Transcriber’s Note:
###################
This e-text is based on the 1900 edition of the book. Minor punctuation
errors, as well as inconsistencies in hyphenation, have been tacitly
corrected; misspelled or inconsistent proper names, however, have been
retained. Geographical names and names referring to tribes or nations
have been harmonised.
Extremely wide tables have been split and reformatted. A number of
symbols have been used to indicate formatting of passages or special
characters:
Underscores (_text_): italic
Forward slashes (/text/): small caps
Hash marks (#text#): bold
equals signs (=text=): vertically formatted text
The following passages have been corrected or need to be commented:
p. 59: ‘aveolocondylean’ → ‘alveolocondylean’
p. 108: Lung capacities in cubic metres are wrong; should read
‘cubic decimetres’ or ‘litres’; ‘per second’ should read ‘per
minute’
p. 194: ‘Canis familiaris matris opitimæ’ → ‘Canis familiaris
matris optimæ’
p. 286 (left column of table): ‘fair hair’: ‘fair’ added according
to Chapter IX.
p. 293: ‘Southern Mongolia’ → ‘Southern Mongolian’
p. 294: ‘geographico-lingustic’ → ‘geographico-linguistic’
p. 404: ‘corollay’ → ‘corollary’
pp. 486, 487: ‘Bornea’ → ‘Borneo’
p. 493: ‘Figs. 197 and 198’ → ‘Figs. 147 and 148’
p. 533: ‘as follow:’ → ‘as follows:’
p. 557: ‘Venezeula’ → ‘Venezuela’
pp. 578, 580: ‘M.’ (metres) → ‘MM.’ (millimetres)
Footnote 13: ‘orang-outan’ → ‘orang-utan’
Footnote 79: ‘Feftschrift’ → ‘Festschrift’
Footnote 108: ‘Amenians’ → ‘Armenians’
Footnote 329: ‘Semetic’ → ‘Semitic’
Footnote 599: missing footnote anchor added
Footnote 631: ‘Gutemala’ → ‘Guatemala’
_THE CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES._
/Edited by/ HAVELOCK ELLIS.
THE RACES OF MAN.
[Illustration: Naga of Manipur in gala costume, with caudiform
appendage.
(_Phot. lent by Miss Godden._)]
THE RACES OF MAN:
AN OUTLINE OF ANTHROPOLOGY
AND ETHNOGRAPHY
BY
J. DENIKER, Sc.D. (/Paris/),
_Chief Librarian of the Museum of Natural History, Paris;
Honorary Fellow of the Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain; Corresponding Member of the Italian Anthropological,
Netherland Geographical, and Moscow Natural Science
Societies, etc._
WITH 176 ILLUSTRATIONS AND 2 MAPS.
LONDON
WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED
PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1900
PREFACE.
My object in the present work has been to give in a condensed form the
essential facts of the twin sciences of anthropology and ethnography.
The very nature of such an undertaking condemns the author to be brief,
and at the same time somewhat dogmatic; inevitable gaps occur, and
numerous inequalities in the treatment. To obviate, partly at least,
such defects, I have endeavoured not merely to present the actual
facts of the subject, but also to summarise, with as much fidelity as
possible, the explanations of these facts, in so far as such may be
educed from theories among which there is often sufficient perplexity
of choice. In many cases I have ventured, however, to give my personal
opinion on different questions, as, for instance, on the signification
of the laryngeal sacs among anthropoid apes, on many questions of
anthropometry in general, on the classing of “states of civilisation,”
on fixed and transportable habitations, on the classification of races,
on the races of Europe, on the Palæ-American race, etc.
My book is designed for all those who desire to obtain rapidly a
general notion of ethnographic and anthropological sciences, or to
understand the foundations of these sciences. Thus technical terms are
explained and annotated in such a manner that they may be understood by
all.
Those who may wish for further details on special points will be able
to take advantage of the numerous bibliographical notes, at the foot
of the pages, in which I have sought to group according to plan the
most important or accessible works. I believe that even professional
anthropologists will be able to consult my work profitably. They will
find condensed in it information which is scattered over a vast crowd
of notes and memoirs in all languages. I trust also that they may
appreciate the Appendices, as well as the lists in the text itself,
in which are collected from the best sources some hundreds of figures
relating to the chief dimensions of the human body.
The illustrations which complete and elucidate the text have been
selected with very great care. With two or three exceptions, the
“types” of the different peoples are photographs of well-authenticated
subjects, often such as have been observed and measured by competent
authorities, or by myself.
I attach too much importance to the systematic illustration of
anthropological works not to fail to express here my sincere
indebtedness to the institutions and individuals who have been good
enough to lend me blocks and photographs. I have thus to thank
the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, the
Anthropological Society and the Anthropological School of Paris, the
India Museum, the Museum of Natural History of Paris, the Smithsonian
Institution of Washington, Dr. Beddoe, Prince Roland Bonaparte, M.
Chantre, Drs. Collignon and Delisle, Herr Ehrenreich and his editors
Fr. Vieweg & Sons, Professor Haddon, Dr. Lapicque, Mr. Otis Mason, Dr.
Sören Hansen, MM. S. Sommier, P. and F. Sarasin and their editor Herr
C. Kreidel of Wiesbaden, Dr. Ten Kate, Mr. Thurston, Miss Godden, Miss
Werner, and Messrs. Harper & Bros.
I desire also to thank in this place Dr. Collignon, Mr. Havelock Ellis,
and M. Salomon Reinach, for the trouble they have taken in revising the
proofs of certain parts of my work.
J. DENIKER.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
/Ethnic Groups and Zoological Species/ 1
Difficulties in applying to Man the terms of zoological
nomenclature--Criterion of species--Terms to give to the
“Somatological Units” constituting the genus _Homo_--Monogenesis
and Polygenesis--The “Ethnic Groups” are constituted by
the different combinations of the “Somatological Units” or
“Races”--Somatic characters and ethnic characters.
CHAPTER I.
/Somatic Characters/ 12
/Distinctive Characters of Man and Apes/.--Monkeys
and anthropoid apes--Erect attitude--Curvature of the
spine--Brain--Skull--Teeth--Other characters--Differences
less accentuated in the fœtus and the young than in the
adult.
/Distinctive Morphological Characters of Human Races/.--_Stature_:
Individual limits--Dwarfs and giants--Average stature of different
populations--Influence of environment--Differences according
to sex--Reconstitution from the long bones--_Teguments_:
Skin--Hair of head and body--Four principal types--Microscopic
structure--Correlation between the hair of the head and the
pilosity of the body--_Pigmentation_: Colouring of the skin, the
eyes, and the hair--Changes in the pigment.
CHAPTER II.
1. /Morphological Characters/--(_continued_) 53
_Cranium or Skull_: Cranial measurements--Orbits and orbital
index--Nasal bone and nasal index--Prognathism--_Head of the living
subject_: Cephalic index--Face--Eyes--Nose and nasal index in the
living subject--Lips--_Trunk and Limbs_: The Skeleton--Pelvis
and its indices--Shoulder blade--Thoracic limb--Abdominal
limb--_Proportions of the body in the living subject_--Trunk and
neck--Curve of the back--Steatopygy--_Various Organs_: Genital
organs--Brain--Its weight--Convolutions--The neuron--Its importance
from the psychical point of view.
CHAPTER III.
2. /Physiological Characters/ 105
_Functions of nutrition and assimilation_: Digestion, alimentation,
growth, temperature of the body, etc.--_Respiration and
circulation_: Pulse, composition of the blood, etc.--Special
odour--_Functions of communication_: Expression of the emotions,
acuteness of the senses, etc.--_Functions of reproduction_:
Menstruation, menopause, increase in the number of conceptions
according to season, etc.--_Influence of environment_:
Acclimatation--Cosmopolitanism of the genus _Homo_ and the races of
mankind--Cross-breeding.
3. /Psychological and Pathological Characters/.--Difficulties of
studying them--Immunities--Nervous diseases of uncivilised peoples.
CHAPTER IV.
/Ethnic Characters/ 123
Various stages of social groups and essential characters of
human societies: Progress.--Conditions of Progress: Innovating
initiative, and tradition--Classification of “states of
civilisation.”
I.--/Linguistic Characters/.--_Methods of exchanging ideas within
a short distance_--Gesture and speech--Divisions of language
according to structure--Jargons--_Communications at a relatively
remote distance_: optic and acoustic signals--_Transmission of
ideas at any distance and time whatever_--Handwriting--Mnemotechnic
objects--Pictography--Ideography--Alphabets--Direction of the lines
of handwriting.
CHAPTER V.
II.--/Sociological Characters/ 144
1. /Material Life/: _Alimentation_:
Geophagy--Anthropophagy--Preparation of
foods--Fire--Pottery--Grinding of corn--Stimulants
and Narcotics--_Habitation_: Two primitive types of
dwellings--Permanent dwelling (hut)--Removable dwelling
(tent)--Difference of origin of the materials employed in the two
types--Villages--Furniture--Heating and lighting--_Clothing_:
Nakedness and Modesty--Ornament precedes dress--Head-dress--Ethnic
mutilations--Tattooing--Girdle, necklace, and garland the
origin of all dress--Manufacture of garments--Spinning
and weaving--_Means of Existence_: tools of primitive
industry--Hunting--Fishing--Agriculture--Domestication and rearing
of animals.
CHAPTER VI.
II. /Sociological Characters/--(_continued_) 197
2. /Psychic Life/: _Games and Recreations_--Their
importance--Games of children and adults--Sports
and public spectacles--Masks--_Fine Arts_--Graphic
arts--Ornamentation--Drawing--Sculpture--Dancing--Its
importance among uncultured peoples--Pantomime and
dramatic art--Vocal and instrumental music--Instruments of
music--Poetry--_Religion_--Animism--Its two elements: belief in
the soul, and belief in spirits--Fetichism--Polytheism--Rites
and ceremonies--Priesthood--International
religions--_Myths_--_Science_--Art of
counting--Geometry--Calculation of time--Clocks and
calendars--Geography and cartography--Medicine and surgery.
CHAPTER VII.
/Sociological Characters/--(_continued_) 229
3. /Family Life/.--Relations of the two sexes before
marriage--_Marriage and family_--Theory of promiscuity--Group
marriage--Exogamy and endogamy--Matriarchate--Degrees of
relationship and filiation--Polyandry--Levirate--Polygamy and
monogamy--Patriarchate--Rape and purchase of the bride--Duration
of conjugal union--_Children_--Birth--Nurture--Name of the child
and of adults--Initiation, circumcision, etc.--_Old men and their
fate_--_Funereal rites_--Mourning.
4. /Social Life/.--(_a_) _Home life of a people_--_Economic
organisation_--The forms of property depend on production--Common
property and family property--Village community--Individual
property--_Social organisation_--Totemism--Clan rule--Family
rule--Territorial rule--Caste and class rule--Democratic
rule--Social morals--Right and justice--Taboo--Retaliation,
vendetta, and ordeals--Secret societies--Extra legal
judges--Formulæ of politeness--(_b_) _International life
of peoples_--Absence of sympathetic relations--Hostile
relations--_War_--Arms of offence--Bow and arrows--Arms of
defence--Neutral relations--_Commerce_--Money--Cowry--Transports
and means of communication--Primitive vehicles--Navigation.
CHAPTER VIII.
/Classification of Races and Peoples/ 280
Criticism of anthropological classification--Frequent confusion
of the _classing of races_ and _of peoples_--The determining of
races can be based only on _somatic characters_--For the classing
of peoples, on the contrary, it is necessary to take into account
_ethnic characters_ (linguistic and sociological), and above all
_geographical distribution_--_Classification of races proposed by
the author_--Succinct characterisation of the twenty-nine races
which are therein mentioned--_Classification of ethnic groups_
adopted in this work.
CHAPTER IX.
/Races and Peoples of Europe/ 299
Problem of European ethnogeny--I. /Ancient Inhabitants Of
Europe/--_Prehistoric races_--Quaternary period--Glacial and
interglacial periods--Quaternary skulls--Spy and Chancelade races
or types--Races of the neolithic period--Races of the age of
metals--_Aryan question_--Position of the problem--_Migration_ of
European peoples in the _historic period_--II. /European Races of
the Present Day/--Characteristics of the six principal races and
the four secondary races--III. /Present Peoples of Europe/--/A/.
