foreigners from the north into Greece has ensued.[14] In the sixth
century came the Avars and the Slavs, bringing death and disaster. A
more potent and lasting influence upon the country was probably
produced by the slower and more peaceful infiltration of the Slavs
into Thessaly and Epirus from the end of the seventh century onward. A
result of this is that Slavic place names to-day occur all over the
Peloponnesus in the open country where settlements could readily be
made. The most important immigration of all is probably that of the
Albanians, who, from the thirteenth century until the advent of the
Turks, incessantly penetrated the land. As a result the Albanian
language is spoken to-day over a considerable part of the
Peloponnesus, especially in its northeastern corner, where it attaches
to the mainland. Only one little district has preserved, it may be
added, anything like the original classical Greek speech. The Tzakons,
in a little isolated and very rugged district on the eastern coast,
include a number of classical idioms in their language. Everywhere
else, either in the names of rivers, mountains, and towns, or in
borrowed words, evidence of the powerful influence of the Slavic
infiltration occurs. This has induced Fallmerayer, Philippson, and
others to assert that the Slavs have in fact submerged the original
Greeks entirely.[15] Explicit rebuttal of this is offered by Hopf,
Hertzberg, and Tozer, who admit the Slavic element, but still declare
the Greeks to be Greek. This is a matter concerning which neither
philologist nor geographer has a right to speak; the anthropological
testimony is the only competent one. To this we turn.
The modern Greeks are a very mixed people. There can be no doubt of
this fact from a review of their history. In despite of this, they
still remain distinctly true to their original Mediterranean ancestry.
This has been most convincingly proved in respect of their head
form.[16] The cephalic index of modern living Greeks ranges with great
constancy about 81. This, it should be observed, betokens an
appreciably broader head than in the case of the ancient Hellenes.
Stephanos, who has measured several hundred recruits, finds
dolichocephaly to be most prevalent in Thessaly and Attica; while
broad-headedness, so characteristic, as we shall see, of the Albanians
and other Slavs, is more accentuated toward the north, especially in
Epirus. About Corinth also, where Albanian intermixture is common, the
cephalic index rises above 83. The Peloponnesus has probably best
preserved its early dolichocephaly, as we should expect. In Thessaly
alone are the modern Greeks as purely Mediterranean as in classic
times. There can be no doubt that in Asia Minor at least, the word
Greek is devoid of any racial significance. It merely denotes a man
who speaks Greek, or else one who is a Greek Catholic, converted from
Mohammedanism. Greek, like Turk, has become entirely a matter of
language and religion, as these people have intermingled. Thus in the
southwest of Asia Minor, where Semitic influences have been strong,
von Luschan[17] makes the pregnant observation that the Greeks, in the
main, look like Jews and speak Turkish. Here, then, is proof positive
that no Greeks of pure Mediterranean descent remain to represent the
primitive Hellenic type in that region. But it is equally certain that
in the main body of the Greeks at home in Greece, the original racial
traits are still in the ascendant. The smoothly oval and long faces in
our two Greek portraits are surely of Mediterranean type. To this, the
ideal form, the purest elements in the nation still tend to revert.
[Illustration: GREEKS.
ROUMANIANS. County Hunyad, Hungary.
BULGARIANS. County Temes, Hungary.
BALKAN STATES.]
Whatever may be thought of the ancients, the modern Greeks are
strongly brunet in all respects. Ornstein ('79) found less than ten
per cent of light hair, although blue and gray eyes were
characteristic of rather more than a quarter of his seventeen hundred
and sixty-seven recruits. This accords with expectation, for among the
Albanians, next neighbors and most intrusive aliens in Greece, light
eyes are quite common. Weisbach's ('82) data confirm this, ninety-six
per cent of his Greeks being pure brunets.[18] In stature these people
are intermediate between the Turks and the Albanians and Dalmatians,
which latter are among the tallest of Europeans. In facial features
Nicolucci's early opinion seems to be confirmed, that the Greek face
is distinctively orthognathous--that is to say, with a vertical
profile, the lower parts of the face being neither projecting nor
prominent. The face is generally of a smooth oval, rather narrow and
high, especially as compared with the round-faced Slavs. The nose is
thin and high, perhaps more often finely chiseled and straight in
profile. The facial features seem to be well demonstrated in the
classic statuary, although it is curious, as Stephanos observes, that
these ideal heads are distinctly brachycephalic. Either the ancient
sculptors knew little of anthropology, or else we have again a
confirmation of our assertion that, however conscious of their
peculiar facial traits a people may be, the head form is a
characteristic whose significance is rarely recognized.
