Chapter 37

[574]Kubary,loc. cit., andJourn. Mus. Godeffroy, parts 2 and 4, 1873.[575]De Quatrefages,Les Polynesiens et leurs migrations, Paris, 1866, with maps.[576]A. Bernard,loc. cit., p. 272.[577]Sittig, “Unfreiwillige Wanderungen ...,”Peterm. Mittheil., p. 61, 1890.[578]A. von Humboldt, in hisÉvaluation numérique de la population du Nouveau Continent, Paris, 1825, reckoned that in the Americas there were 13 millions of Whites, 6 millions of Half-breeds, 6 millions of Negroes, and 9 millions of Indians; three-quarters of a century later (in 1895–97) it was computed that there were 80 millions of Whites, 37 millions of Half-breeds, 10 millions of Negroes and 10 millions of Indians in a total population of 137 millions (1897).[579]Williams,Hist. of the Negro Race in America, 2 vols., New York, 1885; B. A. Gould,loc. cit.[580]The celebrated skull discovered by Whitney in the auriferous sands of Calaveras (California), which has been said to belong to the pliocene age, has been disputed both as regards its authenticity and the supposed date of its bed; and it is the same with the pestles and mortars discovered in the same neighbourhood by such geologists as Skertchly and C. King (cf. W. Holmes, “Prelim. Revis. Evidence to Aurif. Gravel Man in Calif.,”Am. Anthropologist, N.S., vol. i., Nos. 1 and 2, New York, 1899). The imprints of human feet, or rather of moccasins, discovered at Carson (Nevada), even granted that they are authentic, have in any case been found in beds whose period is by no means tertiary.[581]At this period Greenland, all Canada, a corner of Alaska, and a good part of the United States were covered with glaciers almost uninterruptedly. The limit of the moraine to the south may be indicated by a line which, leaving New York, for Lake Erie, would follow the course of the Ohio as far as the region of its junction with the Mississippi, and would be continued along or a little to the west and to the south of the Missouri to coincide then with the Canadian frontier. The fauna of the American quaternary period differed somewhat from that of Europe: theRhinoceros tichorhinus, for instance, was missing, while theMastodon ohioticusand several large edentata, such as theMegatherium,Mylodon, etc., are met with.[582]See for details, Abbott,Primitive Industry, Cambridge (Mass.), 1881, andEvidence ... Antiquity of Man in East N. America, 1888; F. Wright,The Ice Age in North America, New York, 1889, chaps. xxi. and xxii., andMeet. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sc. of Buffalo, 1896; Geikie,loc. cit.(chap. li., written by T. Chamberlin); Metz,Proceed. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. xxiii., p. 242; W. Upham,ibid., p. 436; Hille-Cresson,Proceed. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1889; Holmes,loc. cit.(Fifteenth Rep. Bur. Ethn.); Th. Wilson,A Study of Prehist. Anthrop., Washington, 1890 (Extract fromRep. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1887–88, p. 597). For the discussion, seeSciencefor 1892 and 1898. Marcellin Boule has summarised most of the works quoted, and shows the present state of the question inRevue d’Anthropologie, 1888, p. 647, and inL’Anthropologie, 1890 and 1892; see also Nadaillac,L’Anthropologie, 1897 and 1898. I will merely note that the tendency of surface objects to sink towards deep beds, brought forward by the opponents of Abbott, Wright, etc., altogether fails to explain whyotherimplements (in flint, jade, etc.) or pieces of pottery have not similarly been carried down, and that only argilite tools are foundflatin deep beds.[583]Hamy, “Anthropologie du Mexique,”Miss. scientifique du Mexique(Rech. zool., 1st part), p. 11, Paris, 1884.[584]S. Herrera,Proceed. Am. Ass. Adv. Sc., Madison, 1893, pp. 42 and 312; Th. Wilson,loc. cit.; De Nadaillac,L’Amerique préhistorique, Paris, 1883, andRevue d’Anthropol., 1879 and 1880.[585]Ameghino,La Antiguedad del hombre en El Plata, Paris-Buenos-Ayres, 1880, 2 vols.[586]De Quatrefages, “L’homme foss. de Lagoa-Santa,”Izviestia Soc. of Friends of Nat. Sc., Moscow, vol. xxxv., 1879; Sören Hansen and Lutken,Lagoa Santa Racen, Copenhagen, 1889, extract fromE Museo Lundii, vol. iv.; Hyades and Deniker,loc. cit., p. 163.[587]Lacerda and Peixoto, “Contribuições ... raças indig. do Brasil,” Archiv. do Mus. nac., Rio-de-Janeiro, vol. i., 1876, andMem. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 2nd ser., vol. ii., 1875–82, p. 535; H. von Ihering, “A civilisaçao prehist. de Brazil merid.,”Revista do Museu-Paulista, vol. i., p. 95, S. Paulo, 1895.[588]Moreno, “Cimet. et paraderos prehist., etc.,”Rev. Anthrop., 1874, p. 72; Verneau, “Crânes préhist. de Patagonie,”L’Anthropol., 1894, p. 420.[589]E. Schmidt,Die Vorgeschichte Nord-Amerikas, Brunswick, 1894; cf.Arch. f. Anthrop., vol. xxiii., 1894. For details see Cyrus Thomas, “Burial Mounds,”Fifth Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., Washington, 1887 and “Rep. Mound Explorat.,”Twelfth Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1890–91, Washington, 1894; Carr, “Crania from Stone Graves, etc.,”Eleventh Rep. Peabody Mus.; Hale, “Indian Migration, etc.,”Amer. Antiquar., 1883; Shepherd,Antiquities of State Ohio, Cincinnati, 1890; Brinton,Essays of an Americanist, p. 90, Philadelphia, 1890.[590]The northern zone, circumscribing the great lakes, is characterised by monuments of rude form; the southern zone, between the Gulf of Mexico and the basin of the Ohio, is distinguished by mounds in the form of a truncated pyramid; while the middle zone, that of the basin of the Ohio, presents a large number of mounds of peculiar and very perfected types. In each of these zones special regions may be distinguished, characterised by the shape of the mounds and by the nature of the objects immured in them.[591]Cushing,C. R. Congr. Internat. des Americanistes, p. 150, Berlin, 1888; V. Mindeleff, “Pueblo Architecture,”Eighth Report Bur. Ethnol. for 1886–87, p. 1, Washington, 1891–93; C. Mindeleff, “Casa Grande Ruin,”Thirteenth Report Bur. Ethn. for 1891–92, Washington, 1894; Nordenskiold and Retzius,The Cliff-Dwellers, etc., Stockholm, 1893, in fol. L. Morgan has sought to show in his monograph, “Houses and House Life of Am. Aborigines,”Contrib. N. Amer. Ethn., vol. iv, Washington, 1881, that the phalanstery-houses were the typical form of dwelling-place all of the North, and some of the South Americans, in association with the communal organisation of the tribes.