Apophthegms on the nature of the Science of Ethnology 559-566
NATURAL HISTORY OF MAN.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.]
INTRODUCTION.
Previous to entering upon the details connected with the varieties,
and affinities of the human species, it is advisable to explain the
meaning and full import of certain terms that are likely to be of
frequent occurrence. It is only, however, so far as an _explanation_
is required, that any remarks will be made. The questions themselves,
although necessary and preliminary, are well capable of being isolated
from the properly descriptive portions of the subject, and of forming
separate sections of ethnological science; a separation which is fully
justified by their great range and extent.
A. _Terms descriptive of differences in the way of physical
conformation._--If we were to take three individual specimens of
the human species, which should exhibit three of the most important
differences, they would, I think, be--1. A Mongolian, or a Tungús, from
Central or Siberian Asia; 2, a Negro from the Delta of the Niger; and
3, a European from France, Germany, or England. At the first view the
Negro would seem the most unlike of the three; and, perhaps, he would
do so after a minute and careful scrutiny. Still, the characteristic
and differential features of the Asiatic would be of a very remarkable
kind. In the _general_ profile, in the form of the eye, in the front
view of the face, he would differ from both. In the colour of his skin,
in the character of his hair, and in the _lower_ part of his profile,
he would differ from the Negro. In the _upper_ portion of the profile,
and in the outline of the _head_, he would differ from the European.
The Mongolian's, or Tungusian's, face would be broad and flat, with the
cheek-bones prominent. The breadth of the head from side to side would
be nearly equal to its length from the forehead to the occiput; the
nose would be flat, and, almost certainly, neither arched nor aquiline;
the eyes would be drawn upwards at their outer angle, the skin would
be of a yellowish-brown, the hair straight, the beard scanty, and the
stature undersized.
The Negro, besides his black complexion and crisp hair, would exhibit
a greater depth of head measuring from before backwards, and the upper
jaw would be much more projecting. Possibly it might be so prominent
as to give the head the appearance of being placed _behind_ the face
rather than _above_ it.
The European would be characterized by negative rather than positive
qualities. His face would be less broad, and his head would have
greater depth in proportion to its breadth than would be the case with
the Mongol. As compared with the African he would differ most in the
parts between the nose and chin. The mouth of the Negro, instead of
lying _under_ the nose and forehead, projects forwards, in a slightly
elongated shape, so as, in extreme cases, to be a _muzzle_ rather than
a mouth; the effect of which, as already stated, is to throw the upper
part of the face and head _behind_ the jaw. In the European profile,
on the other hand, the general direction is vertical. The upper jaw
does not _project_, and the forehead does not _retire_; so that the
forehead, nose, and mouth are, comparatively speaking, nearly in the
same line.
Now these distinctions we find in looking at the face only; those of
the Mongolian being best shown in a front view, those of the Negro
and European in profile. They are also those that would be drawn by a
painter or a sculptor; _i.e._ such as we can detect by merely examining
the outline and surface of the head and face. They are _external_.
Differences in the colour of the eyes and the form of the limbs might
also be easily discovered.
Important as these are, they are not the points which the ethnologist
most looks to. Although the colour of the skin and eyes and the texture
of the hair may be determined by external influences, the real reasons
for the differences of _outline_ lie in the differences of the skull
and the bony parts of the face: and as, in addition to this, the skull
is the receptacle of the brain, and the brain is the organ wherein the
human species most differs from others, anatomists have long been in
the habit of determining the different varieties of the human race, by
the difference in the conformation of their skulls. With this view, the
particular bones of most importance are the following:--
_The Frontal bone, forming the forehead._--The more the frontal bone
retires, the lower is the forehead, and the more prominent the face.
The more it is vertical or arched, the more the brain seems to be
in superposition _over_ the face; rather than lying _behind_ it. By
drawing one line from the opening of the ear to the base of the nose,
by drawing a second from the most prominent part of the forehead to the
insertion of the teeth, and by measuring the inner angle at which these
two lines bisect each other, we have the famous facial angle of Camper;
in other words, we have a measure for the extent to which a forehead is
retreating or vertical.