_Aryan peoples_: Latins, Germans, Slavs, Letto-Lithuanians, Celts,
Illyro-Hellenes--/B/. _Anaryan peoples_: Basques, Finns, etc.--/C/.
_Caucasian peoples_: Lesgians, Georgians, etc.
CHAPTER X.
/Races and Peoples of Asia/ 359
/Ancient Inhabitants of Asia/.--Prehistoric times--_Pithecanthropus
erectus_ (Dub.)--Ages of stone and metals.--/Present Inhabitants of
Asia/.--Races of Asia--I. _Peoples of Northern Asia_--Yeniseian,
Palæasiatic and Tunguse groups.--II. _Peoples of Central
Asia_--Turkish, Mongolian, and Thibetan groups--Peoples of the
south-west of Thibet and of South China (Lolo, Miao-tsé, Lu-tsé,
etc.).--III. _Peoples of Eastern Asia_--Chinese, Coreans, and
Japanese.--IV. _Peoples of Indo-China_--Aborigines, Mois, Kuis,
Siam, Naga, etc.--More recent mixed populations: Annamese,
Cambodians, Thai, etc.--V. _Peoples of India_--Castes--Dravidians
and Kolarians--Indo-Aryans and unclassified populations--VI.
_Peoples of Anterior Asia_--Iranians and Semites.
CHAPTER XI.
/Races and Peoples of Africa/ 426
/Ancient Inhabitants of Africa/.--Succession of races on the “dark
continent”--/Present Inhabitants of Africa/--/I/. _Arabo-Berber
or Semito-Hamite Group_: Populations of Mediterranean Africa and
Egypt--/II/. _Ethiopian or Kushito-Hamite Group_: Bejas, Gallas,
Abyssinians, etc.--/III/. _Fulah-Zandeh Group_: The Zandeh,
Masai, Niam-Niam populations of the Ubangi-Shari, etc., Fulbé or
Fulahs--/IV/. _Nigritian Group_: Nilotic Negroes or Negroes of
eastern Sudan--Negroes of central Sudan--Negroes of western Sudan
and the Senegal--Negroes of the coast or Guinean Negroes, Kru,
Agni, Tshi, Vei, Yoruba, etc.-/V/. _Negrillo Group_: Differences of
the Pygmies and the Bushmen--/VI/. _Bantu Group_: Western Bantus of
French, German, Portuguese, and Belgian equatorial Africa--Eastern
Bantus of German, English, and Portuguese equatorial
Africa--Southern Bantus: Zulus, etc.--/VII/. _Hottentot-Bushman
Group_: The Namans and the Sans--/VIII/. _Populations of
Madagascar_: Hovas, Malagasi, Sakalavas.
CHAPTER XII.
/Races and Peoples of Oceania/ 474
The Stone Age in Oceania--/I/. _Australians_: Uniformity of
the Australian race--Language and manners and customs of the
Australians--Extinct _Tasmanians_--/II/. _Populations of the
Asiatic or Malay Archipelago_: Papuan and Negrito elements in the
Archipelago--Indonesians and Malays of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
etc.--/III/. _Melanesians_: Papuans of New Guinea--Melanesians
properly so called of the Salomon and Admiralty Islands, New
Hebrides, New Caledonia, etc.--/IV/. _Polynesians_: Polynesians
properly so called of Samoa, Tahiti, and Sandwich Islands, New
Zealand, etc.--Micronesians of the Caroline and Marianne Islands,
etc.--Peopling of the Pacific Islands and of the Indian Ocean.
CHAPTER XIII.
/Races and Peoples of America/ 507
The four ethnic elements of the New World--_Origin of the
Americans_--/Ancient Inhabitants of America/--Problem
of palæolithic man in the United States--Palæolithic
man in Mexico and South America--Lagoa Santa race;
Sambaquis and Paraderos--Problem of the Mound-Builders and
Cliff-Dwellers--Ancient civilisation of Mexico and Peru--_Present
American Races_--_American languages._
/Peoples of North America/--/I/. _Eskimo_--/II/. _Indians of
Canada and United States_: _a._ Arctic--Athapascan group; _b._
Antarctic--Algonquian-Iroquois, Chata-Muskhogi, and Siouan
groups; _c._ Pacific--North-west Indians, Oregon-California and
Pueblo groups--/III/. _Indians of Mexico and Central America_:
_a._ Sonoran-Aztecs; _b._ Central Americans (Mayas, Isthmians,
etc.)--Half-breeds in Mexico and the Antilles.
/Peoples of South America/--/I/. _Andeans_: Chibcha, Quechua, and
other linguistic families; the Araucans--/II/. _Amazonians_: Carib,
Arawak, Miranha, and Panos families; unclassed tribes--/III/.
_Indians of East Brazil and the Central Region_: Ges linguistic
family; unclassed tribes (Puri, Karaya, Bororo, etc.); Tupi-Guarani
family--/IV/. _South Argentine_: Chaco and Pampas Indians, etc.;
Patagonians, Fuegians.
/Appendix/ 577
/Index of Authors/ 597
/Index of Subjects/ 604
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
FIG. PAGE
Naga of Manipur in gala costume _Frontispiece_
1. Skull of gorilla 16
2. Skull of man 17
3. Microscopic section of skin and of hair 34
4. Mohave Indians of Arizona 35
5, 6. Pure Veddah of Dangala Mountains of Ceylon 36, 37
7. Toda woman (India) 39
8. Kurumba man of Nilgiri Hills 40
9. Agni Negro of Krinjabo, Western Africa 41
10. Dolichocephalic skull of an islander of Torres Straits 57
11. Brachycephalic skull of a Ladin of Pufels (Tyrol) 57
12, 13. Skull of ancient Egyptian exhumed at Thebes 60, 61
14, 15. Jenny, Australian woman of Queensland 66, 67
16. Japanese officer (old style) 70
17. Two men, Nagas of Manipur 71
18. Eye of a young Kalmuk girl of Astrakhan 78
19. Welsh type of Montgomeryshire 79
20. Kalmuk of Astrakhan 81
21. Jew of Algiers 82
22. Persian Hadjemi 83
23. A, Skull with Inca bone; B, Malar bone divided in two; C,
Superior part of femur, etc. 88
24. Hottentot woman of Griqualand 94
25. Brain with indication of the three “centres of projection” and
the three “centres of association” 102
26. Dakota Indian gesture language 129
27. Writing by notches of the Laotians 136
28. Coloured prehistoric pebbles of the grotto of Mas-d’Azil
(Ariège) 137
29. Journal of the voyage of an Eskimo of Alaska 138
30. Petition of Chippeway Indians to the President of the United
States 139
31. Various signs of symbolic pictography 140
32. Paternoster in Mexican hieroglyphics 140
33. Ancient Chinese hieroglyphics 141
34. Method of fire-making by rubbing 150
35. Do. do. sawing 151
36. Do. do. twirling 151
37. Bark vessel, used by Iroquois Indians 154
38. Type of Iroquois earthen vessel 154
39. Making of pottery without wheel 155
40. Primitive harvest 156
41. Hemispherical hut in straw of Zulu-Kafirs 161
42. Hut and granary of the Ovampos (S. Africa) 162
43. Summer tent of Tunguse-Manegres 164
44. “Gher” or tent of the Kalmuks of Astrakhan 165
45. Hexagonal house of non-roving Altaians 166
46. Kraal, or Kafir village, with defensive enclosure 167
47. Zulu girl, with head-dress, necklace, belt, and chastity
apron 171
48. Ufhtaradeka, typical Fuegian with mantle 172
49. Ainu woman, tattooed round the lips 174
50, 51. Foot of Chinese woman artificially deformed 175
52. Native of the Department of Haute-Garonne 177
53. Dancing costume of natives of Murray Islands 179
54. Method of making stone tools by percussion 185
55. Method of flaking stone by pressure 185
56. Knife of chipped flint of the Hupa Indians 186
57. Kalmuk turning lathe with alternating rotatory movement 188
58. Principle of tackle utilised by Eskimo, landing a walrus 190
59. Dance of Australians during the Corroboree 200
60. Anthropomorph ornamental design of the Papuans of New
Guinea 201
61, 62. Zoomorph ornamental designs on a club and a spatula 202
63. Conventional representation of an alligator 203
64. Ornamental motive derived from the preceding design 203
65. Ornamental designs of the Karayas 204
66. Bushman painting, representing the battle going in favour
of the Bechuana 205
67. Symbolic adzes of Mangaia Island 207
68. “Sansa” or “Zimba,” a musical box of the Negroes 211
69. “Marimba,” the Negro xylophone 212
70. Bushman playing on the “gora” 213
71. Detail of construction of the “gora” 214
72. Eskimo geographical map 226
73. Chipped flint dagger of the Californian Indians 256
74. Axe of the Banyai (Matabeleland) 258
75. Missile arms of the Australians 260
76. Throwing-stick of the Papuans of German New Guinea 261
77. Different methods of arrow release 265
78. Australian shield in wood 267
79. Indonesian shields 268
80. Shield of Zulu-Kafirs 268
81. Money of uncivilised peoples 272
82. Method of tree-climbing in India 276
83. Malayo-Polynesian canoe with outrigger 279
84. Chellean flint implement, Saint-Acheul (Somme) 302
85. Quaternary art (Magdalenian period) 308
86. Spy skull, first quaternary race 311
87. Chancelade skull, second quaternary race 312
88. Islander of Lewis (Hebrides) 319
89, 90. Norwegian of South Osterdalen 322, 323
91. Young Sussex farmer 326
92. Englishwoman of Plymouth 328
93. Fisher people of Island of Aran (Ireland) 330
94. Young woman of Arles 331
95, 96. Pure type of Highlander (clan Chattan) 332, 333
97. Anglian type, common in north and north-east of England 336
98. Frenchman of Ouroux (Morvan) 337
99, 100. Dolichocephalic Frenchmen of Dordogne 338
101. Englishman (Gloucestershire) 341
102, 103. Russian carpenter, district of Pokrovsk 342, 343
104, 105. Russian woman, district of Veréïa 346, 347
106. Cheremiss of Ural Mountains 350
107, 108. Kundrof Tatar (Turkoman) of Astrakhan 352, 353
109. Georgian Imer of Kutais 355
110, 111. Chechen of Daghestan 356, 357
112. Skull of the _Pithecanthropus erectus_ (Dab.) 360
113. Calvaria of _Pithecanthropus_, seen from above 361
114. Polished stone axe found in Cambodia 364
115, 116. Tunguse hunter (Siberia) with ski and staff 368, 369
117. Ainu of Yezo (Japan) with crown of shavings 371
118. Educated Chinaman of Manchu origin 384
119. Leao-yu-chow, Chinese woman 385
120. Young Japanese women taking tea 388
121. Tong King artisan of Son-tai 390
122. Khamti of Lower Burma, Assam frontier 393
123. Black Sakai of Gunong-Inas (Perak, Malay Pen.) 396
124. Negrito chief of Middle Andaman 398
125. Gurkha of the Kus or Khas tribe, Nepal 403
126. Group of Paniyan men and children of Malabar 405
127. Young Irula girl 406
128. Santal of the Bhagalpur Hills 407
129. An old Toda man of Nilgiri Hills 412
130. Group of Todas of Nilgiri Hills 414
131, 132. Singhalese of Candy, Ceylon 416, 417
133. Tutti, Veddah woman of the village of Kolonggala 418
134. Natives of Mekran (Baluchistan) 421
135. Arts and crafts among the Kafirs 430
136. Tunisian Berber, Oasis type 433
137. Trarza Moor of the Senegal 434
138. Hamran Beja of Daghil tribe 437
139. Yoro Combo, fairly pure Fulah of Kayor (Futa Jallon) 442
140. Bonna M’Bané, Mandingan-Sossé 448
141. Catrai, Ganguela-Bantu 457
142. Swazi-Bantu woman and girl 466
143. N’Kon-yui, Bushman of the region of Lake Ngami 467
144. Hova of Tananarivo 472
145. Ambit, Sundanese of Java (Preanger prov.) 476
146. Natives of Livuliri (near Larantuka, Floris) 479
147, 148. Buri, a Solorian of Adanara Island 480, 481
149, 150. “Billy,” Queensland Australian 484, 485
151. Young Papuan woman of the Samarai people 492
152. Papuans of the Kerepunu tribe at Tamain-Hula (New Guinea) 496
153. Woman of the Fuala clan (New Caledonia) 498
154, 155. Tahitian woman of Papeete 502, 503
156. Tahitian of Papeete 504
157. West Greenland Eskimo 518
158, 159. Gahhigué-Vatake, a Dakota-Siouan Indian 522, 523
160. Woman of Wichita tribe, Pawnee Nation, Ind. Terr., U.S. 525
161. Christian Apache Indian 529
162. Young Creole woman of Martinique 538
163. Miztec Indian (Mexico) 539
164. Miztec women (Mexico) 541
165. Guaraunos chief, with his two wives 548
166. Guaraunos of the mouth of the Orinoco 549
167, 168. Kalina or Carib of Dutch Guiana 554, 555
169, 170. Miranha Indian of Rio Yapura 558, 559
171. Bakairi, Carib tribe of upper Xingu 562
172. Aramichaux Indian (Carib tribe of French Guiana) 566
173. Bororo woman (unclassified tribe of Matto Grosso) 568
174. Kamanakar Kipa, young Yahgan Fuegian girl 574
175. Tualanpintsis, Yahgan Fuegian, and his wife Ticoaeli 575
/Map/ 1. Europe in the first glacial period 303
„ 2. Approximate distribution of the races of Europe 327
THE RACES OF MAN.
