toad. I must stir them up. With a stick I tried to irritate the
scorpion. She proved a perfect marvel of patience. She wouldn't
"irritate" worth a cent. I poked the toad over and on top of the
supposed vicious and venomous creature. The latter crept out from
under her unusual burden and crawled into a corner. The toad in a
dazed sort of way pulled himself together and hopped off. I still kept
up my pokings and proddings, thinking that possibly my "grampus" could
at last be teased into some manifestation of her supposed deadly
powers. It was a complete failure. Madam Thelyphonus proved to be a
perfect model of patient endurance under persecution. All I could do,
there was not a sign or motion of resentment. She could not be teased
or tormented into biting, pinching, or fighting anything or anybody.
My little captive had all the "ornaments of a meek and quiet spirit,"
and her only desire seemed to be to get out of the way. Now here was
certainly a curious contrast between reputation and real character. A
whole Stateful of slanderous natural history was disappearing under my
very eyes! "Mule-killer," indeed! Why, my little captive couldn't be
coaxed or goaded into harming a fly. In patient sufferance and
persistent good nature she could have given points to "Uncle Toby," in
his celebrated interview with that annoying insect. Still, although
this first experiment quite convinced me that my _Thelyphonus_ was
entirely harmless, I concluded to leave my captives together for the
night. In the morning, as I expected, both were in the best of health
and spirits, the toad eager to jump out, the scorpion eager to be let
alone.
The next night I tried a mouse. This sharp-toothed, frisky little
rodent would, I thought, be likely to get into trouble if there was
any to be found. The teasing process was not repeated, as it had
proved such a complete failure. The mouse, however, ran round the
cage, tumbling over the _Thelyphonus_, in the most rapid and reckless
way. Every time the latter seemed to regard these awkward encounters
as unavoidable accidents, and excused them accordingly. As to biting,
pinching, or resenting them in any way, she showed not the slightest
symptom of them. She simply crawled into a corner and kept as quiet as
circumstances would permit. As in the case of the toad, both were left
together overnight. All that really happened, so far as I could see,
was that the mouse had nearly gnawed a hole through the cage; but
evidently he was none the worse for having shared his bedroom with
this terrible "mule-killer," "worse than a rattlesnake," according to
the accepted belief.
It is certainly a curious question how so perfectly harmless a
creature can have acquired such a bad reputation. I know of no modern
parallel. In Shakespeare's time a similar popular prejudice was
entertained against one of the most useful servants that farmers and
horticulturists possess. The well-known lines--
"The toad, ugly and venomous,
Holds yet a precious jewel in its head"--
were but the echo of this crude and cruel fancy. So with our
_Thelyphonus_. It is not only absolutely harmless, but, as I shall
soon show, one of the most useful helps in keeping within bounds one
of our most serious pests.
The comment that I once heard, by a not over-intelligent and somewhat
profane individual, upon seeing a dead whip scorpion--"Any ---- fool
can see that that critter is rank pisin!"--probably partially explains
the matter. It must be conceded that the looks of the _Thelyphonus_
are decidedly against it. Its long, frisky tail, its big, threatening
claws, and its generally uncanny and vicious appearance are quite
sufficient to inspire caution if not positive dread. It "looks pisin,"
and that settles it with the ignorant. With the better informed the
fact that the creature belongs to a bad family, that its nearest
relatives are unquestionably venomous, may help to explain, though it
can hardly excuse, the widespread currency which even scientific men
have helped to give to a most erroneous and slanderous belief.