[592]I have always maintained this opinion, which is amply confirmed to-day by the investigations made by Ten Kate (“Somatol. Observ. Ind. South-west,”Journ. Amer. Ethnol., vol. iii., p. 122, Cambridge, Mass., andRev. d’Anthrop., 1887, p. 48), from Canada to the Pampas. As to South America, the prevalent yellow colouring has been further noticed by A. von Humboldt, and recently confirmed by Ranke (Zeitsch. f. Ethnol., 1898, p. 61).[593]Gatschet, “Klamath Indians,”Contrib. N. A. Ethnol., vol. ii., Part I., p. 43, Washington, 1890; D. Brinton,The American Race, p. 57, New York, 1891; Ehrenreich,loc. cit.[594]D. Brinton, “Certain Morph. Traits of Am. Languages,”Amer. Antiquarian, November, 1894.[595]Powell, “Indian Linguist. Families, etc.,”Seventh Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1885–86, Washington, 1891 (92), p. 1 (with map).[596]A curious fact is brought out by the study of the linguistic chart published by Powell: that most of the families of different languages are grouped in the western, mountainous part of North America. Thus, out of 59 linguistic families, 40 are found in the limited area between the Pacific and the Rocky Mountains, while all the rest of the continent is divided among 19 linguistic families only. The same fact is observed in South America. We can reduce to a dozen groups the languages of the Atlantic slope of this continent, while in the Andes and on the Pacific slope an enormous number of linguistic families have been noted without any apparent common connection.[597]E. Petitot,Monogr. Esquim. Tchiglit du Mackenzie, Paris, 1876, 4to; Dall, “Tribes of ... extr. North-West,”Contrib. to North Amer. Ethnol., vol. i, p. 1, Washington, 1877; Ray,Intern. Polar Exped. Point Barrow, Washington, 1888; Sören Hansen,loc. cit., and “Ost Grönl. Anthropol.,”Meddel om Groenland, vol. x.; Boas, “The Central Eskimo,”Sixth Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., 1888, p. 409; G. Holm,loc. cit.; Rink, “The Eskimo Tribes,”Meddelel. om Grönl., vol. xi., and other works by this author in Danish, quoted by Bahnson,Ethnographien, vol. i., p. 223, Copenhagen, 1894; F. Nansen,Eskimo Life, London, 2nd edit., 1894, figs.; Dix Bolles,Catal. Eskimo Collect. Rep. U.S. Nation. Mus. for 1887, p. 335; R. Peary,Northward over the Great Ice, 2 vols., New York, 1898.[598]The most northern point now inhabited by the Eskimo is situated on the Greenland side of Smith’s Sound, 78° 8´ N. lat. (see the description of this tribe of 2,344 persons in Peary,loc. cit., vol. i., p. 479); but Greely found traces of the permanent settlement of this people near Fort Conger, in Greenland, 81° 44´ N. lat. The most southern point occupied by the Eskimo is Hamilton Inlet (55° N. lat.) in Labrador, but it is not long since they reached as far as the straits of Belle-Isle in Newfoundland and even farther south, to the estuary of the St. Lawrence (50° N. lat.).[599]A great change in the habits of the Eskimo of Alaska will be effected by the introduction of reindeer, through the agency of the United States Government (see Jackson,Rep. Introd. Reindeer in Alaska, Washington, 1894 and 1895).[600]Erman, “Ethnol. Wahrnem Behring Meeres,”Zeitsch. für Ethnol., vol. iii., pp. 159 and 205; Dall,Alaska, etc., London, 1870; Bancroft,Native Races Pacif. St. of America, Washington, vol. i., 1875–76, pp. 87 and 111, and 1882, p. 562.[601]Brinton,loc. cit.(Amer. Race); Schoolcraft,loc. cit.; Powell,loc. cit.(Ind. Ling. Fam.); Catlin,Letters and Notes N. Amer. Ind., London, 1844 (cf.Report U.S. Nation. Mus., 1885).[602]Ten Kate,Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1884, p. 551, and 1885, p. 241.[603]According to Powell,Smiths. Rep., 1895, p. 658, the Atlantic slope may be divided into four provinces:Algonquian,Iroquoian, that of thesouthern part of the United States(Muskhogean), and that of theplains of the Great West. The Pacific slope is split up in its turn into five provinces: North Pacific, Columbia, Interior Basin, California-Oregon, and the Pueblos region which encroaches upon Mexico.[604]The “Pueblos,” Zuñis, Moquis, etc., from whom these Athapascans have conquered their territory, are short and brachycephalic. Interminglings have modified only the form of the head of the Southern Athapascans; but it must be remembered that the practice of deforming the skull prevails among them.[605]There are some Apache tribes in Mexico, theLipans, theJarros, but their numerical force is not known.[606]See J. Stevenson, “Navajo Ceremonial,”Eighth Rep. Bur. Ethnol., and articles by Matthews on the Navajos in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Reports of theBur. Ethnol.; Ten Kate,Reizen en Ondezokongei in N. Amer., Leyden, 1885; cf.Bull. Soc. Anthropol., 1883, and “Somatol. Observ. Ind. South-west,”Journ. Amer. Ethnol., vol. iii., Cambridge, 1891.[607]Lloyd, “On the Beothucs,”Journ. Anthropol. Inst. Great Britain, vols. iv. and v. (1874–75); and Gatschet,Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 1885–86, and 1890.[608]H. Hale, “The Iroquois Book of Rites,” No. 2 of theLibrary of Aborig. Amer. Lit.of Brinton, Philad., 1883, chaps. i. and ii. (history of the confederation summarised from the standard works of Morgan, Colden, etc.); C. Royce, “The Cherokee Nation, etc.,”Fifth Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1883–84; Mooney, “Sacred Formulæ of Cherokee,”Seventh Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1885–86.[609]The primitive population of Florida, theTimuquanans, appear to have been exterminated in the eighteenth century. See MacCauley, “The Seminol Ind.,”Fifth Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1883–84, p. 467, Washington, 1887.[610]R. Rigges, “Dictionary ... and Ethnogr. of Dakota,”Contrib. N. Amer. Ethn., vol. viii.; Dorsey, “Furniture and Implements of Omaha,”Thirteenth Rep. Bur. Ethn.; “Omaha Sociology,”Third Rep. Bur. Ethn.; Mooney, “Siouan Tribes of the East,”Bull. Bur. of Ethn., No. 24, Washington, 1894.[611]SeeAppendices I.toIII.; the measurements there given are principally taken from Boas, Ten Kate, the American military commission, and my own observations with Laloy.[612]Not less than 39 linguistic families may be enumerated on that long but narrow strip of land which extends from Alaska to California, between the Rocky Mountains and the ocean. (Powell,loc. cit.)