not based merely on tbe researches of such archaeologists as Lepsius,
Bunsen, Birch, De Longperier, Humboldt, &c., but on those, also, of
strictly-orthodox writers, Kenrick, Hincks, Osburn; and, we may add,
of all theologians who have really mastered the monuments of
Egypt. Hor do these monuments reveal to us only a single race, at
this early epoch in full tide of civilization, but they exhibit faithful
portraits of the same African and Asiatiq.races, in all their diversity,
which hold intercourse with Egypt at the present day.
| How, the question naturally springs up, whether the aborigines of
America were not contemporary with the earliest races, known to us,
of the eastern continent? If, as is coUceded, “ Caucasian,” Hfgro,
Mongol, and other races, existed in the Old World, already distinct,
what reason can be assigned to show that the aborigines of America
did not also exist, with meir present types, 5000 years ago ? The
naturalist must infer that the fauna and flora of the two continents
were contemporary. All facts, and all analogy, war against? the supposition
that America should have been left by the Creator a dreary
waste for thousands of years, while the other half of the world was
teeming with organized beings. This view is also greatly strengthened
by the acknowledged fact, that not a single animal, bird, reptile,
fish, or plant, was common to the Old and Hew Worlds. Ho
naturalist of our day doubts that the animal and vegetable kingdoms
of America were created where they are found, and not in Asia.
The races of men alone, of America, have been made an exception
to this general law; but this exception cannot be maintained, by any
course -of scientific reasoning. America, it, will be remembered, was
not only unknown to the early Romans and Greeks, but to the Egyptians
; and when discovered, less than four centuries ago, it was found
to be inhabited, from the Arctic to Cape Horn, and from ocean to
ocean, by a population displaying peculiar physical traits, unlike any
races in the Old World; speaking languages bearing no resemblance
in structure to other languages; and living, everywhere, among
animals and plants specifically distinct from those of Europe, Asia,
Africa, and Oceanica.
But, natural as this reasoning is, in favor of American origin for our
Indians, we shall not leave the question on such debatable ground.
There is abundant positive evidence of high antiquity for this population,
which we proceed to develop.
In reflecting on the aboriginal races of America, we are at once
met by the striking fact, that their physical characters are wholly independent
of all climatic or known physical influences, notwithstanding
their immense geographical distribution, embracing every
variety of climate, it is acknowledged by all travellers, that there is
among this people a pervading type, around which all the tribes (north,
south, east, and west) cluster, though varying within prescribed limits.»
With trifling exceptions, all our American Indians bear to each other
some degree of family resemblance,' quite as strong, for example, as
that seen at the present day among full-blooded Jews ; and yet they
are distinct from every race of the Old World, in féatùres, languagés,
customs, arts, religions, and propensities. In thé ‘language of Morton,
who studied this people more thoroughly than any other Writer : —
“.AH possess, though in various degreés, the long, lank, black hair ;*
the heavy brow; the dull, sleepy eye; thé full, compressed lips; and,
the plient, but .dilated nose.” These characters, too, are beheld in the,
civilized and the most savage tribes, along'^he rivers and sea-coasts, in
the v'allëys and on the mountains ; in the prairies- and in the forests ;
in the toryid and in the ice-bound regions ; amongst those that live
on fish, on flesh, or on vegetables.
The only race of the Old World with which any connection has
been reasonably conjectured, is the Mongol; but, to* say nothing of
the marked difference in physical characters, their languages* alone
should decide against any such alliance.
“ Thë*American race differs essentially from all others, not excepting the Mongolian;
nor do the feeble analogies of language, and the more obvious ones of civil and religious
institutions and arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with the
Asiatic nations ; »and even these analogies may, perhaps, be accounted for, as Humboldt
has suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from similar wants and impulses in nations
inhabiting similar latitudes.” 361 £
Ho philologist can be found to deny the fact that the Chinese are
now speaking and writing a language substantially the same as the
one they used 5000 years ago ; and that, top, a language distinct from
every tongue spoken by the Caucasian races. On the other hand,
we have the American races, all speaking 'dialects indisputably
peculiar to this continent, and possessing no marked affinity with any ■
other. How, if the Mongols have preserved a language entire, in
Asia, for 5000 years, they should have likewise preserved it here, or
to say the least, some trace of it. But, not only are the two linguistic
groups radically distinct, but no trace of a Mongol tongue, dubious
words excepted, can be found in the American idioms. If such imaginary
Mongolians ever brought their Asiatic speech into this country,
it is clear that their fictitious descendants, the Indians, have lost it ;
and the latter must have acquired, instead, that of some extinct race
which preceded a Mongol colonization. It will be conceded that a
■colony, or a' nation, could never lose its vocabulary so completely,
unless through conquest and amalgamation ; in which case they would
adopt another language. But, even when a tongue ceases to be