And now as to the food question. This, of course, was a very vital
matter to my little prisoner, and one of great interest to me. After
the failure of the cockroach diet, I next tried grasshoppers. These
also have been declared to be greatly relished by the _Thelyphonus_. I
did not find it so. The first one placed in the cage was, to be sure,
partially eaten. But, unfortunately, a colony of ants had got into the
cage, and were dining on my dead _Gryllus_. This left the matter a
little uncertain. On fencing out these intruders, and repeating the
experiment with the same and half a dozen other species, I became
convinced that my _Thelyphonus_, at least, was not fond of
grasshoppers. Then began a kind of general system, or no system, of
haphazard feeding, or rather trials of food. My marketing range for my
particular "boarder" was by no means a limited one. During the month
of September, when most of these investigations were in progress,
Florida is by no means deficient in insect life. Every day from two to
ten new and different species were placed in the cage. A list was
kept, to avoid repetition, until my captive was offered her choice of
something over a hundred varieties of "bugs," worms, grubs, spiders,
ants and their eggs, lizards, butterflies, etc.--everything, indeed,
that I could think of or conveniently catch, which it seemed possible
my little captive might fancy. Of all this heterogeneous collection,
nothing, so far as I could see, was ever killed or eaten. A tiny piece
of fresh beef, placed in her cage at night, was the only thing that I
could persuade her to touch. Even of this I am not absolutely certain.
In the morning these little pellets of fresh meat were usually found
rolled in the sand and often apparently diminished in size. Several
times they disappeared altogether. The presence, however, of other
predatory insects sometimes left the matter a little in doubt. But, as
my captive remained in good health for over a month while this plan of
trial dieting was in progress, I am inclined to think that more or
less of the fresh beef was really consumed by her. Still, she took the
greatest care that I should never catch her eating, even when
surprised with a sudden light at night, a time when she was always
especially active.
I was getting a little tired of this seemingly fruitless
investigation, and had about concluded to persuade my _Thelyphonus_ to
crawl into a bottle in company with a few drops of chloroform, to have
her picture taken, and then forward the "embalmed remains" to the
Museum of Natural History in Central Park, New York, to which they had
already been promised.
I concluded, however, to make one more effort. So the next day I spent
some time in hunting for new and untried insects, of which I procured
half a dozen or so, and among other things quite a lot of so-called
"wood-lice," "white ants," _termites_, our only representative of a
family that in most warm countries is so destructive to exposed wooden
structures. All of these "finds" were tumbled, as usual, upon the
floor of my captive's cage, and I left them with very little
expectation that she would see among them anything that suited her
fastidious taste. The next morning, to my surprise, every white ant
had disappeared; nothing else was touched. The question was solved.
For about three weeks my _Thelyphonus_ was supplied each day with a
liberal allowance of what in this latitude, at least, seems to be its
exclusive food.
Now, this white ant (_Termes flavipes_) is in Florida one of our worst
pests. Possibly there may be some compensating benefits which they
confer, in the more rapid removal of decaying vegetable matter. In
most respects, however, they are an unmitigated nuisance. The annual
destruction of property, of fencing, building foundations, and exposed
woodwork of every kind must be estimated at hundreds of thousands of
dollars. The worst of it is, too, that it is impossible to know when
they are at work. They are always hidden. In case they are compelled
in their destructive labors to pass over the outside of anything, they
always build a hard gallery of cemented sand or clay, under which
they travel securely. Unfortunately, too, they do not always confine
their ravages to dead wood. Every orange grower fears them, and if
they once get a foothold the tree that they attack is often destroyed
before anything is suspected to be the matter. They "love darkness
rather than light," and "their deeds are evil." And it is these
miserable pests that my little-appreciated and much-slandered
_Thelyphonus_ has been all her life fighting! And those big, strong
claws of hers, that look so formidable, what are they for but to tear
down and break in pieces the hard, honeycombed structures in which her
food is hidden? It was all plain enough now!
I confess, when I first discovered these facts which turn popular
natural history so completely topsy-turvy, I felt like taking off my
hat and making my profoundest bow to my little captive, and in the
name of justice and humanity asking pardon for all the slanders and
indignities heaped upon her race.
Since writing the above, a private note from Prof. L. O. Howard, chief
of the Division of Entomology in the United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C., furnishes important additional
testimony upon the question of the harmlessness of this arachnid.
Professor Howard says, "The _Thelyphonus_ is not poisonous."
Perhaps a way of reconciling at least some of the conflicting
statements that have been made on the subject may be found in the
facts revealed by modern bacteriological investigations. It is well
known that under special conditions the bite of the most harmless
animal may convey to the human system pathogenic germs which will
speedily prove fatal. Most of the deaths reported in the newspapers
from the bite of the _Thelyphonus_ are no doubt imaginary, or due
entirely to other causes. Any well-authenticated case--if such there
has been--is probably to be explained in the manner above indicated.
