SEPTEMBER 7, 1899 | 
NATURE 
4/5)3 
the skull is quite as important as that of its breadth. These 
indices simply 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 different species of the 
genus Canzs. 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, inasmuch as it is only very recently that we 
are approaching a standard of uniformity in these expressions. 
It is now more than ever essential that anthropologists should 
agree upon a method of expressing certain observed facts in 
somatology, so that the conscientious labours of an investigator, 
who has a special opportunity for working upon one group of 
man, may be made available for comparison by investigators of 
other groups. 
Probably the old method, still largely in vogue, of stating 
averages is responsible for many wrong deductions. _ If we take 
one hundred or more skulls of any people, we shall find that the 
two extremes of the series differ to a considerable extent from 
those which naturally fall into the centre of the series. These 
extremes in the hands of a zoologist would be considered the 
sub-varieties of the central group or variety. So in anthro- 
_pology, we should take the central group of the series as furnish- 
ing the true characters of the particular variety or group of man 
under consideration, and should regard the extremes as those 
which have been modified by various causes. It may be said 
that this central group is defined by stating the mean of all the 
characters ; but this is hardly the case, for by giving the mean of 
all we include such extraneous characters as may have been 
derived by admixture or from abnormal conditions. 
The many differing characteristics exhibited in a large collec- 
tion of crania, brought together from various portions of America, 
north and south, it seems to me, are reducible to several great 
groups which may be generally classed as the Eskimo type, the 
northern and central or so-called Indian type, the north-western 
brachycephalic type,!the south-western dolichocephalic type, the 
Toltecan brachycephalic type, and the Antillean type, with prob- 
ably the ancient Brazilian, the Fuegian and the pre-Inca types 
of South America. Each of these types is found in its purity in 
a certain limited region, while in other regions it is more or less 
modified by admixture. Thus the Toltecan or ancient Mexican 
type (which, united with the Peruvian, was separated as the 
Toltecan family even by Morton) occurs, more or less modified 
by admixture, in the ancient and modern pueblos and in the 
ancient earth-works of our central and southern valleys. In 
Peru, more in modern than in ancient times, there is an admix- 
ture of two principal types. At the north of the continent we 
again find certain traits that possibly indicate a mixture of the 
Eskimo with the early coast peoples both on the Pacific and on 
the Atlantic sides of the continent. The North-central Indian 
type seems to have extended across the Continent and to have 
branched in all directions, while a similar but not so extensive 
branching, north-east and south, seems to have been the course 
of the Toltecan type. 
This is not theorising upon the same facts from which Morton 
drew the conclusion that all these types were really one and the 
same. Since Morton’s time we have had large collections of 
crania for study, and the crania have been correlated with other 
parts of the skeleton and with the arts and institutions of the 
various peoples. 
Although these relations have been differently interpreted by 
many anthropologists who have treated the subject, yet to me 
they seem to indicate that the American continent has been 
peopled at different times and from various sources; that the 
great lapse of time since the different immigrants reached the 
continent has in many places brought about an admixture of the 
several stocks and modified to a greater or less extent the arts 
and customs of all, while natural environment has had a great 
influence upon the ethnic development of each group. Further- 
more, contact of one group with another has done much to unify 
certain customs, while ‘‘ survivals” have played an active part 
in the adoption and perpetuation of arts and customs not native 
to the people by whom they are preserved. 
The Inca civilisation, a forcible one coming from the north, 
encroached upon that of the earlier people of the vicinity of 
Lake Titicaca, whose arts and customs were to a considerable 
NO. 1558, VOL. 60] 
extent adopted by the invaders. It is of interest here to note 
the resemblance of the older Andean art with that of the early 
Mediterranean, to which it seemingly has a closer resemblance 
than to any art on the American continent. Can it be that we 
have here an esthetic survival among this early people, and 
could they have come across the Atlantic from that Eurafric 
region which has been the birthplace of many nations? Or is 
this simply one of those psychical coincidences, as some writers 
would have us believe? The customs and beliefs of the Incas 
point to a northern origin, and have so many resemblances to 
those of the ancient Mexicans, as hardly to admit of a doubt that 
in early times there was a close relation between these two 
widely separated centres of ancient American culture. But how 
did that pre-Inca people reach the Lake region? Is it not 
probable that some phase of this ancient culture may have 
reached the Andes from northern Africa? Let us consider this 
question in relation to the islands of the Atlantic. The Canary 
Islands, as well as the West Indies, had long been peopled when 
first known to history ; the Caribs were on the northern coast of 
South America as well as on the islands; and, in the time of 
Columbus, native trading boats came from Yucatan to Cuba. 
We thus have evidence of the early navigation of both sides of 
the Atlantic, and certainly the ocean between could easily have 
been crossed. 
One of the most interesting as well as most puzzling of the 
many phases of American archeology is the remarkable develop- 
ment of the art of the brachycephalic peoples, extending frony 
northern Mexico, north-eastward to the Mississippi and Ohio 
valleys, then disappearing gradually as we approach the 
Alleghenies and, further south, the Atlantic coast, also spreading 
southward from Mexico to Honduras, and changing and vanish- 
ing in South America. Unquestionably of very great antiquity, 
this art, developed in the neolithic period of culture, reached to 
the age of metals, and had already begun to decline at the time of 
the Spanish conquest. How this remarkable development came 
to exist amid its different environments, we cannot yet fully 
understand ; but the question arises, Was it of autochthonous 
origin, and due to the particular period in man’s development, 
or was it a previously existing phase modified by new environ- 
ment? For the present this question shouid be held in abey- 
ance. To declare that the resemblance of this art to both 
Asiatic and Egyptian art is simply a proof of the psychical 
unity of man is assuming too much, and is cutting off all 
further consideration of the subject. 
The active field and museum archeologist or ethnologist who- 
knows and maintains the associations of specimens as found, and 
who arranges them in their geographical sequence, becomes. 
intimately in touch with man’s work under different phases of 
existence. 
Fully realising that the natural working of the human mind 
under similar conditions will to a certain extent give uniform, 
results, he has before him so many instances of the transmis- 
sion of arts, symbolic expressions, customs, beliefs, myths and 
languages, that he is forced to consider the lines of contact and 
migration of peoples as well as their psychical resemblances. 
It must be admitted that there are important considerations, 
both physical and mental, that seem to prove a close affinity 
between the brown type of Eastern Asia and the ancient 
Mexicans. Admitting this affinity, the question arises, Can 
there have been a migration eastward across the Pacific in 
neolithic times, or should we look for this brown type as 
originating in the Eurafric region and passing on to Asia from 
America? This latter theory cannot be considered as a baseless 
suggestion when the views of several distinguished anthro- 
pologists are given the consideration due to them. On the 
other hand, the theory of an early migration from Asia to 
America may also be applied to neolithic time. 
However this may have been, what interests us more at 
this moment, and in this part of America, is the so-called 
“ mound-builder” of the Ohio valley. Let us first clear away 
the mist which has so long prevented an understanding of this 
subject by discarding the term “ mound-builder.” Many 
peoples in America as well as on other continents have built 
mounds over their dead, or to mark important sites and great 
events. It is thus evident that: a term so generally applied 
is of no value as a_ scientific designation. In North 
America the term has been applied even to refuse piles ; 
the kitchen-middens or shell-heaps which are so numerous 
along our coasts and rivers have been classed as the work 
of the ‘‘mound-builder.” Many of these shell-heaps are 