INTRODUCTION.
ETHNIC GROUPS AND ZOOLOGICAL SPECIES.
Difficulties in applying to Man the terms of zoological
nomenclature--Criterion of species--Terms to give to the
“Somatological Units” constituting the genus _Homo_--Monogenesis
and Polygenesis--The “Ethnic Groups” are constituted by
the different combinations of the “Somatological Units” or
“Races”--Somatic characters and ethnic characters.
The innumerable groups of mankind, massed together or scattered,
according to the varying nature of the earth’s surface, are far from
presenting a homogeneous picture. Every country has its own variety
of physical type, language, manners, and customs. Thus, in order to
exhibit a systematic view of all the peoples of the earth, it is
necessary to observe a certain order in the study of these varieties,
and to define carefully what is meant by such and such a descriptive
term, having reference either to the physical type or to the social
life of men. This we shall do in the subsequent chapters as we proceed
to develop this slight sketch of the chief general facts of the
physical and psychical life of man, and of the most striking social
phenomena of the groups of mankind.
But there are some general terms which are of more importance than
others, and their meaning should be clearly understood from the first.
I refer to expressions like “people,” “nation,” “tribe,” “race,”
“species,” in short, all the designations of the different groupings,
real or theoretic, of human beings. Having defined them, we shall by so
doing define the object of our studies.
Since ethnography and anthropology began to exist as sciences, an
attempt has been made to determine and establish the great groups
amongst which humanity might be divided. A considerable diversity of
opinion, however, exists among leading scientific men not only as to
the number of these groups, of these “primordial divisions” of the
human race, but, above all, as to the very nature of these groups.
Their significance, most frequently, is very vaguely indicated.
In zoology, when we proceed to classify, we have to do with beings
which, in spite of slight individual differences, are easily grouped
around a certain number of types, with well-defined characters, called
“species.” An animal can always be found which will represent the
“type” of its species. In all the great zoological collections there
exist these “species-types,” to which individuals may be compared in
order to decide if they belong to the supposed species. We have then
in zoology a real substratum for the determination of species, those
primordial units which are grouped afterwards in genera, families,
orders, etc.
Is it the same for man? Whilst knowing that the zoological genus _Homo_
really exists quite distinct from the other genera of the animal
kingdom, there still arises the question as to where the substratum is
on which we must begin operations in order to determine the “species”
of which this genus is composed. The only definite facts before us are
these groups of mankind, dispersed over the whole habitable surface of
the globe, to which are commonly given the names of peoples, nations,
clans, tribes, etc. We have presented to us Arabs, Swiss, Australians,
Bushmen, English, Siouan Indians, Negroes, etc., without knowing if
each of these groups is on an equal footing from the point of view of
classification.
Do these real and palpable groupings represent unions of individuals
which, in spite of some slight dissimilarities, are capable of forming
what zoologists call “species,” “sub-species,” “varieties,” in the
case of wild animals, or “races” in the case of domestic animals? One
need not be a professional anthropologist to reply negatively to this
question. They are _ethnic groups_ formed by virtue of community of
language, religion, social institutions, etc., which have the power of
uniting human beings of one or several species, races, or varieties,[1]
and are by no means zoological species; they may include human beings
of one or of many species, races, or varieties.
Here, then, is the first distinction to make: the social groups that
we are to describe in this work under the names of clans, tribes,
nations, populations, and peoples, according to their numerical
importance and the degree of complication of their social life, are
formed for us by the union of individuals belonging usually to two,
three, or a greater number of “somatological units.” These units are
“theoretic types” formed of an aggregation of physical characters
combined in a certain way. The separate existence of these units may
be established by a minute analysis of the physical characters of
a great number of individuals taken haphazard in any given “ethnic
group.” Here are, then, entities, theoretic conceptions exactly like
“species” in zoology; only instead of having within our reach the
“types” of these species as in zoological collections, we are obliged
to rest content with approximations thereto, for it is a very rare
occurrence to meet with an individual representing the type of the
somatological unit to which he belongs. Most frequently we have to do
with subjects whose forms are altered by blendings and crossings, and
in whom, setting aside two or three typical traits, we find only a
confused mixture of characters presenting nothing striking. Ordinarily,
the more peoples are civilised the more they are intermixed within
certain territorial limits. Thus the number of “somatological units” is
so much the greater when the “ethnic groups” are more civilised, and
it is only among entirely primitive peoples that one may hope to find
coincidence between the two terms. In reality, those peoples are almost
undiscoverable who represent “somatological units” comparable to the
“species” of zoology.
But, it may be asked, do you believe that your “somatological units”
are comparable with “species”? Are they not simple “varieties” or
“races”?
Without wishing to enter into a discussion of details, it seems to me
that where the genus _Homo_ is concerned, one can neither speak of the
“species,” the “variety,” nor the “race” in the sense that is usually
attributed to these words in zoology or in zootechnics.
In effect, in these two sciences, the terms “species” and “variety” are
applied to wild animals living solely under the influence of nature;
whilst the term “race” is given in a general way to the groups of
domestic animals living under artificial conditions created by an alien
will, that of man, for a well-defined object.
Let us see to which of these two categories man, considered as an
animal, may be assimilated.
By this single fact, that even at the very bottom of the scale of
civilisation man possesses articulate speech, fashions tools, and
forms himself into rudimentary societies, he is emancipated from a
great number of influences which Nature exerts over the wild animal;
he lives, up to a certain point, in an artificial environment created
by himself. On the other hand, precisely because these artificial
conditions of life are not imposed upon him by a will existing outside
himself, because his evolution is not directed by a “breeder” or a
“domesticator,” man cannot be compared with domestic animals as regards
the modifications of his corporeal structure.
The data relating to the formation of varieties, species, and races
can therefore be applied to the morphological study of man only with
certain reservations.
This being established, let us bear in mind that even the distinction
between the species, the variety (geographical or otherwise), and the
race is anything but clearly marked. Besides, this is a question that
belongs to the domain of general biology, and it is no more settled in
botany or in zoology than in anthropology. The celebrated botanist,
Naegeli, has even proposed to suppress this distinction, and definitely
show the identical nature of all these divisions by instituting his
_great_ and _small species_.[2]
The idea of “species” must rest on the knowledge of two orders of
facts, the morphological resemblances of beings and the lineal
transmission of their distinctive characters. Here, in fact, the
formula of Cuvier is still in force to-day in science. “The species is
the union of individuals _descending one from the other or from common
parents_, and of those who resemble them as much as they resemble each
other.”[3] (I have italicised the passage relating to descent.) It is
necessary then that beings, in order to form a species, should be like
each other, but it is obvious that this resemblance cannot be absolute,
for there are not two plants or two animals in nature which do not
differ from each other by some detail of structure; the likeness or
unlikeness is then purely relative; it is bound to vary within certain
limits.
But what are these limits? Here we are on the verge of the
arbitrary, for there exists no fixed rule determining the point to
which individual unlikeness may go in order to be considered as
characteristic of a species. A difference which entitles one zoologist
to create a species hardly suffices, according to another, to
constitute a “variety,” a “sub-species,” or a “race.” As to the second
criterion of species drawn from the transmission and the descent of
characters, it is theoretic rather than practical. Without dwelling on
the numerous examples of “varieties” as fertile among themselves as
“species,”[4] let us ask ourselves how many zoologists or botanists
have verified experimentally the fertility of the species which they
have created. In the large majority of cases, the species of plants and
animals have been established solely from morphological characters,
very often from the examination of dead specimens, and without any
guarantee that the beings in question proceeded from common parents and
that when crossed they would be fertile or not.
In the case of man, as in that of the majority of plants and animals,
fertility or non-fertility among the different groups has not been
experimentally proved, to enable us to decide if they should be
called “races” or “species.” To a dozen facts in favour of one of the
solutions, and to general theories in regard to half-breeds, can be
opposed an equal number of facts, and the idea, not less general, of
reversion to the primitive type.[5] And again, almost all the facts in
question are borrowed from cross-breeding between the Whites and other
races. No one has ever tried cross-breeding between the Australians and
the Lapps, or between the Bushmen and the Patagonians, for example.
If certain races are indefinitely fertile among themselves (which has
not yet been clearly shown), it may be there are others which are not
so.[6] A criterion of descent being unobtainable, the question of the
rank to be assigned to the genus _Homo_ is confined to a morphological
criterion, to the differences in physical type.
According to some, these differences are sufficiently pronounced for
each group to form a “species”; according to others they are of such
a nature as only to form racial distinctions. Thus it is left to the
personal taste of each investigator what name be given to these.
We cannot do better than cite upon this point the opinion of a writer
of admitted authority. “It is almost a matter of indifference,” says
Darwin, “whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or
ranked as ‘species’ or ‘sub-species,’ but the latter term appears the
most appropriate.”[7] The word “race” having been almost universally
adopted nowadays to designate the different physical types of mankind,
I shall retain it in preference to that of “sub-species,” while
reiterating that there is no essential difference between these two
words and the word “species.”
From what has just been said, the question whether humanity forms a
single species divided into varieties or races, or whether it forms
several species, loses much of its importance.
The whole of this ancient controversy between monogenists and
polygenists seems to be somewhat scholastic, and completely sterile
and futile; the same few and badly established facts are always
reappearing, interpreted in such and such a fashion by each disputant
according to the necessities of his thesis, sometimes led by
considerations which are extra-scientific. Perhaps in the more or less
near future, when we shall have a better knowledge of present and
extinct races of man, as well as of living and of fossil animal species
most nearly related to man, we shall be able to discuss the question
of origin. At the present time we are confined to hypothesis without a
single positive fact for the solution of the problem. We have merely
to note how widely the opinions of the learned differ in regard to the
origin of race of certain domestic animals, such as the dog, the ox,
or the horse, to get at once an idea of the difficulty of the problem.
And yet, in these cases, we are dealing with questions much less
complicated and much more carefully studied.
Moreover, whether we admit variety, unity or plurality of species in
the genus _Homo_ we shall always be obliged to recognise the positive
fact of the existence in mankind of several somatological units having
each a character of its own, the combinations and the intermingling of
which constitute the different ethnic groups. Thus the monogenists,
even the most intractable, as soon as they have established
hypothetically a single species of man, or of his “precursor,” quickly
cause the species to evolve, under the influence of environment, into
three or four or a greater number of primitive “stocks,” or “types,”
or “races,”--in a word, into somatological units which, intermingling,
form “peoples,” and so forth.
