, on Oregon River |
| | | | | | (artificial). |
| 87.8|XLVIII |42.6|... | 70° |Clickitat from Columbia River |
| | | | | | (artificially flat). |
| 87. | XLIX |47. | 6.2| 66° |Cowalitek, Columbia River |
| | | | | | (artificially flattened). |
| 99.9| LIII |... |... | 78° |Grave Creek Mound. |
|111.8| LIV |... |... | 72° |From an Alabama River Mound. Supposed|
| | | | | | Natchez (flattened). |
| 84.5| LV |... |... | 80° |Skull from a Mound in Tennessee. |
| 87. | LVI |44.5|14.5| 71° |Skull from a Mound at Santa Peru. |
| 81.1| LVII |49.5|14.1| 72° |Skull from a Tumulus in the Valley of|
| | | | | | Rimac, Peru. |
| 86.1| LVIII |42.5|13.7| 74° |Mound Skull, Valley of Rimac, Peru. |
| 84. | LIX |... |... | 76° |From an Ancient Tomb at Ottumba, |
| | | | | | Mexico. |
| 89.3| LX |... |... | 77° |From Ancient Tomb, Ottumba, Mexico. |
| 80.6| LXII |45.7|18. | 76° |Skull from a Cave at Golconda, |
| | | | | | Illinois. |
| 80.6|LXVIII |45. |11.9| 72° |Arucanian Chief from Chili. |
| 87. | ... |45. |14.2|75° 31´|Mean. |
+-----+-------+----+----+-------+-------------------------------------+
| Forty Skulls. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

It will be observed that the widest range is found between the proportions of the skull of the Cayuga chief 100 years old (Plate XXXV) with a cephalic index of only 65.4, and those of some of the Peruvian crania having a cephalic index of over 98. The supposed Natchez skull (Plate LIV) is so artificially flattened as to exclude it from the calculation. The mean cephalic index of each of the tables exhibits a well-defined type of the long and the short skull respectively. The former 74.7 and the latter 87 are both far enough removed from the dividing line (80) to leave no doubt that the types are distinct and separate. Additional data, materially strengthening the conclusion of the variety of types found among American crania, has been furnished by that eminent authority Dr. Daniel Wilson.[229] The following table of measurements in inches is based upon his extensive researches:

+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+ |_No. of| | _Mean | _Mean | | |Crania | |Longitudinal| Parietal |_Cephalic| |in each| _Description of Crania._ | Diameter._ |Diameter._| Index._ | |Class._| | | | | +-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+ | 8 |Mound Crania (two from Morton, four| | | | | | undoubtedly from the mounds) | 6.54 | 5.67 | 86.7 | | 12 |Cave Crania | 6.62 | 5.78 | 85.7 | | 29 |Peruvian Brachycephalic Crania | 5.97 | 5.12 | 85.7 | | 16 |Peruvian Dolichocephalic Crania | 6.49 | 4.95 | 76.2 | | 8 |Mexican Dolichocephalic Crania | 7.05 | 5.41 | 76.7 | | 7 |Mexican Brachycephalic Crania | 6.56 | 5.51 | 84.0 | | 31 |Dolichocephalic Crania of Am. | | | | | | Indians | 7.24 | 5.47 | 75.5 | | 22 |Brachycephalic Crania of Am. | | | | | | Indians | 6.62 | 5.45 | 82.3 | | 12 |Living Algonquins, Brachycephalæ | 7.25 | 6.00 | 82.7 | | 39 |West Canadian Hurons (male) | 7.39 | 5.50 | 74.4 | +-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+

It requires no careful examination of these figures to observe that the type of skull among the American aborigines, ancient or modern, was in no sense constant, since among the same tribes long and short skulls occur in almost equal numbers. This fact is especially true among the savage Indians. Among the semi-civilized nations, however, as among the Peruvians and Mexicans, the long and short skulls mark the successive existence and destruction of distinct peoples having physiological characteristics peculiar to themselves. The Peruvian elongated crania are always found with large-boned skeletons having strong hands, while the short or rounded crania accompany very small bones, such as were unable to endure labor like the building of pyramids and the erection of such edifices as are found in Peru.[230]