* * * * *
Linguistically the pure Slavs in the Balkan states comprise only the
Serbo-Croatians and the Albanians (see map), dividing between them the
ancient territory of Illyria. This western half of the peninsula,
rugged and remote, has been relatively little exposed to the direct
ravages of either Finnic or Turkish invaders. Especially is this true
of Albania. Nearly all authorities since Hahn are agreed in
identifying these latter people--who call themselves Skipetars, by the
way--as the modern representatives of the ancient Illyrians. They are
said to have been Slavonized by the Serbo-Croatians, who have been
generally regarded as descendants of the settlers brought by the
Emperor Heraclius from beyond the Save. This he is said to have done
in order to repopulate the lands devastated by the Avars and other
Slavs who, Procopius informs us, first appeared in this region in the
sixth century of our era. The settlers imported by Heraclius came, we
are told, from two distant places: Old Servia, or Sorabia, placed by
Freeman in modern Saxony; and Chrobatia, which, he says, lies in
southwestern Poland. According to this view, the Serbo-Croatians are
an offshoot from the northern Slavs, being divided from them to-day by
the intrusive Hungarians, while the Albanians alone are truly
indigenous to the country.
The recent political fate of these Illyrian peoples has been quite
various, the Albanians alone preserving their independence continually
under the merely nominal rule of the Turks. Religion, also, has
affected these Slavs in various ways. Servia owes much of its present
peace and prosperity to the practical elimination of the Moslems.
Bosnia is still largely Mohammedan, with about a third of its people,
according to White ('86), still professing that religion. The
significance of this is increased, since it was mainly the upper
classes in Bosnia, according to Freeman, who embraced the religion of
Islam in order to preserve their power and estates. The conversion was
not national, as in the case of the Albanians. Thus social and
religious segregation work in harmony to produce discord. With
multitudes of Jews monopolizing the commerce of the country and the
people thus divided socially as well as in religion, the political
unrest in Bosnia certainly seems to require the strong arm of Austrian
suzerainty to preserve order.
Whatever the theory of the historians as to origins may be, to the
anthropologist the modern Illyrians--Serbo-Croatians and Albanians
alike--are physically a unit. Two characteristics render this ethnic
group distinctive: first, that it comprises some of the tallest men in
the world, comparing favorably with the Scotch in this respect; and,
secondly, that the Illyrians tend to be among the broadest-headed
people known. In general, it would appear that the people, of
Herzegovina and northern Albania possess these traits to the most
notable degree, while both in the direction of the Save and Danube and
of the plains of Thessaly and Epirus they have been attenuated by
intermixture. Presumably also toward the east among the Bulgarians in
Macedonia and Thrace these characteristics diminish in intensity.
Thus, for example, while the Herzegovinians, measured by Weisbach,
yielded an average stature of five feet nine inches, the Bosnians were
appreciably shorter; and the Dalmatians and Albanians were even more
so. Nevertheless, as compared with the Greeks, Bulgars, Turks, or
Roumanians, even the shortest of these Slavs stood high. From this
specific center outward, especially around the head of the Adriatic
Sea, over into Venetia, spreads the influence of this giantism. It
confirms, as we have said, the classical theory of an Illyrian cross
among the Venetians, extending well up into the Tyrol.