We can sum up what has just been said in a few propositions. On
examining attentively the different “ethnic groups” commonly called
“peoples,” “nations,” “tribes,” etc., we ascertain that they are
distinguished from each other especially by their language, their mode
of life, and their manners; and we ascertain besides that the same
traits of physical type are met with in two, three, or several groups,
sometimes considerably removed the one from the other in point of
habitat. On the other hand, we almost always see in these groups some
variations of type so striking that we are led to admit the hypothesis
of the formation of such groups by the blending of several distinct
somatological units.
It is to these units that we give the name “races,” using the word in
a very broad sense, different from that given to it in zoology and
zootechnics. It is a sum-total of somatological characteristics once
met with in a real union of individuals, now scattered in fragments of
varying proportions among several “ethnic groups,” from which it can no
longer be differentiated except by a process of delicate analysis.
The differences between “races” are shown in the somatological
characteristics which are the resultant of the continual struggle
in the individual of two factors: variability, that is to say, the
production of the dissimilar; and heredity, that is to say, the
perpetuation of the similar. There are the differences in outer form,
in the anatomical structure, and in the physiological functions
manifested in individuals. Thus the study of these characters is
based on man considered as an _individual_ of a zoological group. On
the other hand, the differences between the ethnical groups are the
product of evolutions subject to other laws than those of biology--laws
still very dimly apprehended. They manifest themselves in ethnical,
linguistic, or social characteristics. The study of them is based on
the grouping of individuals in _societies_.
To study these two categories of characteristics, either in their
general aspect as a whole, or in describing successively the different
peoples, is to study mankind with the object of trying to assign the
limits to the “races” constituting the ethnical groups, and to sketch
the reciprocal relations and connections of these groups with each
other.
The science which concerns itself more especially with the
somatological characteristics of the genus _Homo_, whether considered
as a whole in his relation to other animals, or in his varieties,
bears the name of _anthropology_; that which deals with the ethnical
characteristics is called _ethnography_ in some countries and
_ethnology_ in others.
This latter science should concern itself with human societies under
all their aspects; but as history, political economy, etc., have
already taken possession of the study of civilised peoples, there only
remain for it the peoples without a history, or those who have not been
adequately treated by historians. However, there is a convergence of
characters in mankind, and we find even to-day the trace of savagery in
the most civilised peoples. Ethnical facts must not then be considered
separately. We must compare them either among different peoples, or,
down the course of the ages, in the same people, without concerning
ourselves with the degree of actual civilisation attained.
Certain authors make a distinction between ethnography and ethnology,
saying the first aims at describing peoples or the different stages
of civilisation, while the second should explain these stages and
formulate the general laws which have governed the beginning and
the evolution of such stages. Others make a like distinction in
anthropology, dividing it theoretically into “special” and “general,”
the one describing races, and the other dealing with the descent of
these races and of mankind as a whole.[8] But these divisions are
purely arbitrary, and in practice it is impossible to touch on one
without having given at least a summary of the other. The two points
of view, descriptive and speculative, cannot be treated separately.
A science cannot remain content with a pure and simple description
of unconnected facts, phenomena, and objects. It requires at least a
classification, explanations, and, afterwards, the deduction of general
laws. In the same way, it would be puerile to build up speculative
systems without laying a solid foundation drawn from the study of
facts. Already the distinction between the somatic and the ethnic
sciences is embarrassing; thus psychological and linguistic phenomena
refer as much to the individual as to societies. They might, strictly
speaking, be the subject of a special group of sciences. In the same
way, the facts drawn from the somatic and ethnic studies of extinct
races are the subject of a separate science--Palethnography, otherwise
Prehistory, or Prehistoric Archæology.
The object of this book being the description of ethnical groups
now existing on the earth, and of the races which compose them, the
title of “Ethnography” might fitly be given to it in conformity with
the classifications which have just been mentioned. Nevertheless, it
contains in its early chapters a summary, as it were, of what these
classifications style “General Anthropology and Ethnology,” for the
descriptions of the several peoples can scarcely be understood if we
have not in the first instance given at least a general idea of the
somatic as well as the ethnic characters which serve to distinguish
them.
CHAPTER I.
_SOMATIC CHARACTERS._
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS OF MAN AND APES.
Monkeys and anthropoid apes--Erect attitude--Curvature of the
spine--Brain--Skull--Teeth--Other characters--Differences less
accentuated in the fœtus and the young than in the adult.
DISTINCTIVE MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF HUMAN RACES.
_Stature_: Individual limits--Dwarfs and giants--Average stature
of different populations--Influence of environment--Differences
according to sex--Reconstitution from the long bones--_Teguments_:
Skin--Hair of head and body--Four principal types--Microscopic
structure--Correlation between the hair of the head and the
pilosity of the body--_Pigmentation_: Colouring of the skin, the
eyes, and the hair--Changes in the pigment.
_Distinctive Characters of Man and Apes._
The physical peculiarities distinguishing man from the animals most
nearly allied to him in organisation, and those which differentiate
human races one from another, are almost never the same. I shall in
a few words point out the former, dwelling at greater length on the
latter, which have a more direct connection with our subject.
From the purely zoological point of view man is a placental or
_Eutherian_ mammal, because he has breasts, because he is more or less
covered with hair, because his young, nourished in the womb of the
mother through the medium of the placenta, come fully formed into the
world, without needing to be protected in a pouch or fold of skin, as
in the case of the marsupial mammals (implacentals or _Metatherians_),
or completing their development in a hatched egg, as in the case of the
monotremata or _Prototherians_.
In this sub-class of the placental mammals, man belongs to the order
of the _Primates_ of Linnæus, in view of certain peculiarities of his
physical structure--the pectoral position of the breasts, the form,
number, and arrangement of the teeth in the jaw, etc.
The order of the Primates comprises five groups or families: the
Marmosets (_Hapalidæ_), the _Cebidæ_, the _Cercopithecidæ_, the
anthropoid apes (_Simidæ_), and lastly, the _Hominidæ_.[9] Putting
aside the first two groups of Primates, which inhabit the New World,
and which are distinguished from the three other groups by several
characters, let us concern ourselves with the apes of the Old World and
the _Hominians_. Let us at the outset remember that the monkeys and the
anthropoid apes exhibit the same arrangement of teeth, or, as it is
termed, the same “dental formula,” as man. This formula, a character of
the first importance in the classification of mammals, is summed up,
as we know, in the following manner: four incisors, two canines, four
premolars, and six molars in each jaw.
The _Cercopithecidæ_ walk on their four paws, and this four-footed
attitude is in harmony with the structure of their spine, in which the
three curves, cervical, dorsal, and lumbar, so characteristic in man,
are hardly indicated; thus the spine seems to form a single arch from
the head to the tail. As to this last appendage, it is never wanting
in these monkeys, which are also provided with buttock or ischiatic
callosities, and often with cheek-pouches.
The _anthropoid apes_ form a zoological group of four genera only.
Two of these genera, the gorilla and the chimpanzee, inhabit tropical
Africa; the two others, the orang-utan and the gibbon, are confined to
the south-east of Asia, or, to be more precise, to Indo-China, and the
islands of Sumatra and Borneo. We can even reduce the group in question
to three genera only, for many naturalists consider the gibbon as an
intermediate form between the anthropoid apes and the monkeys.[10]
The anthropoids have a certain number of characters in common which
distinguish them from the monkeys. Spending most of their life in
trees, they do not walk in the same way as the macaques or the baboons.
Always bent (except the gibbon), they move about with difficulty on
the ground, supporting themselves not on the palm of the hand, as do
the monkeys, but on the back of the bent phalanges. They have no tail
like the other apes, nor have they cheek-pouches to serve as provision
bags. Finally, they are without those callosities on the posterior part
of the body which are met with in a large number of _Cercopithecidæ_,
attaining often enormous proportions, as for instance, among the
_Cynocephali_. The gibbon alone has the rudiments of ischiatic
callosities.
If we compare man with these apes, which certainly of all animals
resemble him most, the following principal differences may be noted.
Instead of holding himself in a bending position, and walking supported
on his arms, man walks in an erect attitude--the truly biped mode of
progress. In harmony with this attitude, his vertebral column presents
three curves, cervical, dorsal, and lumbar, very definitely indicated,
while they are only faintly marked in the anthropoids, and almost
absent in the monkeys. This character, moreover, is graduated in man;
in civilised man the curvature in question is more marked than among
savages. There is no need, however, to see in that any “character of
superiority.” It is quite simply an acquired formation; it is more
marked in civilised man just because it is one of the conditions
of the stability of the vertebral column, a stability so essential
in sedentary life, while a curvature less marked gives much more
flexibility to the movements, at once so numerous and varied, of the
savage.[11]
But to what does man owe this erect and biped attitude? Professor
Ranke has put forward on this subject a very ingenious hypothesis.[12]
According to him, the excessive development of the brain, while
conducive to enlargement of the skull, would at the same time determine
the change of attitude in a being so imperfectly and primitively
biped as was our progenitor. In this way would be assured the perfect
equilibrium on the vertebral column of the head, made heavy by the
brain. Without wishing to discuss this theory, let me say that several
peculiarities in the anatomical structure of man, compared with those
of anthropoid apes and other mammals, give it an air of plausibility.
In fact, while with the majority of mammals the equilibrium of the head
is assured by very powerful _cervical ligaments_, and with anthropoid
apes by very strong muscles, extending from the occiput to the spinous
processes of the cervical vertebræ, twice as long as those of man
(Figs. 1 and 2, _a_), which prevent the massive muzzle from falling
upon the chest and pressing on the organs of respiration,[13] we see
nothing of a similar kind in the genus _Homo_--no cervical ligament,
and no powerful muscles at the nape of the neck. The very voluminous
brain-case of man suffices to counterbalance the weight of the much
reduced maxillary part, almost without the aid of muscles or special
ligaments, and the head balances itself on the vertebral column (Fig.
2).
This equilibrium being almost perfect, necessitates but very thin and
flexible ligaments in the articulation of the two occipital condyles
of the skull on the atlas. The slight muscles to be found behind the
articulation are there only to counterbalance the trifling tendency of
the head to fall forward.
In connection with this point, we must remember that Broca and several
other anthropologists see, on the contrary, in the biped attitude, one
of the conditions of the development of the brain, as that attitude
alone assures the free use of the hands and extended range of vision.
Somewhat analogous ideas have lately been put forward by men of science
of the first rank like Munro and Turner.[14]
[Illustration: /Fig./ 1.--Skull of Gorilla, one-fourth actual size.
_a_, spinous processes of cervical vertebræ; _b_, cranial crests,
sagittal and occipital.]
In any case, let us remember in regard to this point, that at birth man
still bears traces of his quadrupedal origin; he has then scarcely any
curves in the vertebral column. The cervical curve only shows itself
at the time when the child begins to “hold up its head,” in the sitting
posture to which it gradually becomes accustomed--that is to say about
the third month. On the other hand, as soon as the child begins to walk
(the second year), the prevertebral muscles and those of the loins act
upon the lower regions of the spine and produce the lumbar curve.
Thus, perhaps, the chief fact which determines the erect attitude so
characteristic of man is the excessive development of his brain, and
the consequent development of the brain-case.
[Illustration: /Fig./ 2.--Skull of Man, one-fourth natural size.
_a_, spinous processes of cervical vertebræ.]
It is in this excessive development of the brain that the principal
difference between man and the anthropoid apes must be sought. We know
in fact from the researches of numerous anthropologists (see Chapter
II.) that the average weight of a man’s brain in European races (the
only races sufficiently known in this respect) is 1360 grammes, and
that of a woman’s is 1211 grammes. These figures may rise to 1675
grammes in certain instances, and fall to 1025 in others.[15] Brains
weighing less than 1000 grammes are generally considered as abnormal
and pathological.
