Various origins for the name have been assigned. Lejean asserts that
it designates a nomad shepherd, in distinction from a tiller of the
soil or a dweller in towns. Picot voices the native view as to ethnic
origins by deriving the word Wallach from the same root as Wales,
Walloon, etc., applied by the Slavs and Germans to the Celtic peoples
as "foreigners." This theory is now generally discountenanced.
Obédénare's attempt to prove such a Celtic relationship has met with
little favor.[28] The western name Roumanian springs from a similarly
exploded hypothesis concerning the Latin origin of these people. To be
sure, Roumanian is distinctly allied to the other Romance languages in
structure. It is an anomaly in the eastern Slavic half of Europe. The
most plausible explanation for this phenomenon, and one long accepted,
was that the modern Roumanians were descendants of the two hundred and
forty thousand colonists whom the Emperor Trajan is said to have sent
into the conquered province of Dacia. The earlier inhabitants of the
territory were believed to have been the original Thracians. Since no
two were agreed as to what the Thracians were like, this did not
amount to much. Modern common sense has finally prevailed over
attempts to display philological erudition in such matters. Freeman
expresses this clearly. Roumania, as he says, lay directly in the
pathway of all invasions from the East; the hold of the Romans upon
Dacia was never firm; the province was the first to break away from
the empire; and finally proof of a Latinization only at the late date
of the thirteenth century is not wanting. The truth seems to be that
two forces were contending for the control of eastern Europe. The
Latin could prevail only in those regions which were beyond the potent
influence of Greece. Dacia being remote and barbarian, this Latin
element had a fighting chance for survival, and succeeded.
Our ethnic map at page 614 shows a curious islet of Roumanian language
in the heart of the Greek-speaking territory of Thessaly. There is
little sympathy between the two peoples, according to Hellène. The
occurrence of this Roumanian colony, so far removed from its base, has
long puzzled ethnographers. Some believe the peoples were separately
Romanized _in situ_; others that they were colonists from Dacia in the
ninth and tenth centuries. At all events, these Pindus Roumanians are
too numerous--over a million souls--to be neglected in any theory as
to the origin of their language.[29] Another islet of quasi-Roumanian
speech occurs in Istria, on the Adriatic coast. Its origin is equally
obscure.[30]
It is no contradiction that, in spite of the fact of our exclusion of
Roumania from the Balkan Peninsula owing to its Latin affinities,
thereby seeming to differentiate it sharply from Bulgaria, the latter
of Finnic origin; that we now proceed to treat of the physical
characteristics of the two nationalities, Roumanian and Bulgarian,
together. Here is another example of the superficiality of language,
of social and political institutions. They do not concern the
fundamental physical facts of race in the least. At the same time we
again emphasize the necessity of a powerful corrective, based upon
purely natural phenomena, for the tendency of philologists and
ethnographers to follow their pet theories far afield, giving
precedence to analogies of language and customs over all the potent
facts of geographical probability. Let us look at it in this light. Is
there any chance that, on the opposite sides of the Danube, a few
Finns and a few Romans respectively interposed among the dense
population which so fertile an area must have possessed, even at an
early time, could be in any wise competent to make different types of
the two? There is nothing in our confessedly scanty anthropological
data to show it, at all events. We must treat the lower Danubian plain
as a unit, irrespective of the bounds of language, religion, or
nationality.
It was long believed that the Bulgarians were distinctive among the
other peoples of eastern Europe by reason of their long-headedness.
All the investigations upon limited series of crania pointed in that
direction. This naturally was interpreted as a confirmation of the
historic data as to a Finnic Bulgarian origin very distinct from that
of the broad-headed Slavs. Several recent discoveries have put a new
face upon the matter. In the first place, researches by Dr.
Bassanovitch, of Varna, upon several thousand recruits from western
Bulgaria prove that in the west these Bulgarians even outdo many of
the Balkan Slavs in their broad-headedness.[31] At the same time it
appears that the older authorities were right, after all, in respect
of the eastern Bulgarians. Among them, and also over in eastern
Roumelia, long heads are still the rule. The oval-faced Bulgarians
among our portraits are probably of this dolichocephalic type. Their
contrast facially with the broad-headed Roumanians is very marked.
