LIVING RACES
20. Race origins.—21. Race classification.—22. Traits on which
classification rests.—23. The grand divisions or primary
stocks.—24. Caucasian races.—25. Mongoloid races.—26. Negroid
races.—27. Peoples of doubtful position.—28. Continents and
oceans.—29. The history of race classifications.—30. Emergence
of the threefold classification.—31. Other classifications.—32.
Principles and conclusions common to all classifications.—33.
Race, nationality, and language.
20. RACE ORIGINS
Almost every one sooner or later becomes interested in the problem of
the origin of the human races and the history of their development. We
see mankind divided into a number of varieties that differ strikingly in
appearance. If these varieties are modifications of a single ancestral
form, what caused them to alter, and what has been the history of the
change?
In the present state of science, we cannot wholly answer these important
questions. We know very little about the causes that change human types;
and we possess only incomplete information as to the history of races.
Stray bits of evidence here and there are too scattered to afford many
helpful clues. The very earliest men, as we know them from fossils, are
too far removed from any of the living varieties, are too primitive, to
link very definitely with the existing races, which can all be regarded
as intergrading varieties of a single species, _Homo sapiens_. In the
latter half of the Old Stone Age, in the Aurignacian period, at a time
estimated to have been from twenty to twenty-five thousand years ago,
we commence to encounter fossils which seem to foreshadow the modern
races. The so-called Grimaldi type of man from this period possesses
Negroid affinities, the contemporary Cro-Magnon and perhaps Brünn types
evince Caucasian ones. But we know neither the origin nor the precise
descendants of these fossil races.[3] They appear and then vanish from
the scene. About all that we can conclude from this fragment of evidence
is that the races of man as they are spread over the earth to-day must
have been at least some tens of thousands of years in forming. What
caused them to differentiate, on which part of the earth’s surface each
took on its peculiarities, how they further subdivided, what were the
connecting links between them, and what happened to these lost links—on
all these points the answer of anthropology is as yet incomplete.
It is no different in other fields of biology. As long as the
zoölogist or botanist reviews his grand classifications or the wide
sweep of organic evolution for fifty million years back, he seems to
obtain striking and simple results. When he turns his attention to a
small group, attempting to trace in detail its subvarieties, and the
relations and history of these, the task is seen to be intricate and
the accumulated knowledge is usually insufficient to solve more than a
fraction of the problems that arise.
There is, then, nothing unusual in the situation of partial bafflement in
which anthropology still finds itself as regards the human races.
21. RACE CLASSIFICATION
What remains is the possibility of making an accurate survey of the
living races in the hope that the relationships which a classification
brings out may indicate something as to the former development of
the races. If for instance it could be established that the Ainu or
aborigines of Japan are closely similar in their bodies to the peoples
of Europe, we would then infer that they are a branch of the Caucasian
stock, that their origin took place far to the west of their present
habitat, and that they have no connection with the Mongolian Japanese
among whom they now live. This is working by indirect evidence, it is
true; but sooner or later that is the method to which science always
finds itself reduced.
The desirability of a trustworthy classification of the human races
will therefore be generally accepted without further argument. But
the making of such a classification proves to be more difficult than
might be imagined. To begin with, a race is only a sort of average of a
large number of individuals; and averages differ from one another much
less than individuals. Popular impression exaggerates the differences,
accurate measurements reduce them. It is true that a Negro and a north
European cannot possibly be confused: they happen to represent extreme
types. Yet as soon as we operate with less divergent races we find that
variations between individuals of the same race are often greater than
differences between the races. The tallest individuals of a short race
are taller than the shortest individuals of a tall race. This is called
_overlapping_; and it occurs to such an extent as to make it frequently
difficult for the physical anthropologist to establish clear-cut types.
In addition, the lines of demarcation between races have time and again
been obliterated by interbreeding. Adjacent peoples, even hostile ones,
intermarry. The number of marriages in one generation may be small; but
the cumulative effect of a thousand years is often quite disconcerting.
The half-breeds or hybrids are also as fertile as each of the original
types. There is no question but that some populations are nothing but
the product of such race crossing. Thus there is a belt extending across
the entire breadth of Africa of which it is difficult to say whether the
inhabitants belong to the Negro or to the Caucasian type. If we construct
a racial map and represent the demarcation between Negro and Caucasian
by a line, we are really misrepresenting the situation. The truth could
be expressed only by inserting a transition zone of mixed color. Yet as
soon as we allow such transitions, the definiteness of our classification
begins to crumble.
In spite of these difficulties, some general truths can be discovered
from a careful race classification, and certain constant principles of
importance emerge from all the diversity.
22. TRAITS ON WHICH CLASSIFICATION RESTS
Since every human being obviously possesses a large number of physical
features or traits, the first thing that the prospective classifier of
race must do is to determine how much weight he will attach to each of
these features.
The most striking of all traits probably is _stature_ or bodily height.
Yet this is a trait which experience has shown to be of relatively
limited value for classifactory purposes. The imagination is easily
impressed by a few inches when they show at the top of a man and make
him half a head taller or shorter than oneself. Except for a few groups
which numerically are rather insignificant, there is no human race that
averages less than 5 feet in height. There is none at all that averages
taller than 5 feet 10 inches. This means that practically the whole range
of human variability in height, from the race standpoint, falls within
less than a foot. The majority of averages of populations do not differ
more than 2 inches from the general human average of 5 feet 5 inches.
Then, too, stature has been proved to be rather readily influenced by
environment. Each of us is a fraction of an inch taller when he gets
up in the morning than when he goes to bed at night. Two races might
differ by as much as a couple of inches in their heredity, and yet if all
the individuals of the shorter race were well nourished in a favorable
environment, and all those of the taller group were underfed and
overworked, the naturally shorter race might well be actually the taller
one.