On the other hand, the brains of the great anthropoid apes (gorilla,
chimpanzee, and orang-utan), the only ones comparable to man in
regard to weight of body, have an average weight of 360 grammes. This
weight may rise to 420 grammes in certain isolated cases, but never
exceeds this figure. And even in these cases, with the orang-utan, for
example,[16] it only represents one half per cent. of the total weight
of the body, while with European man the proportion is that of at least
three per cent., according to Boyd and Bischoff.[17]
The excessive development of the brain and of the brain-case which
encloses it is correlative, in the case of man, with the reduction of
the facial part of the skull. In this respect the difference is also
appreciable between him and the animals. In order to convince ourselves
of this we have only to compare the human skull with that of any ape
whatever, placing both in the same horizontal plane approximately
parallel to the line of vision.[18]
Viewed from above, or by the _norma verticalis_, as the anthropologists
say, the bony structure of the human head leaves nothing of its
facial part to be seen (Fig. 11); at the very most may be observed,
in certain rare instances, the lower part of the nasal bones, or the
alveolar portion of the upper jaw (Fig. 10). On the other hand, with
apes, anthropoid or otherwise, almost all the facial part is visible.
Examined in profile (_norma lateralis_), the bony structure of the
heads of man and monkeys presents the same differences.
With the anthropoid apes, the facial portion forming a veritable muzzle
rises, massive and bestial, _in advance_ of the skull, while with
man, very reduced in size, it is placed _below_ the skull. The facial
angle, by means of which the degree of protuberance of the muzzle may,
to a certain point, be measured, exhibits notable differences when
the skulls of man and animals are compared in this particular. On
continuing the examination of the profiles of the bony structures of
the two heads in question, we notice also the slight development of the
facial part of the malar bone in man, as compared with its temporal
part, and the contrary in the ape; as well as the difference in the
size of the mastoid processes, very strong in man, very much diminished
proportionately to the dimensions of the head in the anthropoid apes.
Seen from the front (_norma facialis_), the human skull presents a
peculiarity which is not observed in any anthropoid skull, namely,
that the top of the nasal opening is always situated higher than the
lowest point of the lower edge of the orbits (Fig. 12); while in the
anthropoid apes it is always found below this point. Lastly, if the
skulls in question, always placed on the horizontal plane, are compared
from behind (_norma occipitalis_), it will be noted that on the human
skull the occipital foramen is not seen at all; on the skulls of
monkeys it is plainly visible, if not wholly, at least partly.[19]
All the other characters which distinguish man from the anthropoid apes
are only the consequences of the great enlargement of his brain-case,
at the expense of the maxillary part of the face, and of the erect
attitude and biped progression.
Let us take, for instance, those enormous crests which give an aspect
at once so strange and horrible to the skulls of the adult males of the
gorilla and the chimpanzee. These projections are due to the extreme
development of the masticatory muscles which move the heavy jaws and
of the cervical muscles, ensuring the equilibrium of the head. Not
having found sufficient room for their insertion on the too small
brain-case, they have, so to speak, compelled the bony tissue in the
course of development to deposit itself as an eminence or crest at
the point where the two lines of insertion meet on the crown of the
head. The best proof of this is that the young have no crests, and
that on their skulls the distance between the temporal lines marking
the insertion of the temporal muscles is almost as great as it is in
man. In the gorillas, it is the same with the enormous spines of the
cervical vertebræ, to which are fixed the muscular masses of the nape
of the neck. These crests and these processes being less developed
in the orang-utan, its head is not so well balanced, and its heavy
muzzle falls on its chest. So one may suppose that the laryngeal
sacs, considerably larger than those of the gorilla, serve him as
air-cushions to lessen the enormous weight of the jaw resting on the
trachea. The gibbon, better adapted to biped progression, and having a
less heavy jaw, has no skull-crests. Further, with it, the ventricles
of Morgagni, that is to say, the little pouches situated behind the
vocal cord in the larynx, never develop (except in one species,
_Hylobates syndactylus_) into enormous air-sacs as in the orang-utan.
In this respect, the gibbon approaches much nearer to man than the
other anthropoids, but it is also more distinguished from him than the
others by the excessive length of the arms, or, to be more exact, of
the pectoral limbs. It holds itself erect and walks almost as well as
man, aided by the long arms and hands which touch the ground even when
the animal is standing quite upright, and which he uses as a pendulum
when walking. In the case of three other anthropoids, which bend
forward in walking, the pectoral limb is shorter than in the gibbon but
longer than in man.
The first toe, opposable in the anthropoid apes and unopposable in
man, the relative length of the toes and fingers generally, etc., only
constitute modifications correlative to the erect attitude and biped
movement of man, and to his terrestrial habitat as opposed to the
arboreal habitat of the anthropoid apes, and to their biped movement
necessitating the support of the hands.
The differences in the form and size of the teeth are also the
consequence of the inequality of the development of the maxillary part
of the face in man, and in the apes in general.
The size of the teeth in proportion to that of the body is less in man
than in the apes (Figs. 1 and 2). Putting aside the incisors and the
canines, the size of the molars and the premolars of these animals is
larger in relation to the length of the facial portion of the skull.
The “dental index” of Flower, that is to say the centesimal relation of
the total length of the row of molars and premolars to the length of
the naso-basilar line (from the nasal spine to the most advanced point
of the occipital foramen), is always greater in the anthropoid apes
than in man; in the latter it is never above 47.5, while it is 48 in
the chimpanzee, 58 in the orang, and 63 in the gorilla.
As to the arrangement of the teeth on the alveolar arch, with man they
are in a compact line forming a continuous series without any notable
projection of any one tooth above the common level; while in all the
apes is observed an interval (_diastema_) between the canines and the
lateral incisors of the upper jaw, and between the canines and the
first premolars of the lower jaw. These gaps receive in each jaw the
projecting part of the opposite canine.
Like the anthropoid apes, man has five tubercles in the lower molars,
while the monkeys have in general only four. This rule admits,
however, of numerous exceptions: very often the fifth posterior
tubercle is wanting in the two last molars in man; on the other
hand, it is regularly found in the last molar in certain kinds of
monkeys (_Cynocephali_, _Semnopitheci_). As to the wisdom tooth, in
certain pithecoid apes (_Cynocephali_, _Semnopitheci_) it is greater
in size than the anterior molars; whilst in certain others, like the
_Cercopitheci_, it is much less than the two first molars. With the
anthropoid apes this tooth is of the same size as the other molars or
a little smaller, and it is generally the same with man, though in
somewhat frequent cases it is entirely wanting. The dental arch is
different as regards form in man and in apes. In man it has a tendency
towards the parabolic and elliptical form, whilst in apes it usually
takes the form of U.
It should be noted that all the characters that distinguish man from
the anthropoid apes have a tendency to become more marked with the
development of civilisation and life in a less natural environment, or
artificially modified, as we have already seen in regard to the curves
of the vertebral column. Thus the absence of the fifth tubercle in the
lower molars has been more often noted in European races (29 times out
of 51, according to Hamy) than with Negroes and Melanesians. The wisdom
tooth seems to be in a state of retrogressive evolution among several
populations. Especially in the white races it is nearly always smaller
than the other molars; the number of the tubercles is reduced to three
instead of four or five; very often in the lower jaw it remains in its
alveola and never comes through.
In the same way the little toe tends, in the higher races (perhaps
owing to tight boots), to become atrophied and formed of but two
phalanges instead of three. Pfitzner has noted this reduction in thirty
feet out of a hundred and eleven that he examined.[20]
It is perhaps in similar retrogressive evolutions due to the “social
environment” that we must seek the explanation of a great number of
characters of “inferiority” and “superiority,” so called, of certain
races.
The difference between man and the ape in regard to teguments is
not so appreciable as might be thought. Man comes into the world
covered almost entirely with _lanugo_ or short fine hair. This hair
is afterwards replaced in early infancy by permanent hair which only
occupies certain parts of the body. Primitive man, it may be presumed,
was entirely covered with hair, except perhaps on the front part of
the trunk, where natural selection in the struggle with parasites
(infesting that warm part of the mother’s body in contact with the
young when being suckled) would soon cause the disappearance of the
hair from that place, as indeed we see in apes.[21] It is curious
to observe in this respect that the disposition of the hair of the
arms in man is far from recalling that of the anthropoid apes, as
Darwin thought, but rather resembles the disposition observed among
the monkeys. In fact, instead of being directed upwards towards the
bend of the elbow, this hair is turned downwards towards the wrist in
the higher half of the arm, and transversely in its lower half. The
anthropoid apes being accustomed to cover the head with their arms,
or to keep them above their head so as to cling to the branches of
the trees on which they spend their life, the hairs may have taken in
this case an opposite direction to that of the primitive type of the
Primates by the simple effect of gravity.[22]
Space does not permit us to pass in review several other characters
distinguishing man from the anthropoid apes: absence of certain muscles
(_acromiotrachelian_, etc.) in the former, simplicity of the cerebral
folds in the latter, the absence of the lobulation of the liver and
that of the penile bone in the former and their presence in some of the
anthropoid apes, etc.
Let me say in conclusion that all these distinctions are only very
marked when adult individuals are compared, for they become accentuated
with age. The fœtus of the gorilla at five months bears a very close
resemblance to the human fœtus of the same age. A young gorilla
and a young chimpanzee, by their globular skull, by their not very
prominent muzzle, and by other traits, remind one of young Negroes. In
comparing the skulls of gorillas, from the fœtal state through all
the stages of growth to the adult state, we can follow step by step the
transformation of a face almost human into a muzzle of the most bestial
aspect, as a result of the excessive development of the face in front
and below in the anthropoid ape, and the growth of the skull upward
and behind in man, as if these parts moved in different directions in
relation to a central point in the interior of the skull near to the
_sella turcica_.[23]
_Distinctive Characters of Human Races._
In treatises on anthropology, anatomy, and physiology will be found
all the information wished for on the different somatic characters of
man, as well as on their variations according to sex, age, and race. It
would be exceeding the limits of our subject were I to describe here,
one by one, all the anatomical or morphological characters drawn from
the bony, muscular, nervous, and other systems of which the human body
is composed. We shall only pass in review the characters which possess
a real importance in the differentiation of races. These are much less
numerous than is generally supposed, and belong for the most part to
the category of characters that are observed in the living subject.
It is generally believed that the sole concern of anthropology is the
description of skulls. This is one of the common errors of which there
are so many current among the general public on scientific subjects.
To be sure, the skull, and especially the head, of the living subject
furnish the principal characters which differentiate races, but there
exist several others, without a knowledge of which it is difficult to
direct one’s steps in the midst of the diversity of forms presented by
the human body according to race. We distinguish in general two kinds
of somatic characters: (1) those dealing with the form and structure of
the body--morphological characters; and (2) those which are connected
with its different functions--physiological characters, with which we
will include psychological and pathological characters.
We shall first examine the morphological characters, beginning with
those furnished to us by the body as a whole--the stature, the nature
of the tegument (the skin and hair), and its colouring. We shall
afterwards pass to an examination of the morphology of the head, and
the different parts of the body, with their bony framework (skull and
skeleton). We shall complete this brief account by a glance at the
internal organs, muscles, brain, viscera.
_Stature._--Of all the physical characters which serve to distinguish
races, stature is perhaps that which has hitherto been regarded as
eminently variable. It has been said that not only does stature change
with age and sex, but that it varies also under the influence of
external agencies. These variations are unquestionable, but it must
be remarked that they are produced in a similar way in all races, and
cannot exceed certain limits imposed by race.
Even from birth stature varies. Setting aside individual variations,
the new-born are on an average a little taller, for example, in
Paris (499 millim. for boys) than in St. Petersburg (477 millim.).
Unfortunately we have hardly any data in regard to this important
question for the non-European populations. Here in a tabulated form is
the average height of the new-born of different populations, so far as
information has been obtainable.
AVERAGE STATURE.
-----------------+----------------+----------------+------------
| /Boys/. | /Girls/. |
/Populations/. +-------+--------+-------+--------+ /Name of/
|Millim.|Inches. |Millim.|Inches. | /Observer/.
-----------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+------------
Annamese | 474 | 18.49 | 464 | 18.10 | Mondière.
Russians of | | | | |
St. Petersburg | 477 | 18.60 | 473 | 18.45 | Mies.
Germans | | | | |
of Cologne | 486 | 18.95 | 484 | 18.88 | Mies.
Americans | | | | |
of Boston | 490 | 19.27 | 482 | 18.80 | Bowditch.
English | 496 | 19.35 | 491 | 19.31 | C. Roberts.
French | | | | |
of Paris | 499 | 19.52 | 492 | 19.35 | Mies.