Thus it is established that the Bulgarian nation is by no means a unit
in its head form. We should add also that, although not definitely
proved as yet, it is highly probable that similar variations occur in
Roumania. In the Bukovina brachycephaly certainly prevails. Our
square-faced Roumanians on page 621 may presumably be taken to
represent this type. This broad-headedness decreases apparently toward
the east as we leave the Carpathian Mountains, until along
the Black Sea it seems, as in Bulgaria, to give way to a real
dolichocephaly.[32]
How are we to account for the occurrence of so extended an area of
long-headedness all over the great lower Danubian plain? Our study of
the northern Slavs has shown that no such phenomenon occurs there
among the Russians. It certainly finds no counterpart among the
southern Slavs or the Turks. The only other people who resemble these
Bulgars in long-headedness are the Greeks. Even they are far
separated; and, in any event, but very impure representatives of the
type. What shall we say? Two explanations seem to be possible, as Dr.
Beddoe observes.[33] Either this dolichocephaly is due to the
Finnicism of the original Bulgars, or else it represents a
characteristic of the pre-Bulgarian population of the Danube basin. He
inclines with moderation to the former view. The other horn of the
dilemma is chosen by Anutchin[34] in a brilliant paper at the late
Anthropological Congress at Moscow. According to his view--and we
assent most heartily to it--this dolichocephaly along the Black Sea
represents the last survival of a most persistent trait of the
primitive inhabitants of eastern Europe. Referring again to our study
of Russia,[35] we would call attention to the occurrence of a similar
long-headed race underlying all the modern Slavic population. We are
able to prove also that such a primitive substratum occurs over nearly
all Europe. It has been unearthed not far from here, for example, at
Glasinac in Bosnia. When archæological research is extended farther
to the east, new light upon this point may be expected. It will be
asked at once why this primitive population should still lie bare upon
the surface, here along the lower Danube, when it has been submerged
everywhere else in Central Europe. Our answer is ready. Here in this
rich alluvial plain population might, expectedly, be dense at a very
early period. As we have observed before, such a population, if
solidly massed, opposes an enormous resistance to absorption by
new-comers. A few thousand Bulgarian invaders would be a mere drop in
the bucket of such an aggregation of men. We are strengthened in this
hypothesis that the dolichocephaly of the Danubian plain is primitive,
by reason of another significant fact brought out by Bassanovitch.[36]
Long-headedness is overwhelmingly more prevalent among women than
among men. The former represent more often what Bassanovitch calls the
"dolichocephalic Thracian type." The oval-faced Bulgarian woman among
our portraits would seem to be one of these. Now, in our treatment of
the Jews,[37] we have sought to illustrate the principle that in any
population the primitive type persists more often in the women. The
bearing of such a law in the case of the Bulgars would seem to be
definite. Their long-headedness, where it occurs, must date from a far
more remote period than the historic advent of the few thousand
immigrants who have given the name Bulgaria to the country.
As for the other physical traits of the Bulgarians and Roumanians
there is little to be added. It goes without saying that they are both
deep brunets. Obédénare says the Roumanians are very difficult to
distinguish from the modern Spaniards and Italians. This is probably
true in respect of brunetness. The Oriental cast of features of our
portraits, on the other hand, can not fail to attract attention. More
than two thirds of Bassanovitch's nineteen hundred and fifty-five
Bulgarians were very dark-haired. Light eyes were of course more
frequent, nearly forty per cent being classed as blue or greenish. A
few--about five per cent--were yellow or tawny-haired, these
individuals being at the same time blue-eyed. This was probably
Procopius's excuse for the assertion that the Bulgars were of fair
complexion. He also affirmed that they were of goodly stature. This is
not true of either the modern Roumanians or Bulgars. They average less
than five feet five inches in height,[38] being considerably shorter
than the Turks, and positively diminutive beside the Bosnians and
other southern Slavs. The Bulgarians especially are correspondingly
stocky, heavily boned and built. We may also affirm a real difference
in temperament between the two nationalities, built up, as we assert,
from the same foundation. The Wallachians are said to be more
emotional and responsive; the Bulgarians inclined to heaviness and
stolidity. Both are pre-eminently industrious and contented
cultivators of the soil, with little aptitude for commerce, so it is
said. We hesitate to pass judgment upon either in respect of their
further aptitudes until fuller data can be provided than are available
at the present time.
