« PreviousContinue »
memoir on the hair as a characteristic of human race, examined by microscopical researches. The paper is of great length; it will eventually appear in the Memoirs of the Society. He has compared together transverse sections of the hair of twenty-four great races of mankind; and he also describes the hair of various regions of the body, and on the head of the anthropoid and other apes. He arranges them in a scale, one pole of which is represented by the Papuas, the Boschismen, and the Negroes, with flattened felted hair; the other pole being represented by the Polynesians, Malays, Siamese, Japanese, Túranians, and the Americans, not excepting the Esquimaux; all these types having rounded, smooth, straight hair. The Aryan races are intermediate between these two extremes. The Basques differ from the Aryan stock as much in their hair as by their language. One single hair, when it presents the average form characteristic of the race, can be assigned to its proper ethnic signification. Mixed breeds are recognizable by the fusion and juxtaposition of the characters inherent in the hair of their parents. We have no doubt that this memoir, when all the facts are laid before the scientific public, will prove of the most lasting service to anthropologists, as enabling them to bring to bear microscopical analysis on the question of ethnic distinction.
M. de Mantegazza sends an amusing memoir on the comparative physiognomy of the human races, from which many curious extracts may be made. The Negroes have the neck shorter than any race; the Jews shorter than the Russians. The knee is very low in the Russians. The Esthonians have the largest feet; Negroes have longest, Jews shortest arms. Russians have smallest, Lettons largest hands. Russians have greatest, Tshuvashes smallest feet. M. Mantegazza describes the tibia of the Gaucho, which is curved by long riding, and his great toe, which is separated from the others by reason of the small stirrups they use. The inhabitants of St. Kilda, M. Mantegazza asserts, have the same conformation, which they have acquired by the free use of the great toe, which they employ in climbing the cliffs to obtain the seafowl on which they feed. M. Jouvencel hinted that it would be very interesting to know whether there was any trace of heredity in these deformations. M. Gratiolet remarked that M. Mantegazza's labour was rather an amusing history of the customs, fashions, and caprices of the people which he observed, and had no direct connection with human physiognomy; to which the learned Italian author had given a signification different from that which was generally accepted.
The anatomy and physiology of the brain still continues to be the subject of elaborate memoirs from MM. Gratiolet and Broca. The former gentleman contributes a note on the skull of a paralytic and epileptic idiot deprived of speech, in which the capacity of the cranium was exceedingly reduced, without attaining absolute microcephaly. The right hemisphere of the brain vastly exceeded the left in size. M. Broca called attention to the skull of an idiot, a Negro, and a Mulatress, in which the cerebral convolutions were strongly marked; and described some diseased brains, in which lesions of the posterior third of the third frontal convolution had been accompanied with a privation of the faculty of language.
M. Garrigou laid before the Society some skulls, at least of Merovingian age, which had been derived from a sepulture near St. Acheul. These skulls are of great interest, as well as all the human remains of historical age from the locality. Messrs. Duckworth and Turner brought the subject before the British Association at Newcastle; and we understand that some valuable information will be given shortly to the Anthropological Society of London, coincident with the presentation of some skulls and other remains of “Gallo-Roman” age from St. Acheul, by the President of the Society.
The human jaw from Moulin-Quignon produced an active debate before the Paris Society. On the 16th April, M. de Quatrefages announced the discovery of M. Boucher de Perthes. M. Giraldés observed at the time that the obliquity of the ramus and the form of the condyle might be produced by the age of the subject, which should be carefully determined before any race-characters should be assigned to it. On the 7th May, the adverse opinion of the English palæontologists was laid before the Society by M. Giraldés; whilst M. Broca communicated the substance of a letter from Mr. Carter Blake to the same effect. M. Broca, in a caustic speech, was inclined to attribute some of the scepticism of the British palæontologists to the influence both of the Darwinian and anti-Darwinian schools, which united to decry a discovery which was to a certain extent opposed to the conclusions of either party. M. Gosse (fils) laid great stress on the testimony of the witnesses in favour of the authenticity of the jaw, and inquired whether it was expected that M. Boucher de Perthes should summon together the savans of the four quarters of the globe before making any new discovery. M. d'Omalius d'Halloy announced that the “Abbeville Conference” would shortly be held, and suggested the postponement of the debate, which was unanimously acceded to.
M. Bertillon contributes a most valuable memoir on the method to
be adopted in anthropology, in which he cites an admirable table of measurements of the circumference of the thorax in the Scotch militia as an example of the method of tabulation and ordination of anthropological statistics. We regret that our space precludes us from an adequate analysis of this most valuable and technical memoir.
M. Boudin, in a memoir which will appear at length, called attention to the singular fact that the number of military exemptions on account of height in France has diminished in a remarkable manner during the last thirty years, and supported this statement by facts and statistics. The average weight of the French soldier, as compared with the Indian sepoy, is as follows:
1.679 64.500 From the above, it will be seen how much heavier and shorter, both proportionally and actually, is the French soldier than the Hindu.