_The Occipital bone._--This forms the back of the head. The distance
between the frontal and occipital bones is the occipito-frontal
diameter. It constitutes the _length_ or _depth_ of the head, in
contradistinction to its _breadth_.
_The Parietal bones, forming the sides of the skull._--The distance
between the two parietal bones is the parietal diameter. It constitutes
the _breadth_ of the skull, in contradistinction to its _length_ or
_depth_. The ratio between these two diameters has been most studied by
Professor Retzius, of Stockholm. Nations where the development is in
the occipito-frontal diameter are called _dolikhokephalic_.[1] Nations
where it is in the _parietal_ diameter are called _brakhykephalic_.[2]
_The Zygoma._--Formed by the union of two processes, one from the
malar, and one from the temporal bone, and enclosing a space, within
which the muscles pass from the temporal bone to the lower jaw. It
constitutes the ridge that can be felt through the skin, between the
cheek-bone and the ear. When the zygomatic space is large, the arch of
the zygoma itself projects laterally outwards.
_The Malar bones, i.e. the cheek-bones._--It is unnecessary to say
that the prominence of the cheek-bone affects the physiognomy.
When, over and above this prominence, the zygoma has a lateral and
outward development, the breadth of the face becomes remarkably and
characteristically broad and flat. It is upon the effect of a great
zygomatic development on the form of the skull that Prichard has
founded one of his primary divisions.
[Illustration: Fig. 2.]
[Illustration: Fig. 3.]
Distance between the zygomata gives breadth to the _face_. Distance
between the parietal bones, to the _head_.
_The Nasal bones._--The flatter the nasal bones the flatter the
nose. They are generally flat in tribes of Central Asia and Africa;
prominent, or saddle-shaped, in those of Europe.
_The Upper Maxillary bone._--In this are inserted the teeth of the
upper jaw. In the European it is nearly perpendicular. In the Negro
it projects forwards; hence, in the European, the insertion of the
teeth is _perpendicular_, in the African _oblique_. The effect of a
projecting maxilla is a character upon which Prichard has founded
one of his primary divisions. When the insertion of the teeth is
perpendicular, or nearly perpendicular to the base of the nose, the
skull is _orthognathic_;[3] when projecting forwards, _prognathic_.[4]
[Illustration: Fig. 4.]
Upon these distinctions are founded the following forthcoming terms:
occipito-frontal diameter, parietal diameter, occipito-frontal[5]
profile, frontal profile, nasal profile, maxillary profile, zygomatic
development.
Next to the head, the bony structure of the pelvis has drawn most
attention; the importance thus given being natural and reasonable. The
form of the pelvis determines the erect posture of man. These, however,
and other numerous minor details will be noticed as occasion requires.
Notwithstanding the anatomical character of the principles upon
which the varieties of the Human Species have been arranged,
the terms denoting the chief divisions have not been given upon
anatomical grounds. Hence we do not talk of the _zygomatic_ or the
_occipito-frontal_ tribes, but of the _Negro_, or the _Mongolian_, &c.
In other words, the term is taken from that particular variety which
has the most characteristic conformation.
How many of such terms are necessary is a disputed point; the number of
the primary divisions being undetermined. My own opinion is in favour
of it being limited to _three_,--the Mongolian, the African, and the
European. To these, many would add a fourth, and fifth, the Malay and
American; whilst others would raise the Australian and Hottentot (and
many other) conformations into separate and primary types. As terms,
these will be retained. Their value, however, as the names of groups
and divisions, will be subordinate to that of the three great types
first named; a circumstance which brings us to the terms, _typical_,
_sub-typical_, _transitional_ and _quasi-transitional_.
