[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.

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.

[1668] Wilson’s Prehist. Man, i. ch. 2; Proc. Amer. Acad. Nat. Sciences, July, 1859; Amer. Journal of Sci. and Arts, xxxvi. 199; cix. 335; Pop. Sci. Rev., xiv. 278; A. H. Worthen’s Geol. Survey, Illinois (1866), i. 38; Haven in Smithsonian Contrib., viii. 142; H. H. Howorth’s Mammoth and the Flood (Lond., 1887), p. 319; J. P. MacLean’s Mastodon, Mammoth and Man (Cincinnati, 1886). Cf. references under “Mammoth” and “Mastodon,” in Poole’s Index. Koch represented that he found the remains of a mastodon in Missouri, with the proofs about the relics that the animal had been slain by stone javelins and arrows (St. Louis Acad. of Sci. Trans., i. 62, 1857). The details have hardly been accepted on Koch’s word, since some doubtful traits of his character have been made known (Short, No. Amer. of Antiq., 116; Nadaillac, L’Amérique préhistorique, 37). There have been claims also advanced for a stone resembling a hatchet, found with such animals in the modified drift of Jersey Co., Illinois. E. L. Berthoud (Acad. Nat. Sci., Philad. Proc. 1872) has reported on human relics found with extinct animals in Wyoming and Colorado. Dr. Holmes (Ibid. July, 1859) had described pottery found with the bones of the megatherium. Lyell seems to have hesitated to associate man with the extinct animals in America, when the remains found at Natchez were shown to him in an early visit to America (Antiquity of Man, 237). Howorth, Mammoth and the Flood, 317, enumerates the later discoveries, some being found under recent conditions (Ibid. 278), and so recent that the trunk itself has been observed (p. 299). In the earliest instance of the bones being reported, Dr. Mather, communicating the fact to the Philosophical Trans. Roy. Soc. (1714), xxix. 63, says they were found in the Hudson River, and he supposed them the remains of a giant man, while the colored earth about the bones represented his rotted body. Cf. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., xii. 263.

[1669] See on this a later page.

[1670] Lyell’s Antiq. of Man, 4th ed., 236; Nadaillac’s Les premiers hommes, ii. 13; Southall’s Recent origin of man, ch. 30. Vogt (Lectures on Man) accepts the evidence.

[1671] Cf. Lyell’s Antiq. of Man, ch. 5; Huxley’s Man’s place in nature; Le Hon’s L’Homme fossile en Europe; Leslie’s Origin and destiny of man, p. 54, who passes in review these early tentative explorations.

[1672] Cf. Lyell’s description in his Antiquity of Man, ch. 8; Quatrefages, Nat. Hist. Man (N. Y., 1875), p. 41; Langel, L’homme antédiluvien; Büchner’s Man, Eng. transl., ch. 1; Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen über den Menschen.

[1673] Rigollot, of Amiens, who had doubted, finally came to believe in De Perthes’s views.

[1674] Büchner’s Man, p. 26; Hugh Falconer’s Palæontological Memoirs, London, 1868 (ii. 601). Falconer’s essay on “Primæval Man and his Contemporaries,” included in this work, was written in 1863, in vindication of the views which Falconer shared with Boucher de Perthes and Prestwich, and it is an interesting study of the development of the interest in the caves.

[1675] Lyell, Antiq. of Man, ch. 8; Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, ch. 11; Nadaillac, Les Premiers Hommes, ii. 122; Leslie, Origin, etc. of Man, 56. Southall gives the antagonistic views in his Recent Origin of Man, ch. 16, and Epoch of the Mammoth, 126.

[1676] This is in dispute, however. That the older cave implements and those of the drift may be of equivalent age seems to be agreed upon by some.

[1677] Cf. also Geikie’s Great Ice Age; Lubbock’s Prehistoric Times, ch. 10; Evans’s Anc. Stone Implements of Gt. Britain; Wilson’s Prehistoric Annals of Scotland; Nilsson’s Stone Age in Scandinavia; Figuier’s World before the Deluge (N. Y., 1872), p. 473; Joly, Man before Metals, ch. 3; Cazalis de Fondouce’s Les temps préhistoriques dans le sud-est de la France; Roujow’s Etude sur les races humaines de la France; Peschel’s Races of Men, introd.

The scarcity of human remains in the drift and in the caves is accounted for by Lyell (Student’s Elements, N. Y., p. 153) by man’s wariness against floods as compared with that of beasts; and by Lubbock (Prehist. Times, 349) through the vastly greater numbers of the animals in a hunters’ age.

[1678] The present day is not without a cave people. See London Anthropolog. Rev., April, 1869, and Büchner’s Man, Eng. transl., p. 270.

[1679] Haven, p. 86.

[1680] Cf. Florentino Amegluno’s La Antigüedad del Hombre en la Plata (Paris, 1880), and Howorth’s Mammoth and the Flood, 355, who cites Klee’s Le Déluge, p. 326, and enumerates other evidences of pleistocene man in South America, in connection with extinct animals.

