Ethnology--its objects--the chief problems connected with it--
prospective questions--transfer of populations--Extract from
Knox--correlation of certain parts of the body to certain external
influences--parts less subject to such influences--retrospective
questions--the unity or non-unity of our species--opinions--
plurality of species--multiplicity of protoplasts--doctrine of
development--Dokkos--Extract--antiquity of our species--its
geographical origin--the term _race_.
In Cuvier--as far as he goes--we find the anthropological view of the
subject predominant; and this is what we expect from the nature of
the work in which it occurs: the degree in which one genus or species
differs from the species or genus next to it being the peculiar
consideration of the systematic naturalist. To exhibit our varieties
would have required a special monograph.
In Prichard on the contrary ethnology preponderates; of anthropology,
in the strict sense of the word, there being but little; and the
ethnology is of a broad and comprehensive kind. Description there
is, and classification there is; but, besides this, there is a great
portion of the work devoted to what may be called _Ethnological
Dynamics_, i. e. the appreciation of the effect of the external
conditions of climate, latitude, relative sea-level and the like upon
the human body.
Prichard is the great repertory of facts; and read with Whewell’s
commentary it gives us the Science in a form sufficiently full for
the purposes of detail, and sufficiently systematic for the basis of
further generalization. Still it must be read with the commentary
already mentioned. If not, it fails in its most intellectual element;
and becomes a system of simple records, rather than a series of subtle
and peculiar inferences. So read, however, it gives us our facts and
classifications in a _working form_. In other words, the Science has
now taken its true place and character.
If more than this be needed--and for the anthropology, it may be
thought by some that Cuvier is too brief, and Prichard too exclusively
ethnological--the work of Lawrence forms the complement. These, along
with Adelung and Klaproth, form the _Thesaurus Ethnologicus_. But the
facts which they supply are like the sword of the Mahometan warrior.
Its value depended on the arm that wielded it; and such is the case
here. No book has yet been written which can implicitly be taken
for much more than its _facts_. Its inferences and classification
must be _criticised_. Be this, however, as it may, in =A.D.= 1846
Mr. Mill writes, that “concerning the physical nature of man, as an
organized being, there has been much controversy, which can only be
terminated by the general acknowledgement and employment of stricter
rules of induction than are commonly recognized; there is, however,
a considerable body of truth which all who have attended to the
subject consider to be fully established, nor is there now any radical
imperfection in the method observed in this department of science by
its most distinguished modern teachers.”
This could not have been written thirty years ago. The _department of
science_ would, then, have been indefinite; and the _teachers_ would
not have been _distinguished_.
It may now be as well to say what Ethnology and Anthropology are
_not_. Their relations to history have been considered. _Archæology_
illustrates each; yet the moment that it is confounded with either,
mischief follows. _Psychology_, or the Science of the laws of Mind, has
the same relation to them as _Physiology_--_mutatis mutandis_; _i.e._
putting Mind in the place of Body.
But nearer than either are its two subordinate studies of Ethology[3],
or the Science of Character, by which we determine the kind of
character produced in conformity with the laws of Mind, by _any_ set of
circumstances, _physical_ as well as moral; and the Science of Society
which investigates the action and reaction of associated masses[4] on
each other.
Such then is our Science; which the principle of Division of Labour
requires to be marked off clearly in order to be worked advantageously.
And now we ask the nature of its _objects_. It has not much to do
with the establishment of any _laws_ of remarkable generality; a
circumstance which, in the eyes of some, may subtract from its value
as a science; the nearest approach to anything of this kind being
the general statement implied in the classifications themselves. Its
real object is the solution of certain _problems_--problems which it
investigates by its own peculiar method--and problems of sufficient
height and depth and length and breadth to satisfy the most ambitious.
All these are referable to two heads, and connect themselves with
either the _past_ or the _future_ history of our species; its _origin_
or _destination_.
We see between the Negro and the American a certain amount of
difference. Has this always existed? If not, how was it brought about?
By what influences? In what time? Quickly or slowly? These questions
point backwards, and force upon us the consideration of what _has
been_.
