&c. The Mexicans distinguished every one of their days of the period of twenty days, by a specific name-Cipactli, Ehecatl, &c.; and every day of the period of thirteen days, by a numerical order, from one to thirteen." 383 These can be neither called weeks nor months they were arbitrary divisions, used long before the Christian era, and no doubt long before the Americans had any idea of the true length of the solar year. This they arrived at with considerable accuracy, but, as we have reason to believe, not many centuries before the Spanish conquest. With regard to the origin of the astronomical knowledge of American races, there has been much discussion. Humboldt has pointed out some striking coincidences in the Mexican modes of computing time, names of their months, and similar accidents, with those of Thibet, China, and other Asiatic nations; which (were philology certainty, and old Jesuit interpretation safe,) would look very much as if they had been borrowed, and engrafted on American systems at a comparatively recent period. On the other hand, he has laid stress upon some of the peculiarities especially distinguishing the Mexican calendar, and which cannot be ascribed to foreign origin – such as the fact already mentioned, that the Mexicans never counted by months or weeks. "What is remarkable too [says Humboldt], is, that the calendar of Peru affords indubitable proofs not only of astronomical observations and of a certain degree of astronomical knowledge, but also that their origin was independent of that of the Mexicans. If both the Mexican and Peruvian calendars were not the result of their own independent observations, we must suppose a double importation of astronomical knowledge -one to Peru, and another to Mexico- coming from different quarters, and by people possessed of different degrees of knowledge. There is not in Peru any trace of identity of the names of the days, or of a resort to the combination of two series. Their months were alternately of twenty-nine and thirty days, to which eleven days were added, to complete the year." Now, if the Mexican calendar differed, "toto cælo," from that of the Peruvian, it follows that their respective origins were distinct; and if neither, as Humboldt indicates, was constructed upon a foreign or Asiatic basis, how are any suppositions of antique intercourse between the two hemispheres justified by astronomy? Why, if the Peruvians did not borrow from the Mexicans, (their contemporaries on the same continent,) should they not have taught themselves, just as the Mexicans did their ownselves, systems as unlike each other as they are separated by nature, times, and spaces, from every one adopted by those types of mankind, whose physical structure is from these Americans utterly diverse? Some of the astronomical observations of the Mexicans were also clearly local: the two transits of the sun, for instance, by the zenith of Mexico, besides others. Assuredly the major portion, then, of the astronomical knowledge of the aboriginal Americans was of domestic origin; and any of the few points of contact with the calendars of the Old World, if not accidental, must have taken place at an exceedingly remote period of time. In fact, whatever may have come from the Old World was engrafted upon a system itself still older than the exotic shoots. But, if it still be contended that astronomy was imported, why did not the immigrants bring an alphabet or Asiatic system of writing, the art of working iron, mills, wheel-barrows (all, with remembrance even of Oriental navigation, unknown in America)? Or at least the seeds of millet, rice, wheat, oats, barley, &c., of their respective botanical provinces or countries? Alas! sustainers of the Unity-doctrine will be puzzled to find one fact among American aborigines to support it. In conclusion, we have but to sum up the facts briefly detailed, and these results will be clearly deducible, namely: 1. That the continent of America was unknown not only to the ancient Egyptians and Chinese, but to the more modern Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. 2. That at the time of its discovery, this continent was populated by millions of people, resembling each other, possessing peculiar moral and physical characteristics, and in utter contrast with any people of the Old World. 3. That these races were found surrounded everywhere by animals and plants specifically different from those of the Old World, and created, as it is conceded, in America. 4. That these races were found speaking several hundred languages, which, although often resembling each other in grammatical structure, differed in general entirely in their vocabularies, and were all radically distinct from the languages of the Old World. 5. That their monuments, as seen in their architecture, sculpture, earth-works, shell-banks, &c., from their extent, dissemination, and incalculable numbers, furnish evidence of very high antiquity. 6. That the state of decomposition in which the skeletons of the mounds are found, and, above all, the peculiar anatomical structure of the few remaining crania, prove these mound-builders to have been both ancient and indigenous to the soil; because American crania, antique as well as modern, are unlike those of any other race of ancient or recent times. 7. That the aborigines of America possessed no alphabet or trulyphonetic system of writing-that they possessed none of the domestic animals, nor many of the oldest arts of the Eastern hemisphere; whilst their agricultural plants were indigenous. 8. That their system of arithmetic was unique that their astronomical knowledge, in the main, was indubitably of cis-Atlantic origin; while their calendar was unlike that of any people, ancient or modern, of the other hemisphere. Whatever exception may be taken to any of these propositions separately, it must be conceded that, when viewed together, they form a mass of cumulative testimony, carrying the aborigines of America back to the remotest period of man's existence upon earth. The entire scope of argument on these subjects may be presented in the vigorous language of Lord KAIMES; expressing ideas entertained by himself and the authors in common, although more than seventynine years interlapse between their respective writings: "The frigidity of the North Americans, men and women, differing in that particular from all other savages, is to me evidence of a separate race. And I am the more confirmed in that opinion, when I find a celebrated writer, whose abilities no person calls in question, endeavoring in vain to ascribe that circumstance to moral and physical causes. Si Pergama dextra defendi posset. "In concluding from the foregoing facts that there are different races of men, I reckon upon strenuous opposition; not only from men biassed against what is new or uncommon, but from numberless sedate writers, who hold every distinguishing mark, internal as well as external, to be the effect of soil and climate. Against the former, patience is my only shield; but I cannot hope for any converts to a new opinion, without removing the arguments urged by the latter. 