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

ETHNOLOGY.-I. Turkoman. 2. Women of the Kundorfski (nomadic) Tartars. 3. Yukon 8. Javanese woman and child. 9. Javanese in court-dress. 10, 11, 12, 13. Eyes of J lady. 18. Native of Papua. 17, 19, 22. Prehistoric skulls. 20. Circassian lady. 2 habitants of N. China. 28. Head of Burman hairy man. 29. Suane lady (Caucasus)

[graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][graphic][merged small][subsumed][subsumed]

condian (Alaska Terr.). 4. Brahmin. 5. Native of South China. 6. Hottentot. 7. Burman. of J-panese, Corean, Chinese and Dyak. 14. Mozambique negro. 15. Bushman. 16. Grecian 21. Finlanders. 23. Munga chief-Africa. 24. Hottentot skull. 25. Hawaiian. 26 7. Insus). 30. Negrito skull of Northwest Luzon. 31. Javanese chief.

Ethnology.

dus; 2. Persians; 3. Afghans; 4. Baluchi and Brahui; 5. Kurds; 6. Armenians; and 7.
Ossetines. The collective body of the European nations are now generally regarded as
a series of colonies from Asia. The proof turns mainly on a comparison of languages;
the ancient Sanscrit being regarded by the most competent judges as the parent not
only of the Greek and Latin languages, but of the Teutonic, with its several ramifica-
tions of the Slavonic, Lettish, Lithuanian, and even Celtic. Dr. Prichard himself was
the first to point out the affinity of the Celtic with the Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, and Teu-
tonic, in a memoir published by him in 1831, on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations.
Later philologers have confirmed the view taken by him, and he is perhaps correct also
in the conclusion, that they were the first great immigration of the Aryans into Europe,
who were afterwards conquered, and their numbers considerably reduced by fresh
advancing colonies from the same parent hive. But there are other nations or tribes of
Europe which no efforts of the philologists have succeeded in tracing to the Aryan stock;
To these, Dr. Prichard has
such are the Lapps, Finns, Tschudes, and Ugrians of the__n., and the Euskaldunes,
now principally represented by the Basques in the west.
given the appellation of Allophylian (Gr. allos, another, and phule, tribe), thereby signi、
fying their independence of the Aryan stock. The progenitors of these tribes were
probably the inhabitants of Europe, prior to the first Aryan immigration.

After these several races, Dr. Prichard treats of the native tribes of the austral seas and the great Southern ocean, and finally, of the native inhabitants of America. In every case, he carefully describes the physical appearance or structure, the geographical habitat, history, and migrations (if any), the language, and the moral and psychical attributes of the nation or tribe immediately brought under notice. His information has generally been obtained from the best sources, and hence his works may be regarded as a storehouse of knowledge upon the subject of ethnology.

But both before and since Blumenbach and Prichard, there have been several classifi cations of the human race proposed, the simplest of which is perhaps that of Dr. Latham, into 1. Mongolidæ; 2. Atlantidæ; 3. Japetidæ. This writer is properly regarded as the chief living exponent of the science of E. in this country. Following in the track of Prichard, and possessing, like him, a considerable acquaintance with physiology and history, he distances him altogether in the department of comparative philology. His contributions to the science of E., borrowed from this particular branch of study, are consequently of the highest value. But there is one important question, with respect Prichard, as we have seen, to which the suffrages of the best philologers are rather with Prichard than with Latham -viz., the origin of the Aryan or Indo-European race. refers it to Asia, while Latham claims it for Europe.

Retzius's classification is based on the idea that the psychical individuality of a race is expressed by brain-development as indicated by the shape of the skull. He divides races into-I. Dolichocephalic, or long-skulled races, where the length of the skull is due to a lengthening of the posterior lobes of the brain, and II. Brachycephalic, or short, broad-skulled races, in whom the comparative shortness of these lobes causes them to be more developed in breadth. These are subdivided, according to the form of the face, into (1) orthognathous, or straight-faced peoples; e.g., Europeans; and (2) prognathous, or races with projecting jaws, e.g., Negroes. This classification laid the foundation of ethnographic craniology. Zeune divides mankind into-(1) races with high skulls, e.g., Indo-Europeans; (2) races with broad skulls, e.g., Mongols and some Malay tribes; (3) races with long skulls, e.g., Negroes. Such classifications err in grouping under the same divisions races between which it is otherwise impossible to establish any consanguinity. Passing over the wild speculative classifications of the modern German materialistic school, a specimen of which is that of Carl Vogt, who, assuming the ape origin of mankind to be an indubitable fact, describes three great divisions of the human race in correspondence with the three species of anthropomorphic apes found in Asia, Africa, and America, the only other very recent classification with pretensions to scientific reasonableness, is that of Prof. Huxley, which is founded on the hair as a race-character. He describes two primary divisions-I. Ulotrichi, crisp or woolly-haired people, with skulls longer than they are broad (dolichocephalic), and with the skin-color varying from yellow to black. Negroes, Bushmen, and Malays are subdivisions of this great group. II. Leiotrichi, or smooth-haired people, subdivided into (1) the Australoid group, with "dark eyes, wavy black hair, and eminently long, prognathous skulls, with well-developed brow ridges;" (2) the Mongoloid group, e.g., Chinese, Tartars, Polynesians, and American aborigines; (3) The Xanthocroic group, fair, blue-eyed people, e.g., Sclavs, Teutons, Scandinavians, and fair, Celtic speaking nations; (4) The Melanocroic group, or pale-skinned people, with dark hair and eyes, e.g. the Iberians, or "black Čelts" of Europe, the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast and of western Asia-a group resulting probably from intermixture of the AustraUnder the Australoid group is classed such apparently loid and Xanthocroic races. unrelated races as the Australians, the Dekhan tribes in India, and the ancient Egyp tians; and curiously enough, col. Lane Fox has since shown that, from resemblances in the weapons, implements, etc., in use amongst these very races, Prof. Huxley's appar ently startling views as to their affinity are not at all improbable.