As for the second trait, the exaggerated broad-headedness, it too,
like the tallness of stature, seems to center about Herzegovina and
Montenegro. Thus at Scutari, in the corner of Albania near this
last-named country, Zampa[19] found a cranial index of 89; in
Herzegovina the index upon the living head ranges above 87. It would
be difficult to exceed this brachycephaly anywhere in the world. The
square foreheads and broad faces of the people correspond in every way
to the shape of the heads. Its significance appears immediately on
comparison with the long oval faces of the Greeks.
One more trait of the Balkan Slavs remains for us to note. The people
are mainly pure brunets, as we might expect, but they seem to be less
dark than either the Greeks or the Turks. Especially among the
Albanians are light traits by no means infrequent. In this respect the
contrast with the Greeks is apparent, as well as with the Dalmatians
along the coast and the Italians in the same latitude across the
Adriatic. Weisbach found nearly ten per cent of blond and red hair
among his Bosnian soldiers, while about one third of the eyes were
either gray or blue. The Herzegovinians are even lighter than the
Bosnians, almost as much so as the Albanians. From consideration of
these facts it would appear as if the harsh climate of these upland
districts had been indeed influential in setting off the inland
peoples from the Italian-speaking Dalmatians along the coast. For
among the latter brunetness certainly increases from north to south,
conformably to the general rule for the rest of Europe. In the
interior, blondness apparently moves in the contrary direction,
culminating in the mountain fastnesses of northern Albania and the
vicinity. On the whole, we find also in this trait of brunetness
competent evidence to connect these Illyrians with the great body of
the Alpine race farther to the west. We have another illustration of
its determined predilection for a mountainous habitat, in which it
stoutly resists all immigrant tendencies toward variation from its
primitive type.
* * * * *
The Osmanli Turks, who politically dominate the Balkan Peninsula,
notwithstanding their numerical insignificance, are mainly distinctive
among their neighbors by reason of their speech and religion. Turkish
is the westernmost representative of a great group of languages, best
known, perhaps, as the Ural-Altaic family.[20] This comprises all
those of northern Asia even to the Pacific Ocean, together with that
of the Finns in Russian Europe. Its members are by no means unified
physically. All varieties of type are included within its boundaries,
from the tall and blond one which we may call Finnic, prevalent about
the Baltic; to the squat and swarthy Kalmucks and Kirghez, to whom we
have in a physical sense applied the term Mongols. The Turkish branch
of this great family of languages is to-day represented in eastern
Europe by two peoples, whom we may roughly distinguish as Turks and
Tatars.[21] The term Tatar, it should be observed, is entirely of
European invention, like the similar word Hungarian. The only name
recognized by the Osmanli themselves is that of Turk. This, by the
way, seems quite aptly to be derived from a native root meaning
"brigand," according to Chantre. They apply the word Tatar solely to
the north Asiatic barbarians. By general usage this latter term,
Tatar, has to-day become more specifically applied by ethnologists to
the scattered peoples of Asiatic descent and Turkish speech who are
mainly to be found in Russia and Asia Minor.
[Illustration: UZBEG. Ferghanah.
KIPTCHAK.
KARA-KIRGHEZ.
TURKOMAN TYPES.]
Of the two principal physical types to-day comprised within the limits
of the Ural-Altaic languages, the Turks and Tatars seem to be
affiliated with the Mongol rather than the Finn, not physically alone,
but in respect of language as well. As a matter of fact, they are
racially nearer the Aryan-speaking Europeans than most people imagine,
in everything except their speech. Their nearest relatives in Asia
seem to be the Turkoman peoples, who, to the number of a million or
more, inhabit the deserts and steppes of western Asia. It was from
somewhere about this latter region, as we know, that the hordes of
the Huns under Attila, and those of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, set
forth to the devastation of Europe. The physical type of these
inhabitants of Turkestan has been fairly well established by
anthropologists. It persists throughout a great multitude of tribes of
various names, among whom the Kara-Kirghez, Uzbegs, and Kiptchaks are
prominent.[22] On page 625 we have portraits of these Turkoman types.