[613]The Moquis and Zuñis are in fact1 m. 62 in height, and have a ceph. ind. of 83.3 and 84.9. We must, however, notice some exceptions in regard to the somatic type of the Indians of the Pacific slopes: theSalishansof the coast (with the exception of the Bilcoolas) are almost short and brachycephalic, while those of the interior are almost tall and brachycephalic, like theBilcoolas, theMaricopas, theMohares(Fig.4).[614]The first of these groups occupies Powell’s North Pacific and Columbian “ethnographic provinces” (loc. cit.); the second, the province of Oregon-California; the third, the Interior Basin and the region of the Pueblos.[615]Gibbs, “Tribes of W. Washington and N.-W. Oregon,”Contrib. N. Am. Ethn., vol. i., p. 157, Washington, 1887; Dall, “Tribes N.W. Washington,”ibid.; Petroff,Rep. on Populat.... of Alaska, Washington, 1884;Amerikas Nordwesküste(Publ. Ethn. Mus.), Berlin, 1883–84, 2 vols., fol.; Krause,Die Tlinkit Indianer, Jena, 1885; “Reports ... Committee, North-West Tribes ... Canada” (in theRep. Brit. Assoc.from 1885 to 1898; especially the reports by H. Hale and Wilson on the Black-Feet in 1885 and 1887, and the full reports of Boas, 1888 to 1890, and in 1898, partly summarised inPeterm. Mittheil., 1887 and 1896, and in theTransact. Roy. Soc. Canada, 1888, 2nd sect.); Boas, “Die Tsimshian,”Zeitsch. f. Ethn., 1888, p. 231; Niblack, “Coast Ind. South Alaska and N. Brit. Colomb.,”Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1898.[616]Bancroft,loc. cit., vol. iii.; Ten Kate,Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1884, andloc. cit.; Deniker,Bull. du Museum d’Hist. Nat., 1895, No. 2.[617]The Shoshones, who inhabited by themselves theinterior basinbetween the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra-Nevada, have now dwindled to 17,000 individuals, just managing to subsist by fishing and gathering roots on infertile soil. They are composed of twelve tribes, of which the more important are those of theShoshones, theUtes(Fig.40), thePiutesorPai-Utes, and theComanches. Buschmann (Die Spuren d. Aztek Sprache, etc., Berlin, 1859) was the first to draw attention to the affinity of their dialect with the Sonoran-Aztec linguistic group (see p. 535), while Gibbs (loc. cit., p. 224) was the first to point out their probable migration from the region situated between the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes towards the deserts of the Great Basin. Brinton (Amer. Race, p. 119) confirms this observation, arriving at his conclusion from new facts.[618]It should be mentioned that this brachycephaly is also found, even a little more accentuated, in the skulls which Mr. Cushing and the members of the Hemenway expedition discovered in the ancient habitations of the Salado valley and in the Hanolawan pueblo, attributed to the not very remote ancestors of the Pueblos of the present day. These skulls are hyper-brachycephalic (mean ceph. ind. of 94 skulls, 89); they also exhibited an extraordinary frequency of the “Inca bone” (p.67), and several other osteological peculiarities, as, for instance, in the structure of the hyoid bone (p.96).[619]Orozco y Berra,Geografia de las lenguas ... de Mexico, Mexico, 1864, with ethn. chart (which may still be profitably consulted).[620]According to Brinton, the great Uto-Aztecan linguistic family is composed of three branches: Shoshonean (or Ute), Sonoran, and Nahuatlan (Aztec).[621]It is the same with theCoras(3000), and especially with theHuicholes(4000) of the Nayarit Sierra (north of Jalisco), who are tillers of the soil, and the last remnants of a formerly numerous and warlike population. The Huicholes worship the sun and various plant divinities, more particularly the “peyote” (a cactus,Anhalonium Lewinii), the fruit of which has stimulative and anaphrodisiac properties. (Hamy,Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat., 1898, p. 197; Lumholtz,Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 1898, p. 1, with plates; L. Diguet,Nouv. Arch. Miss. Scientif., vol. ix., p. 571, plates, Paris, 1899.)[622]Hamy, “Distrib. geogr. des Opatus, Tarahumars, etc.,”Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1883, p. 785; Ten Kate, “Sur les Pimas, etc.,”Bull. Soc. Anthr., 1883; Lumholtz, “Tarahumara,”Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc., 1894, p. 219.[623]It is impossible to enter here into details on the ancient Aztec society. Let us simply bear in mind that from the economic point of view it was based on “hoe-culture” (see p.192) of maize, tobacco, and cocoa, as well as on a well-developed industry: the weaving of stuffs, pottery, manufacture of paper, malleation and melting (a somewhat rare case in pre-Columbian America) of gold, silver, copper, and bronze. Architecture and sculpture had attained there a great perfection, as well as ideographic and iconomatic writing (see p.140). It was politically a confederacy of democratic states, often under the dominion of a dictator on whom the Spaniards bestowed the title of king. It was thought until recent times that there had been several invasions of different peoples into Mexico, theToltecsin the first instance, then theChichimecs, lastly theNahuatlans; but from the recent works by Morgan,loc. cit.(The House-life, etc.), Bandelier (Report Peabody Mus., vol. ii., Cambridge, Mass., 1888), Brinton (Essays of an Americanist, Philadelphia, 1890, andAm. Race), and Bruhl (Die Culturvolker Alt-Amerikas, Cincinnati, 1875–87), we may conclude that the nameToltechas only relation to a small clan or even perhaps to an imaginary mythical people. As to that ofChichimec, it was employed by the Nahuas to denote all those peoples outside of their own civilisation; they used this term as the Romans did that of “barbarian.”[624]L. Biart,Les Aztèques, histoire, mœurs, Paris, 1885.[625]E. Hamy,loc. cit.(Anthr. Mex.); Brinton,loc. cit.(Am. Race).[626]E. Hamy,loc. cit.,Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1883, p. 787, chart.[627]D. Charnay, quoted by Hamy,loc. cit.(Anthr. Mex.).[628]Berendt,Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc., New York, 1875–76, No. 2; Brinton,loc. cit.(Am. R.), p. 117.[629]The Chontals of Nicaragua are theLenkas(see p. 540). The “Popolucas” of Puebla speak aMiztecdialect; those of Vera Cruz theMixedialect; those of Guatemala theCakchiquel, one of the Maya dialects adopted as the official language by the Catholic Church, etc.[630]Mercer,Hill-Caves of Yucatan, Philad., 1896.[631]A. Stoll,Zur Ethnogr. d. Rep. Guatemala, Zurich, 1884; K. Sapper, “Ethnogr. von S.-E. Mexico und Brit. Honduras,”Peterm. Mittheil., 1895, p. 177, chart, and “Die unabhängige Indianerstaaten von Yucatan,”Globus, vol. 67, 1893, p. 196.