66 Among the endless number of writers who ascribe supreme efficacy to the climate, Vitruvius shall take the lead.384... Upon summing up the whole particulars mentioned above, would one hesitate a moment to adopt the following opinion, were there no counterbalancing evidence: viz., That God created many pairs of the human race, differing from each other both externally and internally; that he fitted these pairs for different climates, and placed each pair in its proper climate; that the peculiarities of the original pairs were preserved entire in their descendants—who, having no assistance but their natural talents, were left to gather knowledge from experience, and in particular were left (each tribe) to form a language for itself; that signs were sufficient for the original pairs, without any language but what nature suggests; and that a language was formed gradually, as a tribe increased in numbers and in different occupations, to make speech necessary?' But this opinion, however plausible, we are not permitted to adopt, being taught a different lesson by revelation: viz., That God created but a single pair of the human species. Though we cannot doubt of the authority of Moses, yet his account of the creation of man is not a little puzzling, as it seems to contradict every one of the facts mentioned above. According to that account, different races of men were not formed, nor were men framed originally for different climates. All men must have spoken the same language, viz., that of our first parents. And what of all seems the most contradictory to that account, is the savage state: Adam, as Moses informs us, was endued by his Maker with an eminent degree of knowledge; and he certainly must have been an excellent preceptor to his children and their progeny, among whom he lived many generations. Whence then the degeneracy of all men unto the savage state? To account for that dismal catastrophe, mankind must have suffered some terrible convulsion. "That terrible convulsion is revealed to us in the history of the Tower of Babel." 385 ... Babylon's Tower (it is known to cuneiform students of the present day) did not exist before the reign of NEBUCHADNEZAR; who built it during the seventh century B. C. As the edifice does not concern Ethnology, we pass onward. 386 CHAPTER X. Excerpta FROM MORTON'S INEDITED MANUSCRIPTS. [ALTHOUGH not in the mature shape in which Dr. Morton habitually submitted his reflections to the scientific world, and destitute, alas! of his own improvements, a contribution, so valuable to that study of Man which owes its present momentum to his genius, must not be overlooked in "Types of Mankind." With their joint acknowledgments to MRS. S. GEO. MORTON, for the unreserved use of whatever autographs their much-honored friend intended for eventual publication, the authors annex two fragmentary essays. Overcome by illness, the Doctor withdrew from his library on the 6th of May, 1851; leaving these, among other evidences of an enthusiasm for science which death alone could stifle. The authors take the more pleasure and pride in embodying such first rough-draughts, fresh as they flowed from his mind not unstudied, but unadorned. Dr. Morton is here beheld in his office, writing down with characteristic simplicity, while disturbed by professional interruptions, the results of his incessant labor and meditation, couched in the language of truth.] - [MANUSCRIPT A.] "On the Size of the Brain in Various Races and Families of Man; with Ethnological Remarks. By SAMUEL GEORGE MORTON, M. D.: Philadelphia and Edinburgh." The importance of the brain as the seat of the faculties of the mind, is preeminent in the animal economy. Hence the avidity with which its structure and functions have been studied in our time; for, although much remains to be explained, much has certainly been accomplished. We have reason to believe, not only that the brain is the centre of the whole series of mental manifestations, but that its several parts are so many organs; each one of which performs its peculiar and distinctive office. But the number, locality, and functions of these several organs are far from being determined: nor should this uncertainty surprise us, when we reflect on the slow and devious process by which mankind have arrived at some of the simplest physiological truths, and the difficulties that environ all inquiries into the nature of the organic functions. In studying ethnology, and especially in comparing the crania of the several races, I was struck with the inadequacy of the methods in use for determining the size and weight of the brain. On these methods, which are four in number, I submit the following remarks: 1. The plan most frequently resorted to is that which measures the exterior of the head or skull within various corresponding points. We are thus enabled to compare the relative conformation in different individuals, and in this manner obtain some idea of the relative size of the brain itself. Such measurements possess a great value in craniology, and, we need hardly add, are the only ones that are available in the living man. 2. The plan of weighing the brain has been extensively practised in modern times, and with very instructive results. Haller found the encephalon to vary, in adult men, from a pound and a half to more than five pounds; and the Wenzels state the average of their experiments to range from about three pounds five ounces to three pounds ten ounces.* The experiments of the late Dr. John Sims, of London, which, from their number and accuracy, deserve great attention, place the average weight of the recent brain between three pounds eight and three pounds ten ounces, or nearly the same weight as that obtained by the Wenzels. Of 253 brains weighed by Dr. Sims, 191 were adults from twenty years old to seventy, and upwards; and of the whole series, the lowest weighed two pounds, and the highest an ounce less than four pounds.† Prof. Tiedemann, of Heidelberg, a learned and accomplished anatomist, has pursued the same mode of investigation. After giving the weight of fifty-two European brains, he adds that "The weight of the brain in an adult European varies between three pounds two ounces and four pounds six ounces Troy. The brain of men who have distinguished themselves by their great talents are often very large. The brain of the celebrated Cuvier weighed four pounds, eleven ounces, four drachms, thirty grains, Troy; and that of the distinguished surgeon, Dupuytren, weighed four pounds ten ounces Troy. The brain of men endowed with but feeble intellectual powers, is, on the contrary, often very small, particularly in congenital idiotismus. The female brain is lighter than that of the male. It varies between two pounds eight ounces and three pounds eleven ounces. I never found a female brain that weighed four pounds. The female brain weighs, on an average, from four to eight ounces less than that of the male; and this difference is already perceptible in a new-born child."‡ Medico-Chirurg. Trans., xix. p. 351. † Idem, p. 259. |