The most noticeable feature of the portraits is the absence of purely
Mongol facial characteristics. Except in the Kara-Kirghez the features
are distinctly European. There is no squint-eye; the nose is well
formed; the cheek bones are not prominent, although the faces are
broad; and, most important of all, the beard is abundantly developed,
both in the Uzbeg and the Kiptchak. The Kara-Kirghez, on the other
hand, betrays unmistakably his Mongol derivation in every one of these
important respects. One common trait is possessed by all three--to
wit, extreme brachycephaly, with an index ranging from 85 to 89. The
flatness of the occiput is very noticeable in our portraits in every
case, giving what Hamy calls a "cuboid aspect" to the skull. These
portraits, if typical, should be enough to convince us that the
Turkoman of the steppes about the Aral and Caspian Seas is far from
being a pure Mongol even in his native land, although a strain of
Mongol blood is apparent in many of their tribes.
The fact is that the Asiatic Turkomans, whence our Osmanli Turks are
derived, are a highly composite type. A very important element in
their composition is that of certain brachycephalic peoples of the
Pamir, the Galchas and mountain Tadjiks. These are for all practical
purposes identical with the Alpine type of western Europe. In their
accentuated brachycephaly, their European facial features, their
abundance of wavy hair and beard, and finally in their intermediate
color of hair and eyes,[23] these latter peoples in the Pamir resemble
their European prototypes, or perhaps we had better say, congeners. So
close is this affiliation that the occurrence of this type in western
Asia is the keystone in any argument for the Asiatic origin of the
Alpine race of Europe. The significance of it for us in this
connection is that it explains the European affinity of many of the
Turkoman tribes, who are more strongly European than Mongol in their
resemblances. It is highly important, we affirm, to fix this in mind,
for the prevalent opinion seems to be that the Turks in Europe have
departed widely from their ancestral Asiatic type, because of their
present lack of Mongol characteristics, such as almond eyes, lank
black hair, flat noses, and high cheek bones.
[Illustration: NOMAD IVERVEK. Lycia, Asia Minor.
TURK. Lycia, Asia Minor.
TURK. Lycia, Asia Minor.
TURKS.]
Either the Osmanli Turks were never Mongols, or they have lost every
trace of it by intermixture. Our portraits on the opposite page give
little indication of Asiatic derivation except in their accentuated
short-and broad-headedness. This is considerably more noticeable in
Asia Minor than in European Turkey.[24] West of the Bosporus the Turks
differ but little from the surrounding Slavs in head form. They have
been bred down from their former extreme brachycephaly, which still
rules to a greater degree in Asia Minor. In our portraits from this
region the absence of occipital prominence is very marked. In addition
to this, the Turks are everywhere, as Chantre observes, "incontestably
brunet." The hair is generally stiff and straight. The beard is full.
This latter trait is fatal to any assumption of a persistence of
Kirghez blood, or of any Mongolic extraction, in fact. The nose is
broad, but straight in profile. The eyes are perfectly normal, the
oblique Mongol type no more frequent than elsewhere. In stature
tallness is the rule, judging by Chantre's data, but in this respect
social conditions are undoubtedly of great effect. On the whole, then,
we may consider that the Turks have done fairly well in the
preservation of their primitive characteristics. Chantre especially
finds them quite homogeneous, considering all the circumstances. They
vary according to the people among whom their lot is cast. Among the
Armenians they become broader-headed, while among the Iranian
peoples--Kurds or Persians--the opposite influence of intermixture at
once is apparent.
The Bulgarians are of interest because of their traditional Finnic
origin and subsequent Europeanization. This has ensued through
conversion to Christianity and the adoption of a Slavic speech. Our
earliest mention of these Bulgars would seem to locate them between
the Ural Mountains and the Volga.[25] The district was, in fact, known
as Old Bulgaria till the Russians took it in the fifteenth century. As
to which of the many existing tribes of the Volga Finns represent the
ancestors of these Bulgarians, no one is, I think, competent to speak.
