Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

uantepec ist

, as in the c
we have

g town. On

The great temple at Chichén Itza, Yucatan. The lower cut shows it as it is to-day; the upper as it is supposed to have

been in the days of its glory

William Niven, a field archæologist, while exploring, chanced to step into a cave-in, and the result of investigation proved most startling. A city ten miles long by four miles wide. was found, with houses of cemented stone and rooms of uniform height, ornamented with frescoes that show a remarkable development of the color art. It is claimed by authorities in Mexico City that these ruins, with their relics, while bearing a resemblance to those of the Tigres and the Euphrates, are new to archæology.

This great city lay buried and unsuspected all through the period of Aztec civilization. Its extreme age seems amply proven by geological conditions. Among the relics that have come to light are pottery of a type unlike any heretofore found in Mexico; a goldsmith's outfit; rings and beads of jade; a dental cast of a human mouth, and skulls containing teeth with fillings of cement and turquoise. But the

most astounding feature of this discovery is the claim that among the relics are several clay cylinders resembling those of Babylonian civilization. These cylinders, about three inches in length and an inch and a half in diameter, are covered with hieroglyphics, which are now being studied in Mexico City, where an International School of American Archæology has recently been established. Will they prove the Rosetta Stone of the New World Egypt?

Under the deep and long-cultivated soil. of Mexico there may be an indefinite number of just such cities. Hidden in the primeval forests of tropical America, or exposed to the elements on the bleak Andean highlands, there may be still other habitations of antiquity awaiting the explorer. What a productive study for the archæologist, what a fascinating field for all students-the ancient temples of America!

The Antiquity of Man in America

By

Herbert J. Spinden

Assistant Curator of the American Museum of Natural History

N the Old World, there is abundant evidence of an antiquity for man that is expressible not in years, but in geological epochs. An understanding of the nature of this evidence is necessary for any consideration of the antiquity of man in America. The scientist of to-day recognizes in Europe the cultural remains of so-called Eolithic man who lived before the glacial period and who had no tools but natural stones. These stones were chipped and broken in peculiar ways because of the springiness of the human hands that held them.

Afterward came Paleolithic man, who made simple tools of flint and bone. This was during the advances and retreats of the great ice sheet. There were long periods, of arctic climate separated by intervals almost tropical. In one period, the mammoth and the reindeer roamed over France, and in

another the hippopotamus wallowed in the Thames. The bones of extinct animals are found mingled with the handiwork of man.

After the last retreat of the ice sheet, or the beginning of recent geological time, variously estimated at from 10,000 to 50,000 years ago, occurred the advent of Neolithic man. Then came the slow rise through the Bronze Age to the classical civilizations of Egypt, Greece, and Rome.

Not only are the remains of man's art in the Old World capable of being arranged in the ascending series just noted, but the various finds of very ancient skeletons show that even his body changed with the passing of the vast cycles of time. The famous Pithecanthropus erectus of Java represents a very old extinct animal midway between man and the apes. The Heidelberg man lived many thousand years later, but still retained markedly brutish features. Exam

ples might be continued. But we have no reason to believe that human beings have changed greatly in appearance and in general intelligence since the close of the glacial period.

The evidence of the antiquity of man in the New World, based upon the findings of implements and human bones in geologic. strata of the glacial period or earlier, is generally considered to be much weaker and more inconclusive than in the Old World.

The most famous efforts to establish this fact by archæological research has just been brought to a close by the publication of the long and careful exploration at Trenton, New Jersey. This exploration extended over more than twenty years. It was carried out by Mr. Ernest Volk, under the direction of Professor Frederic Ward Putnam, of Harvard University.

In this work, the duty of the archæologist has been well done, but the results are unfortunately somewhat marred by a doubt concerning the geological age of the deposit. The evolutionary stages of handicraft are not so clearly marked as in Europe and the human bones do not show types of human beings lower than the present day Indian.

But it must not be imagined that the rejection of a glacial or interglacial antiquity for the objects in the Trenton gravels disposes of the problem before us. The site in question is probably very old, and there are other conditions to be considered.

The theoretical evidence of man's antiquity in America is very strong. In the first

place, the Indians, as a whole, show the general physical characteristics of a fairly welldefined race, probably distinct from the races of the Old World. Yet there are many differences from tribe to tribe. Then, there are many independent languages-something like a hundred for North America aloneno count being taken of the numerous dialectic variations within the same language. None of these languages, except Eskimo, is spoken in any part of the Old World. Moreover, there are many so-called culture areas in which are found peculiar useful and decorative arts. Taken all in all, this diversity along so many different lines can be explained only by a residence amounting to many thousands of years.

As for the pre-Columbian civilizations of America, such as the Mound Builders and Cliff Dwellers of the United States, the Aztecs, Mayas, etc., of Mexico and Central America, and the Incas and their predecessors of Peru, the antiquity of their wellknown monuments is much less than generally supposed. The Mound Builders were probably the ancestors of the modern Indians of the Mississippi Valley, as the Cliff Dwellers were the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians. The stone-built cities of Yucatan and Guatemala do not date back so far as the beginning of the Christian era. But the essential features of the Maya culture were already developed at that time and find their roots in the distant past. In conclusion, it may be stated that all the Indian arts of America have been developed here, and none translated from the Old World.