[632]See for the geographical distribution of these peoples in pre-Columbian times, D. Pector,Arch. Soc. Americaine, new series, vol. vi, Paris, 1888, pp. 97 and 145.[633]Fernandez and Bramford,Rep. Smiths. Inst., 1882, p. 675; Brinton,loc. cit.(Am. R.), p. 163.[634]Wickham, “Soumoo or Woolwa Indians,”Journ. Anthr. Inst., vol. xxiv., 1894–95, p. 198.[635]The name half-breed (Mestizo) is given in Mexico only to a child born of the union of a Spaniard with an Indian woman. By being crossed with a Spaniard a “Mestizo” may give birth to a “Castiza”; the scion of the latter and a Spaniard reverts, it is said, to the race of the father, and is set down as Spanish. A Mulatto woman, the offspring of a Spaniard and a negress, may give birth to a “Morisco” by uniting with a Spaniard; this Morisco will produce with a Spaniard what is called an “Albino,” and it is only to her son, the offspring of a Spanish father, who should revert to his father’s race, that the name of “Tornatro” will be applied. An Indian marrying a negress produces a “Sobo,” and the latter engenders with a negress a “Chino.” The progeny of a Chino and an Indian is called “Cambujo,” and that of an Indian and a half-breed, “Cayote.” (Hamy, following Ignacio de Castro, quoted by de Quatrefages,Hist. Gén. Races Hum., p. 605.)[636]I think that it corresponds better with the facts themselves than the mixed and chronological classification of the South Americans into four groups (Eskimoid and Ugroid peoples of the early stone age; Caribs of the later stone age; Mongoloid semi-civilised brachycephals of the stone and bronze ages; hunting and warlike tribes of the bronze age) proposed by Siemiradzki,Mittheil. Anthrop. Gesellsch., vol. xxviii., p. 127, Vienna, 1898.[637]Lafone Quevedo, Preface to the “Arte de la lengua Toba” of Barcena,Revista Mus. La Plata, vol. v., p. 143, 1894. This distinction is criticised by Brinton,Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., vol. xxxvii., p. 179, Philad., 1898.[638]The “Mamelucos” orPaulistsof the province of Sao Paulo (Brazil), European and Indian half-breeds; theGauchosof Chaco, offspring of Whites and Indians of the Pampas; theCuribocos, Indo-negro half-breeds in Brazil, etc.[639]D’Orbigny,L’homme Americain, Paris, 1859, 2 vols.[640]G. Bovalius, “En reza ... Talamanca Land,”Ymer, p. 183, map, Stockholm, 1885.[641]Pinart, “Chiriqui,”Bull. Soc. Géogr., Paris, 1885, p. 433.[642]The Chibchas were husbandmen, manufacturers, and merchants, but unacquainted with the use of metals, except gold. They too have not left any great monuments of architecture (see for further information the works already quoted of Bruhl, Brinton, etc.).[643]Are they not related to theCayapasof Ecuador, described by Santjago Basurco? (Tour du Monde, 1894, p. 401.)[644]I shall not deal further with the important part which the Quechua civilisation played in all the western regions of South America. Let me observe, however, that this civilisation differed in many respects from that of the Nahuas; the Incas lived under a despotic communistic régime, they had no art of writing, and were content with mnemonic means to communicate with one another, they reared the llama, their religious rites were less sanguinary than those of the Nahua, etc. (Seler,Peruanische Alterthüm, Berlin, 1893; Brinton,loc. cit.; Bruhl,loc. cit.; Uhle,Kultur Sud-Amerik. Völker, vol. ii., Berlin, 1889–90.)[645]Middendorf (E.),Peru, Berlin, 1893, 3 vols.[646]Ten Kate, “Excursion Archæol.... Catamarca, etc.,”Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. v., 1893, p. 329;Intern. Arch. für Ethnog., vol. vii., 1894, p. 142; Ambrozetti, “Archeol. Calchaqui,”Bol. Inst. Geog. Arg., 1896, p. 117; Brinton,Amer. Anthropologist, N.S., vol. i., No. 1, New York, 1899.[647]L. Catat, “Les Habitants du Darien Merid.,”Rev. Ethnogr., 1888, p. 397; Pinart, “Les Indiens de Panama,”Rev. Ethnogr., No. 33, 1887, p. 117.[648]Siemiradzki,loc. cit., p. 160. The figures here given from Oldendorf, Manouvrier, Hamy, Virchow, and derived from my own observations, relate to the Chilian Araucans. The Araucans of the Pampas are shorter (1 m. 57, according to De la Vaulx,Compt. rend. Soc. Geogr., Paris, 1898, p. 99), and brachycephalic, to judge from the measurements of Ten Kate (Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. iv., p. 209), who finds the mean cephalic index of 53 skulls to be 83.92 in a series in which, however, several skulls of the Palæo-American type are met with.[649]The Manzanieros, so named from the country of crab-apple-tree forests which they inhabit, have preserved better than the Araucans of the Pampas their physical type; but they have adopted for the most part, like the latter, the manners and customs of the Indians of the Pampas and theGauchosEuro-Indian half-breeds, similar to theCow-boysof the western parts of the United States. They live as nomadic shepherds in tents of guanaco skins, and wear garments of tanned skin, after the manner of the Gauchos; they have no pottery, subsist almost exclusively on meat, etc. Excellent horsemen, they hunt the guanaco with bolas, exactly like the Patagonians and the Gauchos.[650]The Archipelagoes ofChiloéandChonos, which lie off the Chilian coast in the neighbourhood of Cape Peñas, were peopled by Araucan tribes ofGauchos,PayosandChonos, of whom there remain only a few descendants, with a strain of Spanish blood. These Gauchos must not be confounded with the half-breeds of the same name (see above, note 1), nor the Chonos with the tribe of the same name living farther to the south between Cape Peñas and the Straits of Magellan; the latter tribe appears to be related rather to the Fuegians.[651]For the philology of the Caribs and the Arawaks, see L. Adam, “Trois fam. linguist.... de l’Amazone, de l’Orénoque, etc.,”Congrès Intern. Americanistes, Berlin, 1888, p. 489, andBiblioth. linguist. Americaine, vol. xviii., Paris, 1893; Von den Steinen,loc. cit., andCentr. Brasil, Leipzig, 1886; Ehrenreich,loc. cit., andPeterm. Mitth., 1897, No. 4. For the ethnography, see the works already quoted of Ehrenreich, of Von den Steinen, and the following works: Schomburgh,Reisen in Brit. Guyana, Leipzig, 1847, 2 vols.; Coudreau, “Note sur 54 trib. Guyane,”Bull. Soc. Geogr., Paris, 1891, and “Dix ans de Guyane,”ibid., p. 447, map; E. Im Thurn,Among the Indians of Guiana, London, 1883; Crevaux,Voyages dans l’Amer. du Sud, Paris, 1883; Stoddard,Cruising among the Caribbees, London, 1895.