It is with the utmost deference to the genius, and with full recognition of the valuable researches of Dr. Morton, that we disagree with his conclusions and pronounce his theory without foundation in fact. There is no evidence furnished by the measurement of crania that an American race, as unique in itself and distinct from the rest of mankind, ever existed.[231] One of the most interesting studies connected with these tables, as well as other measurements made more recently, is the question of relationship between the various semi-civilized peoples of the ancient period. First and most naturally the type of the mound crania attracts attention, and calls for comparisons with the Indian type and with that of the remarkable people of the more southern civilization.

The “Scioto Mound” skull figured by Dr. Davis in Plates xlvii and xlviii of _The Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, was pronounced by Dr. Morton in Dr. Meigs’ catalogue of the human crania in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, as “perhaps the most admirably formed head of the American race hitherto discovered.”

The most important measurements are as follows:

Longitudinal diameter 6.5 inches.
Parietal „ 6.0 „
Vertical „ 6.2 „
Inter-mastoid arch 16.0 „
Horizontal circumference 19.8 „
————
Cephalic index 92.3 „

The chief features as pointed out by the above-named author, are: the elevated vertex, flattened occiput, great inter-parietal diameter, ponderous bony structure, salient nose, large jaws and broad face. These he pronounces to be characteristics of the American cranium. Dr. Wilson has shown that Dr. Morton has contradicted his own previous definition of what that type is as well as the description given by Humboldt.[232] The propriety of selecting any single cranium as typical of the Mound-builders would be as questionable in this connection as it was for Dr. Morton and the authors of the _Types of Mankind_ to designate the Scioto Mound skull as a type of the American cranium. Until within a few years but few genuine mound skulls were accessible, and considerable suspicion was reasonably attached to the genuineness of several, including three or four of the so-called mound skulls in the _Crania Americana_. Recent explorations have brought to light a large number, of unquestioned genuineness. The Peabody Museum alone possesses 300, and of these 200 were exhumed by Prof. F. W. Putnam.

From a number of measurements only is it possible for us to approximate the type of the mound skull. We have already referred to the low type skulls secured by Gen. H. W. Thomas from a mound in Dakota Territory.[233] Unfortunately we are without measurements, but from the description we observe that the forehead is decidedly receding, and the orbital ridges are excessively developed. The inferior maxillary is of unusual prominence and much more massive, as is the entire bony structure, than in the common Indian cranium. Another cranium of similar characteristic was exhumed from the great mound on the River Rouge near its junction with the Detroit River, Michigan, by Mr. Henry Gillman. From this mound several crania were taken, of which one (though evidently adult) presented the hitherto, I think I may say, unprecedented feature of its capacity being only fifty-six cubic inches. The mean given by Morton and Meigs of the Indian cranium is eighty-four cubic inches, the minimum being sixty-nine cubic inches. This cranium, forwarded with other relics to the Peabody Museum, presents (though in no wise deformed) the further peculiarity of having the ridges for the attachment of the temporal muscle only .75 of an inch apart, in this respect resembling the cranium of the chimpanzee. It is rarely that in human crania those ridges approach each other within a distance of two inches, while they vary from that to four inches apart.[234] Eight crania were exhumed by Mr. Gillman from the great mound on Rouge River, which furnished him the following measurements:

DIMENSIONS, ETC., OF CRANIA EXHUMED FROM THE GREAT MOUND,
RIVER ROUGE, MICHIGAN.