T

Electrified School

School Children

HE idea of stimulating the growth of plants by the application of electric currents is tolerably familiar to the world at large, but we were hardly prepared for the next logical step-the application of the same process to human beings-which has just been taken by Prof. Svante Arrhenius, in Stockholm. Fifty school children. were chosen for electrical treatment. The walls of their schoolroom were lined with a coil of wires through which a high-frequency current was passed. They were kept there every day for six months; while fifty other children, of the same average age, size, and

mental development, occupied an adjoining room not adapted for electrification.

At the end of six months, the electrified children showed an average growth of two inches, while the others grew only one and one-fourth inches. The former increased in weight in the same proportion. The most significant result, however, was that the children under electrical treatment showed an average proficiency in their studies of ninety-two per cent., and fifteen of them were rated 100 per cent.; while the unelectrified children averaged only seventy-five

per cent.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

The urgent necessity for a revision of the present tariff laws of the country is apparent to all.... If there were a more general understanding that the tariff is a tax in which private interests share the proceeds with the Government, there would be a more rigorous questioning of the various duties imposed by Congress than has yet been manifest

I

REPRESENT in Congress a great manufacturing district. When I was first elected to Congress, I was nominated by the Democrats of my district on a platform that declared in favor of a tariff for revenue.

I have maintained that position ever since, but I often find myself in the anomalous attitude of having some of my constituents who are protectionists declare that I am a free trader, while some of my colleagues in Washington, because I come here from a manufacturing district, assert that I am a protectionist.

What I believe is that a large majority of the people of the United States favor a system of taxation by duties levied on imports

of foreign merchandise, and that the country desires Congress to continue this mode of raising revenue.

The urgent necessity for a revision of the present tariff laws of the country is apparent to all.

In the preparation of a bill, the differences that exist between the two great parties are not on the issue of protection against free trade; the true issue is that the Republican desires to write a protective tariff that leans toward prohibition of imports and the Democrat a revenue tariff that favors fair competition. Although we occasionally find a free trader within the ranks of the Democratic Party, the great rank and file of the party do not favor the

doctrine of free trade.

There has never been a platform of a national convention since the organization of the Democratic Party that has advocated free trade theories; Democrats have always maintained that the true position of the party is in favor of a tariff for revenue. There never has been a tariff bill enacted into law by the Democatic Party that has not favored the doctrine for revenue as opposed to a tariff levied along free trade lines, such as the revenue laws of Great Britain.

The most distinctive Democratic tariff bill that was ever written on the statute books of this country was the Walker tariff of 1846, and, although the duties levied under this tariff did not exceed a 30 per cent. ad valorem, they were levied on competitive articles, such as wool, cotton, iron, and steel. Sugar and coffee, non-competitive articles, were placed on the free list; which clearly demonstrates that the Democratic Party, in preparing its tariff bills, has favored a duty levied for revenue, and has also stood for the incidental protection that might arise from the levying of such a duty.

DEMOCRATS FAVOR A REVENUE TARIFF

The true distinction between the two great parties of this country, to my mind, is the difference between a prohibitive tariff bill and a competitive tariff bill; the Republican Party favor a tariff that will raise some revenue to support the Government, but that at the same time will prohibit the importation of foreign merchandise as far as that can be done without doing away with all revenue also; for although the Republican Party have repeatedly declared that they favor a tariff to protect the difference in cost of production at home and abroad, they have placed their duties so greatly in excess of this amount,-in so many cases at prohibitive rates, that we are compelled to reach the conclusion that their tariff bills are written to prohibit importation and not to equalize the difference of the cost of production; that, in fact, they are protecting the manufacturer in his profits, as declared in the last Republican platform. The Democratic Party have always declared for a tariff for revenue.

It is true that any tariff taxes that allow some imports to enter the country are in one sense a tariff for revenue, but I take it that the clear meaning of the declaration of the party in favor of a tariff for revenue means

a competitive tariff-that is, a tariff that allows sufficient imports of every product made in the United States to be imported from abroad to bring about fair and honest competition, thereby producing revenue and at the same time preventing the home producer from hiding behind a tariff wall that will enable him to establish monopolies and unduly increase the burdens of taxation resting upon the American people without their receiving any benefit in return, either in the shape of revenue for the Government or in the development of the great industrial interests of the country; for it is an axiom that cannot be disputed that the moment any industry is enabled to create a monopoly, its development along the lines of best endeavor at once ceases.

PROTECTION FOR INFANT INDUSTRIES ONLY

If there were a more general understanding that the tariff is a tax in which private interests share the proceeds with the Government, there would be a more rigorous questioning of the various dutics imposed by Congress than has yet been manifest.

Professor Taussig, in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee at the hearing of the Payne-Aldrich bill, stated:

"Protection is granted for the purpose of enabling new industries to establish themselves and to offset the difference in cost at home and abroad. If an infant industry can not be strong and lusty in a reasonable time, it shows that it is developed by artificial means and is not justified, and the props should be taken away. Statistics conclusively show that most of our industries are now able to stand alone."

Again he stated:

"Our national advantages, improved machinery, efficiency of American labor, and ocean freight rates, in many instances overcome the difference of labor at home and abroad."

The facts developed before the Ways and Means Committee on the bill demonstrate beyond a doubt that if the definition by Professor Taussig of a tariff for protection is true, there are very few, if any, American industries that are left within its terms or entitled to its support. On the other hand, the testimony is conclusive that the present rates of duty are far in excess of the difference in the cost of production; and when the tariff duties exceed the difference of the cost of production at home and abroad,

« PreviousContinue »