[574]Kubary,loc. cit., andJourn. Mus. Godeffroy, parts 2 and 4, 1873.

[575]De Quatrefages,Les Polynesiens et leurs migrations, Paris, 1866, with maps.

[576]A. Bernard,loc. cit., p. 272.

[577]Sittig, “Unfreiwillige Wanderungen ...,”Peterm. Mittheil., p. 61, 1890.

[578]A. von Humboldt, in hisÉvaluation numérique de la population du Nouveau Continent, Paris, 1825, reckoned that in the Americas there were 13 millions of Whites, 6 millions of Half-breeds, 6 millions of Negroes, and 9 millions of Indians; three-quarters of a century later (in 1895–97) it was computed that there were 80 millions of Whites, 37 millions of Half-breeds, 10 millions of Negroes and 10 millions of Indians in a total population of 137 millions (1897).

[579]Williams,Hist. of the Negro Race in America, 2 vols., New York, 1885; B. A. Gould,loc. cit.

[580]The celebrated skull discovered by Whitney in the auriferous sands of Calaveras (California), which has been said to belong to the pliocene age, has been disputed both as regards its authenticity and the supposed date of its bed; and it is the same with the pestles and mortars discovered in the same neighbourhood by such geologists as Skertchly and C. King (cf. W. Holmes, “Prelim. Revis. Evidence to Aurif. Gravel Man in Calif.,”Am. Anthropologist, N.S., vol. i., Nos. 1 and 2, New York, 1899). The imprints of human feet, or rather of moccasins, discovered at Carson (Nevada), even granted that they are authentic, have in any case been found in beds whose period is by no means tertiary.

[581]At this period Greenland, all Canada, a corner of Alaska, and a good part of the United States were covered with glaciers almost uninterruptedly. The limit of the moraine to the south may be indicated by a line which, leaving New York, for Lake Erie, would follow the course of the Ohio as far as the region of its junction with the Mississippi, and would be continued along or a little to the west and to the south of the Missouri to coincide then with the Canadian frontier. The fauna of the American quaternary period differed somewhat from that of Europe: theRhinoceros tichorhinus, for instance, was missing, while theMastodon ohioticusand several large edentata, such as theMegatherium,Mylodon, etc., are met with.

[582]See for details, Abbott,Primitive Industry, Cambridge (Mass.), 1881, andEvidence ... Antiquity of Man in East N. America, 1888; F. Wright,The Ice Age in North America, New York, 1889, chaps. xxi. and xxii., andMeet. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sc. of Buffalo, 1896; Geikie,loc. cit.(chap. li., written by T. Chamberlin); Metz,Proceed. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. xxiii., p. 242; W. Upham,ibid., p. 436; Hille-Cresson,Proceed. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 1889; Holmes,loc. cit.(Fifteenth Rep. Bur. Ethn.); Th. Wilson,A Study of Prehist. Anthrop., Washington, 1890 (Extract fromRep. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1887–88, p. 597). For the discussion, seeSciencefor 1892 and 1898. Marcellin Boule has summarised most of the works quoted, and shows the present state of the question inRevue d’Anthropologie, 1888, p. 647, and inL’Anthropologie, 1890 and 1892; see also Nadaillac,L’Anthropologie, 1897 and 1898. I will merely note that the tendency of surface objects to sink towards deep beds, brought forward by the opponents of Abbott, Wright, etc., altogether fails to explain whyotherimplements (in flint, jade, etc.) or pieces of pottery have not similarly been carried down, and that only argilite tools are foundflatin deep beds.

[583]Hamy, “Anthropologie du Mexique,”Miss. scientifique du Mexique(Rech. zool., 1st part), p. 11, Paris, 1884.

[584]S. Herrera,Proceed. Am. Ass. Adv. Sc., Madison, 1893, pp. 42 and 312; Th. Wilson,loc. cit.; De Nadaillac,L’Amerique préhistorique, Paris, 1883, andRevue d’Anthropol., 1879 and 1880.

[585]Ameghino,La Antiguedad del hombre en El Plata, Paris-Buenos-Ayres, 1880, 2 vols.

[586]De Quatrefages, “L’homme foss. de Lagoa-Santa,”Izviestia Soc. of Friends of Nat. Sc., Moscow, vol. xxxv., 1879; Sören Hansen and Lutken,Lagoa Santa Racen, Copenhagen, 1889, extract fromE Museo Lundii, vol. iv.; Hyades and Deniker,loc. cit., p. 163.

[587]Lacerda and Peixoto, “Contribuições ... raças indig. do Brasil,” Archiv. do Mus. nac., Rio-de-Janeiro, vol. i., 1876, andMem. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 2nd ser., vol. ii., 1875–82, p. 535; H. von Ihering, “A civilisaçao prehist. de Brazil merid.,”Revista do Museu-Paulista, vol. i., p. 95, S. Paulo, 1895.

[588]Moreno, “Cimet. et paraderos prehist., etc.,”Rev. Anthrop., 1874, p. 72; Verneau, “Crânes préhist. de Patagonie,”L’Anthropol., 1894, p. 420.

[589]E. Schmidt,Die Vorgeschichte Nord-Amerikas, Brunswick, 1894; cf.Arch. f. Anthrop., vol. xxiii., 1894. For details see Cyrus Thomas, “Burial Mounds,”Fifth Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., Washington, 1887 and “Rep. Mound Explorat.,”Twelfth Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1890–91, Washington, 1894; Carr, “Crania from Stone Graves, etc.,”Eleventh Rep. Peabody Mus.; Hale, “Indian Migration, etc.,”Amer. Antiquar., 1883; Shepherd,Antiquities of State Ohio, Cincinnati, 1890; Brinton,Essays of an Americanist, p. 90, Philadelphia, 1890.

[590]The northern zone, circumscribing the great lakes, is characterised by monuments of rude form; the southern zone, between the Gulf of Mexico and the basin of the Ohio, is distinguished by mounds in the form of a truncated pyramid; while the middle zone, that of the basin of the Ohio, presents a large number of mounds of peculiar and very perfected types. In each of these zones special regions may be distinguished, characterised by the shape of the mounds and by the nature of the objects immured in them.

[591]Cushing,C. R. Congr. Internat. des Americanistes, p. 150, Berlin, 1888; V. Mindeleff, “Pueblo Architecture,”Eighth Report Bur. Ethnol. for 1886–87, p. 1, Washington, 1891–93; C. Mindeleff, “Casa Grande Ruin,”Thirteenth Report Bur. Ethn. for 1891–92, Washington, 1894; Nordenskiold and Retzius,The Cliff-Dwellers, etc., Stockholm, 1893, in fol. L. Morgan has sought to show in his monograph, “Houses and House Life of Am. Aborigines,”Contrib. N. Amer. Ethn., vol. iv, Washington, 1881, that the phalanstery-houses were the typical form of dwelling-place all of the North, and some of the South Americans, in association with the communal organisation of the tribes.