-----------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+------------
According to this table there would also be from the time of birth an
inequality of stature of the two sexes; boys exceed girls by a figure
which varies from 2 to 10 millim., that is to say on an average half
a centim. (less than a quarter of an inch). The data relating to
different races are insufficient; it may be remarked, however, that
with people very low in stature, like the Annamese (1 m. 58, or 5 feet
2 inches), on the average the new-born are also shorter than those
of people of greater stature, as, for instance, the English or the
inhabitants of the United States. The French (average height 5 feet 5
inches) appear to be an exception to this rule.
We shall examine at greater length in Chapter IV. increase of stature
in connection with all the phenomena of growth. Let me for the present
say that as regards man, the age of 18 to 25 years, according to race,
may be considered as the practical limit of this growth. In order to
make a useful comparison of statures of different populations, we
should only take, then, adults above these ages.
It must be said on this point that the greater part of the reliable
information which we possess concerning stature relates solely to
men, and among these, more especially to conscripts or soldiers. And
it has often been objected that the figures in documents furnished in
connection with the recruiting of armies do not represent the true
height of any given population, for the conscripts, being in general
from 20 to 21 years of age, have not yet reached the limit of growth.
This is true in certain cases; for example, when we have the
measurements of all conscripts, who, in fact, grow from 1 to 2
centimetres during their military service; but when we have only the
measurements of those enrolled, that is to say only of men above the
standard height (and that is most frequently the case), the question
presents a different aspect. The average height of this picked
section of the population, higher by 1 to 2 centimetres than that of
men of their age in general, may be considered (as I have elsewhere
shown[24]) to represent the average stature of the whole number of
adult males of any given population. We may then, while making certain
reservations, take the height of those enrolled (but not that of all
the conscripts) as representing the height of the adults of any given
population.
The individual limits between which the height varies are very wide.
It is admitted in general that the limits of height in the normal man
may vary from 1 m. 25 (4 feet 1 inch) to 1 m. 99 (6 feet 6-3/4 inches).
Below 1 m. 25 begins a certain abnormal state, often pathological,
called Dwarfism. Above 2 m. we have another corresponding state called
Giantism. Dwarfs may be 38 cent. high (15 inches), like the little
feminine dwarf Hilany Agyba of Sinai (Joest), and giants as high as 2
m. 83 (9 feet 5 inches), like the Finn Caïanus (Topinard).[25]
Dwarfism may be the result of certain pathological states
(microcephaly, rickets, etc.), as it may be equally the result of
an exceeding slowness of growth.[26] In the same way giantism is
often seen associated with a special disease called acromegaly,
but most frequently it is produced by an excessive growth. In any
case, exceptional statures, high or low, are abnormal phenomena, the
acknowledged sterility of dwarfs and giants being alone sufficient to
prove this.
Extreme statures which it is agreed to call normal, those of 1 m. 25
and 1 m. 99, are very rare. One might say that, in general, statures
below 1 m. 35 and above 1 m. 90 are exceptions. Thus in the extensive
American statistics,[27] based on more than 300,000 subjects, but one
giant (above 2 m.) is met with out of 10,000 subjects examined, and
hardly five individuals in 1000 taller than 1 m. 90 (75 inches). Again,
in the statistics of the Committee of the British Association,[28]
which embrace 8,585 subjects, only three individuals in a thousand
have been found taller than 1 m. 90. Yet in these two cases,
populations of a very high stature (1 m. 72 on an average) were being
dealt with. If we turn to a population lower in stature, for instance
the Italian, we find only one subject 1 m. 90 or above in height in
7000 examined, according to the statistics of Pagliani.[29] In the same
way, low statures under 1 m. 35 (53 inches) are met with only once
in every 100,000 cases among the subjects examined by the American
Commission, and not once among 8,585 inhabitants of the United Kingdom;
even in a population low in stature, like the Italians, only three such
in every 1000 subjects examined are to be found. We do not possess a
sufficient number of figures to be able to affirm that among all the
populations of the globe the instances of all these extreme statures
are exceptional, but what we know leads us to suppose that it is so,
and that the limits of normal stature in man are between 1 m. 35 and 1
m. 90.
The figures of individual cases are much less interesting than the
averages of the different populations, that is to say the height
obtained by dividing the sum of the statures of individuals by the
number of subjects measured. On comparing these averages it becomes
possible to form a clear idea of the difference existing among the
various peoples. But here there is an observation to make.
The data of this kind published up to the present in the majority
of books may often lead to error. In fact, as a general rule they
give only the average height without stating the number of subjects
measured. Very often it is only the rough guess of a traveller who has
not even measured at all the populations of which he speaks. In other
cases we have averages drawn from the measurements of two, three, or
four subjects, which are evidently insufficient for a standard which
varies so much in one individual and another, and even in the same
individual according to the hour of the day.
We know, in fact, that man measures one or two centimetres more
on rising in the morning than on going to bed at night, when
the fibro-cartilaginous discs situated between the vertebræ are
compressed, more closely packed, and the vertebral column is more bent.
Unscrupulous conscripts whose stature is near the regulation limit know
perfectly well that if the day before the official examination they
carry heavy loads, they compress their intervertebral discs so that
their height is sometimes diminished by three centimetres.
It is necessary then, in order to avoid error, not only to have
measurements taken from adult subjects, but also from several series
containing a great number of these subjects. Calculation and inference
have shown us that it is necessary to have at least a series of one
hundred individuals to guarantee the exact figure of the height of a
population but slightly blended. Series of 50 to 100 individuals may
still furnish occasionally good indications, and series of 25 to 50
individuals an approximation; but with series under 25 individuals
doubt begins and the figures are often most deceptive.
I have brought together and grouped in the table at the end of
this volume (Appendix I.) average statures calculated in series of
twenty-five individuals or more. These series have been based on the
collation of hundreds of documents, of which limits of space prevent a
full enumeration.
An examination of our table shows that the extreme averages of
different populations fluctuate, in round figures, from 1 m. 38 (4
ft. 6 in.) with the Negrillo Akkas, to 1 m. 79 (5 ft. 10.5 in.) with
the Scots of Galloway.[30] But if we set aside the pigmy tribe of the
Akka, quite exceptional as regards stature, as well as the Scots of
Galloway, and even the Scots of the north in general (1 m. 78), who
likewise form a group entirely apart, we arrive at the extreme limits
of stature, varying from 1465 mm. with the Aeta or Negritoes of the
Philippines, and 1746 mm. with the Scots in general. In round figures,
then, we can recognise statures of 1 m. 46 (4 feet 9.5 inches) and
1 m. 75 (5 feet 9 inches) as the extreme limits of averages in the
different populations of the globe. The medium height between these
extremes is 1 m. 61, but if we put on one side the exceptional group
of Negritoes (Akka, Aeta, Andamanese, and Sakai), we shall note that
the rest of mankind presents statures which ascend by degrees, almost
uninterruptedly, from millimetre to millimetre between 1 m. 54 and 1
m. 75, which makes the average 1 m. 65 (5 feet 5 inches), as Topinard
has discovered.[31] Topinard has likewise proposed the division of
statures, since universally adopted, into four categories, viz.: short
statures, under 1 m. 60; statures under the average, between 1 m. 60
and 1 m. 649; statures above the average, between 1 m. 65 and 1 m. 699;
and lastly, high statures, 1 m. 70 and over.
Our table shows conclusively that there are many more populations
(almost double the number) whose stature is above or under the average,
than populations of a short or high stature.
Short stature is rare in Africa, being found only among the Negrillo
pigmies and Bushmen; in South America a few tribes of low stature
are also met with; but the true home of low stature populations is
Indo-China, Japan, and the Malay Archipelago. In the remaining portion
of Asia this low stature is only met with again in Western Siberia, and
among the tribes called Kols and Dravidians in India.
Statures under the average predominate in the rest of Asia (with the
exception of the populations to the north of India and anterior Asia)
and in Eastern and Southern Europe, while statures above the average
comprise Irano-Hindu populations, the Afrasian Semites, the inhabitants
of Central Europe, as well as the Melanesians and Australians.
Thus high stature is plainly limited to Northern Europe, to North
America, to Polynesia, and especially to Africa, where it is met with
as well among Negroes as among Ethiopians.
What is the influence of environment on stature? This is one of the
most controverted questions. Since the time of Villermé the statement
has been repeated in a variety of ways that well-being was favourable
to growth and increase in stature, and that hardship stunted growth.
There are facts which seem to prove this. In a population supposed
to be formed of a mixture of many races, the well-fed upper classes
appear to possess a higher stature than the lower classes; thus, while
the English of the liberal professions are 69.14 inches (1757 mm.) in
height, the workmen of the same nation are only 65.7 inches (1705
mm.).[32] But can we not likewise adduce here the influence of race?
That predominating in the aristocracy and well-to-do classes does not,
perhaps, predominate in the working classes. Beddoe[33] and others
have remarked that the stature of miners is lower than that of the
population around them; in the same way, workmen in shops and factories
are inferior in height to those who labour in the open air, and this
in Belgium (Houzé) as well as in England (Beddoe, Roberts) or Russia
(Erisman, Anuchin).[34] According to Collignon,[35] the populations
of Normandy and Brittany living in the neighbourhood of railways and
high-roads are superior in height to those living in out-of-the-way
places. He concludes from this that the material conditions of
life being improved since the formation of roads, the stature of
the population has increased. According to Ammon and Lapouge, the
population of the towns in France and Southern Germany are taller in
stature than those of the country, because of the migration towards
urban centres of the tall dolichocephalic fair race which they call
_Homo Europeus_. However, Ranke observed just the opposite, and there
are other objections to be raised against this theory, based on the
data of recruiting. These town-dwellers of high stature are perhaps
only conscripts too quickly developed; town life accelerates growth,
and town-dwellers have nearly reached the limit of their height while
dwellers in villages have not finished growing. This is so true that
in countries where statistics have been taken of the civic population,
as in England for example, the population of the towns is shorter in
stature than that of the country. Beddoe explains this fact by the bad
hygienic conditions in towns, the want of exercise and drinking habits
of dwellers in cities.[36]
To conclude, the influence of environment cannot be denied in many
cases: it may raise or lower stature, especially by stimulating or
retarding and even arresting growth; but it is not demonstrated that
such a change can be perpetuated by hereditary transmission and become
permanent. The primordial characteristics of race seem always to get
the upper hand, and the modifications produced by environment can alter
the stature of the race only within very restricted limits. Thus miners
of a high stature like the Scotch, for example, while shorter than
the Scotch of the well-to-do classes, will be still taller than the
individuals of the well-to-do classes in, for example, Spain or Italy,
and much more so than those of Japan (1 m. 59). Stature is truly then a
character of race, and a very persistent one.
So far I have spoken only of the height of men. That of women (as
regards adult women of seventeen to twenty-three years of age,
according to race) is always lower than the height of men, but by how
much? Tentatively, Topinard gave the figure 12 centimetres as the
general difference between the stature of the two sexes in all races.
The data for the height of women being very scarce, I have only been
able to bring together thirty-five series of measurements of women
comprising each more than fifteen individuals, for comparison with
series of measurements of men.
It follows from this slight inquiry that in twenty cases out of
thirty-five, that is to say, almost two-thirds, the difference in
height between the two sexes in any given population hardly varies more
than from 7 to 13 centimetres (3 to 5 inches); fourteen times out of
thirty-five it only varies from 11 to 13 centimetres (4.5 to 5 inches),
so that the figure of 12 centimetres (5 inches) may be accepted as the
average. Besides, the difference does not appear to change according to
the average stature, more or less high, of the race: it is almost the
same for the Tahitians and the Maricopas, who are tall, as it is for
the Samoyeds and the Caribs, who are short.[37]
Thus, then, in a general way, the categories of statures--tall, short,
etc.--for women will be comprised within the same limits already
indicated for man, only reduced by 12 centimetres for each category.
Thus, high statures for women will begin at 1 m. 58 instead of 1 m. 70;
short statures under 1 m. 48 instead of 1 m. 60.
The stature of a living man is naturally higher than that of his
skeleton, but what the difference is is not exactly known. It can
hardly, however, exceed 2 or 3 centimetres, according to Topinard,
Rollet, and Manouvrier.