But the next takes us forwards. Great experiments in the transfer of
populations from one climate to another have gone on ever since the
discovery of America, and are going on now; sometimes westwards as to
the New World; sometimes eastwards as to Australia and New Zealand;
now from Celtic populations like Ireland; now from Gothic countries
like England and Germany; now from Spain and Portugal;--to say nothing
of the equally great phænomenon of Negro slavery being the real or
supposed condition of American prosperity. Will this succeed? Ask
this at Philadelphia, or Lima, Sydney, or Auckland, and the answer is
pretty sure to be in the affirmative. Ask it of one of our English
anatomists. His answer is as follows:--“Let us attend now to the
greatest of all experiments ever made in respect of the transfer of a
population indigenous to one continent, and attempting by emigration
to take possession of another; to cultivate it with their own hands;
to colonize it; to persuade the world, in time, that they are _the
natives_ of the newly occupied land. Northern America and Australia
furnished the fields of this, the greatest of experiments. Already
has the horse, the sheep, the ox, become as it were indigenous to
these lands. Nature did not place them there at first, yet they
seem to thrive and flourish, and multiply exceedingly. Yet, even as
regards these domestic animals, we cannot be quite certain. Will
they eventually be self-supporting? Will they supplant the llama, the
kangaroo, the buffalo, the deer? or in order to effect this, will
they require to be constantly renovated from Europe? If this be the
contingency, then the acclimatation is not perfect. How is it with man
himself? The man planted there by nature, the Red-Indian, differs from
all others on the face of the earth; he gives way before the European
races, the Saxon and the Celtic; the Celt, Iberian, and the Lusitanian
in the south; the Celt and the Saxon in the north.
“Of the tropical regions of the New World, I need not speak; every
one knows that none but those whom nature placed there can live
there; that no Europeans can colonize a tropical country. But may
there not be some doubts of their self-support in milder regions?
Take the Northern States themselves. There the Saxon and the Celt
seem to thrive beyond all that is recorded in history. But are we
quite sure that this is fated to be permanent? Annually from Europe
is poured a hundred thousand men and women of the best blood of the
Scandinavian, and twice the number of the pure Celt; and so long as
this continues, he is sure to thrive. But check it, arrest it suddenly,
as in the case of Mexico and Peru; throw the _onus_ of reproduction
upon the population, no longer European, but a struggle between the
European alien and his adopted father-land. The climate; the forests;
the remains of the aborigines not yet extinct; last, not least, that
unknown and mysterious degradation of life and energy, which in ancient
times seems to have decided the fate of all the Phœnician, Grecian,
and Coptic colonies. Cut off from their original stock, they gradually
withered and faded, and finally died away. The Phœnician never became
acclimatized in Africa, nor in Cornwall, nor in Wales; vestiges of his
race, it is true, still remain, but they are mere vestiges. Peru and
Mexico are fast retrograding to their primitive condition; may not the
Northern States, under similar circumstances, do the same?
“Already the United States man differs in appearance from the European:
the ladies early lose their teeth; in both sexes the adipose cellular
cushion interposed between the skin and the aponeuroses and muscles
disappears, or, at least, loses its adipose portion; the muscles become
stringy, and show themselves; the tendons appear on the surface;
symptoms of premature decay manifest themselves. Now what do these
signs, added to the uncertainty of infant life in the Southern States,
and the smallness of their families in the Northern, indicate? Not the
conversion of the Anglo-Saxon into the Red-Indian, but warnings that
the climate has not been made for him, nor he for the climate.
“See what even a small amount of insulation has done for the French
Celt in Lower Canada. Look at the race there! Small men, small horses,
small cattle, still smaller carts, ideas smallest of all; he is not
even the Celt of modern France! He is the French Celt of the Regency,
the thing of Louis XIII. Stationary--absolutely stationary--his
numbers, I believe, depend on the occasional admixture of fresh blood
from Europe. He has increased to a million since his first settlement
in Canada; but much of this has come from Britain, and not from France.
Give us the statistics of the original families who keep themselves
apart from the fresh blood imported into the province. Let us have the
real and solid increase of the original _habitans_, as they are pleased
to call themselves, and then we may calculate on the result.
“Had the colony been left to itself, cut off from Europe, for a century
or two, it is my belief that the forest and the buffalo, and the
Red-Indian, would have pushed him into the St. Lawrence[5].”
I give no opinion as to the truth of the extract; remarking that,
whether right or wrong, it is forcibly and confidently expressed.
All that the passage has to do is to illustrate the character of the
question. It directs our consideration to what _will be_.
To work out questions in either of these classes, there must, of
course, be some reference to the general operations of climate,
food, and other influences;--operations which imply a correlative
susceptibility of modification on the part of the human organism.