[592]I have always maintained this opinion, which is amply confirmed to-day by the investigations made by Ten Kate (“Somatol. Observ. Ind. South-west,”Journ. Amer. Ethnol., vol. iii., p. 122, Cambridge, Mass., andRev. d’Anthrop., 1887, p. 48), from Canada to the Pampas. As to South America, the prevalent yellow colouring has been further noticed by A. von Humboldt, and recently confirmed by Ranke (Zeitsch. f. Ethnol., 1898, p. 61).

[593]Gatschet, “Klamath Indians,”Contrib. N. A. Ethnol., vol. ii., Part I., p. 43, Washington, 1890; D. Brinton,The American Race, p. 57, New York, 1891; Ehrenreich,loc. cit.

[594]D. Brinton, “Certain Morph. Traits of Am. Languages,”Amer. Antiquarian, November, 1894.

[595]Powell, “Indian Linguist. Families, etc.,”Seventh Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1885–86, Washington, 1891 (92), p. 1 (with map).

[596]A curious fact is brought out by the study of the linguistic chart published by Powell: that most of the families of different languages are grouped in the western, mountainous part of North America. Thus, out of 59 linguistic families, 40 are found in the limited area between the Pacific and the Rocky Mountains, while all the rest of the continent is divided among 19 linguistic families only. The same fact is observed in South America. We can reduce to a dozen groups the languages of the Atlantic slope of this continent, while in the Andes and on the Pacific slope an enormous number of linguistic families have been noted without any apparent common connection.

[597]E. Petitot,Monogr. Esquim. Tchiglit du Mackenzie, Paris, 1876, 4to; Dall, “Tribes of ... extr. North-West,”Contrib. to North Amer. Ethnol., vol. i, p. 1, Washington, 1877; Ray,Intern. Polar Exped. Point Barrow, Washington, 1888; Sören Hansen,loc. cit., and “Ost Grönl. Anthropol.,”Meddel om Groenland, vol. x.; Boas, “The Central Eskimo,”Sixth Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., 1888, p. 409; G. Holm,loc. cit.; Rink, “The Eskimo Tribes,”Meddelel. om Grönl., vol. xi., and other works by this author in Danish, quoted by Bahnson,Ethnographien, vol. i., p. 223, Copenhagen, 1894; F. Nansen,Eskimo Life, London, 2nd edit., 1894, figs.; Dix Bolles,Catal. Eskimo Collect. Rep. U.S. Nation. Mus. for 1887, p. 335; R. Peary,Northward over the Great Ice, 2 vols., New York, 1898.

[598]The most northern point now inhabited by the Eskimo is situated on the Greenland side of Smith’s Sound, 78° 8´ N. lat. (see the description of this tribe of 2,344 persons in Peary,loc. cit., vol. i., p. 479); but Greely found traces of the permanent settlement of this people near Fort Conger, in Greenland, 81° 44´ N. lat. The most southern point occupied by the Eskimo is Hamilton Inlet (55° N. lat.) in Labrador, but it is not long since they reached as far as the straits of Belle-Isle in Newfoundland and even farther south, to the estuary of the St. Lawrence (50° N. lat.).

[599]A great change in the habits of the Eskimo of Alaska will be effected by the introduction of reindeer, through the agency of the United States Government (see Jackson,Rep. Introd. Reindeer in Alaska, Washington, 1894 and 1895).

[600]Erman, “Ethnol. Wahrnem Behring Meeres,”Zeitsch. für Ethnol., vol. iii., pp. 159 and 205; Dall,Alaska, etc., London, 1870; Bancroft,Native Races Pacif. St. of America, Washington, vol. i., 1875–76, pp. 87 and 111, and 1882, p. 562.

[601]Brinton,loc. cit.(Amer. Race); Schoolcraft,loc. cit.; Powell,loc. cit.(Ind. Ling. Fam.); Catlin,Letters and Notes N. Amer. Ind., London, 1844 (cf.Report U.S. Nation. Mus., 1885).

[602]Ten Kate,Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1884, p. 551, and 1885, p. 241.

[603]According to Powell,Smiths. Rep., 1895, p. 658, the Atlantic slope may be divided into four provinces:Algonquian,Iroquoian, that of thesouthern part of the United States(Muskhogean), and that of theplains of the Great West. The Pacific slope is split up in its turn into five provinces: North Pacific, Columbia, Interior Basin, California-Oregon, and the Pueblos region which encroaches upon Mexico.

[604]The “Pueblos,” Zuñis, Moquis, etc., from whom these Athapascans have conquered their territory, are short and brachycephalic. Interminglings have modified only the form of the head of the Southern Athapascans; but it must be remembered that the practice of deforming the skull prevails among them.

[605]There are some Apache tribes in Mexico, theLipans, theJarros, but their numerical force is not known.

[606]See J. Stevenson, “Navajo Ceremonial,”Eighth Rep. Bur. Ethnol., and articles by Matthews on the Navajos in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Reports of theBur. Ethnol.; Ten Kate,Reizen en Ondezokongei in N. Amer., Leyden, 1885; cf.Bull. Soc. Anthropol., 1883, and “Somatol. Observ. Ind. South-west,”Journ. Amer. Ethnol., vol. iii., Cambridge, 1891.

[607]Lloyd, “On the Beothucs,”Journ. Anthropol. Inst. Great Britain, vols. iv. and v. (1874–75); and Gatschet,Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 1885–86, and 1890.

[608]H. Hale, “The Iroquois Book of Rites,” No. 2 of theLibrary of Aborig. Amer. Lit.of Brinton, Philad., 1883, chaps. i. and ii. (history of the confederation summarised from the standard works of Morgan, Colden, etc.); C. Royce, “The Cherokee Nation, etc.,”Fifth Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1883–84; Mooney, “Sacred Formulæ of Cherokee,”Seventh Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1885–86.

[609]The primitive population of Florida, theTimuquanans, appear to have been exterminated in the eighteenth century. See MacCauley, “The Seminol Ind.,”Fifth Rep. Bur. Ethn. for 1883–84, p. 467, Washington, 1887.

[610]R. Rigges, “Dictionary ... and Ethnogr. of Dakota,”Contrib. N. Amer. Ethn., vol. viii.; Dorsey, “Furniture and Implements of Omaha,”Thirteenth Rep. Bur. Ethn.; “Omaha Sociology,”Third Rep. Bur. Ethn.; Mooney, “Siouan Tribes of the East,”Bull. Bur. of Ethn., No. 24, Washington, 1894.

[611]SeeAppendices I.toIII.; the measurements there given are principally taken from Boas, Ten Kate, the American military commission, and my own observations with Laloy.

[612]Not less than 39 linguistic families may be enumerated on that long but narrow strip of land which extends from Alaska to California, between the Rocky Mountains and the ocean. (Powell,loc. cit.)