A more important question is, what do classifications classify-species or varieties? Prichard held that mankind sprung from one stock, and constituted one species.

Exist

Ethnology.

ing diversities in form and physique in races he accounted for by the influence of food, climate, and other circumstances operating through a long series of years. Mr. Darwin's recent work on Animals and Plants under Domestication powerfully corroborates this view, for it demonstrates that within the limits of one admitted species of animal there may be produced, by the operation merely of artificial selection and hereditary transmission of peculiarities, diversities infinitely greater than those existing between the highest and lowest races of mankind. Then, again, the highest and lowest human races interbreed, and their offspring is fertile, which would hardly be the case if the parents were of differ ent species. Some have held that the difficulties of migration from an original center of creation were too great to be compatible with the wide geographical distribution of mankind. Yet even the South Sea islanders-and in their case the difficulties alluded to must have been greater than in most others-may have come to their present abodes by migration; for Japanese mariners have sometimes by stress of weather been driven from their course, and cast on the shores of islands in the South Seas. This doctrine of monogeny, or original unity of the human race, is supported by Dr. Latham with arguments drawn from philology. Dr. Latham, taking it as a matter of fact that all the languages of mankind have had a common origin, argues from it in favor of an original unity of race. This common origin of languages, however, is a thing by no means proved. "The idea of an original language of the whole human race," says Dr. Waitz Introduct. Anthropologie Naturvölker), is by science now regarded as a chimera.' Admitting that Klaproth, Fürst, and Delitzsch have taken great pains to establish an affinity between the Sanscrit and the Hebrew, M. Renan and other excellent authorities regard the attempt as unsuccessful, and, even were it otherwise, "the Chinese," says a late writer (Farrar, Essay on the Origin of Language), "must always remain a stumbling. block in the way of all theories respecting a primitive language. Radical as is the dissimilarity between Aryan and Semitic languages, and wide as is the abyss between their grammatical systems, yet they almost appear like sisters when compared with the Chinese, which has nothing like the organic principle of grammar at all. Indeed, so wide is the difference between Chinese and Sanscrit, that the richness of human intelligence in the formation of language receives no more striking illustration than the fact, that these languages have absolutely nothing in common except the end at which they aim. This end is in both cases the expression of thought, and it is attained as well in Chinese as in the grammatical languages, although the means are wholly different."

[ocr errors]

Having thus made the reader in some degree acquainted with the views of Drs. Prichard and Latham on the subject of E., we now proceed to inform him of the totally different views and conclusions of the American school of ethnology. This school was founded by the late Dr. Morton of Philadelphia, an erudite and active man of science, who labored for many years in forming a collection of human crania of all nations, and of ancient as well as modern ages, with the design of still further carrying out Blumenbach's researches into the varieties of mankind by a comparison of crania, according to the method he had proposed. This collection of crania was begun in 1830, and at the time of Morton's death in 1851, amounted to the large number of 918 human crania, to which were afterwards added 51; and it, besides, included 278 crania of mammals, 271 of birds, and 88 of reptiles-in all 1606 skulls, being the largest collection of the kind ever formed, and which, fortunately for the purposes of science, is now deposited in the museum of the academy of natural sciences at Philadelphia. Simultaneously with this accumulation of crania, Dr. Morton carried on his researches in E., not, however, in the restricted sense in which he began, following Blumenbach's classification, but availing himself of the latest discoveries of Prichard, and the other English and continental writers. One of the results of his labors was the publication, in 1839, of a handsome work, entitled Crania Americana, which was followed in 1844 by the Crania Ægyptiaca, in the collection of which he had been much aided by Mr. G. R. Gliddon. In this work," says his biographer, Dr. Patterson, "Morton found himself compelled to differ in opinion from the majority of scholars, in regard to certain points of primary importance." The great question of the unity or diversity of mankind in their origin was one that early forced itself upon his attention, and the conclusion at which he arrived, after much patient investigation, was in favor of the latter view. He was slow to publish any opinion on the subject, probably reserving it for a work upon which he was engaged, to be entitled the Elements of Ethnology. His opinion, however, was well known to his friends. In a note to a paper in Silliman's Journal for 1847, he says: "I may here observe that whenever I have ventured an opinion on this question, it has been in favor of the doctrine of primeval diversities among men; an original adaptation of the several races to those varied circumstances of climate and locality which, while congenial to the one, are destructive to the other; and subsequent investigations have confirmed me in these views." In a letter to Dr. Nott, dated Jan., 1850, he lays down the following proposition: "That our species had its origin, not in one, but in several or in many creations, and that these diverging from their primitive centers, met and amalgamated in the progress of time, and have thus given rise to those intermediate links of organization which now connect the extremes together. Here is the truth divested of mystery; a system that explains the otherwise unintelligible phenomena so remarkably stamped on the races of men.' His latest utterance upon the subject is contained in a letter written to Mr. G. R. Gliddon, in April, 1851, only a fortnight before the writer's

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »