"Views." Our author thinks "we might infer from it an original affinity" between those who introduced civilization into Mexico and Peru. Such reasoning is a little too sanguine, too much in the style of a theorist, it seems to

Some weight may be allowed to the solitary passage in question, such as it is; but Mr. Delafield has done a much better thing for his argument, in summoning into his court of inquiry the disinterested, unintended testimony of Dr. Warren, of this city, relating to a totally different branch of the subject. In 1837, this distinguished surgeon read before the British Association for the Promotion of Science, in Liverpool, an essay on certain "crania found in the ancient mounds of North America." In this paper, he stated that these crania differ from those of the existing Indian race, as well as from the Caucasian, and, indeed, all living nations, so far as they are known. These diversities are remarkable, and are distinctly pointed out. Moreover, the doctor had examined the skulls of ancient Peruvians, which resembled the former "more nearly than one European skull does another," and he exhibited casts, &c., in support of this position. His own conclusion was, that the mound-builders and the Peruvians must be the same race, &c. On the whole, this evidence is quite a point gained for Mr. Delafield's theory,-that is, for the part of it we are now discussing. He gives us drawings of several crania from Peru and Bogota, and from a tumulus near Cincinnati.

It will be borne in mind, that we have a Peruvian tradition that their civilization came from Mexico. The identity of these two people is a matter of considerable moment in this scheme, and the author has wisely collected some additional considerations in favor of that point. All these are circumstantial, of course. For example, he introduces some evidence to show that the two nations had a custom of flattening the cranium by forcible means; and again, that an extraordinary kind of cane-bridge, which he describes, was common to them. Ulloa, who spent ten years in Mexico, Peru and Colombia, is quoted as saying of the people generally, that "if we have seen one American we may be said to have seen all, their color and make are so nearly alike." The author concludes, on the whole, that this subject is cleared of collateral difficulties, and that we may safely proceed on

the argument, that the region of civilization among the Aborigines of the Cordilleras and Andes, comprehended one large family, whom the effects of climate and the peculiarity of country have divided into different tribes and nations, speaking diverse dialects, and possessing dissimilar customs; and who were descended from one common source which emigrated from the north, and on its way constructed the various tumuli, embankments, fossa, &c., found in Western North America. At least, he asks, may we not believe that so much evidence has been adduced as to throw the onus probandi on him who doubts.

To some readers it may occur that this theory is gratuitously got up, so far as it relates to the origin of our northern mounds, since the existence of our own natives may be sufficient to account for them. Mr. Delafield seems, on the contrary, to think that hypothesis scarcely noticeable, and he dismisses it in a few lines. We concur with him in his conclusion on this point certainly, and his reasoning about it seems sound, so far as it goes; but we could wish it had been a little more distinctly developed. Some of the thin places in his scheme are so of necessity; there was no more material to be had; but others, and this among them, might have been strengthened, we think, to considerable advantage. As regards the origin of Mexican civilization particularly, we agree with the writer of a notice of the "American Antiquities," in a contemporary Review, that the discourse which Montezuma addressed to Cortes, after he had established him in one of his splendid palaces, is a document which should not be overlooked. For example,

"We have long known," said the Indian prince, " by the traditions received from our ancestors, that neither myself nor any inhabitant of this country is of a stock which had its origin here; we are strangers, who came from a great distance, under the standard of a king who went back to his own country after the conquest, and remained away from Mexico so long that his subjects had formed a very numerous population at the time of his return to it. The king endeavored to take away his subjects with him, but they would not follow him, and still less receive him for a master. He went away a second time alone, and afterwards announced to us that one of his descendants would come to subjugate the country. From that part of the East from which you say you came, and from all that you relate of the king who sent you here, we believe that he is our destined sovereign, and this the more firmly, as you add that he had long known of us."

It is justly remarked, that Montezuma received Cortes in a manner entirely accordant with the language which the Spanish captain has put into his mouth; and that it is, therefore, right to give some credit to the substance of the discourse.

In that learned work, De Laet's "Nieuwe Werelde," is recorded a tradition respecting Yucatan, which deserves notice too. That author says:

"Several Indians, worthy of credit, relate that they have heard from their ancestors, that their country (Yucatan) was peopled by a certain nation from the east, that God had separated from other nations, by opening to them a way across the seas."-Nieuwe Werelde, p. 174.

