to purify themselves or to profit by the influence of the sun, who darts in vain his most enlivening rays upon this frigid mass.”
Buffon described a kind of ecological withering that was the reverse of evolution, in which animals responded over time to an oppressive climate by becoming less fit. America was a land of stunted, less vigorous survivors. Buffon called this process “degeneration,” and he claimed it as an example of the kind of morphological changes wrought by nature over long periods. “These changes are made only slowly, imperceptibly,” Buffon wrote. “The great worker of Nature is Time; as it always moves with an equal, uniform, and regulated pace, it does everything; and these changes, at first imperceptible, become noticeable little by little, and finally leave results about which one cannot be mistaken.”
The idea caught on. Europeans were already convinced of the inhospitable environment in America. From the time they first set foot in the New World, European explorers had reported its many unpleasantries. There were frightening snakes, tormenting insects, sour fens, and forbidding forests shrouded in fogs and poisonous airs. The land, unlike Europe, had not been improved through the industry of its native people. Although much of the continent was near the same latitudes as Europe, North America was much colder in the winter and endured awful heat and humidity in the summer.
Buffon argued that the degenerative effects of the North American climate could be seen even in livestock brought over from Europe—which he insisted also grew smaller than their ancestors. He stopped short of claiming that the same thing happened to the human colonists, though some of Buffon’s adherents said as much. What finally brought a response to Buffon from America was what he said about the New World’s aboriginal people—judgments again made without any direct observation to back them up. Indians, he said, were no different from the animals of America. They were a degenerate species. Because Indians were about the same size as Europeans, Buffon defended his theory with a wildly racist assessment of their many other deficiencies:
Although the savage of the new world is about the same height as man in our world, this does not suffice for him to constitute an exception to the general fact that all living nature has become smaller on that continent. The savage is feeble, and has small organs of generation; he has neither hair nor beard, and no ardor whatever for his female; although swifter than the European because he is better accustomed to running, he is, on the other hand, less strong in body; he is also less sensitive, and yet more timid and cowardly; he has no vivacity, no activity of mind; the activity of his body is less an exercise, a voluntary motion, than a necessary action caused by want; relieve him of hunger and thirst, and you deprive him of the active principle of all his movements; he will rest stupidly upon his legs or lying down entire days.
An answer to these brutal words—and to the whole theory of degeneration—would be offered, and when it came it would mark the beginning of American science.
In 1705, a farmer mucking about on the banks of the Hudson River near Albany, New York, found something odd. Spring floods had eroded the riverbank, exposing a foreign object. It was a gigantic tooth, about the size of a fist and weighing almost five pounds. Further excavation at the site unearthed the remains of a large animal that had presumably owned the tooth, including what appeared to be a thighbone approximately seventeen feet long. These additional parts were so badly decomposed that they crumbled instantly upon being dug up and could not be identified. The tooth, meanwhile, went on a journey.
It was sent to the Royal Society in London, in a box labeled “tooth of a Giant.” The society was arguably the most respected scientific institution in the world. Its president at the time was Sir Isaac Newton. Everyone there agreed that it was a very big tooth indeed. Beyond that, things got hazy. For a while the prevailing feeling in both London and America was that the tooth might have belonged to a giant of the sort mentioned in the Book of Genesis. As more teeth and bones were discovered in America, this theory gained momentum. Cotton Mather, the influential Boston cleric, examined some of the relics and wrote a series of letters to the Royal Society affirming that they were indeed the remains of biblical giants drowned in Noah’s flood. It was all perfectly obvious to Mather. God, disgusted with the wickedness of the world, had caused the children of normal-sized parents to become giants by putting something in their food. Although the giants proved highly troublesome, they were in the end insufficient punishment, so God drowned the earth, the giants included. Mather was an avid collector of sensational natural anomalies, and kept track of weird birth defects in animals and humans. He seemed to take a special pride in the apparent size of his supposed giants—who he calculated must have been about seventy feet tall. This, Mather noted, was bigger than other giants, mythical or biblical. It was also significant, he said, that they had been found in America, making them even more “curious and marvelous.”
There were, of course, alternative theories about the tooth, which happened to look a lot like some other big teeth the Royal Society already had in its collection. Debate as to what they belonged to was lively. Perhaps they came from large sea creatures, maybe whales. Elephants, believed to have been brought to England by the Romans, were also considered. No one suggested they were from animals no longer living on the planet, as that would have been inconsistent with the biblical history of the world. Even Isaac Newton still believed the earth was no more than six thousand years old.
But things were changing. There was growing interest in comparative anatomy, and a number of English naturalists argued that the large teeth and oversized bones that suddenly seemed to be turning up everywhere were not, in fact, human. The discussion shifted to a mystery animal, one presumably still out in the world somewhere. In America it was dubbed the incognitum—the unknown. Then, in the early 1720s, reports began to circulate that Mongol tribesmen in Siberia sometimes scavenged ivory from enormous tusks found attached to the frozen carcasses of huge, elephantlike creatures that occasionally emerged when the tundra thawed in spring. It was frankly difficult to understand how elephants—tropical animals—had ended up on the icy steppe. The same difficulty existed in North America, which was decidedly not elephant country. One possible explanation was that the earth’s orientation to the sun was different long ago, and that temperate regions had once been warmer. Meanwhile, a new term entered the discussion, thanks to the Mongols who called their mystery animal mammuts. The mammuts had teeth similar to the ones being found in the West.
In 1739, a French military expedition traveled down the Ohio River by canoe, floating into a region of the country as yet unmapped by Europeans. They found the river broad and clear and more beautiful than any they had ever seen. Flanked by forests extending to the horizons, the river carried them deep into a shadowland of towering trees and thundering game. Great herds of bison and deer and elk rumbled through the woods, following thoroughfares created by their regular tramplings. These lanes, in places wider than two wagonways, formed a network connecting surface mineral deposits and marshes that were rich with salt. Animals gathered at these “salt licks” in large numbers, making them favored hunting spots among the Indians. About six hundred miles west of Fort Pitt, on the eastern bank of the river in what would one day become Kentucky, the party made camp not far from a large marsh that stank of sulfur. Scouts were dispatched to explore the swamp, which was at the juncture of several major game trails. They soon returned laden with an assortment of astonishingly large bones and tusks. When the main party hurried down the trail to investigate, they discovered a natural graveyard—a fetid, muddy wetland piled with enormous skeletons.
For the next several decades, the bones and teeth retrieved from “Big Bone Lick,” as it came to be called, fueled the controversy over the incognitum. Benjamin Franklin, serving as a colonial emissary in London in the 1750s and 1760s, joined in the debate as to whether these remains were from some species of carnivore. Dissimilarities between the grinding teeth of the incognitum and the molars of elephants convinced some naturalists that the animal was indeed a meat-eater. Franklin thought so too at first, but in the end sided with those who argued it must have been an herbivore because its tremendous size would have made the incognitum too slow and awkward to pursue prey. Interest in the fossils remained so high that during the Revolutionary War George Washington