KEY:
A. _Capacity (Approximate)._[235]
B. _Circumference._
C. _Length._
D. _Breadth._
E. _Height._
F. _Breadth of Frontal._
G. _Index of Breadth._
H. _Index of Height._
I. _Index of Foramen Magnum._
J. _Frontal Arch._
K. _Parietal Arch._
L. _Occipital Arch._
M. _Longitudinal Arch._
N. _Length of Frontal._
O. _Length of Parietal._
P. _Length of Occipital._
Q. _Zygomatic Diameter._

+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| _No._ | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. |
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| 1.[236]|18.65|19.00|7.30|6.00|5.35|4.02|.822| .733|.465|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 2.[237]|18.10|19.50|7.30|5.20|5.60|3.60|.712| .767|.547|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 3. |18.00|19.50|7.00|5.40|5.60|3.95|.777| .800|.500|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 4. |18.47| |7.20|5.40|5.77|4.07|.763| .801|.479|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 5.[238]|16.54|18.50|6.90|4.70|4.94|3.74|.681| .716| |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 6.[239]|18.23|22.40|6.80|5.80|5.63|4.63|.853| .828|.397|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 7.[240]|18.82| |7.60|5.62|5.60|4.01|.739| .736|.473|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 8. |15.93|18.00|5.35|5.03|5.55|4.08|.940|1.037|.605|
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| Means. |17.84|19.48|6.93|5.40|5.50|4.01|.786| .802|.495|
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+

+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| _No._ | J. | K. | L. | M. | N. | O. | P. | Q. |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| 1.[236]|12.15|12.00|11.65|14.00|5.50|4.40|4.10| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 2.[237]|11.80|12.75|11.50|15.35|4.95|5.50|4.90|4.20|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 3. |12.65|12.20|10.30|14.60|5.00|4.75|4.85| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 4. |12.10|12.00|11.10|13.45|4.75|5.40|4.30| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 5.[238]|11.20|10.25|11.30|13.95|4.50|4.75|4.70|5.00|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 6.[239]|11.10|13.15|11.00|14.85|5.40|4.60|4.85|5.00|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 7.[240]|11.50| | | |5.10| | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 8. |11.90|12.80|11.30|13.90|4.90|4.90|4.10| |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| Means. |11.80|12.16|11.16|14.30|5.01|4.90|4.54|4.93|
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+

NOTE.—The fragments of a cranium, consisting chiefly of a very retreating frontal, and presenting traits of a low and brutal character, reminding one of the Neanderthal skull, were found underneath the above tabulated crania.

We observe that only three of these crania are brachycephalic, while the remaining five, and the mean of all, fall under the class of dolichocephalic crania, according to our classification. Mr. Gillman would call some of them Orthocephalic, and the mean of the eight crania giving a cephalic index of .786 and .802 as an index of height might properly be so classified. The same gentleman exhumed from an ancient mound on Chambers Island, Green Bay, Wisconsin, six crania, which as to type were equally divided into long and short skulls, while the mean cephalic index, .817, assigned them to the brachycephalic class. The long skulls were not far removed, however, from the dividing line between the classes (.80). The energetic and intelligent labors of Dr. R. J. Farquharson of the Davenport, Iowa, Academy of Sciences, has placed within our reach measurements upon twenty-five mound crania.[241] The following are the most important measurements in inches:

Key:
A. CRANIA.
B. _Horizontal Circumference._
C. _Longitudinal Diameter._
D. _Transverse Diameter._
E. _Internal Capacity._
F. _Cephalic Index or Ratio of Diameter._

+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
| A. | B. |C. | D. | E. | F. |
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
|Mean of Nine Crania from Albany, Ill.|19.8 |6.8|5.1 |68. |.768|
|Mean of Eleven from Rock River, Ill. |20.15|7.0|5.4 |74.48|.771|
|Mean of Four from Henry County, Ill. |19.5 |7.0|5.2 |74.47|.743|
|One from Davenport |19.5 |7.0|5.25|76.20|.752|
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+

This table introduces a new feature into the investigation in hand; the brachycephalic or the near approximation to the short skull is displaced by a mean cephalic index of .758, indicating the well-marked dolichocephalic type. The mean internal capacity 73.3 inches falls considerably below the mean of mound crania as measured by Squier and Davis, Wilson and others, from localities farther south.

