478 A PROBLEM IN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGY. 



following, as one group after another grew in culture. He considers 

 all culture of the people autochthonous. 



"It may, however, be suggested that, as in the Old World, the 

 earlier and the smaller tribes tend to dolichocephaly, while the better 

 developed ones are rather brachycephalous — a conclusion indicating 

 that the varying proportions of the skull should be taken less as 

 original evidence of race than as evidence of physical improvement." 



This volume by Mr. Paj'ne is replete with similar statements of 

 facts and theories, and shows how difficult it is for us to understand 

 the complications of the suliject before us. It can not be denied that, 

 taking into consideration the number of authors who have written on 

 this subject, Mr. Payne is well supported in his theory of the autoch- 

 thonous origin of all American languages, institutions, and arts; but 

 the question arises: Has not the old theory of Morton, the industrious 

 and painstaking pioneer of American craniology, been the underlying 

 cause of this, and have not the facts been misinterpreted? At the 

 time of Morton the accepted belief in the unity and universal brother- 

 hood of man was about to be assailed, and it seems, as we now look 

 back upon those times of exciting and passionate discussions, that 

 Morton may have been influenced b}^ the new theory which was so 

 soon to become prominent^ — that there were several distinct creations 

 of species of the genus Homo and that each continent or great area 

 had its own distinct fauna and flora. Certainly ^Morton ventured to 

 make a specific statement from a collection of crania which would now 

 be regarded as too limited to furnish true results. 



The anthropologist of to-day would hardly venture to do more than 

 to make the most general statements of the characters of any race or 

 people from the examination of a single skull; although, after the 

 study of a large number of skulls from a single tribe or special locality, 

 he would probably Ije able to s-elect one that was distinctly characteristic 

 of the special tribe or group to which it pertained. 



Relativelv long and narrow heads and short and broad heads occur 

 almost everywhere in greater or less proportion. In determining the 

 physical characters of a people, so far as this can })e done from a study 

 of crania, the index of the height of the skull is quite as important 

 as that of its breadth. These indices simpl}- give us the ready means 

 of expressing by figures the relative height and breadth of one skull 

 in comparison with another, a small part of what the zoologist would 

 consider in describing, for instance, the skulls of the difi'orent species 

 of the genus Homo. So in our craniological studies we should deter- 

 mine the relative position, shape, and proportions of the different 

 elements of the skull. In fact, we should approach the study of human 

 crania with the methods of the zoologist, and should use tables of 

 figures only so far as such tables give us the means of making exact 

 comparisons. Here, again, are the anthropologists at a disadvantage, 