In a well-constructed machine, the different parts have a definite
relation to each. The greater the resistance, the thicker the ropes and
chains; and the thicker the ropes and chains, the stronger the pulleys;
the stronger the pulleys, the greater the force; and so on throughout.
Delicate pulleys with heavy ropes, or light lines with bulky pulleys,
would be so much power wasted. The same applies to the skeleton. If
the muscle be massive, the bone to which it is attached must be firm;
otherwise there is a disproportion of parts. In this respect the
organized and animated body agrees with a common machine, the work
of human hands. It agrees with, but it also surpasses it. It has an
internal power of self-adjustment. No amount of work would convert a
thin line into a strong rope, or a light framework into a strong one.
If bulk be wanted, it must be given in the first instance. But what
is it with the skeleton, the framework to the muscles? It _has_ the
power of adapting itself to the stress laid upon it. The food that we
live upon is of different degrees of hardness and toughness; and the
harder and tougher it is, the more work is there for the muscles of
the lower jaw. But, as these work, they grow; for--other things being
equal--size is power; and as they grow, other parts must grow also.
There are the bones. _How_ they grow is a complex question. Sometimes
a smooth surface becomes rough, a fine bone coarse; sometimes a short
process becomes lengthened, or a narrow one broadens; sometimes the
increase is simple or absolute, and the bone in question changes its
character without affecting that of the parts in contact with it. But
frequently there is a complication of changes, and the development of
one bone takes place at the expense of another; the _relations_ of the
different portions of parts of a skeleton being thus altered.
A skeleton, then, may be modified by the action of its own muscles; in
other words, wherever there are muscles that are liable to an increase
of mass, there are bones similarly susceptible--bones upon which
asperities, ridges, or processes may be developed--bones from which
asperities, ridges, or processes may disappear, and bones of which the
relative proportions may be varied. In order, however, that this must
take place, there must be the muscular action which determines it.
Now this applies to the _hard parts_, or the skeleton; and as it is
generally admitted, that if the bony framework of the body can be thus
modified by the action of its own muscles, the extreme conditions of
heat, light, aliment, moisture, &c., will, _à fortiori_, affect the
soft parts, such as the skin and adipose tissue. Neither have any great
difficulties been raised in respect to the varieties of colour in the
iris, and of colour and texture, both, in the hair.
But what if we have in certain _hard_ parts a difference without its
corresponding tangible modifying cause? What if parts which no muscle
acts upon vary? In such a case we have a new class of facts, and a
new import given to it. We no longer draw our illustrations from the
ropes and pulleys of machines. Adaptation there may be, but it is no
longer an adaptation of the simple straightforward kind that we have
exhibited. It is an adaptation on the principle which determines the
figure-head of a vessel, not one on the principle which decides the
rigging. Still there is a principle on both sides; on one, however,
there is an evident connection of cause and effect; on the other, the
notion of choice, or spontaneity of an _idea_, is suggested.
In this way, the consideration of a tooth differs from that of the jaw
in which it is implanted. No muscles act directly upon it; and all that
pressure at its base can do is to affect the direction of its growth.
The form of its crown it leaves untouched. How--I am using almost
the words of Prof. Owen--can we conceive the development of the great
canine of the chimpanzee to be a result of external stimuli, or to
have been influenced by muscular actions, when it is calcified before
it cuts the gum, or displaces its deciduous predecessor--a structure
preordained, a weapon prepared prior to the development of the forces
by which it is to be wielded[6]?
This illustrates the difference between the parts manifestly obnoxious
to the influence of external conditions and the parts which either do
not vary at all, or vary according to unascertained laws.
With the former we look to the conditions of sun, air, habits, or
latitude; the latter we interpret, as we best can, by references to
other species or to the same in its earlier stages of development.
Thus, the so-called supra-orbital ridge, or the prominence of the
lower portion of forehead over the nose and eyes, is more marked in
some individuals than in others; and more marked in the African and
Australian varieties than our own. This is an ethnological fact.
Again--and this is an anthropological fact--it is but moderately
developed in man at all: whilst in the orang-utan it is moderate; and
in the chimpanzee enormously and characteristically developed.
Hence it is one of the nine points whereby the _Pithecus Wurmbii_
approaches man more closely than the _Troglodytes Gorilla_[7], in
opposition to the twenty-four whereby the _Troglodytes Gorilla_ comes
nearer to us than the _Pithecus Wurmbii_.