The mean results of Dr. Farquharson’s measurements[242] show a greater vertical than transverse diameter, a peculiarity of most Mississippi mound skulls, distinguishing them from Peruvian crania. In the Ohio Valley the brachycephalic type is quite decided, though the general features of high receding forehead, flattened occiput, and great transverse diameter, establish their relationship to all other North American mound crania yet discovered. Three Ohio Valley mound skulls, as to the genuineness of which no suspicion can be entertained, namely the Scioto Mound cranium and two crania from the Grave Creek Mound, give the following measurements in the mean: Longitudinal diameter, 6.5 inches; parietal diameter, 6 inches; vertical diameter, 5.5 inches, and 90.7 as their cephalic index. The mean internal capacity, though not obtainable with any degree of accuracy, in this instance is no doubt from eight to ten cubic inches greater than in the Davenport crania. With the general characteristics alike, minor differences may in most instances be attributed to artificial pressure. A valuable collection of mound crania was made in Kentucky for the Smithsonian Institution and the Peabody Museum, by Mr. S. S. Lyon, and is thoroughly reliable as a basis for measurements. Professor Wyman, in the _Fourth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_, describes them as follows: “The twenty-four crania measured (Table VIII) show a mean capacity of 1313 cubic centimetres, which is greater than that of the Peruvians, but less than that of the North American Indians generally (viz., 1376 cubic centimetres, or 84 cubic inches). They differ also from those of the ordinary Indians in being lighter, less massive, in having the rough surface for muscular attachments less strongly marked. * * * In proportions they present a very considerable variation among themselves. Assuming the length of the skull to be 1.000, the breadth ranges from 0.712 to 0.950 of the length. The average proportion is 0.857, which places them in the short-headed group.”

We have already called attention to the extensive and thorough work performed by Professor Joseph Jones in Tennessee, the report of which was published in 1876 by the Smithsonian Institution in a “contribution” entitled _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_. Professor Jones secured above a hundred mound and stone grave crania, mostly in the valley of the Cumberland and on the banks of the Big Harpeth River. Some of the skeletons accompanying these crania were of gigantic stature, a fact which is at variance with the opinion that they were related to the diminutive race of Inca Peruvians.[243] On the contrary, however, a strong argument for the relationship between the Mound-builders and the Peruvians is found in the frequent occurrence of the Inca-bone (_os inca_) so-called, on the mound crania.[244] Mr. Henry Gillman found this same bone in one of the crania exhumed by him from the great mound of Rouge River, Michigan, with a disposition to its formation in several others.[245] Professor Jones is convinced of the unity of the mound race throughout the entire Mississippi Basin. The following table of measurements, published in the _Antiquities of Tennessee_, is one of the most valuable which has yet been prepared:

Key:
A. _Number of Cranium._
B. _Facial Angle in Degrees._
C. _Internal Capacity in Cubic Inches._
D. _Longitudinal Diameter in Inches._
E. _Parietal Diameter._
F. _Frontal Diameter._
G. _Vertical Diameter._
H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._
I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._
J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._
K. _Horizontal Periphery._
L. _Diameter of Head and Face._
M. _Zygomatic Diameter._