FOOTNOTES:
[6] Advance sheets from The Races of Europe, in press of D. Appleton
and Company, many footnotes and detailed references being here
omitted.
[7] Popular Science Monthly, October, 1898.
[8] Consult Taylor, 1890, p. 48; Von Luschan, 1889, p. 198; Sax, 1863,
p. 97.
[9] Consult Fligier, 1881. Stephanos, 1884, p. 430, gives a complete
bibliography of the older works. Cf. also Reinach, 1893 b, in his
review of Hesselmeyer; and on the supposed Hittites, the works of
Wright, De Cara, Conder, etc.
[10] Stephanos, 1884, p. 432, asserts the Pelasgi to have been
brachycephalic, while Zampa, 1886 b, p. 639, as positively affirms the
contrary view.
[11] Nicolucci, 1865 and 1867; Zaborowski, 1881; Virchow, 1882 and
1893; Lapouge, 1896 a, pp. 412-419; and Sergi, 1895 a, p. 75, are best
on ancient Greek crania.
[12] 1896 a, p. 414.
[13] Stephanos, 1884, p. 439.
[14] Philippson, Zur Ethnographie des Peloponnes. Petermann, xxxvi,
1890, pp. 1-11, 33-41, with map, gives a good outline of these.
Consult also Stephanos, 1884, pp. 422 _et seq._
[15] Cf. Couvreur, 1890, p. 514; and Freeman, 1877 d, p. 401.
[16] Weisbach, 1882; Nicolucci, 1867; Apostolides in Bull. Soc.
d'Anth., 1883, p. 614; Stephanos, 1884; Neophytos, 1891; Lapouge, 1896
a, p. 419. Von Luschan, 1889, p. 209, illustrates the similarity
between the Greek and the Bedouin skull.
[17] 1889, p. 209.
[18] Neophytos finds 82.5 per cent of dark-brown or black hair, only
five per cent blond or red; while seventeen per cent of the eyes were
dark among two hundred individuals.
[19] 1886 b, p. 637.
[20] Vambéry, 1885, divides the Ural-Altaic family into five
groups--viz., (1) Samoyed, (2) Tungus, (3) Finnic, (4) Mongolic, (5)
Turkish or Tatar.
[21] On terminology consult Vambéry, 1885, p. 60; Chantre, 1895, p.
199; Keane, 1897, p. 302.
[22] Complete data on these people will be found in Ujfalvy, 1878-'80,
iii, pp. 7-50; Les Aryens, etc., 1896, pp. 385-434; Bogdanof, 1888;
Yavorski, 1897.
[23] Ujfalvy (Les Aryens, etc., 1896, p. 428) found chestnut hair most
frequent, with twenty-seven per cent of blondness, among some of the
Tadjiks. The eyes are often greenish gray or blue (Ujfalvy, 1878-'80,
iii, pp. 23-33, tables).
[24] On the anthropology of European Turks, Weisbach, 1873, is the
only authority. He found an average cephalic index of 82.8 in 148
cases. Elisyeef, 1890-'91, and Chantre, 1895, pp. 206-211, have worked
in Anatolia, with indices of 86 for 143 individuals, and 84.5 for 120
men, respectively. Both von Luschan and Chantre give a superb
collection of portrait types in addition.
[25] Read Pruner Bey, 1860 b; Howorth; Obédénare, and especially
Kanitz, 1875, for historic details.
[26] 1889 a, with map, in Petermann, 1889 b. Cf. criticism of his
contention by Oppel, 1890; Couvreur, 1890, p. 523; and Ghennadieff,
1890, p. 663.