Had this ridge given attachment to muscles, we should have asked what
work those muscles did, and how far it varied in different regions,
instead of thinking much about either the _Pithecus Wurmbii_ or the
_Troglodytes Gorilla_.
However, it is certain problems which constitute the higher branches of
ethnology; and it is to the investigation of these that the department
of ethnological dynamics is subservient. Looking _backwards_ we find,
first amongst the foremost, the grand questions as to--
1. The unity or non-unity of the species.
2. Its antiquity.
3. Its geographical origin.
The unity or non-unity of the human species has been contemplated under
a great multiplicity of aspects; some involving the fact itself, some
the meaning of the term _species_.
1. Certain points of structure are _constant_. This is one reason for
making man the only species of genus, and the only genus of his order.
2. All mixed breeds are prolific. This is another.
3. The evidence of language indicates a common origin; and the simplest
form of this is a single pair. This is a third.
4. We can predicate a certain number of general propositions concerning
the class of beings called Human. This merely separates them from all
other classes. It does not determine the nature of the class itself in
respect to its members. It may fall in divisions and subdivisions.
5. The species may be one; but the number of _first pairs_ may be
numerous. This is the doctrine of the _multiplicity of protoplasts_[8].
6. The species may have had no protoplast at all; but may have been
developed out of some species anterior to it, and lower in the scale of
Nature, this previous species itself having been so evolved. In this
case, the protoplast is thrown indefinitely backwards; in other words,
the protoplast of one species is the protoplast of many.
7. The genus _Homo_ may fall into several species; so that what some
call the _varieties of a single species_ are really different species
of a single genus.
8. The varieties of mankind may be too great to be included in even a
_genus_. There may be two or even more genera to an _order_.
9. Many of the present varieties may represent the intermixtures of
species no longer extant in a pure state.
10. All _known_ varieties may be referable to a single species; but
there may be new species undescribed.
11. All _existing_ varieties may be referable to a single species; but
certain _species_ may have ceased to exist.
Such are the chief views which are current amongst learned men on
this point; though they have not been exhibited in a strictly logical
form, inasmuch as differences of opinion as to the meaning of the term
_species_ have been given in the same list with differences of opinion
as to the fact of our unity or non-unity.
These differences of opinion are not limited to mere matters of
inference. The _facts_ on which such inferences rest are by no means
unanimously admitted. Some deny the constancy of certain points of
structure, and more deny the _permanent_ fecundity of mixed breeds.
Again, the evidence of language applies only to known tongues; whilst
the fourth view is based upon a _logical_ rather than a _zoological_
view of _species_.
The doctrine of a _multiplicity of protoplasts_ is common. Many
zoologists hold it, and they have of course zoological reasons
for doing so. Others hold it upon grounds of a very different
description--grounds which rest upon the assumption of a final
cause. Man is a _social_ animal. Let the import of this be ever so
little exaggerated. The term is a _correlative_ one. The wife is not
enough to the husband; the _pair_ requires its _pair_ for society’s
sake. Hence, if man be not formed to live alone now, he was not
formed alone at first. To be born a member of society, there must be
associates. This is the teleological[9]--perhaps it may be called the
theological--reason for the multiplicity of protoplasts.
Its _non_-inductive character subtracts something from its value.
The difficulty of drawing a line as to the magnitude of the original
society subtracts more. If we admit a second pair, why not grant a
village, a town, a city and its corporation? &c.
Again, this is either a primitive civilization or something very like
it. Where are its traces? Nevertheless, if we grant certain assumptions
in respect to the history of human civilization, the teleological
doctrine of the multiplicity of protoplasts is difficult to refute.
And so is the zoological; provided that we make concessions in the way
of language. Let certain pairs have been created with the capacity but
not the gift of speech, so that they shall have learned their language
of others. Or let _all_, at first, have been in this predicament, and
some have evolved speech earlier than others--a speech eventually
extended to all. It is not easy to answer such an argument as this.
The multiplicity of protoplasts is common ground to the zoologist and
the human naturalist, although the phænomena of speech and society
give the latter the larger share. The same applies to the _doctrine of
development_. The fundamental affinity which connects all the forms
of human speech is valid against the transcendentalist only when he
assumes that each original of a species of Man appeared, as such, with
his own proper language. Let him allow this to have been originally
dumb, and with only the capacity of learning speech from others,
and all arguments in favour of the unity of species drawn from the
similarity of language fall to the ground.