By means of measurements of the long bones of the limbs (femur,
humerus, etc.), the height of the skeleton of which they form part may
be approximately calculated. For this purpose we make use of Rollet’s
formula,[38] according to which the length of the femur must be
multiplied by 3.66 for the height of man, and by 3.71 for the height
of woman, or multiply the length of the humerus by 5.06 or by 5.22,
according to sex. But this formula is only applicable to subjects
whose stature is near the average, 1 m. 65. In the generality of
cases we must substitute for it more exact calculations by the help
of Manouvrier’s tables.[39] It is by this means that Rahon[40] has
been able to determine approximately the height of the prehistoric
populations of France, which will be dealt with in Chapter IX.
[Illustration: /Fig./ 3.--Microscopic section (partly schematic) of
skin and of hair: A, of a European; B, of a Negro.
_c.c._ horny layer or cuticle and _c.p._ pigmented layer (rete
Malpighii) of the epidermis; /D/. corium; _g.su._ sweat gland; _c.e._
excretory duct; _pa._ hair papilla, and _fo._ hair follicle; _m._
_erector pili muscle_; _g.s._ sebaceous gland; _p._ hair.]
[Illustration: /Fig./ 4.--Mohave Indians of Arizona; smooth hair type.
(_Phot. Ten Kate._)]
_Teguments: The Skin._--The human skin is essentially composed of two
parts, the corium (Fig. 3, /D/) and a superficial epidermis; the latter
is formed in its turn of two cellular layers, the horny layers (Fig.
3, _c.c._), the quite shallow cells of which are freely exposed to the
air, and Malpighi’s layer situated beneath it, with granules of pigment
in more or less quantity in its lower range of cells (Fig. 3, _c.p._).
In certain places the epidermis is modified so as to form either a
mucous membrane, as, for instance, on the lips, or a horny substance,
sometimes transparent (as the cornea of the eye) and sometimes only
translucent and more or less hard (the nails).
[Illustration: /Fig./ 5.--Pure Veddah of Dangala Mountains of Ceylon;
wavy hair type.
(_Phot. Brothers Sarasin._)]
There is little to say about the differences in the nature and
structure of the skin according to race. Its colouring, of which I
shall speak later on (see _Pigmentation_), is more important. Attention
has been drawn to the hardness of the corium and the velvety softness
of the skin in the negro; the latter quality is probably due to the
profusion and size of the sebaceous glands which accompany the hair.
Bischoff has made an interesting observation on the relative rarity of
the sweat glands (which are found in the thickness of the corium, Fig.
3, _g.su._) among the Fuegians,[41] but comparative studies on this
subject have not been pursued in regard to other races. The disposition
of the papilla ridges on the tips of the fingers, so well studied by
Galton,[42] is of great interest as regards the identification of the
individual; but from this fact alone, that it is a good characteristic
of the individual, it loses all its value as a characteristic of race.
[Illustration: /Fig./ 6.--Same subject as Fig. 5, front view.
(_Phot. Brothers Sarasin._)]
_Hair of the Head and Body._--The most important horny product of the
skin, as regards the differentiation of races, is undoubtedly the
hair of the head and body. The general structure and number of the
hairs (about 260 to each square centimetre) hardly show any difference
between race and race; on the other hand, the length of the hair of the
head, the relation of this length in one sex to that in the other, the
nature of the hair, its consistence, its transverse section, its form,
its colour, vary much according to race.
The body hair has its origin in a layer of the epidermis, deeply
imbedded in the corium as though it were in a little sac or follicle
(Fig. 3, _fo._); from the bottom of this sac, and covering by its
root a little papilla (Fig. 3, _pa._) filled with vessels designed
to nourish it, each hair rises and pushes its way to the outside;
it is always accompanied by a little muscle which can move it (Fig.
3, _m.r._), and by a sebaceous gland (Fig. 3, _g.s._) designed to
lubricate it.
Four principal varieties of hair are usually distinguished in
anthropology, according to their aspect and their nature--straight,
wavy, frizzy, and woolly. It is easy to form a clear idea at first
sight of the differences which are presented by these varieties, but
the most careful examination shows that the differences are deeper, and
can be pursued even into the microscopic structure of the hair.
[Illustration: /Fig./ 7.--Toda woman (India); curly hair type.
(_Phot. Thurston._)]
_Straight and smooth hair_ (_droit_ or _lisse_ in French, _straff_ or
_schlicht_ in German) is ordinarily rectilinear, and falls heavily in
bands on the sides of the head; such is the hair of the Chinese, the
Mongols, and of American Indians (Fig. 4). Straight hair is ordinarily
stiff and coarse, but it is sometimes found tolerably fine; for
example, among the western Finns. It is true that in this case it has
a tendency to become wavy. _Wavy hair_ (_ondé_ in French, _wellig_
in German) forms a long curve or imperfect spiral from one end to
the other (Figs. 5 and 6). It is called curly when it is rolled up
at the extremity (Fig. 7). The whole head of hair when wavy produces
a very pleasing effect; I will merely cite as examples certain fair
Scotchwomen. The type is very widespread among Europeans, whether dark
or fair. The frizzy type (_frisé_ in French, _lockig_ in German) is
that in which the hair is rolled spirally, forming a succession of
rings a centimetre or more in diameter (Fig. 8). Such is the hair of
the Australians (Figs. 21 and 22), the Nubians, of certain Mulattos,
etc. Lastly, the type of woolly hair (_crépu_ in French, _kraus_ in
German) is characterised by spiral curves exceedingly narrow (from 1
millimetre to 9 millimetres as the maximum); the rings of the spiral
are very near together, numerous, well rolled, and often catch hold
of each other, forming tufts and balls, the whole result recalling in
appearance sheep’s wool (Fig. 9). The type admits of two varieties.
When the hair is relatively long and the spirals sufficiently broad,
the whole head looks like a continuous fleece, as with certain
Melanesians (Fig. 153), or the majority of Negroes (Figs. 9 and 47).
In his classification of the human races, Haeckel[43] has taken this
type as characteristic of the group of _eriocomes_. But when the hair
is short, consisting of very small spirals, it has a tendency, when
tangled, to form little tufts, the dimensions of which vary from the
size of a pea to that of a pepper-corn; these tufts are separated
by spaces which appear bald (pepper-corn hair). This type (called
_lophocome_ by Haeckel) is very widespread among Hottentots and
Bushmen, but the majority of Negroes have it in their infancy, and even
at adult age, especially towards the temples, on the forehead--briefly,
in all the places where the hair remains very short (Fig. 9). We must
not think that the disposition of which I have just spoken is due to
the hair being stuck in the skin of the head like the bristles of a
brush, for the mode of insertion is the same in all races, with Bushmen
as with Europeans or Mongols. At the most it may be noted that the
rows of hair in Negroes are more irregular, and are closer together in
certain places, leaving in other rows intervals between them of two or
three millimetres. Only, as a consequence of the shortness and the
excessive twisting, the hair gets entangled and the spirals catch hold
of each other, so forming glomerules or tufts.
[Illustration: /Fig./ 8.--Kurumba man of Nilgiri Hills; frizzy hair
type.
(_Phot. Thurston._)]
[Illustration: /Fig./ 9.--Agni Negro of Krinjabo, Western Africa;
woolly hair type.
(_Photo. Thoman, lent by Collignon._)]
Does there exist any difference of form between straight, waved,
frizzy, or woolly hair? The microscopical examination of transverse
sections of the hair allows us to reply affirmatively to this
question. This examination, already applied to the hair in 1822 by
Heusinger, then successively by Blower (of Philadelphia), Kölliker,
Pruner-Bey, Latteux, and Waldeyer,[44] has yielded results which have
been vigorously discussed, and are still debatable if we cling to the
individual and absolute figures, comparing sections made according
to defective methods, or carried out on different levels of the
hair. But if we calculate the _index_--that is to say, the relation
of the breadth to the length (= 100) of the section (and that in a
great number of individual cases)--we obtain satisfactory results, as
Topinard and Ranke[45] have shown in general, as also Baelz in the case
of the Japanese, and Montano in the case of the races of the Malay
Archipelago.[46]
If we consider a great number of microscopical sections, all obtained
from the same level of the hair, we note that straight hair gives
a circular section, whilst woolly hair gives one in the form of a
lengthened ellipse. This ellipse is less extended, a little more filled
out, in the sections of wavy hair. If the major axis of the ellipse be
supposed to equal 100, the minor axis will be represented by figures
varying from 40 to 50 for the woolly hair of the Bushmen and the
Hottentots, from 50 to 60 for that of the Negroes, while the straight
hair of the Eskimo will have this axis = 77, that of the Thibetans =
80, that of the Japanese = 85, etc. The hair of Europeans represents an
elliptical section in which the major axis being = 100, the minor axis
will be represented by figures varying from 62 to 72 (Topinard). It can
be said to-day with certainty, after the work of Unna,[47] that the
woolly hair of Negroes rolls up into a compact spiral precisely because
of the flattened shape of this elliptical section, and of the special
form of the follicle and papilla. In fact, in the Negro the follicle,
instead of being straight, as in the European (Fig. 3, A), is curved
inward in the form of a sabre, or even of the arc of a quarter of a
circle (Fig. 3, B); further, the papilla is flattened instead of being
round. One would say that the hair has encountered in its development
so much resistance on the part of the dermis (which is so hard, in
fact, among the Negroes), that it would be twisted, as it were, from
the first. Emerging from an incurvated mould, it can only continue to
roll up outside, given especially its flattened shape; it rolls up into
a spiral, the plane of which, at the beginning, is perpendicular to the
surface of the skin.[48] As to the thickness of the hair, it appears
that in general it is greater in straight hair than in woolly; however,
the hair of the western Finns is straight and fine at the same time.
A certain correlation appears to exist between the nature of the hair
and its absolute and relative length. Thus straight hair is at the
same time the longest--Chinese, Americans, Indians (Fig. 4), while
woolly hair is shortest, from 5 to 15 centimetres (Fig. 9); wavy hair
occupies an intermediate position. Moreover, the difference between the
length of the hair of men and women is almost inappreciable in the two
extreme divisions. In certain straight-haired races the hair of the
head is as long with men as with women; one need but to call to mind
the plaits of the Chinese, or the beautiful heads of hair of the Red
Indians, which may attain in certain cases a length of even two metres
(Catlin). In frizzy-haired races the hair of the head, on the contrary,
is equally short in the two sexes; the hair of the head of women among
the Bushmen, Hottentots, and even Negroes, is not appreciably longer
than among the men. It is only in the categories of wavy and in part
of frizzy hair, that the differences are appreciable. With European
men the length of the hair rarely exceeds 30 or 40 centimetres, while
with the women it averages 65 to 75 centimetres, and may attain in
exceptional cases to 2 metres (as in the case of an Englishwoman,
according to Dr. D. Watson).
Another fact to be noted is that the general development of the pilose
system on the face, as on the rest of the body, seems also to be in
relation to the nature of the hair of the head.
Straight-haired races are ordinarily very glabrous, the men have hardly
a rudimentary tuft of beard--American Indians (Fig. 4), Mongols (Fig.
20), Malays; while in the wavy or frizzy-haired races, the development
of the pilose system is considerable--Australians, Dravidians, Iranians
(Fig. 22), Ainus (Fig. 117), etc. The woolly-haired races are not,
however, included in this rule; glabrous types (Bushmen, western
Negroes) are found side by side with rather hairy types (Melanesians,
Akka, Ashanti). There appears to be a certain likeness between the
abundance of hair on the head and on the body. Thus, according to
Hilgendorf, the Japanese who are glabrous have from 252 to 286 hairs to
each square centimetre on the head, whilst the hairy Ainus have only
214. Negroes and white men do not appear, however, to present the same
differences (Gould). Even baldness results largely from the nature of
the hair. According to Gould, baldness is ten times less frequent among
Negroes than among Whites, between 33 years and 44 years, and thirty
times less so between 21 and 32. Among Mulattos it is more frequent
than among the Negroes, but less than among Whites. Lastly, among Red
Indians it seems to be still more rare than among Negroes. White hair
follows almost the same rule.[49]
In the mass, the human races may be divided according to the character
of their hair as follows:--
_Woolly Hair._--Bushmen, Negro, and Melanesian races.