[613]The Moquis and Zuñis are in fact1 m. 62 in height, and have a ceph. ind. of 83.3 and 84.9. We must, however, notice some exceptions in regard to the somatic type of the Indians of the Pacific slopes: theSalishansof the coast (with the exception of the Bilcoolas) are almost short and brachycephalic, while those of the interior are almost tall and brachycephalic, like theBilcoolas, theMaricopas, theMohares(Fig.4).

[614]The first of these groups occupies Powell’s North Pacific and Columbian “ethnographic provinces” (loc. cit.); the second, the province of Oregon-California; the third, the Interior Basin and the region of the Pueblos.

[615]Gibbs, “Tribes of W. Washington and N.-W. Oregon,”Contrib. N. Am. Ethn., vol. i., p. 157, Washington, 1887; Dall, “Tribes N.W. Washington,”ibid.; Petroff,Rep. on Populat.... of Alaska, Washington, 1884;Amerikas Nordwesküste(Publ. Ethn. Mus.), Berlin, 1883–84, 2 vols., fol.; Krause,Die Tlinkit Indianer, Jena, 1885; “Reports ... Committee, North-West Tribes ... Canada” (in theRep. Brit. Assoc.from 1885 to 1898; especially the reports by H. Hale and Wilson on the Black-Feet in 1885 and 1887, and the full reports of Boas, 1888 to 1890, and in 1898, partly summarised inPeterm. Mittheil., 1887 and 1896, and in theTransact. Roy. Soc. Canada, 1888, 2nd sect.); Boas, “Die Tsimshian,”Zeitsch. f. Ethn., 1888, p. 231; Niblack, “Coast Ind. South Alaska and N. Brit. Colomb.,”Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1898.

[616]Bancroft,loc. cit., vol. iii.; Ten Kate,Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1884, andloc. cit.; Deniker,Bull. du Museum d’Hist. Nat., 1895, No. 2.

[617]The Shoshones, who inhabited by themselves theinterior basinbetween the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra-Nevada, have now dwindled to 17,000 individuals, just managing to subsist by fishing and gathering roots on infertile soil. They are composed of twelve tribes, of which the more important are those of theShoshones, theUtes(Fig.40), thePiutesorPai-Utes, and theComanches. Buschmann (Die Spuren d. Aztek Sprache, etc., Berlin, 1859) was the first to draw attention to the affinity of their dialect with the Sonoran-Aztec linguistic group (see p. 535), while Gibbs (loc. cit., p. 224) was the first to point out their probable migration from the region situated between the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes towards the deserts of the Great Basin. Brinton (Amer. Race, p. 119) confirms this observation, arriving at his conclusion from new facts.

[618]It should be mentioned that this brachycephaly is also found, even a little more accentuated, in the skulls which Mr. Cushing and the members of the Hemenway expedition discovered in the ancient habitations of the Salado valley and in the Hanolawan pueblo, attributed to the not very remote ancestors of the Pueblos of the present day. These skulls are hyper-brachycephalic (mean ceph. ind. of 94 skulls, 89); they also exhibited an extraordinary frequency of the “Inca bone” (p.67), and several other osteological peculiarities, as, for instance, in the structure of the hyoid bone (p.96).

[619]Orozco y Berra,Geografia de las lenguas ... de Mexico, Mexico, 1864, with ethn. chart (which may still be profitably consulted).

[620]According to Brinton, the great Uto-Aztecan linguistic family is composed of three branches: Shoshonean (or Ute), Sonoran, and Nahuatlan (Aztec).

[621]It is the same with theCoras(3000), and especially with theHuicholes(4000) of the Nayarit Sierra (north of Jalisco), who are tillers of the soil, and the last remnants of a formerly numerous and warlike population. The Huicholes worship the sun and various plant divinities, more particularly the “peyote” (a cactus,Anhalonium Lewinii), the fruit of which has stimulative and anaphrodisiac properties. (Hamy,Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat., 1898, p. 197; Lumholtz,Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 1898, p. 1, with plates; L. Diguet,Nouv. Arch. Miss. Scientif., vol. ix., p. 571, plates, Paris, 1899.)

[622]Hamy, “Distrib. geogr. des Opatus, Tarahumars, etc.,”Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1883, p. 785; Ten Kate, “Sur les Pimas, etc.,”Bull. Soc. Anthr., 1883; Lumholtz, “Tarahumara,”Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc., 1894, p. 219.

[623]It is impossible to enter here into details on the ancient Aztec society. Let us simply bear in mind that from the economic point of view it was based on “hoe-culture” (see p.192) of maize, tobacco, and cocoa, as well as on a well-developed industry: the weaving of stuffs, pottery, manufacture of paper, malleation and melting (a somewhat rare case in pre-Columbian America) of gold, silver, copper, and bronze. Architecture and sculpture had attained there a great perfection, as well as ideographic and iconomatic writing (see p.140). It was politically a confederacy of democratic states, often under the dominion of a dictator on whom the Spaniards bestowed the title of king. It was thought until recent times that there had been several invasions of different peoples into Mexico, theToltecsin the first instance, then theChichimecs, lastly theNahuatlans; but from the recent works by Morgan,loc. cit.(The House-life, etc.), Bandelier (Report Peabody Mus., vol. ii., Cambridge, Mass., 1888), Brinton (Essays of an Americanist, Philadelphia, 1890, andAm. Race), and Bruhl (Die Culturvolker Alt-Amerikas, Cincinnati, 1875–87), we may conclude that the nameToltechas only relation to a small clan or even perhaps to an imaginary mythical people. As to that ofChichimec, it was employed by the Nahuas to denote all those peoples outside of their own civilisation; they used this term as the Romans did that of “barbarian.”

[624]L. Biart,Les Aztèques, histoire, mœurs, Paris, 1885.

[625]E. Hamy,loc. cit.(Anthr. Mex.); Brinton,loc. cit.(Am. Race).

[626]E. Hamy,loc. cit.,Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1883, p. 787, chart.

[627]D. Charnay, quoted by Hamy,loc. cit.(Anthr. Mex.).

[628]Berendt,Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc., New York, 1875–76, No. 2; Brinton,loc. cit.(Am. R.), p. 117.

[629]The Chontals of Nicaragua are theLenkas(see p. 540). The “Popolucas” of Puebla speak aMiztecdialect; those of Vera Cruz theMixedialect; those of Guatemala theCakchiquel, one of the Maya dialects adopted as the official language by the Catholic Church, etc.

[630]Mercer,Hill-Caves of Yucatan, Philad., 1896.

[631]A. Stoll,Zur Ethnogr. d. Rep. Guatemala, Zurich, 1884; K. Sapper, “Ethnogr. von S.-E. Mexico und Brit. Honduras,”Peterm. Mittheil., 1895, p. 177, chart, and “Die unabhängige Indianerstaaten von Yucatan,”Globus, vol. 67, 1893, p. 196.

[632]See for the geographical distribution of these peoples in pre-Columbian times, D. Pector,Arch. Soc. Americaine, new series, vol. vi, Paris, 1888, pp. 97 and 145.