The eighth doctrine is little more than an exaggeration of the seventh.
The seventh will not be noticed now, simply because the facts which it
asserts and denies pervade the whole study of ethnology, and appear and
re-appear at every point of our investigations.
_All +known+ varieties may be referable to a single species; but there
may be other species undescribed._--What are the reasons for believing
this? Premising that Dilbo was a slave from whom Dr. Beke collected
certain information respecting the countries to the south-west of
Abyssinia, I subjoin the following extract:--
“The countries on the west and south-west of Kaffa are, according to
Dilbo, Damboro, Bonga, Koolloo, Kootcha, Soofa, Tooffte, and Doko; on
the east and south-east are the plains of Woratto, Walamo, and Talda.
“The country of Doko is a month’s journey distant from Kaffa; and it
seems that only those merchants who are dealers in slaves go farther
than Kaffa. The most common route passes Kaffa in a south-westerly
direction, leading to Damboro, afterwards to Kootcha, Koolloo, and then
passing the river Erow to Tooffte, where they begin to hunt the slaves
in Doko, of which chase I shall give a description as it has been
stated to me, and the reader may use his own judgement respecting it.
“Dilbo begins with stating that the people of Doko, both men and
women, are said to be no taller than boys nine or ten years old. They
never exceed that height, even in the most advanced age. They go quite
naked; their principal food are ants, snakes, mice, and other things
which commonly are not used as food. They are said to be so skilful
in finding out the ants and snakes, that Dilbo could not refrain
from praising them greatly on that account. They are so fond of this
food, that even when they have become acquainted with better aliment
in Enarea and Kaffa, they are nevertheless frequently punished for
following their inclination of digging in search of ants and snakes, as
soon as they are out of sight of their masters. The skins of snakes are
worn by them about their necks as ornaments. They also climb trees with
great skill to fetch down the fruits; and in doing this they stretch
their hands downwards and their legs upwards. They live in extensive
forests of bamboo and other woods, which are so thick that the
slave-hunter finds it very difficult to follow them in these retreats.
These hunters sometimes discover a great number of the Dokos sitting
on the trees, and then they use the artifice of showing them shining
things, by which they are enticed to descend, when they are captured
without difficulty. As soon as a Doko begins to cry he is killed, from
the apprehension that this, as a sign of danger, will cause the others
to take to their heels. Even the women climb on the trees, where in
a few minutes a great number of them may be captured and sold into
slavery.
“The Dokos live mixed together; men and women unite and separate as
they please; and this Dilbo considers as the reason why the tribe has
not been exterminated, though frequently a single slave-dealer returns
home with a thousand of them reduced to slavery. The mother suckles the
child only as long as she is unable to find ants and snakes for its
food: she abandons it as soon as it can get its food by itself. No rank
or order exists among the Dokos. Nobody orders, nobody obeys, nobody
defends the country, nobody cares for the welfare of the nation. They
make no attempts to secure themselves but by running away. They are as
quick as monkeys; and they are very sensible of the misery prepared for
them by the slave-hunters, who so frequently encircle their forests
and drive them from thence into the open plains like beasts. They put
their heads on the ground, and stretch their legs upwards, and cry, in
a pitiful manner, ‘Yer! yer!’ Thus they call on the Supreme Being, of
whom they have some notion, and are said to exclaim, ‘If you do exist,
why do you suffer us to die, who do not ask for food or clothes, and
who live on snakes, ants, and mice?’ Dilbo stated that it was no rare
thing to find five or six Dokos in such a position and state of mind.
Sometimes these people quarrel among themselves, when they eat the
fruit of the trees; then the stronger one throws the weaker to the
ground, and the latter is thus frequently killed in a miserable way.
“In their country it rains incessantly; at least from May to January,
and even later the rain does not cease entirely. The climate is not
cold, but very wet. The traveller, in going from Kaffa to Doko, must
pass over a high country, and cross several rivers, which fall into the
Gochob.
“The language of the Dokos is a kind of murmuring, which is understood
by no one but themselves and their hunters. The Dokos evince much
sense and skill in managing the affairs of their masters, to whom
they are soon much attached; and they render themselves valuable to
such a degree, that no native of Kaffa ever sells one of them to be
sent out of the country. As Captain Clapperton says of the slaves of
Nyffie:--‘The very slaves of this people are in great request, and when
once obtained are never again sold out of the country.’ The inhabitants
of Enarea and Kaffa sell only those slaves which they have taken in
their border-wars with the tribes living near them, but never a Doko.