This theory, too, helps to "let down easy" some prominent naturalists
whose great names have served to give countenance to one of the most
widespread and persistent errors in current natural history.
* * * * *
In a memorial address of the late Dr. James Hall, made at
the recent meeting of the Geological Society of America,
Secretary H. L. Fairchild referred to Dr. Hall's development
as almost coeval with that of the science of geology in
America, and his sixty-two years of activity as connecting
the work of the self-taught pioneers in this branch with the
widespread field of activity of to-day. Dr. Hall's accuracy
and well-balanced observation had made his first work, a
report on the Geology of Western New York, a classic of the
science to-day.
THE PEOPLES OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA--THE GREEK, THE SLAV, AND THE
TURK.[6]
BY WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY, PH. D.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY; LECTURER IN ANTHROPO-GEOGRAPHY AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
The significant geography of the Balkan Peninsula may best be
illustrated by comparing it with the other two south European ones,
Italy and Spain. The first point to notice is that it is divided from
the mainland by rivers and not by a well-defined mountain chain.
Iberia begins definitely at the Pyrenees, and Italy proper is cut off
from Europe by the Apennine chain. On the other hand, it is along the
line of the Danube and of its western affluent, the Save (see map
between pages 614 and 615), that we find the geographical limits of
the Balkan Peninsula. This boundary, as will be observed, excludes the
kingdom of Roumania, seeming to distinguish it from its trans-Danubian
neighbor Bulgaria. This is highly proper, viewed from the standpoint
of geography and topography. For Roumania is, for the most part, an
extensive and rich alluvial plain; while the Balkan Peninsula, as soon
as you leave the Bulgarian lowlands, is characteristically rugged, if
not really mountainous.
[Illustration: PEOPLES OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA
After SAX '78]
From Adrianople west to the Adriatic, and from the Balkan Mountains
and the Save River south to the plains of Epirus and Thessaly, extends
an elevated region upward of two thousand feet above the sea, breaking
up irregularly into peaks often rising above five thousand feet. There
is no system in these mountains. The land is rudely broken up into a
multitude of little "gateless amphitheaters," too isolated for union,
yet not inaccessible enough for individuality. As White observes, "If
the peninsula, instead of being the highly mountainous and diversified
district it is, had been a plateau, a very different distribution of
races would have obtained at the present day." Nor can one doubt for a
moment that this disordered topography has been an important element
in the racial history of the region.
In its other geographical characteristics this peninsula is seemingly
more favored than either Spain or Italy. More varied than the former,
especially in its union of the two flora of north and south; far
richer in contour, in the possession of protected waters and good
harbors than Italy; the Balkan Peninsula, nevertheless, has been,
humanly speaking, unfortunate from the start. The reason is patent. It
lies in its central or rather intermediate location. It is betwixt
and between; neither one thing nor the other. Surely a part of Europe,
its rivers all run to the east and south. "By physical relief it turns
its back on Europe," continually inviting settlement from the
direction of Asia. It is no anomaly that Asiatic religions, Asiatic
institutions, and Asiatic races should have possessed and held it; nor
that Europe, Christianity, and the Aryan-speaking races should have
resisted this invasion of territory which they regarded in a sense as
their own. In this pull and haul between the social forces of the two
continents we finally discover the dominant influence, perhaps, which
throughout history has condemned this region to political disorder and
ethnic heterogeneity.
As little racial as of topographical system can we discover in this
Balkan Peninsula. Only in one respect may we venture upon a little
generalization. This is suggested by the preliminary bird's-eye view
which we must take as to the languages spoken in the peninsula. This
was a favorite theme with the late historian Freeman. It is developed
in detail in his luminous writings upon the Eastern question. The
Slavs have in this part of Europe played a rôle somewhat analogous to,
although less successful than, that of the Teutons in the west. They
have pressed in upon the territory of the classic civilizations of
Greece and Rome, ingrafting a new and physically vigorous population
upon the old and partially enervated one. From some center of
dispersion up north toward Russia, Slavic-speaking peoples have
expanded until they have rendered all eastern Europe Slavic from the
Arctic Ocean to the Adriatic and Ægean Seas. Only at one place is the
continuity of Slavdom broken; but this interruption is sufficient to
set off the Slavs into two distinct groups at the present day. The
northern one, of which we have already treated,[7] consists of the
Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks. The southern group, now before
us, comprises the main body of the Balkan peoples from the
Serbo-Croatians to the Bulgars, as shown upon the accompanying map.