[27] Auerbach, 1898, p. 286, gives a full summary of the rival
controversy between Roumanians and Hungarians as to priority of title
in Transylvania.
[28] Cf. Picot, 1883, in his review of Tocilescu; and Rosny, 1885, p.
83.
[29] Picot, 1875, pp. 390 _et seq._
[30] Auerbach, 1898, p. 211.
[31] 1891, p. 30. Dr. Bassanovitch has most courteously sent me a
sketch map showing the results of these researches. Deniker, 1897, p.
203, and 1898 a, describes them also.
[32] Deniker, 1898 a, p. 122; Weisbach, 1877, p. 238; Rosny, 1885, p.
85.
[33] 1879, p. 233.
[34] 1893, p. 282.
[35] Popular Science Monthly, October, 1898, p. 734.
[36] 1891, p. 31. Women dolicho-, twenty-five per cent; meso-,
forty-two per cent; brachy-cephalic, thirty per cent; while among men
the percentages are 3, 16, and 81 ± per cent respectively.
[37] Popular Science Monthly, January, 1899, p. 350.
[38] Bassanovitch's series of 1,955 individuals averages only 1.638
metre. _Op. cit._, p. 30. Auerbach, 1898, p. 259, gives an average of
1.63 metre for 880 Wallachians in Transylvania. Obédénare, 1876, p.
374, states brown eyes to be most frequent in Roumania.
MARVELOUS INCREASE IN PRODUCTION OF GOLD.
BY ALEXANDER E. OUTERBRIDGE, JR.
The increasing annual production of gold in the world is a matter of
such far-reaching economic importance, not only in the financial
affairs of nations, but also in their industrial progress and in their
civilization, that a vast amount of patient study has been given by
eminent statisticians to the subject, and much time expended in
compiling, from various historical records and other sources of
information, statistical data which can be confidently accepted as
approximately correct, showing the annual production of the precious
metal from the time of the discovery of America down to the present
day.
A publication of the United States Treasury Department, issued in
1897, containing information respecting the production of precious
metals, etc., gives statistical tables showing the annual production
of gold in the world, commencing with the year 1493. The earlier
records are taken from a table of averages for certain periods
compiled by Dr. Adolph Soetbeer, and the later figures (from 1885 to
1896) are the annual estimates of the Bureau of the Mint. Other tables
show the annual production of gold from the mines of the United States
alone from 1845 to 1896, and it is from these official sources mainly
that the information has been gathered for this article, supplemented,
however, by a full and very interesting communication to the author
from the Director of the Mint, giving the latest figures, not yet
published, and containing the estimates and deductions of the director
respecting the production of gold in the world in 1898. This
information is so timely and valuable that the author is of the
opinion that the courteous letter of the Director of the Mint in
response to his inquiries, if appended to this article, may prove to
be--like the postscript of a lady's correspondence--its most important
feature.
Students of political economy are well aware of the fact that some
theorists have maintained that the annual production of gold in the
world (apart from the phenomenal discoveries in California about the
middle of the century, which were of an ephemeral character) does not
keep pace with the natural increase in trade requirements, if gold is
to maintain its position as the standard measure of value and the
universal medium of exchange. This theory, after having passed through
the various stages of _pro_ and _con_ argument in academic theses,
became the "war cry" of a political party in this country composed of
heterogeneous elements in the community, all inspired with one common
idea that the balance of power in commercial transactions had been
destroyed by the overwhelming force of concentration of capital and
the "cornering" of the visible supply of gold in the world by a few
enormously wealthy bankers. It was shown that, while the average
annual production of gold in the world in five years from 1855 to 1860
exceeded $134,000,000, there was a constant decline thereafter, so
that the annual average during five years from 1881 to 1885 barely
exceeded $99,000,000, according to official estimates; also that the
annual gold product of the mines of the United States declined from a
value of $65,000,000 in 1853 to $33,000,000 in 1892. Furthermore,
although a rising tendency was observed in each subsequent year, the
production from the mines of this country in 1894 was still under
$40,000,000, as was shown by the statistics of the United States
Treasury Department.