The Doko is also averse to being sold; he prefers death to separating
from his master, to whom he has attached himself.
“The access to the country of Doko is very difficult, as the
inhabitants of Damboro, Koolloo, and Tooffte are enemies to the
traders from Kaffa, though these tribes are dependent on Kaffa, and pay
tribute to its sovereigns; for these tribes are intent on preserving
for themselves alone the exclusive privilege of hunting the Dokos, and
of trading with the slaves thus obtained.
“Dilbo did not know whether the tribes residing south and west of the
Dokos persecute this unhappy nation in the same cruel way.
“This is Dilbo’s account of the Dokos, a nation of pigmies, who are
found in so degraded a condition of human nature that it is difficult
to give implicit credit to his account. The notion of a nation of
pigmies in the interior of Africa is very ancient, as Herodotus speaks
of them in II. 32.”
Now those who believe in the Dokos at all, may fairly believe them to
constitute a new species.
Other imperfectly known populations may be put forward in a similar
point of view.
_All +existing+ varieties may be referable to a single species; but
certain species may have ceased to exist._--There is a considerable
amount of belief in this respect. We see, in certain countries, which
are at present barbarous vestiges of a prior civilization, works, like
those of Mexico and Peru for instance, which the existing inhabitants
confess to be beyond their powers. Be it so. Is the assumption of
a different species with architectural propensities more highly
developed, legitimate? The reader will answer this question in his own
way. I can only say that such assumptions have been made.
Again--ancient tombs exhibit skeletons which differ from the living
individuals of the country. Is a similar assumption here justifiable?
It has been made.
The most remarkable phænomena of the kind in question are to be found
in the history of the Peruvians.
The parts about the Lake Titicaca form the present country of the
Aymaras, whose heads are much like those of the other Americans, whose
taste for architecture is but slight, and whose knowledge of having
descended from a people more architectural than themselves is none.
Nevertheless, there are vast ruins in their district; whilst the
heads of those whose remains are therein preserved have skulls with
the sutures obliterated, and with remarkable frontal, lateral, and
occipital depressions.
Does this denote an extinct species? Individually, I think it does
not; because, individually, with many others, I know that certain
habits decline, and I also believe that the flattenings of the head
are _artificial_. Nevertheless, if I, ever so little, exaggerated the
permanency of habits, or if I identified a habit with an instinct,
or if I considered the skulls _natural_, the chances are that I
should recognise the remains of ancient _stock_--possibly an ancient
_species_--without congeners and without descendants.
_The antiquity of the human species._--Our views on this point depend
upon our views as to its unity or non-unity; so much so, that unless
we assume either one or the other, the question of antiquity is
impracticable. And it must also be added that, unless the inquiry is to
be excessively complicated, the unity-doctrine must take the form of
descent from a single pair.
Assuming this, we take the most extreme specimens of difference,
whether it be in the way of physical conformation or mental
phænomena--of these last, language being the most convenient. After
this, we ask the time necessary for bringing about the changes
effected; the answer to this resting upon the induction supplied within
the historical period; an answer requiring the application of what has
already been called _Ethnological Dynamics_.
On the other hand, we may assume a certain amount of original
difference, and investigate the time requisite for effecting the
existing amount of similarity.
The first of these methods requires a long, the second a short period;
indeed, descent from a single pair implies a _geological_ rather than
a _historical_ date.
Furthermore--that uniformity in the average rate of change which the
geologist requires, ethnology requires also.
_The geographical origin of Man._--Supposing all the varieties of
Man to have originated from a single protoplast pair, in what part
of the world was that single protoplast pair placed? Or, supposing
such protoplast pairs to have been numerous, what were the respective
original locations of each? I ask these questions without either
giving any answer to them, or exhibiting any method for discovering
one. Of the three great problems it is the one which has received
the least consideration, and the one concerning which there is the
smallest amount of decided opinion. The conventional, provisional,
or hypothetical cradle of the human species is, of course, the most
central point of the inhabited world; inasmuch as this gives us the
greatest amount of distribution with the least amount of migration;
but, of course, such a centre is wholly unhistorical.
_Race_--What is the meaning of this word?