Between these two groups of Slavs--and herein is the significant
point--is a broad belt of non-Slavic population, composed of the
Magyars, linguistically now as always Finns; and the Roumanians, who
have become Latin in speech within historic times. This intrusive,
non-Slavic belt lies along or near the Danube, that great highway over
which eastern peoples have penetrated Europe for centuries. The
presence of this water way is distinctly the cause of the linguistic
phenomenon. Rome went east; and the Finns, like the Huns, went west
along it, with the result as described. Linguistically speaking,
therefore, the boundary of the southern Slavs and that of the Balkan
Peninsula, beginning, as we have said, at the Danube, are one and the
same.
We may best begin our ethnic description by the apportionment of the
entire Balkan Peninsula into three linguistic divisions, viz., the
Greeks, the Slavs, and the Tatar-Turks. Of these the second is
numerically the most important, comprising the Serbo-Croatians, the
Albanians, and, in a measure, the Bulgarians. Their distribution is
manifested upon our map, to which we have already directed attention.
These Slavic-speaking peoples form not far from half the entire
population. Next in order come the Greeks, who constitute probably
about a third of the total. As our map shows, this Greek contingent is
closely confined to the seacoast, with the exception of Thessaly,
which, as an old Hellenic territory, we are not surprised to find
Greek in speech to-day. The Slavs, contrasted with the Greeks, are
primarily an inland population; the only place in all Europe, in fact,
where they touch the sea is along the Adriatic coast. Even here the
proportion of Greek intermixture is more considerable than our map
would seem to imply. The interest of this fact is intensified because
of the well-deserved reputation as admirable sailors which the modern
Dalmatians possess. They are the only natural navigators of all the
vast Slavic world. Everywhere else these peoples are noted rather for
their aptitude for agriculture and allied pursuits. There is still
another important point to be noted concerning the Greeks. They form
not only the fringe of coast population in Asiatic as well as in
European Turkey; they, with the Jews, monopolize the towns, devoting
themselves to commerce as well as navigation. Jews and Greeks are the
natural traders of the Orient. Thus is the linguistic segregation
between Greek and Slav perpetuated, if not intensified, by seemingly
natural aptitudes.
Perhaps the most surprising feature of our map of Turkey is the
relative insignificance of the third element, the Turks. There were
ten years ago, according to Couvreur, not above seven hundred and
fifty thousand of them in all European Turkey. Bradaska estimated that
they were outnumbered by the Slavs seven to one. Our map shows that
they form the dominant element in the population only in eastern
Bulgaria, where they indeed constitute a solid and coherent body.
Everywhere else they are disseminated as a small minority among the
Greeks or Slavs. Even about Constantinople itself the Greeks far
outnumber them. In this connection we must bear in mind that we are
now judging of these peoples in no sense by their physical
characteristics, but merely by the speech upon their lips. Nowhere
else in Europe, as we shall soon see, is this criterion so fallacious
as in the Balkan states. Religion enters also as a confusing element.
Sax's original map, from which ours is derived, distinguishes these
religious affiliations as well as language. He was indeed the first to
employ this additional test. The maze of tangled languages and
religions upon his map proved too complicated for our imitative
abilities. We were obliged to limit our cartography to languages
alone. The reader who would gain a true conception of the ethnic
heterogeneity of Turkey should consult his original map.