A Malay and an American, although different, agree between themselves
much more than either of them would with a Negro. Furthermore, each of
them differs from the Mongolian and Chinese; less, however, than from
the African and European.
Now, so far as this difference is concerned, the terms _typical_ and
_sub-typical_, in their usual sense, are sufficient; the Mongolian
being the _type_ of the variety which he represents, whilst the Malay
and American each illustrate a _sub-typical_ modification.
But this is not all. In departing from one type, an individual, a
tribe, or a nation may approach another. This is the case when the
hair of the African becomes straight, his complexion brunette, and
his lips thin. It is also the case when a Mongol becomes light-haired
or blue-eyed. In each of these changes the effect is the same. The
original conformation has become Europeanized. Hence we have--
1st. _Simple sub-typical deviation._--This occurs in the Eskimo. His
face is broader than that of the Mongolian; but, as this increased
breadth merely makes him somewhat unlike the natives of Central Asia,
without approximating him to the African or European, the deviation is
_simple_.
2nd. _Deviation with Transition._--The Finlander has a Mongoliform
skull, but (very often) blue eyes and light hair; so that he agrees
with the European where he differs with the Kalmuk. This is deviation
and something more. It is deviation accompanied with the phenomenon of
a transition in form.
Transitions in form, however, are of two kinds--_a._ those in which
descent plays a part; _b._ those in which causes other than descent
play a part.
_a._ The light-haired Finlander is probably one of three things--
1. The descendant of Mongolians passing into Europeans.
2. The descendant of Europeans passing into Mongolians.
3. The descendant of the common stock from which the Europeans on one
side, and Mongolians on the other, originated. In all these cases his
differential characters are accounted for by the doctrine of _descent_.
_b._ Contrast, however, the case of an Australian Black. He has Mongol
characters and he has Negro characters; so that, looking to his _form_
only, he presents the phenomenon of transition; yet he is in none of
the predicaments of the Finlander, since few ethnologists believe that,
_in the way of descent_, he has any but the most indirect relationship
to the African.
Hence, _transitional forms_ are of two kinds, the first indicates
descent, affiliation, and historical connexion; the second, the effect
of common climatologic, alimentary, or social influences. This last
will be called _quasi-transitional_.
B. _Terms descriptive of differences in the way of language._--At the
present moment, there are three methods by which the relation between
the different words that constitute sentences is indicated:--1. The
method of which the Chinese is a sample; 2. The method of which the
Greek and Latin are samples; 3. The method of which the English is a
sample.
In the way of illustration, though not in the way of history, it is
best to take the second first.
1. _The Classical method._--In a word like _homin-em_, there are two
parts, _homin-_, radical; _-em_, inflectional. In the word _te-tig-i_,
there are the same. The power of these parts is clear. The _tig-_ and
_homin-_ denote the simple _action_, or the simple _object_. The _te-_
denotes the time in which it takes place; the _-i_ the agent. In the
proposition _te-tig-i homin-em_, the _-em_ denotes the _relation_
between the object (_the man touched_) and the action (_of touching_).
_Logically_, there are two ideas, _e.g._, that of the action or
object, and that of the superadded conditions in respect to time,
agency, and relation. In Latin and Greek, as in many other languages,
these superadded conditions are expressed by altering the form of the
original word. Sometimes this is done by the addition of some sound
or sounds, sometimes by simple change--(_a_,) _homin-is_, _homin-em_;
(_b_,) _speak_, _spoke_. Now this method of expressing the relation
between the different words of a proposition by changes in the form
of the words themselves is called the method of _inflection_, and
languages which adopt it are called _inflectional_.
2. _The English method._--The English language possesses inflections.
Words like _father-s_, _touch-ed_, _spoke_, are instances of it.
Nevertheless it has such important non-inflectional methods, that it
may fairly be put in contrast with the Latin and Greek. Where a Roman
said _te-tig-i_, we say _I have touched_, or _I touched_; using _I_, a
separate word, instead of the incorporated syllable _-i_. Where a Roman
said _patr-i_, we say _to father_; where a Roman said _tang-am_, we say
_I will_ (or _shall_) _touch_. In other words, we make auxiliary verbs
and prepositions do the work of inflections, expressive of case and
tense.