Pruner Bey seems to think they were the Ostiaks and Voguls, since
emigrated across the Urals into Asia; the still older view of Edwards
and Klaproth made them Huns; Obédénare, according to Virchow, said
they were Samoyeds or Tungus; while Howorth and Beddoe claim the honor
for the Chuvashes. These citations are enough to prove that nobody
knows very much about it in detail. All that can be affirmed is that
a tribe of Finnic-speaking people crossed the Danube toward the end of
the seventh century and possessed themselves of territory near its
mouth. Remaining heathen for two hundred odd years, they finally
adopted Christianity and under their great leaders, Simeon and Samuel,
became during the tenth century a power in the land. Their rulers,
styling themselves "Emperors of the Slavs," fought the Germans;
conquered the Magyars as well as their neighbors in Thrace, receiving
tribute from Byzantium; became allies of Charlemagne; and then
subsided under the rule of the Turks. Since the practical demise of
this latter power they have again taken courage, and in their
semi-political independence in Bulgaria and northern Roumelia rejoice
in an ever-rich and growing literature and sense of nationality.
Bulgarian is spoken, as our map at page 614 indicates, far outside the
present political limits of the principality--indeed, over about two
thirds of European Turkey. Gop[vc]evi['c] has made a brilliant attempt
to prove that Macedonia, shown by our map and commonly believed to be
at bottom Bulgarian, is in reality populated mainly by Serbs.[26] The
weakness of this contention was speedily laid bare by his critics.
Political motives, especially the ardent desire of the Servians to
make good a title to Macedonia before the disruption of the Ottoman
Empire, can scarcely be denied. Servia needs an outlet on the
Mediterranean too obviously to cloak such an attempted ethnic
usurpation. As a fact, Macedonia, even before the late Greco-Turkish
war, was in a sad state of anarchy. The purest Bulgarian is certainly
spoken in the Rhodope Mountains; there are many Roumanians of Latin
speech; the Greeks predominate all along the sea and throughout the
three-toed peninsula of Salonica, while the Turks are sparsely
disseminated everywhere. And as for religion--well, besides the
severally orthodox Greeks and Turks, there are in addition the Moslem
and apostate Bulgarians, known as Pomaks, who have nothing in common
with their Greek Catholic fellow-Bulgars, together with the scattering
Pindus Roumanians and Albanians in addition. This interesting field of
ethnographic investigation is, even at this late day, practically
unworked. As Dr. Beddoe writes--and his remarks are equally applicable
to Americans--"here are fine opportunities for any enterprising
Englishman with money and a taste for travel and with sufficient
brains to be able to pick up a language. But, alas! such men usually
seem to care for nothing but 'killing something.'"
[Illustration: PEOPLES IN HUNGARY AND TRANSYLVANIA (SIEBENBÜRGEN)
After Jekelfalussy, '85]
The Roumanians, or Moldo-Wallachians, are not confined within the
limits of that country alone. Their language and nationality cover not
only the plains along the Danube and the Black Sea, but their speech
extends beyond the Carpathian Mountains over the entire southeastern
quarter of Hungary and up into the Bukovina. Transylvania is merely a
German and Magyar islet in the vast extent of the Roumanian nation.
There are more than a third as many Roumanians as there are Magyars
in the Hungarian kingdom, according to the census of 1890. Politically
it thus happens that these people are pretty well split up in their
allegiance. Nor can this condition be other than permanent. For the
Carpathian Mountains, in their great circle about the Hungarian basin,
cut directly through the middle of the nation as measured by language.
This curious circumstance can be accounted for only on the supposition
that the disorder in the direction of the Balkan Peninsula, incident
upon the Turkish invasion, forced the growing nation to expand toward
the northwest, even over the natural barrier interposed between
Roumania proper and Hungary. Geographical law, more powerful
than human will, ordains that this latter natural area of
characterization--the great plain basin of Hungary--should be the seat
of a single political unit. There is no resource but that the
Roumanians should in Hungary accept the division from their fellows
over the mountains as final for all political purposes.[27]