While admitting the general accuracy of these statements of fact, it
is the purpose of this paper to endeavor to show that the conclusions
drawn therefrom were entirely fallacious, because due cognizance was
not taken of the wonderful progress that has been made in recent years
in mining and metallurgical arts whereby countless millions of tons of
ore containing gold in such a finely divided state, or in such a
refractory condition, that it was formerly worthless (costing more to
recover the gold than the value of the precious metal contained in the
ore), have now rendered these low-grade ores the most stable sources
of supply of gold. Metallurgists, having knowledge of these facts,
have at various times during the past ten years predicted that a
golden stream would soon begin to flow from these practically new and
apparently inexhaustible sources; but the people at large were wholly
incredulous, and they are now astounded at the magnitude of the
production of gold in the world in the past two years; and more
especially, perhaps, are they amazed at the increase of production in
the United States, as shown by the official reports of the Director of
the Mint.
The gold production of the world in 1897 amounted in value, according
to the most reliable estimates, to more than $237,000,000, and in 1898
to more than $280,000,000; and it is the opinion of the Director of
the Mint that the final compilation of figures will show that the
production was "somewhere between $290,000,000 and $300,000,000!"
_Gold Production of the World._
----------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------
| 1897. | 1898.
+----------+---------+------------+----------+---------+------------
COUNTRIES. | Fine | Kilo- | | Fine | Kilo- |
| ounces. |grammes. | Value. | ounces |grammes. | Value.
----------------+----------+---------+------------+----------+---------+------------
| | | | | |
_North America._| | | | | |
United States | 2,774,935| 84,870.5| $59,210,795| 3,110,788| 95,200.7| $64,300,000
Canada | 299,467| 9,164.0| 6,190,000| 686,502| 22,071.1| 14,190,000
Newfoundland | 3,000| 93.3| 62,010| 3,000| 93.3| 62,010
Mexico | 344,498| 10,715.0| 7,121,189| 365,032| 11,354.0| 7,668,866
Central America | 25,399| 789.9| 525,000| 25,399| 789.9| 525,000
| | | | | |
_South America._| | | | | |
Argentina | 15,235| 473.8| 314,907| 15,235| 473.8| 314,907
Bolivia | 3,144| 98.0| 65,000| 3,144| 98.0| 65,000
Brazil | 70,732| 2,200.0| 1,462,120| 84,633| 2,591.0| 1,750,000
Chile | 68,096| 2,118.0| 1,407,544| 68,096| 2,118.0| 1,407,544
Colombia | 188,679| 5,868.7| 3,900,000| 188,679| 5,868.7| 3,900,000
Ecuador | 6,430| 199.9| 132,900| 6,430| 199.9| 132,900
Guiana (British)| 101,505| 3,156.9| 2,098,098| 88,617| 2,756.0| 1,861,393
Guiana (Dutch) | 32,983| 1,025.8| 681,748| 28,273| 865.3| 584,421
Guiana (French) | 59,859| 1,861.7| 1,237,310| 66,593| 2,038.0| 1,376,477
Peru | 5,787| 180.0| 119,628| 5,787| 180.0| 119,628
Uruguay | 6,880| 214.0| 114,600| 6,880| 214.0| 114,600
Venezuela | 39,384| 1,224.9| 814,067| 39,384| 1,224.9| 814,067
| | | | | |
_Europe._ | | | | | |
Austria-Hungary | 105,397| 3,278.2| 2,178,556| 105,397| 3,278.2| 2,178,556
France | 10,513| 327.0| 217,304| 10,513| 327.0| 217,304
Germany | 90,921| 2,780.9| 1,879,357| 90,921| 2,780.9| 1,879,357
Italy | 10,325| 316.0| 213,431| 10,325| 316.0| 213,431
Norway | 650| 20.0| 13,508| 653| 20.0| 13,508
Russia | 1,046,965| 32,408.2| 21,538,490| 1,216,100| 37,217.0| 25,136,994
Sweden | 3,702| 133.3| 76,524| 3,702| 133.3| 76,524
Turkey | 387| 12.0| 8,000| 387| 12.0| 8,105
United Kingdom | 2,032| 62.5| 42,001| 2,032| 62.5| 42,001
| | | | | |
_Asia._ | | | | | |
China | 321,296| 9,992.8| 6,641,190| 321,296| 9,992.8| 6,641,190
India (British) | 353,147| 10,983.4| 7,299,554| 369,018| 11,479.3| 7,753,150