+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| 1 |76.5| 75. | 6.3|5.4 |4.3 |5.5 |15. |5. |13.5 |19. | 7.5| 5.1|
| 2 |80. | 78. | 6. |5.6 |4.4 |5.4 |14.6|5.1 |13.2 |18.9| 7.2| 5.2|
| 3 |75. | 78. | 6.1|5.7 |4.3 |5.6 |15. |5.2 |13. |19. | 7.3| 5.3|
| 4 | | 82. | 6.2|5.7 |4.1 |5.5 |15.2|5.4 |14. |19. | | 5.2|
| 5 |77. | 84. | 6.5|5.8 |4.4 |5.8 |15.5|5.2 |14.3 |19.9| 7.4| 5.3|
| 6 |76. | 68. | 6.4|4.9 |3.9 |5.5 |13.9|4.5 |13.8 |18.2| 7.1| 4.6|
| 7 |81. |103. | 7. |5.9 |4.8 |6.4 |16.8|5.3 |15.7 |20.8| 7.8| 5.5|
| 8 |80. | 80. | 6.6|5.6 |4.3 |5.5 |15. |4.6 |13.8 |19.3| 7.2| 5.2|
| 9 |78. | 79. | 7. |5.2 |3.9 |5.8 |14.7|4.6 |15.2 |19.5| 7.4| 5. |
| 10 |81. | 76. | 6.3|6. |4.4 |5.4 |15.7|4.6 |13.8 |19.4| 6.8| 5.3|
| 11 |80. | 90. | 6.9|5.6 |4.3 |6. |15.7|4.8 |14.8 |20.3| 7.6| 5.5|
| 12 |77. | 80. | 6.8|5.2 |4.1 |5.8 |15. |4.7 |14.4 |19.5| 7.8| 5.2|
| 13 |82. | 81. | 6.9|5.5 |4.3 |5.7 |15. |4.8 |14. |19.6| 7.8| 5. |
| 14 | | 92. | 6.1|6.4 |4.4 |6. |16.5|5.4 |13.8 |19.8| | |
| 15 | | 79. | 6.1|5.8 |4.6 |5.5 |15. |4.8 |13.4 |18.9| | |
| 16 | | | 7.2|5.7 |4.6 |5.9 |16. |4.6 |15.2 |20.8| | |
| 17 | | | 6.1|5.5 |4.1 |4.5 |14. | |13.6 |19. | | |
| 18 | | | 6.5|5.8 |4.5 |4.6 |15. | | |19.4| | |
| 19 |82. | 79.2 | 6.7|5.5 |4.2 |5.5 |15. |4.4 |13.5 |19.1| 7.8| 5.2|
| 20 |75. | 81.4 | 6.5|5.7 |4. |5.6 |14.4|5. |13.3 |19.2| 7.1| 5.3|
| 21 |82. | 80.5 | 6.4|5.9 |4.6 |5.7 |15. |4.9 |14. |19. | 7.3| 5.4|
|Max.|82. |103. | 7.2|6.4 |4.8 |6.4 |16.8|5.4 |15.7 |20.8| 7.8| 5.5|
|Min.|75. | 68. | 6. |4.9 |3.9 |4.5 |13.9|4.4 |13. |18.2| 6.8| 4.6|
|Mean|78.8| 81.44| 6.5|5.68|4.21|5.56|15.0|4.57|13.88|19.8| 7.4| 5.2|
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+

The most noticeable feature in the table aside from the mean cephalic index .874 is the great internal capacity of cranium No. 7, which was found in a stone grave in a mound near Nashville, with a skeleton over six feet long. The occiput is but slightly flattened, and the general contour of the head is symmetrically oval. Morton gives as the mean internal capacity of fifty-two Caucasian skulls 87 cubic inches; the largest of the series measured 109 cubic inches, and the smallest 75 cubic inches. This remarkable cranium gives an internal capacity of 103 cubic inches, vastly above the mean European skull, and only falling six cubic inches below the largest measured by Morton. As we observed a considerable increase in capacity in the Scioto Mound cranium, with its ninety cubic inches, over the crania of the north-west and north, of Michigan and Davenport, so here a most remarkable advance upon the capacity of the Scioto cranium is presented. The evidence of considerable development in the size of the cranium in this same race is clear; and taken with other testimony, such as the great improvement in art and architecture, indicates probably a movement from north to south, and that the mound race was older in the former region than in the latter.