[633]Fernandez and Bramford,Rep. Smiths. Inst., 1882, p. 675; Brinton,loc. cit.(Am. R.), p. 163.

[634]Wickham, “Soumoo or Woolwa Indians,”Journ. Anthr. Inst., vol. xxiv., 1894–95, p. 198.

[635]The name half-breed (Mestizo) is given in Mexico only to a child born of the union of a Spaniard with an Indian woman. By being crossed with a Spaniard a “Mestizo” may give birth to a “Castiza”; the scion of the latter and a Spaniard reverts, it is said, to the race of the father, and is set down as Spanish. A Mulatto woman, the offspring of a Spaniard and a negress, may give birth to a “Morisco” by uniting with a Spaniard; this Morisco will produce with a Spaniard what is called an “Albino,” and it is only to her son, the offspring of a Spanish father, who should revert to his father’s race, that the name of “Tornatro” will be applied. An Indian marrying a negress produces a “Sobo,” and the latter engenders with a negress a “Chino.” The progeny of a Chino and an Indian is called “Cambujo,” and that of an Indian and a half-breed, “Cayote.” (Hamy, following Ignacio de Castro, quoted by de Quatrefages,Hist. Gén. Races Hum., p. 605.)

[636]I think that it corresponds better with the facts themselves than the mixed and chronological classification of the South Americans into four groups (Eskimoid and Ugroid peoples of the early stone age; Caribs of the later stone age; Mongoloid semi-civilised brachycephals of the stone and bronze ages; hunting and warlike tribes of the bronze age) proposed by Siemiradzki,Mittheil. Anthrop. Gesellsch., vol. xxviii., p. 127, Vienna, 1898.

[637]Lafone Quevedo, Preface to the “Arte de la lengua Toba” of Barcena,Revista Mus. La Plata, vol. v., p. 143, 1894. This distinction is criticised by Brinton,Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., vol. xxxvii., p. 179, Philad., 1898.

[638]The “Mamelucos” orPaulistsof the province of Sao Paulo (Brazil), European and Indian half-breeds; theGauchosof Chaco, offspring of Whites and Indians of the Pampas; theCuribocos, Indo-negro half-breeds in Brazil, etc.

[639]D’Orbigny,L’homme Americain, Paris, 1859, 2 vols.

[640]G. Bovalius, “En reza ... Talamanca Land,”Ymer, p. 183, map, Stockholm, 1885.

[641]Pinart, “Chiriqui,”Bull. Soc. Géogr., Paris, 1885, p. 433.

[642]The Chibchas were husbandmen, manufacturers, and merchants, but unacquainted with the use of metals, except gold. They too have not left any great monuments of architecture (see for further information the works already quoted of Bruhl, Brinton, etc.).

[643]Are they not related to theCayapasof Ecuador, described by Santjago Basurco? (Tour du Monde, 1894, p. 401.)

[644]I shall not deal further with the important part which the Quechua civilisation played in all the western regions of South America. Let me observe, however, that this civilisation differed in many respects from that of the Nahuas; the Incas lived under a despotic communistic régime, they had no art of writing, and were content with mnemonic means to communicate with one another, they reared the llama, their religious rites were less sanguinary than those of the Nahua, etc. (Seler,Peruanische Alterthüm, Berlin, 1893; Brinton,loc. cit.; Bruhl,loc. cit.; Uhle,Kultur Sud-Amerik. Völker, vol. ii., Berlin, 1889–90.)

[645]Middendorf (E.),Peru, Berlin, 1893, 3 vols.

[646]Ten Kate, “Excursion Archæol.... Catamarca, etc.,”Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. v., 1893, p. 329;Intern. Arch. für Ethnog., vol. vii., 1894, p. 142; Ambrozetti, “Archeol. Calchaqui,”Bol. Inst. Geog. Arg., 1896, p. 117; Brinton,Amer. Anthropologist, N.S., vol. i., No. 1, New York, 1899.

[647]L. Catat, “Les Habitants du Darien Merid.,”Rev. Ethnogr., 1888, p. 397; Pinart, “Les Indiens de Panama,”Rev. Ethnogr., No. 33, 1887, p. 117.

[648]Siemiradzki,loc. cit., p. 160. The figures here given from Oldendorf, Manouvrier, Hamy, Virchow, and derived from my own observations, relate to the Chilian Araucans. The Araucans of the Pampas are shorter (1 m. 57, according to De la Vaulx,Compt. rend. Soc. Geogr., Paris, 1898, p. 99), and brachycephalic, to judge from the measurements of Ten Kate (Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. iv., p. 209), who finds the mean cephalic index of 53 skulls to be 83.92 in a series in which, however, several skulls of the Palæo-American type are met with.

[649]The Manzanieros, so named from the country of crab-apple-tree forests which they inhabit, have preserved better than the Araucans of the Pampas their physical type; but they have adopted for the most part, like the latter, the manners and customs of the Indians of the Pampas and theGauchosEuro-Indian half-breeds, similar to theCow-boysof the western parts of the United States. They live as nomadic shepherds in tents of guanaco skins, and wear garments of tanned skin, after the manner of the Gauchos; they have no pottery, subsist almost exclusively on meat, etc. Excellent horsemen, they hunt the guanaco with bolas, exactly like the Patagonians and the Gauchos.

[650]The Archipelagoes ofChiloéandChonos, which lie off the Chilian coast in the neighbourhood of Cape Peñas, were peopled by Araucan tribes ofGauchos,PayosandChonos, of whom there remain only a few descendants, with a strain of Spanish blood. These Gauchos must not be confounded with the half-breeds of the same name (see above, note 1), nor the Chonos with the tribe of the same name living farther to the south between Cape Peñas and the Straits of Magellan; the latter tribe appears to be related rather to the Fuegians.

[651]For the philology of the Caribs and the Arawaks, see L. Adam, “Trois fam. linguist.... de l’Amazone, de l’Orénoque, etc.,”Congrès Intern. Americanistes, Berlin, 1888, p. 489, andBiblioth. linguist. Americaine, vol. xviii., Paris, 1893; Von den Steinen,loc. cit., andCentr. Brasil, Leipzig, 1886; Ehrenreich,loc. cit., andPeterm. Mitth., 1897, No. 4. For the ethnography, see the works already quoted of Ehrenreich, of Von den Steinen, and the following works: Schomburgh,Reisen in Brit. Guyana, Leipzig, 1847, 2 vols.; Coudreau, “Note sur 54 trib. Guyane,”Bull. Soc. Geogr., Paris, 1891, and “Dix ans de Guyane,”ibid., p. 447, map; E. Im Thurn,Among the Indians of Guiana, London, 1883; Crevaux,Voyages dans l’Amer. du Sud, Paris, 1883; Stoddard,Cruising among the Caribbees, London, 1895.

Back to Index Next