Ear be it from us to disparage the Icelandic researches of the “ Royal Society of Northern
Antiquaries at Copenhagen ;” nor their “ Scriptores Septentrionales Rerum Ante-Columbia-
rum.” (312) Most laudable are their national resuscitations of “ Sagas ” recounting the
voyages of Eric-rufus, or of Thorfinn Karlsefne; particularly those affording American
proofs of that genealogy of Thorvaldsen, the great sculptor, back to the eleventh century
after Christ. In our humble opinion, however, Thor, with his hammer, is much older1
but, unable to seize the exact threads of connection between the “ Fornmanna Sogur” of
Iceland and the autocthones of the American continent, we are fain to leave their unravelling
to the incredulous author of the * Monumental Evidences of the Discovery of America
by the Northmen critically examined.” (313)
We have said that to the evidences of non-intercourse between Ancient America and the
other hemisphere there was but one exception. Here it is : —
In the printed “ Inquiries respecting the History-, present Condition and future Prospects
of the Indian Tribes of the United States,” circulated gratuitously by the DepartMent of
the Interior, (314) contributions are solicited from “ persons willing to communicate the
results of their reading or reflection.” Applauding most heartily any Government action in
the rescue of some mementoes of national tribes whose span of life is but short, we deem
it the part of good citizenship to cooperate. Our respectful mite is tendered gratis.
11 Appendix (Inquiries, p. 560): — 305. Is the Inscription found on opening the Grave
Creek Mound, in Western Virginia, in 1839, alphabetic or hieroglyphic ? ”
Neither the one nor the other.
Originally a forgery — its disappearance from the “ Museum” at Grave Creek is accounted
for in the discovery of an imposture ; its sempiternal reappearance, in an unique
series of works, is due to individual idiosyncracy.
An old acquaintance of ours is this inscription ; which was first started, about A. d. 1838,
by some “ Graye Creek Flat.” (315) Flat at its origin, the Ohio pebble has become flatter
through scholastic abrasions ; and so terribly worn away, that the United States Department,
at no trivial expense, is doomed to advertise perpetually for its recovery through
official inquiries.
Already, before our sojourn at Paris, 1845-’6, the vast palæographic erudition of this
inscription’s composer had been exemplified by the reduction of its twenty-two riidimental
apices, into four Greek, four Etruscan, five Runic, six Gallic, seven Erse, ten Phoenician,
fourteen British, and sixteen Celtiberic letters ; being no less than sixty-six chances drawn
from twenty-two, that an Ohio pebble had made, in primeval times, an outward voyage to
Europe and the Levant; and, after receiving the engraved contributions of eight antique
nations, had recrossed the Atlantic to its pristine geological habitat.
Unhappily, we were too late. Our venerable friend, M. Jomard (having accepted a copy
of this inscription, for the “ Bibliothèque Royale,” in scientific good faith), had already
printed the learned and skilful analogies deducible between the scratches on this pebble and
the Numidian alphabet. Other scholars, cnative and foreign, were misled ; and there really
seemed no prospect that the bewilderments produced by this contemptible petroglyph of a
“ Grave Creek Flat” should not become universal, when Squier’s sudden mallet flattened
it out forever, in 1848.(316) The pebble vanished from thé Grave Creek Mound; and
while, at this day, there is but one man who yet slumbers in a fool’s paradise concerning
it, we may echo its annihilator’s felicitous dictum— “ sic transit gloria moundi.”
We have seen how the fabled communications between the ancient denizens of the Nile
and those of the Hoang-ho have reposed upon Sinico-Ægyptian “ vases” — to which has
recently been added a “ padlock”; and we now knpw the archaeological worthiness of the only
(312) Antiquitates Americana}: opera et studio Caroli C. R a f n ; folio, Copenhagen, 1837.
(313) S q u ib b : in L uke B urke’s London Ethnological Journal; Dec. 1848; especially p. 319.
(314) Office of Indian Affairs: 4to, Wàshington, 1851.
(315) Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc. : 1845; i. pp. 369-420.
(316) London Ethnological Tournât: loc. cit.
proof yet standing to sustain idiocratical theories of ante-Columbian intercourse between
the American continent and any other centres of human creation on our terraqueous
planet. Until something very different in calibre be discovered by future explorers, the
section of our General Table devoted to AMERICAN ORIGINS will survive, as the plain
result of paleeographic science in Anno Domini 1853.
G. R. G.
E S SAY III.
m a n k i n d ’s CHRONOLOGY— INTRODUCTORY.
Oue brief inquiries into a subject which possesses such manifold ramifications may be
conveniently heralded by an extract or two from the works of some learned contemporaries
“ We must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion, that the Hebrew copies represent the
original and authentic text of the book of Genesis. . . . On historical grounds, very formidable
objections present themselves to the Hebrew Chronology. . . . The difficulties are still
greater when the Mosaic chronology is applied as a measure to profane history. . . . It is
not, however, in these difficulties alone that we find reason for doubting whether the genealogies
of the book of Genesis, taken either according to the Hebrew or the Septuagint,
furnish us with a real chronology and history. . . . No evidence, therefore, remains, by
which we can fix the interval which elapsed between the origin of the human race and the
commencement of the special history of each nation. . . . The consequence of the method
which has been commonly adopted, of making the Jewish chronology the bed of Procrustes,
to which every other must conform in length, has been, that credence has been refused to
histories; such as that of Egypt, resting upon unquestionable documents; and we have
voluntarily deprived ourselves of at least a thousand years, which had been redeemed for
us from the darkness of ante-historical times.” (317)
“ From this discrepancy we may infer, securely as it seems to me, that the Biblical
writers had no revelation on the subject of chronology, but computed the succession of
times from such data as were accessible to them. The duration of time, unless in so far
as the knowledge of it was requisite for understanding the Divine Dispensation, was not a
matter on which supernatural light was afforded ; nor was. this more likely than that the
facts connected with physical science should have been revealed. . . . The result of this
part of our inquiry is, in the first place, that a much longer space of time must have
elapsed than that allowed by modern chronologers between the age of Abraham and the
Exode ;.(318) and, secondly, that generations-have certainly been omitted in the early
genealogies. . . . By some it will be objected to the conclusions at which I have arrived,
that there exists, according to my hypothesis, no chronology, properly so termed, of the
earliest ages, and that no means are to be found for ascertaining the real age of the world.
This I am prepared to admit, and I observe that the ancient Hebrews seem to have been of
the same opinion, since thé Scriptural writers have always avoided the attempt to compute
the period in question. They go back, as we have seen in the instance of St. Paul’s computation,
to the age of Abraham, at the same time using expressions plainly denoting that
they make no pretension to accurate knowledge, and could only approximate to the true
dates of events ; but they have in no instance, as far as I remember, attempted to carry
the computation of time further back, nor has any one writer alluded to the age of the
world. . . . Beyond that event (the arrival of Abraham in Palestine) we can never know how
many centuries nor even how many chiliads of years may have elapsed since the first man of
clay received the image of God and the breath of life.” (319)
(317) Rev. J ohn K e n r ic k : JPrimæoal History ; London, 1846; pp. 56; 57, 58, 61, 62.
(318) The contrary is now held by the highest Egyptologists: viz.—there being b u t I saac, J acob-, L ev i,
Kohath, and A m r am—five generations, or about 165 years — between A braham and Moses, this interval must
be curtailed. Vide L e p sius : Chronologie der Ægypter ; and infra.
(319) P richa r d: Researches into the Physical History of Mankind; 1847; v., “ Note on the Biblical Chron-
ology,” pp 657, 560, 569, 570.