In September, 1877, Prof. F. W. Putnam and Mr. Edwin Curtiss exhumed sixty-seven crania from stone graves located in the neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. These crania were measured by Miss Jennie Smith and Mr. Lucian Carr, and the latter has tabulated and described them in the _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_ (pp. 361 _et seq._, Cambridge, 1878). As some interesting features occur in the tables, we insert here Mr. Carr’s mean measurements. It will be observed that the classification in this instance is threefold, besides the distinct position assigned to the “much flattened” crania.

MEAN MEASUREMENTS OF SIXTY-SEVEN CRANIA FROM STONE GRAVES IN TENNESSEE.

Key:
A. _Number of Crania._
B. _Capacity._
C. _Length._
D. _Breadth._
E. _Height._
F. _Index of Breadth._
G. _Index of Height._
H. _Width of Frontal._
I. _Index of Breadth._

+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
| | |A.| B. |C. |D. |E. | F. | G. |H.| G. |
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
| | | | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | | | 5| |
|1|Dolichocephali| 5|1325|184|132|142|.716|.775|94|.730 and under.|
| | | | 6 | 18| 16| 11| | |18| |
|2|Orthocephali |18|1346|172|134|141|.775|.819|89|.740 @ .800 |
| | | | 15 | 29| 28| 18| | |29| |
|3|Brachycephali |29|1284|165|141|142|.856|.865|90|.800 @ .900 |
| | | | 7 | 15| 15| 8 | | |15| |
|4|Much Flattened|15|1461|156|152|145|.973|.907|93|.900 and over. |
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+

Mr. Carr calls attention to the fact that while the classified crania as a whole are brachycephali, still from twenty-three to thirty-three per cent. of the whole cannot be considered as falling within that group. Whether the five dolichocephali in the table belonged to the same race cannot be determined. They were buried together, for Prof. Putnam found a long and a short skull side by side in the same grave. Mr. A. J. Conant (see _Commonwealth of Missouri_, St. Louis, 1877, 8vo, pp. 106–7) discovered in a mound in South-eastern Missouri two crania belonging to skeletons buried in regular order, with a large number of other skeletons at the bottom of the mound, which differed strangely from all others found in that locality. The forehead was entirely wanting, and the contour of the top of one of the skulls was almost flat. It closely resembles the Neanderthal skull. Mr. Conant thought it at first to be an intrusive burial, but careful examination proved it to have been placed in position before the building of the mound, and to have been interred with as much care as was bestowed upon any of the other occupants of the mound. Vases, drinking vessels and food-pans accompanied it as they did all the other skeletons.

Mr. Carr thinks such crania as he has pointed out belonged to individuals who were conquered in war, or adopted or introduced into the tribe by intermarriage. Mr. Conant considers that the low type cranium which he discovered belonged to a very ancient race, the predecessors of the Mound-builders, and not far removed from the palæolithic races of Europe.

