Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon.

  • Nott, Josiah C. (Josiah Clark), 1804-1873.
Date:
1860
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Types of mankind, or, Ethnological researches, based upon the ancient monuments, paintings, sculptures, and crania of races, and upon their natural, geographical, philological and Biblical history / illustrated by selections from the inedited papers of Samuel George Morton and by additional contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson ; by J.C. Nott and Geo. R. Gliddon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    706/800 (page 650)
    All obstacles to the appreciation of what we mean by “ Mongolian Origin,” in the theory of human graphical development, being now removed, but a few paragraphs are necessary to elucidate that section of the General Table devoted to 3d. AMERICAN ORIGIN.—To another department of “ Types of Mankind” belongs the argumentative exhibition of those data, whereby the aboriginal groups of American huma- nity are disconnected from other centres of creation [supra, Chap. IX]. The purposes of our tableau are served by reference to Morton for the craniological, to Gallatin for the philological, and to Squier for the archaeological bases of discussion. It is unnecessary to reiterate the emphatic disclaimers of Dr. Morton, concerning any recognition by himself of such notions as an exotic origin for American Indians. Dr. Pat- terson’s Memoir [supra, pp. xlvi-xlix] and our various Chapters [VII. p. 232; IX. p. 275; X. pp. 305-307, 324-326] have removed from Morton’s cherished memory any further attributions to him of these philosophical heresies. (305) The total segregation of American aborigines from other types of man throughout the rest of our globe, deduced in the present volume from the former’s osteological peculiari- ties, animal propensities, geographical constitution, and what of history has been made for Indian nations by post-Columbian foreigners, results equally from the matured philology of Gallatin. “ I beg leave once more to repeat that, unless we suppose that which we have no right to do, a second miraculous interposition of Providence in America, the prodigious number of American languages, totally dissimilar in their vocabularies, demonstrates not only that the first peopling of America took place at the earliest date which we are permitted to assume, but also that the great mass of existing Indian nations are the descendants of the first [imaginary] emigrants; since we must otherwise suppose that America was peopled by one hundred different tribes, speaking languages totally dissimilar in their nature.”(306) Dr. Young it was who first made languages the subject of mathematical calculation: — “ It appears, therefore, that nothing could be inferred with respect to the relation of two languages, from the coincidence of the sense of any given word in both of them; and that the odds would be three to one against the agreement of two words; but if three words appear to be identical, it would then be more than ten to one that they must be derived in both cases from some parent language, or introduced in some other manner; six words would give more than seventeen hundred chances to one, and eight near one hundred thou- sand ; so that, in these cases, the evidence would be little short of absolute cer- tainty.” (307) Comparative philology now recognizes the grammatical structure of tongues as the sole criterion, which point we have explained in its proper place ; but those whose minds have been led astray by the plausible application of arithmetical formulm to the chances of inter- course between ante-Columbian American nations and the aborigines of Europe, Asia, Africa or Australasia—based upon vocabularies said to be coincident in about one hundred and eighty words—would do well to ponder upon the fiat of the greatest archaeologist of our generation, Letronne : — “ Profound mathematicians have essayed, principally since Condorcet, to apply the cal- culus of probabilities to questions of moral order, and above all to the divers degrees of certitude in historical facts. They have flattered themselves upon ability to calculate how much might be bet against one, that a given event had or had not happened. Unfor- tunately, they have not seen that such a probability can yield but a result chimerical and illusory. In no case could it replace that conviction, intimate, absolute, admitting neither more nor less, which the examination of the diversified circumstances accompanying a real event produces. To those who may yet preserve any confidence in this abusive employ- ment of mathematical analysis, I would venture the counsel that they should undertake to find out, through calculation, what new chance of probability is added by the fortuitous discovery of all these contemporaneous testimonies [such as Squier has disinterred from the primeval mounds of the West] which seem to emerge from the earth expressly to con- (305) Tho substance of our remarks appeared, under the heading of “The Progress of Knowledge versus the Increase of Crime,” in the New Orleans Picayune, June 12 and 19, 1853; signed G. It. G. (306) American Civilization: Trans. Amer. Amer. Ethnol. Soc.; 1845; i. p. 179. (307) Experiments on the Pendulum: Philos. Trans.; London, 1819; p. 7.