3. _The Chinese method._--The Chinese method agrees with the English
in expressing the different conditions and relations of actions and
objects by separate words rather than by inflections; and it carries
this principle so far as to have even a less amount of inflection;
according to some writers, none at all. Wherein, then, does it differ?
Even thus. The English is non-inflectional because it has lost
inflections which it once possessed. The Chinese is non-inflectional
because inflections have never been developed. This involves a great
difference between the nature of the words which, in the two languages
(English and Chinese) do the work of the Greek and Latin inflections.
In English they are, generally speaking, so abstract, as to have a
meaning only when in the context with other words. In Chinese they are
often the names of objects and actions, _i.e._ nouns and verbs. If,
instead of saying, _I go_ to _London_, _figs come_ from _Turkey_, _the
sun shines_ through _the air_, we said, _I go_, end _London_, _figs
come_, origin _Turkey_, _the sun shines_, passage _air_, we should
discourse after the manner of the Chinese.
But what if the inflectional parts of inflected words (nouns and verbs)
were once separate words, which have since been incorporated with the
radical term? In such a case, the difference between languages of the
Chinese, and languages of the classical type would be a difference
of degree only. Nay more, in languages like the Chinese the separate
words most in use to express relation may become adjuncts or annexes.
In this case, inflection is developed out of mere juxtaposition, and
composition. Is this a hypothesis or a real fact? It is thus much of a
fact. The numerous inflectional languages fall into two classes. In one
the inflections have no appearance of having been separate words. In
the other their origin as separate words is demonstrable.
The nomenclature arising from these distinctions, and requiring notice
in the present preliminary remarks, is as follows:--
1. _Languages of the Chinese type._--Aptotic.[6]
2. _Inflection which can generally be shown to have arisen out of the
juxtaposition and composition of different words._--Agglutinate.--Here
the incorporation has not been sufficiently complete to wholly disguise
the originally independent and separate character of the inflectional
addition.
3. _Inflection, wherein the existence of the inflectional elements as
separate and independent words cannot be shown._--Amalgamate.--Here the
speculator is at liberty to argue from the analogy of the agglutinate
inflections, and to suppose that, owing to a greater amount of euphonic
influences, the incorporation is more perfect.
4. _Languages of the English type._--Anaptotic.[7]
_c._ _Terms descriptive of differences in social cultivation._
1. _The hunter state._--The full import of this term, which always
implies a low degree of civilization, is to be inferred from the extent
to which it indicates migratory habits, precariousness of subsistence,
and imperfect property in the soil. Changing the land for the sea, the
fisher state is essentially the same.
2. _The pastoral state._--Precariousness of subsistence less than in
the hunter state. Migratory habits, in many cases, much the same.
Higher in the scale of civilization; since the breeding of animals
gives moveable property. Property in the soil improved but still
imperfect.
3. _The agricultural state._--Migratory habits rare. Precariousness
of food but slight. Property in the soil--except in the cases of
migratory[8] cultivation--perfect.
4, 5. _Material and moral influences in the history of the world._--The
first term means changes effected by physical force only; the second,
the influences of religion, literature, science, and political and
social morality.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] From _dolikhos_=_long_, and _kefalæ_=_head_.
[2] From _brakhys_=_short_, and _kefalæ_=_head_.
[3] From _orthos_=_upright_, and _gnathos_=_jaw_.
[4] From _pro_=_forwards_, and _gnathos_=_jaw_.
[5] The outline of the hairy scalp.
[6] From _a=not_, and _ptosis=a case_.
[7] From _ana=back_, and _ptosis=a case_. Falling back from inflection.
[8] As that of some of the sub-Himalayan and Indo-Chinese tribes.