The mound skulls are readily distinguishable from those of the Red Indian. Only in the Davenport crania and the five dolichocephali from Tennessee do we see any approximation as to form. However, the remaining characteristics of the Davenport crania establish the fact that they belonged to people of the mounds. In our classification of Dr. Morton’s measurements, it will be observed that only two _supposed_ mound skulls appear among the dolichocephali (long skulls, A), and too much doubt is attached to their genuineness to admit of their use in drawing inferences. All the remainder belong to the savage tribes except three Peruvians of the ancient race of the region of Titicaca. In the table of brachycephali but few of the savage tribes are represented, except those which practice artificial compression to the extent of deformity. The mound skull as compared with the Inca Peruvian presents few resemblances, except that both generally belong to the brachycephalic class, and the singular and important fact already mentioned that the Inca bone has been found in North American mound crania. It is possible that when more extensive research is made, this distinguishing feature may lead to the conclusion that the races were one or closely related. On the other hand, the massive bony structure of some of the mound crania does not correspond with the facial bones of the Inca crania, which are very light and delicate. Prof. Wilson has pointed out the additional fact that the vertical diameter of the Peruvian short crania is not so great as that of the mound and Mexican short skulls, but a reference to the Professor’s own tables shows that the mean difference amounts only to thirty-seven-hundredths of an inch, altogether too small a variation to serve as the basis for ethnic generalizations.[246] Few if any similarities can be traced between the dolichocephali of Peru and the brachycephalic Mound-builders, the only resemblances being the heavy bony structure possessed in common by both races. The crania of the dolichocephali of Peru are pronounced of a Mongol cast and form, and are in every respect unlike the mound crania. Turning our attention, however, to the ancient Mexican crania, we find, so far as we are able to judge from the limited number of skulls which have come into the possession of ethnologists, a parallelism in measurements and resemblance in the various distinctive features, such as flattened occiput, broad transverse diameter, retreating forehead, strong bony structure, and a remarkable agreement in vertical diameter with those of the mounds of the Mississippi Basin, which point unmistakably to the closest relationship. Seven Mexican brachycephali measured by Prof. Wilson in the Boston and Philadelphia collections previously referred to, gave a mean vertical diameter of 5.55 inches.[247] Four Mound-builder crania measured by the same investigation gave precisely the same result, while the remaining measurements varied from each other but slightly. In confirmation of this result it is worthy of notice that the mean vertical diameter of the twenty-one mound and stone grave crania from Tennessee varied from that of the Mexican crania by only one one-hundredth of an inch (5.56).

When Dr. Morton began his investigations, he was disposed to recognize the existence of distinct races, represented by the dolichocephalic and brachycephalic crania of Peru.[248] But in later years, and at a period subsequent to the issue of his justly celebrated work, he concluded that the Peruvian elongated head was the product of artificial compression and not the distinguishing mark of an ancient race which long antedated the Incas.[249] Prof. Wilson has thoroughly discussed this subject, and from a series of investigations, conducted on a much more extensive scale than those of Dr. Morton, he has shown conclusively that the distinguished craniologist was quite mistaken as to the facts upon which he based his later views.[250] Much valuable information was afforded Prof. Wilson by the researches and collections of John H. Blake, Esq., made during that gentleman’s residence in Peru, as well as the extensive collection of Dr. J. C. Warren of Boston. Prof. Wilson points out the essential difference between the compressed and the naturally dolichocephalic cranium in these words: “Few who have had extensive opportunities of minutely examining and comparing normal and artificially formed crania, will, I think, be prepared to dispute the fact that the latter are rarely, if ever, symmetrical. The application of pressure on the head of the living child can easily be made to change its natural contour, but it cannot give to its artificial proportions that harmonious repetition of corresponding developments on opposite sides which may be assumed as the normal condition of the unmodified cranium. But in so extreme a case as the conversion of a brachycephalic head averaging about 6.3 inches longitudinal diameter by 5.3 inches parietal diameter into a dolichocephalic head of 7.3 by 4.9 inches diameter, the retention of anything like the normal symmetrical proportions is impossible. Yet the dolichocephalic Peruvian crania present no such abnormal irregularities as could give plausibility to the theory of their form being an artificial one, while peculiarities in the facial proportions confirm the idea that it is of ethnic origin and not the product of deformation.” Besides these differences there are peculiarities of a structural nature sufficient in themselves to distinguish the Peruvian long from the short crania. The former is small, narrow and decidedly long; the forehead is low and retreating, and two-thirds of the brain-cavity lies behind the occipital foramen. The superior maxillary is protruding and holds the incisor teeth obliquely. The weight of the bony structure also exceeds that in the brachycephalic. Though both classes are found artificially compressed, yet they are always distinguishable from each other. One of the best illustrations of this fact, and one already used by Prof. Wilson, is afforded in contrasting two dolichocephalic crania, both obtained by Mr. Blake in his explorations of the ancient cemeteries of Arica and Atacama. Both are evidently of children; one is in its normal condition, symmetrical, and when viewed from above presents the outlines of a graceful oval form, while the other was subjected to such compression as to throw the volume of the brain backward and to greatly deform the frontal bone.[251] A slight tendency to assume the dog-shaped head of the Chinooks of the Columbia River is manifest, where deformation is carried to such an extent as to produce monstrosities. However, even then, the normal brachycephalic type of skull of the Chinooks is not transformed to the dolichocephalic, since the base of the cranium remains comparatively unaffected while distension takes place in a posterior and upward direction. Mr. Squier in his _Peru_ (p. 580, Appendix), has shown that circular compression produces a symmetrical effect in the same direction.