Does it mean _variety_? If so, why not say _variety_ at once?
Does it mean _species_? If it do, one of the two phrases is
superfluous.
In simple truth it means either or neither, as the case may be; and
is convenient or superfluous according to the views of the writer who
uses it.
If he believe that groups and classes like the Negro, the Hottentot,
the American, the Australian, or the Mongolian, differ from each other
as the dog differs from the fox, he talks of _species_. He has made up
his mind.
But, perhaps, he does no such thing. His mind is made up the other way.
Members of such classes may be to Europeans, and to each other, just
what the cur is to the pug, the pointer to the beagle, &c. They may be
_varieties_.
He uses, then, the terms accordingly; but, in order to do so, he must
have made up his mind; and certain classes must represent either one or
the other.
But what if he have not done this? If, instead of teaching undoubted
facts, he is merely investigating doubtful ones? In this case the term
_race_ is convenient. It is convenient for him during his pursuit of an
opinion, and during the consequent suspension of his opinion.
_Race_, then, is the term denoting a _species or variety_, as the
case may be--_pendente lite_. It is a term which, if it conceals our
ignorance, proclaims our openness to conviction.
Of the _prospective_ views of humanity, one has been considered. But
there are others of at least equal importance. Two, out of many, may
serve as samples.
1. The first is suggested by the following Table; taken from a fuller
one in Mr. D. Wilson’s valuable Archæology and Prehistoric Annals of
Scotland. It shows the relative proportions of a series of skulls of
_very great_, with those of a series of _moderate_ antiquity.
The study of this--and it requires to be studied carefully--gives
grounds for believing that the capacity of a skull may increase
as the social condition improves; from which it follows that the
physical organization of the less-favoured stocks may develope itself
progressively,--and, _pari passu_, the mental power that coincides with
it. This illustrates the nature of a certain ethnological question. But
what if the two classes of skulls belong to different stocks; so that
the owners of the one were _not_ the progenitors of the proprietors of
the other? Such a view (and it is not unreasonable) illustrates the
extent to which it is complicated.
[Transcriber’s Note: The measurements in the tables are in inches and
twelfths.]
KEY:
A: Longitudinal diameter.
B: Parietal diameter.
C: Frontal diameter.
D: Vertical diameter.
E: Intermastoid arch.
F: Intermastoid arch from upper root of zygomatic process.
----+------+-------+------+------+--------+------
| A | B | C | D | E | F
----+------+-------+------+------+--------+------
Very old.
1. | 7·0 | 5·4½? | 4·9? | 4·10 | 13·11 | 11·5
2. | 7·0 | 4·8 | 4·4 | 5·3 | 13·2 | 11·0
3. | 6·11 | 5·3 | 3·11 | 5·0 | ... | 12·0
4. | 7·0 | 4·11 | 4·4 | 5·3 | 13·8 | 11·4½
5. | 6·6 | 4·1? | 4·11 | 4·2? | 13·2 | 11·3
6. | 7·3 | 5·4 | 4·6 | 5·2 | 14·3 | 11·9
7. | 7·5 | 5·2 | 4·5 | 5·2 | 14·3 | 12·0
8. | 7·9 | 5·6 | 4·9 | ... | ... | 12·3
9. | 7·3 | 5·8 | 4·3½ | 4·9 | 14·0 | 11·9
Moderately old.
17. | 7·9 | 5·0 | 4·10 | 5·6 | 14·9 | 11·11
18. | 7·6 | 5·1 | 4·6 | 5·1 | 14·8 | 11·3
19. | 7·3 | 5·3 | 4·5 | 5·4½ | 14·5 | 12·4
20. | 7·5 | 5·6½ | 5·0½ | 5·6 | 14·11½ | 12·3
21. | 7·3 | 5·6½ | 4·4 | 5·6 | 14·8 | 12·0
22. | 7·2 | 5·7 | 4·5 | 5·6 | 14·9 | 11·10
23. | 7·3½ | 5·7 | 4·6 | 5·2 | 15·0? | 12·4?
24. | 7·2 | 5·5 | 4·6 | ... | ... | ...
25. | 7·8 | 5·6 | 4·3½ | 5·3 | 14·4 | 11·8
26. | 7·9 | 5·7 | 5·3 | 5·6 | 15·7 | 13·3
27. | 7·11 | 5·5 | 4·9 | ... | ... | 12·0
----+------+-------+------+------+--------+------
KEY:
G: Intermastoid lines.