A report on the origin of the nations of French Senegal, by M. Simonot, terminates the Bulletin; in which, however, the concluding parts do not appear. Senegambia, according to M. Santamaria, is peopled by seven distinct families; the Berber, Arab, Mandingo, Sarajoulet, Peulhs, Yoloffe, and Shéréra. M. Santamaria correlates these existing types with the descendants of some of the sons of Noah, mentioned in the tenth chapter of Genesis. M. Simonot leaves to M. Santamaria the entire responsibility of this theory, and proceeds at once to the known physical facts. He seems to assign to the Negro race in Africa a higher intellectual value than some of his contemporaries and colleagues. He lays great stress on the arts of tanning, pottery, metallurgy, etc., practised by the Negroes, and especially upon their sentiment of music. Although constant nudity has excluded from their minds almost every instinct of shame, yet M. Simonot brings one instance to the contrary, to which it is our duty to assign its full value. The memoir is of the most valuable character, and we hope at some future time to lay before our readers an account of its termination.
ANTHROPOLOGY AT THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION.
The scientific carnival of Great Britain has again come and gone. The “wise week”, as the good people of Newcastle called it, was on the whole most successful. The profuse hospitality of Sir William Armstrong, and the people of Newcastle generally, will long render this, meeting memorable in the annals of the British Association. How far has the science of Anthropology been advanced by this meeting? All branches of science have their own accounts to render; and it is only our duty to examine the amount of advance made in the science of Mankind. Anthropology in name is not yet recognized in theory; but it is to some extent in practice. It is not a little remarkable, that some of those who are most opposed to the recognition of Anthropology as a recognized branch of science into the Association, are the very men who, in their practice at least, admit the claims of Anthropology, and who read papers which are entirely anthropological. For instance, Mr. Crawfurd, one of England's most consistent and venerable ethnographers, lost no opportunity of protesting against the introduction of anthropological papers into Section E; and yet, with that inconsistency for which he is occasionally distinguished, was one of the very first men in the section to read a paper on a purely anthropological subject. Mr. Crawfurd's paper, entitled “Notes on Sir C. Lyell's Antiquity of Man", was from the beginning to the end a paper on Man or Mankind, as distinguished from Ethnology, or the science of the Races of Man. No writer of any authority, either English, American, or continental, will now call the question of the antiquity of man an ethnological question. It is pure and simple an anthropological question. Other papers bearing on the same subject, we understand, were rejected by the Committee of Section E, because they were anthropological and could not be read because Anthropology was not recognized by Section E, which was entirely confined to Geography and Ethnology. But such an example from one of the most eminent Vice-Presidents of the Section, could not fail to have its influence on other members; and the result was that, notwithstanding several anthropological papers were refused by the Committee, still there were a larger number accepted. An analysis of the papers read in Section E gives the following results. There were altogether forty-one papers announced to be read before the Section ; eighteen of these were geographical, nine were ethnological, and fourteen anthropological. Besides, there were several anthropological papers, which were not accepted by the Committee simply because they were anthropological. Most of the geographical papers, we believe, were original; but there were only five out of nine of the ethnological papers which had not been read before, and, in the words of the President, “ amply discussed" in London. All the anthropological papers read before Section E, including two which were not read, were, with one exception, never read or discussed before any other scientific body. It will, then, be seen that anthropologists have yet much work to do before their science can be generally recognized. But, as far as practice goes, they have cause for satisfaction; and the recognition of Anthropology in theory must soon follow its recognition in practice.
On the whole, therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that the general result of the meeting must be considered satisfactory to anthropologists. Several circumstances combined to make Section E one of the most popular sections, as, indeed, it always has been when at all properly conducted. In the first place, the Section was presided over by the prince of presidents, who was a host in himself, and who, we are bound to admit, contributed far more than any other man to make Section E popular and its proceedings satisfactory. Sir R. Murchison was free from the littlemindedness shewn by some of his associates. His whole conduct in the chair was both fair and honest; and all his exertions were used to render the meeting agreeable to all parties. Thus, we know he frequently felt it his duty to remain at his post to his own serious inconvenience. We can only regret that his other high duties, as one of the chief rulers of the Association, caused him to occasionally absent himself. There was no one at all capable of filling the post like Sir Roderick. It is no disparagement that his two countrymen, who acted occasionally in his absence, were far from being so successful in their presidency as their eminent friend. These statements are acknowledged truisms : but we are bound to say that even Sir Roderick occasionally failed to give satisfaction to all parties. We have received several letters complaining of “the apparent puff" which Sir Roderick appended to his introductory address! We certainly were ourselves a little surprised to hear Sir Roderick coolly enumerate a list of ethnological papers to be read before the Section, most of which, as we have stated, had been read long ago, and were “stale, flat, and unprofitable”. Out of the six ethnological papers which Sir