_Frizzy Hair._--Australian, Ethiopian, Beja, Fulbé, etc., and Dravidian.
_Wavy Hair._--The white races of Europe, of Northern Africa, and Asia
(Melanochroi or the dark-complexioned Whites, and Xanthochroi or pale
Whites).
_Fine, straight, or lightly-waved Hair._--Turco-Tatars, Finns, Ainus,
and Indonesians (Dyaks, Nagas, etc.); lastly,
_Coarse straight Hair._--Mongolians and American races, with some
exceptions. It must be noted that, in the manifold blendings of races,
characteristics of the hair amalgamate. Thus the half-breeds between
Negroes and American Indians have, most frequently, the hair frizzy or
wavy. But there are also frequent reversions to the primitive type,
almost always, however, a little weakened.
There are no races of _hairy men_. Everything that has been said of
different “hairy savages” in the interior of Africa or Indo-China
resolves itself into the presence of a light down (probably the remains
of embryonic lanugo) in the case of the Akkas of the Upper Nile, or
to the fortuitous existence of one or two families of hairy men and
women from Burma exhibited some years ago in Europe and America. Other
“phenomena” have been shown, like the famous Julia Pastrana or the
“Dog-men” of Russia. All these subjects are only particular cases of
atavism, or of a reversion to the probable primordial condition of
man or of his precursor at the period when he was as hairy as, for
instance, the anthropoid apes of to-day; they are by no means the
representatives of a hairy race.
The beard is, as we know, one of the sexual characteristics of man,
although many fine ones are found among certain women, notably among
the Europeans of the south, and especially among Spanish women. The
more hairy the body, the thicker as a rule is the beard. In the
glabrous races (Mongols, Malays, Americans) a few straggling hairs are
all that can be seen at the corners of the mouth and on the chin (Figs.
20 and 168); in the very hairy races, like the Ainus, the Iranians,
certain Semites, the Todas, the Australians, the Melanesians, the beard
is strong and abundant on the lips, the chin, and the cheeks, where
it reaches sometimes to the cheek-bones (Fig. 22); in the Negro and
Bushmen races neither the moustache nor the beard can attain to great
dimensions, because of the curly nature of the hair (Figs. 140 and
143). The eyelashes and the eyebrows are likewise much developed in
races having an abundant beard, and this is the case in both sexes; we
have only to recall the thick and joined eyebrows of the Persian women.
On the other hand, among the Mongolians we note the small development
of the eyelashes in relation to the particular structure of their eye
(see p. 77).
_Pigmentation._--The distribution of the pigment which gives the
colouring to the skin, to the hair, to the iris, varies much according
to race, and forms, along with the nature of the hair, a good
distinctive characteristic. As I have already stated above, the pigment
is accumulated principally in the lowest layers of the rete Malpighii
(Fig. 3, _c.p._), but it is also met with in small quantities in
the horny layer, and even in the dermis.[50] According to race, the
microscopic granules of pigment of a uniform brown are very unequally
distributed around the nuclei of the cells, to which they give the
most varied tones from pale yellow to dark brown, almost black. As the
pigment exists in all races, and in all parts of the body, it is to its
more or less plentiful accumulation in the cells that the colouring of
the skin and its derivatives is due. Further, there must be added, for
certain races at least, the combination with the tint of the blood of
the vessels, as seen through the skin.
Every one knows that our white races become tanned in the sun; the
cause of this is the pigment, developing abundantly and being
deposited in the cells under the combined action of air, heat, and
light; the congestion of the vessels has also something to do with it.
In the same way, persons living a long time in dense forests or in dark
though airy places end by becoming paler, in consequence of the loss of
the pigment, but recover colour immediately on re-exposure to the sun.
But the modifications produced by the action of air and sun vary even
among Europeans according to the colouring peculiar to their race.
Thus among the fair races of Northern Europe the skin, burnt by
the sun, becomes red, as if swollen; on the other hand, among the
dark-coloured peoples of the Mediterranean, it takes a bronze tint.
There are thus between these two races notable differences, if not
in the chemical nature of the pigment, which is scarcely likely, at
least in regard to its quantity. It is the same with other races
generally, and ten principal shades of colour at least can easily be
distinguished. In the first place, among Whites, three shades: 1st,
pale white; 2nd, florid, or rosy, peculiar to the Scandinavians,
English, Dutch, etc.; 3rd, brownish-white, peculiar to Spaniards,
Italians, etc. In the races called Yellow, three varieties of colour
can likewise be distinguished: 4th, yellowish-white, a sickly hue
the colour of wheat, as, for example, among certain Chinese; 5th,
olive-yellow, the colour of new portmanteau leather, as among the
majority of South American Indians, Polynesians, and Indonesians;
6th, dark yellow-brown, dark olive, or the colour of dead leaves, as
among certain Americans, Malays, etc. In the dark-skinned races, four
shades at least must be distinguished: 7th, red, copper-coloured, as,
for example, among the Bejas, Niam-Niam, Fulbé; 8th, reddish-brown,
chocolate, as among the Dravidians, the Australians, certain Negroes
and Melanesians; lastly, 9th, sooty black, and 10th, coal-black, for
example, among the different Negro populations.
In order to avoid an arbitrary designation of colours, anthropologists
make use of chromatic tables, in which examples of the chief
variations of colour are marked by numbers. The best table, almost
universally adopted, is that of Broca, of thirty-four shades.[51] The
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland has published a
very practical and simplified edition of it,[52] which contains only
the ten numbers of principal shades proposed by Topinard, namely, those
I have just enumerated.
The pigment is not uniformly distributed, as I have said, through the
whole body, and this is so with the Whites as well as with the darkest
races. In all of them the parts of the body most deeply coloured are
the nape of the neck, the back (as with animals), the back part of the
limbs, the arm-pits, the scrotum, and the breasts; the belly (as with
animals), the insides of the hands, the soles of the feet, are among
the most lightly coloured. The parts covered by garments are less
coloured among white and yellow races than the parts uncovered; it is
affirmed, but without reliable proofs, that the contrary takes place
among the dark and black populations.
In the iris, the pigmentation assumes a particular character. As we
know, this perforated diaphragm of the eye is composed, histologically,
of three layers: an anterior epithelial one; a middle one, the
“stroma,” with muscular fibres, designed to enlarge or reduce the
pupil; and lastly, a posterior layer, called the pigmental layer. But
it must not be thought that this layer is the only repository of the
pigment of the iris. It is also found accumulated in the thickness
of the stroma, and between the muscular fibres. In both places the
granules of the pigment have the same brown colour as in the rest
of the body, but the pigment of the posterior or pigmental layer is
only seen through the stroma and appears blue or grey, more or less
light or dark, according to its quantity, just as the black veins of
the blood appear to us blue through the skin. On the contrary, the
pigment accumulated in the stroma or between the muscular fibres of the
iris exhibits its natural yellow, brown, or almost black colouring,
according to the quantity of it, under the form of a trail radiating
very clearly from the pupil towards the periphery of the eye occupying
one-third, two-thirds, or even the whole of the iris.
Seen at a certain distance, irises without pigment in their stroma
appear blue or grey; those having the whole or the greater part of
this charged with pigment appear brown, dark brown, or almost black,
according to the quantity of this pigment. But irises having a blue or
grey foundation strewn with yellowish spots of pigment appear green,
yellow, yellowish-grey, greenish-grey, etc.
There are thus distinguishable only three fundamental shades of the
iris, or, as is commonly said, of the colour of the eyes: light (blue
or grey); dark (bright or dull brown or black); and intermediate
shades (green, yellow, yellowish-grey, greenish-grey, etc.). This
classification is entirely based on the quantity of pigment in the iris.
It is only in fair European races that blue or grey eyes are found,
perhaps also in the Turco-Ugrian races; light-brown eyes are met with
among some Mongolians. In all the other populations of the earth the
eyes are dark-brown or black. It is the same with the colouring of the
hair. It varies appreciably among the wavy-haired races, much less
so among the straight and frizzy-haired races, and remains always
black among the woolly-haired races. Four principal shades can be
distinguished in the hair--black, dark-brown, chestnut-brown (_châtain_
in French), and fair. In this last shade, golden must be separated from
flaxen and dull grey-reddish hair. Red hair of all shades is only an
individual anomaly, accompanied besides, almost always, by freckles
(_ephelides_) on the face and neck. There are no red-haired races, but
light and chestnut hair may have a reddish reflection in it. Red hair
is very common in countries where several white-coloured races (brown
or fair) are intermixed. In these crossed races there are found heads
of hair of all colours--black, brown, fair, reddish-brown, dull-grey,
chestnut, etc. This is the natural result of the intermixture of blood.
Among a dark-haired people, which has remained free from intermixture,
or has only intermingled with dark-haired races, an exceptional
red-haired individual constitutes a pathological condition, called
“erythrism” by Broca. Erythrism can only manifest itself in certain
races; at least, until now no example has been instanced among the
Negroes; on the other hand, erythrism is somewhat common among the Jews
of Europe, and among such Jews it is most frequently associated with
frizzy hair.[53]
The colouring of the hair depends not only on the pigment, but on the
more or less quantity of air in the medulla of the hair, which blends
the white and grey tones with the general tint given by the pigment.
In the air, the hair fades, becomes less highly coloured, duller.
Certain acids of the perspiration render the hair reddish-brown, as for
instance, under the arm-pit.
At birth pigment is found in the body in less quantity than in
the adult state. Every one knows that the hair of children, often
light-coloured at birth and in early years, becomes darker as they grow
up. Almost all our European children are born with blue eyes, and the
pigment only begins to increase in the iris, transforming the eyes into
grey, brown, or black at the end of some weeks, or even months after
birth. New-born Chinese, Botocudos, Malays, Kalmuks, are much less
yellow than the adults of these people, and, lastly, Negroes at birth
are of a reddish-chocolate or copper colour, which only becomes darker
at the end of three or four days, beginning in certain places, such as
the nape, nipples, scrotum, etc.
The presence of temporary spots of pigment noticed among new-born
Japanese by Grimm and Baelz, among the Chinese by Matignon, among
the Tagals of the Philippines by Collignon, and among the Eskimo by
Sören-Hansen,[54] is more puzzling. These are somewhat large blue,
grey, or black spots, situated in the sacro-lumbar region and on
the buttocks, which disappear about the age of two, three, or five
years. The existence of these spots, like that of the ephelides in the
European child, would prove rather the migration of pigmental granules
to the places selected than a general increase of them. In most races
women appear to have clearer skin than men; in that respect, as in
many other characters, they have a closer resemblance to children. It
is thought by some that the hair of women is lighter than that of men
among European races.[55]
Among Negroes the pigment is visible not only on the skin, in the hair,
and the iris, but also in the sclerotic, in the mucous membrane of the
lips, the mouth, the genital organs, etc.; the internal organs, even,
are not free from it; the suprarenal capsules, the mesentery, the
liver, the spleen, are often coloured with black spots of pigment, and
even the brain contains numerous pigmented points in its envelopes and
in its grey matter. Such an abundance of pigment would become a danger
to the White, as is proved by certain diseases, melanism, for example,
in which the pigment especially invades the viscera, or Addison’s
disease, in which, on the contrary, there is an over-production of
pigment in the skin and the mucous membranes.
The total absence of pigment, which may occur with the Negro as with
the White, is termed albinism. This may be accompanied, if complete
(that is to say, when, besides the white skin and hair, the iris
is also deprived of pigment, and appears red), by somewhat serious
affections of the eyesight. But, in every respect, albinos are weakly,
and probably not fertile amongst themselves.
In considering from all points of view the nature of hair and
pigmentation in general, we cannot help noticing a certain correlation
between these two characters. In fact, to the white colouring of the
skin corresponds, in a general fashion, wavy hair, the colouring of
which varies often in accord with the colour of the eyes and the
shades of the skin (white, fair, brown races); to the yellow colouring
corresponds straight, smooth hair; to the reddish-brown skin, frizzy
hair; and to the black, woolly hair.