H: Ditto from upper root of zygomatic process.
I: Occipitofrontal arch.
J: Ditto from occipital protuberance to root of nose.
K: Horizontal periphery.
L: Relative capacity.
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------
| G | H | I | J | K | L
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------
Very old.
1. | 3·6½ | 4·8½ | 13·9 | 12·0 | 20·4 | 32·2
2. | 4·1 | 4·10 | 14·0 | 11·11 | 19·6 | 31·9
3. | ... | 4·8½ | 14·4 | 11·4 | 19·0 | 30·11
4. | 4·1 | 4·10 | 13·10 | 11·3 | 16·7½ | 28·10½
5. | ... | 4·8? | 13·11 | 12·0 | 19·0 | 29·6
6. | 4·4 | 5·0½ | 14·8 | 12·3 | 20·8½ | 33·1½
7. | 3·7 | 4·10½ | 14·3 | 12·3 | 20·7½ | 33·2½
8. | ... | 5·6 | 15·6 | ... | 21·3 | ...
9. | 3·8½ | 5·0 | 14·2 | 11·9 | 20·7 | 32·7
Moderately old.
17. | 4·0 | 5·4 | 15·5 | 13·6 | 21·3 | 34·6
18. | 3·11 | 5·3 | 14·6 | 12·11 | 20·4 | 32·11½
19. | 3·11½ | 4·9 | 14·9 | 12·9 | 20·10 | 33·5½
20. | 4·0 | ... | 14·9 | 12·6 | 20·10 | 33·9
21. | 4·1 | 5·3 | 14·5 | 12·10 | 20·2 | 32·11
22. | 4·3 | 5·6 | 14·4 | 12·6 | 20·0 | 32·8
23. | ... | ... | 14·8 | 12·6½ | 19·10½ | 32·4
24. | ... | ... | ... | 12·10 | 20·7 | ...
25. | 4·7 | 5·6 | 14·6 | 12·7 | 20·11 | 33·10
26. | 4·0½ | 5·4 | 16·4 | 14·4 | 21·11 | 35·2
27. | ... | 5·1 | 15·5 | 13·9 | 21·6 | ...
----+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+-------
2. The second, like the first, shall be explained by extracts:--
* * * * *
_a._ Mrs. ----, a neighbour of Mr. M’Combie, was twice married, and
had issue by both husbands. The children of the first marriage were
five in number; by the second, three. One of these three, a daughter,
bears an unmistakeable resemblance to her mother’s first husband.
What makes the likeness the more discernible is, that there was the
most marked difference, in their features and general appearance,
between the two husbands.
* * * * *
_b._ A young woman, residing in Edinburgh, and born of white
(Scottish) parents, but whose mother some time previous to her
marriage had a natural (Mulatto) child, by a negro-servant, in
Edinburgh, exhibits distinct traces of the negro. Dr. Simpson,
whose patient the young woman at one time was, has had no recent
opportunities of satisfying himself as to the precise extent to which
the negro character prevails in her features; but he recollects being
struck with the resemblance, and noticed particularly that the hair
had the qualities characteristic of the negro.
* * * * *
_c._ Mrs. ----, apparently perfectly free from scrofula, married a
man who died of phthisis; she had one child by him, which also died
of phthisis. She next married a person who was to all appearance
equally healthy as herself, and had two children by him, one of which
died of phthisis, the other of tubercular mesenteric disease--having,
at the same time, scrofulous ulceration of the under extremity.
There are the elements of a theory here; especially if they be
taken along with certain phænomena, well-known to the breeders of
race-horses--the theory being, that the mixture of the _distinctive
characters_ of different divisions of mankind may be greater than
the intermixture itself. I give no opinion on the _data_. I merely
illustrate an ethnological question--one out of many.
FOOTNOTES
[3] From the Greek word (ἦθος) _ethos_ = _character_.
[4] Called by Comte _Sociology_, a name half Latin and half Greek, and
consequently too barbarous to be used, if its use can be avoided.
[5] Knox, Races of Men, pp. 73, 74.
[6] On the Osteology of the Great Chimpanzee. By Professor Owen, in the
Philosophical Transactions.
[7] Owen, Philosophical Transactions, Feb. 22, 1848.
[8] From _protos_ = _first_, and _plastos_ = _formed_.
[9] From the Greek _telos_ = _an end_.