The word Turk was for several centuries taken in a religious sense as
synonymous with Mohammedan,[8] as in the Collect for Good Friday in
its reference to "Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics." Thus in
Bosnia, where in the fifteenth century many Slavs were converted to
Mohammedanism, their descendants are still known as Turks, especially
where they use the Turkish speech in their religion. Obviously in this
case no Turkish blood need flow in their veins. It is the religion of
Islam, acting in this way, which has served to keep the Turks as
distinct from the Slavs and Greeks as they are to-day. Freeman has
drawn an instructive comparison in this connection between the fate of
the Bulgars, who, as we shall see, are merely Slavonized Finns, and
the Turks, who have steadily resisted all attempts at assimilation.
The first came, he says, as "mere heathen savages (who) could be
Christianized, Europeanized, assimilated," because no antipathy save
that of race and speech had to be overcome. The Turks, in
contradistinction, came "burdened with the half-truth of Islam, with
the half-civilization of the East." By the aid of these, especially
the former, the Turk has been enabled to maintain an independent
existence as "an unnatural excrescence" on this corner of Europe.
Even using this word as in a measure synonymous with religious
affiliations, the Turks form but a small and decreasing minority in
the Balkan Peninsula. Couvreur affirms that not over one third of the
population profess the religion of Islam, all the remainder being
Greek Catholics. This being so, the query at once suggests itself as
to the reason for the continued political domination of this Turkish
minority, Asiatic alike in race, in speech, and in religion. The
answer is certain. It depends upon that subtle principle, the balance
of power in Europe. Is it not clear that to allow the Turk to go
under, as numerically he ought to do, would mean to add strength to
the great Slavic majority, affiliated as it is with Russia both by
speech and religion? This, with the consent of the Anglo-Saxon and
other Teutonic rivals of the Slav, could never be allowed. Thus does
it come about that the poor Greek is ground between the upper Turkish
and the nether Slavic millstone. "Unnatural disunion is the fate of
the whole land, and the cuckoo-cry about the independence and
integrity of the Ottoman Empire means, among the other evil things
that it means, the continuance of this disunion." Let us turn from
this distressing political spectacle to observe what light, if any,
anthropology may shed upon the problem.
* * * * *
From the relative isolation of the Greeks at the extreme southern
point of the peninsula and especially in the Peloponnesus, it would
seem that they might be relatively free from those ethnic disturbances
which have worked such havoc elsewhere in the Orient. Nevertheless,
Grecian history recounts a continuous succession of inroads from the
landward north, as well as from the sea. It would transcend the limits
of our study to attempt any detailed analysis of the early ethnology
of the country.[9] Examination of the relationship of the Pelasgi to
their contemporaries we leave to the philologists. Positively no
anthropological data on the matter exist. We are sufficiently grateful
for the hundred or more well-authenticated ancient Greek crania of any
sort which remain to us. It is useless to attempt any inquiry as to
their more definite ethnic origin within the tribal divisions of the
country.[10] The testimony of these ancient Greek crania is perfectly
harmonious. All authorities agree that the ancient Hellenes were
decidedly long-headed, betraying in this respect their affinity to the
Mediterranean race, which we have already traced throughout southern
Europe and Africa.[11] Whether from Attica; from Schliemann's
successive cities excavated upon the site of Troy; or from the coast
of Asia Minor; at all times from 400 B. C. to the third century of our
era; it would seem proved that the Greeks were of this dolichocephalic
type. Stephanos gives the average cranial index of them all as about
75.7, betokening a people like the present Calabrians in head form;
and, for that matter, about as long-headed as the Anglo-Saxons in
England and America. More than this concerning the physical traits of
these ancient Greeks we can not establish with any certainty. No
perfect skeletons from which we can ascertain their statures remain to
us. Nor can we be more positive as to their brunetness. Their
admiration for blondness in heroes and deities is well known. As Dr.
Beddoe ('93) says, almost all of Homer's favorites were blond or
chestnut-haired, as well as large and tall. Lapouge[12] seems inclined
to regard this as proof that the Greeks themselves were of this type,
a deduction which appears to us in no wise well founded.[13] As we
shall see, every characteristic in their modern descendants and every
analogy with the neighboring populations leads us to the conclusion
that the classical Hellenes were distinctly of the Mediterranean
racial types, little different from the Phoenicians, the Romans, or
the Iberians.