Japan | 34,509| 1,073.3| 713,300| 34,509| 1,073.3| 713,300
Korea | 34,918| 1,086.0| 721,765| 34,918| 1,086.0| 721,765
Malay Peninsula | 25,000| 777.6| 516,750| 25,000| 777.6| 516,750
Borneo | 4,837| 150.6| 100,000| 4,837| 150.6| 100,000
| | | | | |
_Africa._ | | | | | |
Witwatersrand | 2,511,544| 78,112.6| 51,913,607| 3,554,746|108,790.0| 73,476,600
Other districts,| | | | | |
S. A. R. | 232,466| 7,230.0| 4,805,072| 229,528| 7,024.3| 4,744,350
West Coast | 24,276| 755.0| 501,793| 24,276| 742.9| 501,793
Rhodesia | ...| ...| ...| 10,000| 306.3| 206,700
Madagascar | 19,351| 601.8| 400,000| 19,351| 601.8| 400,000
Australasia, | | | | | |
7 colonies | 2,520,333| 77,130.6| 52,095,338| 2,945,426| 91,024.7| 61,480,763
|----------+---------+------------+----------+---------+------------
Totals |11,399,475|351,486.2|$237,332,456|13,805,407|425,333.1|$286,218,954
----------------+----------+---------+------------+----------+---------+------------
The above table, showing the estimated production of gold from all
parts of the world in 1897 and 1898, is abstracted from the Annual
Statistical Number of the Engineering and Mining Journal (January 1,
1899), and, although these figures may differ somewhat from those of
the Director of the Mint, and from the final compilations, they are
believed to be not very far from truth.
It will be seen that the principal countries contributing to the grand
total in both years were Africa, the United States of America,
Australasia, Russia, Canada, Mexico, and India, the names being given
in the order of the respective importance of these countries as gold
producers in 1898.
It may surprise many readers to observe that India is placed at the
foot of the list, for we are accustomed to associate India with gold,
Mexico with silver, and Russia with platinum; and it may also prove a
surprise to find that the contribution of the Klondike region, which
has created such a great sensation, is so trifling as compared to the
grand total. In 1897 the Klondike was credited with an output of less
than $3,000,000, and in 1898 of a little over $10,000,000.
It will be observed in the estimates of the Government's agents
(January 1, 1899) of the production of gold in the United States for
1898 (see the letter of the Director of the Mint, appended hereto)
that the gold production of the State of Colorado was more than twice
that of the Klondike region, and the production of California was
nearly fifty per cent greater than that of the Klondike.
Other surprising facts crop out in studying in detail the increasing
production of gold, more especially in the United States. For example,
California has always been regarded as pre-eminently the gold-giving
State, and until 1897 she led all the other States in the value of
gold annually produced. Colorado, on the other hand, was equally
famous as a silver-producing State, and while still holding this
leading position she has actually passed California in the production
of gold. Colorado has thus taken the lead over all the States in the
production of gold and silver.
The output of gold in the United States in 1898 was more than twice
that of 1890; and the production of gold in the world in 1898, at the
lowest estimate, was much more than twice the estimated production in
1890. In the decade just prior to the California gold discoveries, in
1849, the average annual production in the world is estimated to have
been less than $13,500,000. In the previous decade it was less than
$10,000,000. Assuming these figures of Dr. Adolph Soetbeer (which are
accepted by the nations of the world, and incorporated in many
official documents) to be approximately correct, it appears that the
estimated production of gold in the world in the first third of the
present century was but little more than the production in the single
year 1898!