The custom of artificially flattening the head has, upon investigation, been shown not to be peculiar alone to the aborigines of America, but to have been practised by many of the semi-civilized peoples of antiquity in different parts of Europe and Asia. Hippocrates, in his treatise _De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis_, has described this savage practice among a people whom he calls _Machrocephali_, supposed to have inhabited the region near the Palus Mæotis, in the vicinity of the Caucasus. He says, “The custom stood thus: as soon as the child was born, they immediately fashioned its soft and tender head with their hands, and by the use of bandages and proper arts, forced it to grow lengthwise, by which the spherical figure of the head was prevented and the length increased.” Strabo refers to a people occupying a portion of Western Asia, who were addicted to the same custom and had foreheads projecting beyond their beards.[252] Pliny places them in Asia Minor,[253] while Pomponius Mela places the Machrocephali on the Bosphorus.[254] Blumenbach has figured in his first decade, a compressed skull obtained by him from Russia and probably originally from one of the tumuli of the Crimean Bosphorus, where it is supposed to have been exhumed during the Russian occupation. In 1843, Rathke figured and described in Müller’s _Archiv für Anatomie_, another example of the compressed human crania, obtained from an ancient grave near Kertsch in the Crimea. In 1820, Count August von Brenner obtained on his estate at Fuersbrunn near Grafenegg in Austria, a skull of similar characteristics. This was, upon examination, decided to have belonged to an Avarian Hun. Prof. Retzius described it in the _Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Stockholm in 1844_, adducing arguments to strengthen that supposition. Dr. Tschudi, however, conceived the idea that it might have been a Peruvian skull which had been brought to Europe as a curiosity during the reign of Charles V. and afterwards thrown aside. His communication appeared in Müller’s _Archiv für Anatomie_. The opinion of the learned traveller was, however, subsequently reversed by the discovery at Atzgersdorf, near Vienna, of another and similar cranium. More recently others have come to light at the Village of St. Roman in Savoy, and in the Valley of the Doubs near Mandense. Dr. Fitzinger has probably investigated this subject with more thoroughness than any other writer, and has shown in his articles in the _Transactions of the Imperial Academy of Vienna_, that this custom was native to the Scythian region in the vicinity of the Mœtian Moor, and prevailed in the Caucasus and along the shores of the Black and Caspian seas and the Bosphorus. Among the most interesting relics cited as sustaining his views is an ancient medal struck in commemoration of the destruction of Aquileia by Attila the Hun in A. D. 452, and bearing the bust of that “Scourge of God.” The head represented in profile is of precisely the same shape as those of the other Avir skulls, having a flattened form in a vertical and oblique direction. Thierry in his _Attila_ has traced the origin of the custom of flattening the skull, to the Huns, who, descending from their home upon the steppes of Northern Asia, left their remains upon many a field in Europe. One of these deformed skulls was discovered in 1856 by J. Hudson Barclay, in a large cavern near the Damascus Gate at Jerusalem. The skeleton was of unusually large size and decayed, but the skull, which was pretty well-preserved, was brought to this country and is preserved in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.[255] Dr. J. Atkinson Meigs concluded, upon careful examination, that its occiput had been flattened by pressure during childhood. The testimony of Dr. Tschudi, rendered undesignedly, amounts to the best of evidence of the transition of this custom from the eastern shores of Asia to Peru, and this isolated instance has been strengthened beyond question or doubt by the abundant proof which has been brought to light since attention was directed to the subject.[256]