In these last extracts a glimpse is had of what may be called the oriental branch of Mr. Delafield's main theory, to the brief consideration of which we must now attend. Having established, as he believes, the identity of our northern mound-builders with the inhabitants of the semicivilized region of the southern parts of the continent, he proceeds to the inquiry, whence this great family was derived, and where was their ancient home? The answer, as to the former clause, is, Egypt and Southern Asia; or perhaps more correctly from Egypt, by the way of Southern Asia;-and, by the way of China, moreover, we shall probably have occasion to add. Mr. Delafield's argument, in this interesting department of his subject, is elaborate and extended, as might be supposed. It embraces numerous details, and covers a good deal of ground. How conclusive these details are, and how thoroughly this ground is covered, the reader can ascertain to his complete satisfaction, only by going over them, step by step, with the author. We must content ourselves with a mere outline of the scheme, and a few specimens of the evidence by which it is sought to be established. The former is set forth as follows:

1. The evidence from comparative philology.

2. That drawn from anatomy.

3. That deduced from their mythology.

4. That arising from their hieroglyphical writings.

5. That drawn from their astronomy.

6. The evidence derived from their architecture and decorations. 7. That deduced from their manners and customs.

In the philological department, the result of the labors of Barton, who first investigated this subject, is stated thus:

"In eighty-three American languages, one hundred and seventy words have been found, the roots of which have been the same in both continents; and it is easy to perceive that this analogy is not accidental, since it does not rest merely on imitative harmony, or on that conformity of organs which produces almost an identity in the first sounds articulated by children. Of these, three-fifths resemble the Mantchou, Tongouse, Mongul, and Samoiede languages; and two-fifths the Celtic, Tchoud, Biscayan, Coptic and Congo languages."

This summary is quoted from Humboldt. In regard to the inference proper to be made from such coincidences, we have the opinion of the learned Dr. Young, who applied the test of the calculus to the subject, that if so many as three words appear to be identical, the odds would be ten to one that they must have a common origin; if six words, seventeen hundred to one; if eight, nearly one hundred thousand to one; so that in these latter cases the evidence would seem to be little short of certainty; and our author accordingly pronounces without hesitation, that ethnography has "furnished conclusive evidence that the American languages had a common origin with those of Asia." He adds, rather ingeniously for his purpose, too, respecting Humboldt's statement, just cited, that as of the American dialects three-fifths resemble the Mongolian languages, and two-fifths the Coptic, &c., it will be remembered also that in his division of America, the savage occupies three-fifths of the continent, and the region of past civilization the rest! The readers of this volume will often be amused with discoveries of this sort, which, however, we by no means condemn as unworthy of notice. They indicate enthusiasm, and that is to be expected. They indicate industry and perseverence, moreover, and these are qualities always entitled to respect.

The lack of a very logical severity in the sifting of evidence appears again in the consideration of the anatomical argument, under which head about one-third of the space is appropriated to pointing out the resemblance existing between the American Indians and the Mongolians of Northern Asia, in respect to their wild disposition, and nomadic and savage life. This is very well, however, in

VOL. IV. NO. XVI.

72

its place, and the point is illustrated with some effect, though not so fully as we think desirable. It would almost seem as if the author, in his eagerness, took for granted that every reader would be as easily satisfied as himself with his evidence; or rather, would ask no evidence at all; for a single citation, perhaps from the Gentleman's Magazine, or from some other similar authority, can hardly be dignified with such a name.

What anatomical testimony there is in this connection goes to two points; one to compare our Indians and the Mongolians as above, and the other to compare our moundbuilders with a more southern oriental race. To the former, an extract from Pritchard's History of Mankind is introduced:

"It seems doubtful whether there are any strongly marked and universal characters which distinguish the skulls of the American nations from those of the Northern Asiatics. Travellers, who have described particular nations among the aborigines of America, have often been struck with their resemblance, in feature and in the shape of the head, to the Kalmuc or Mongole race. To this race many other nations in the north of Asia bear a strong resemblance. From the numerous assertions, to be found in a variety of authors, of this analogy, it would appear to be very decidedly marked; and we do not find that any clearly defined difference has been generally proved between the two classes of nations."

As regards the other branch of his theory, the author relies chiefly on Dr. Warren again, whose conclusion is that "there is much resemblance between the crania of the race of the mounds and ancient Peru, and those of the modern Hindoos ;" and the similarity is such as to induce a belief, on the whole, that the former must have been derived from Southern Asia. Drawings of crania are introduced to enforce this point.

The drift of the mythological evidence may be best gathered from Mr. Delafield's own view of it:

"First, proof is adduced showing an identity between the religious sects of India and Mexico, and between the deities of each country; and a close correspondence is detected in their cosmogony. Still farther and more important evidence, however, renders the point conclusive that Southern Asia was the birth-place of this people, as we detect among them actual traditions of the flood, the building of Babel, and the death of Abel; and from their cosmogony, we think we trace farther traditions of the famine, and the destruction of the cities of the plain. These historical facts stamp their origin conclusively, as they are peculiar to those who have once been residents of the country where the transactions occurred.”