[1681] The instances are not rare of mummies being found in caves of the Mississippi Valley; but there is no evidence adduced of any great age attaching to them. Cf. N. S. Shaler on the antiquity of the caverns and cavern life of the Ohio Valley, in Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem., ii. 355 (1875); and on desiccated remains, see the Archæologia Amer., i. 359; Brinton’s Floridian Peninsula, App. ii. On the American caves see Nadaillac’s L’Amérique préhistorique, ch. 2.

[1682] Abbott’s Primitive Industry, ch. 30.

[1683] Lyell, Antiq. of Man, 4th ed. ch. 2; Lubbock, Prehist. Times, ch. 7; Nadaillac, Les premiers hommes, i. ch. 5; Joly, Man before Metals, ch. 4; Figuier, World before Deluge (N. Y., 1872), p. 477. Worsaae, the leading Danish authority, calls them palæolithic relics; Lubbock places them as early neolithic. Southall, of course, thinks they indicate the rudeness of the people, not their antiquity. (Recent Origin, etc., ch. 12; Epoch of the Mammoth, ch. 5.)

[1684] Am. Naturalist, ii. 397.

[1685] Cf. Lyell’s Second Visit.

[1686] All the general treatises on American archæology now cover the subject: Wilson, Prehist. Man, i. 132; Nadaillac, L’Amérique préhistorique, ch. 2; Short, No. Amer. Antiq., 106; Smithsonian Reports, 1864 (Rau), 1866, 1870 (J. Fowler); Bull. Essex Inst., iv. (Putnam); Peabody Mus. Reports, i., v., vii.; Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc. 1867, 1875; Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci. Proc. 1866; Pop. Science Monthly, x. (Lewis); Lyell’s Second Visit, i. 252; Stevens, Flint Chips, 194. For local observations: J. M. Jones in Smithsonian Ann. Report, 1863, on those of Nova Scotia. S. F. Baird in Nat. Museum Proc. (1881, 1882), on those of New Brunswick and New England. For those in Maine see Peabody Mus. Reports, xvi., xviii.; Central Ohio Sci. Assoc. Proc., i. 70; that at Damariscotta, in particular, is described in the Peabody Mus. Reports, xx. 531, 546; and in the Maine Hist. Soc. Col., v. (by P. A. Chadbourne) and vi. 349. Wyman’s studies are in the Amer. Naturalist, Jan., 1868, and Peabody Mus. Rept., ii. Putnam (Essex Inst. Bull., xv. 86) says that those at Pine Grove, near Salem, Mass., were examined in 1840. The map which is annexed of those on Cape Cod, taken from the Smithsonian Report (1883, p. 905), shows the frequency of them in a confined area, as observed; but the same region doubtless includes many not observed.

For those on the New Jersey coast see Cook’s Geology of New Jersey (Newark, 1868), and Rau in the Smithsonian Reports, 1863, 1864, 1865. The Lockwood collection from the heap at Keyport is in the Peabody Museum (cf. Rept., xxii. 43). Francis Jordan describes the Remains of an Aboriginal Encampment at Rehoboth, Delaware (Philad., 1880). Elmer R. Reynolds reported on “Precolumbian shell heaps at Newburg, Maryland, and the aboriginal shell heaps of the Potomac and Wicomico rivers” at the Congrès des Américanistes (Copenhagen, 1883, p. 292). Joseph Leidy describes those at Cape Henlopen in the Phil. Acad. Nat. Sci., 1866. Those on the Georgia coast, St. Simon’s Island, etc., are pointed out in C. C. Jones’s Antiquities of the Southern Indians; Smithsonian Repts., 1871 (by D. Brown); in Lyell’s Antiq. of Man, and in his Second Visit to the U. S. (N. Y., 1849), i. 252.

The shell heaps of Florida have had unusual attention. Wyman has indicated the absence of objects in them, showing Spanish contact. Dr. Brinton’s first studies of them were in his Notes on the Floridian Peninsula (Philad., 1859), ch. 6, and again in the Smithsonian Report (1866), p. 356. Prof. Wyman’s first reports (St. John River) were in The American Naturalist, Jan., Oct., Nov., 1868. He also described them in the Peabody Mus. Report, i., v., vii., and in his Fresh Water Shell Heaps of the St. John River, Florida (Salem, 1875), being no. 4 of the Memoirs of the Peabody Acad. of Science. There are other investigations recorded in the Smithsonian Reports, 1877, by S. P. Mayberry, on St. John River; 1879, by S. T. Walker, on Tampa Bay; also by A. W. Vogeler in Amer. Naturalist, Jan., 1879; by W. H. Dall in the American Journal of Archæology, i. 184; and by A. E. Douglass in the Amer. Antiquarian, vii. 74, 140. On those of Alabama, see Peabody Mus. Rept., xvi. 186, and Smithsonian Rept., 1877.

On those of the great interior valleys, see the Second Geological Report of Indiana, and Humphrey and Abbott’s Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi Valley.