The _cephalic index_, which expresses in percentage form the ratio of
the length and the breadth of the head, is perhaps the most commonly
used anthropological measurement.[4] It has certain definite advantages.
The head measurements are easily made with accuracy. The index is nearly
the same on the living head and on the dead skull; or one is easily
converted into the other. This enables present and past generations to
be compared. The index is also virtually the same for men and for women,
for children and for adults. Finally, it seems to be little affected
by environment. The consequence is that head form has been widely
investigated. There are few groups of people of consequence whose average
cephalic index we do not know fairly accurately. The difficulty about
the cephalic index from the point of view of race classification is that
it does not yield broad enough results. This index is often useful in
distinguishing subtypes, nation from nation, or tribe from tribe; but the
primary races are not uniform. There is, for instance, no typical head
form for the Caucasian race. There are narrow headed, medium headed, and
broad headed Caucasians. The same is true of the American Indians, who
are on the whole rather uniform, yet vary much in head form.
The _nasal index_, which expresses the relation of length and breadth
of nose, runs much more constant in the great races. Practically all
Negroids are broad-nosed, practically all Caucasians narrow-nosed, and
the majority of peoples of Mongolian affinities medium-nosed. But the
nasal index varies according to the age of the person; it is utterly
different in a living individual and a skull;[5] it seems to reflect
heredity less directly than the cephalic index; and finally it tells us
nothing about the elevation or profile or general formation of the nose.
_Prognathism_, or the degree of the protrusion of the jaws, is a
conspicuous feature of the profile, and would seem to be of some historic
importance as a sign of primitiveness, because all other mammals are more
prognathous than man. The trait also has a general correlation with the
fundamental racial types. Negroes are almost all prognathous, people of
Mongolian type moderately so, Caucasians very slightly. Prognathism is
however difficult to measure or to denote in figures. Various apparatuses
have been devised without wholly satisfactory results.
The _capacity of the skull_ is measured by filling it with shot or millet
seed. The latter yields figures that are lower by 50 or 100 c.c. The
average, by shot measure, for males the world over is about 1,450 to
1,500 c.c., for females about 10 per cent lower. European males range
from 1,500 to 1,600, Asiatic Mongoloids but little less, American Indians
and Polynesians from 1,400 to 1,500, Bushmen, Australians, Tasmanians,
Negritos, Veddas from 1,300 to 1,400. These last groups are all small
bodied. It appears that cranial capacity is considerably dependent on
bodily size. Slender as well as short races run to small capacities. The
heavy Bantu surpass the slighter framed Sudanese, and Hindus stand well
below European Caucasians; just as the shorter Japanese average less than
the Chinese. Broad headed populations show greater cranial capacity than
narrow headed ones: Alpine Europeans (§ 24) generally surpass Nordics
in spite of their shorter stature. Individual variability is also
unusually great in this measurement. The largest and smallest skulled
healthy individuals of the same sex in one population differ sometimes
by 500, 600, or 700 c.c., or more than one-third of the racial average.
Overlapping between races is accordingly particularly marked in cranial
capacity. Furthermore, the measurement obviously cannot be taken on the
living. In spite of its interest as an alleged and perhaps partially
valid index of mental faculty, cranial capacity is thus of restricted
value in distinguishing races.
The _texture of the hair_ is now universally regarded as one of the most
valuable criteria for classifying races, possibly the most significant
of all. Hair is distinguished as woolly in the Negro, straight in the
Mongolian, and wavy or intermediate in the Caucasian. This texture
depends principally on the diameters of each individual hair, as they
are revealed in cross-section under the microscope; in part also on
the degree of straightness or curvature of the root sacs of the hair
in the skin. Hair texture seems to run rather rigidly along hereditary
racial lines, and to be uninfluenced by factors of age, sex, climate, or
nourishment.
_Hairiness_ of the body as a whole is another trait to which more and
more attention is coming to be paid. The fullness or scantiness of the
beard, and the degree of development of the down which covers the body,
are its most conspicuous manifestations. Caucasians are definitely a
hairy race, Mongoloids and most Negroids glabrous or smooth-skinned.
It is largely on the basis of their hairiness that races like the
Australians have been separated from the Negroids, and the Ainus from the
Japanese.
Except possibly for stature, _color_ is probably the most conspicuous
trait of any race. Under color must be included the complexion of the
skin, the color of the hair, and the color of the eyes. All of these
however present difficulties to the anthropometrist. The pigment in every
human skin is the same: it differs only in amount. We have therefore a
complete series of transition shades, and it is difficult to express
these differences of shade quantitatively. They readily impress the eye,
but it is far from easy to denote them accurately in numbers. Environment
also affects skin color markedly. A day’s exposure to the sun will
darken an individual’s complexion by several shades. In spite of these
drawbacks, however, complexion remains sufficiently important to have to
be considered in every classification.
_Hair color and eye color_ are practically immune against direct change
by environment. They unquestionably are excellent hereditary criteria,
although they offer much the same resistance to measurement as does
complexion. The utility of these two traits is however limited by another
factor: their narrow distribution. Blue eyes and blond hair are racially
characteristic of only a single subrace, that of northern Europe. In
central Europe they are already much toned down: the prevailing type here
is brunet. In southern Europe, blue eyes and blondness scarcely occur at
all except where admixture with northern peoples can be traced. Outside
of the Caucasian stock, black hair and black eyes are the universal rule
for the human family.
Obviously it would be easiest to arrive at a clear-cut classification by
grouping all the peoples of the earth according to a single trait, such
as the shape of the nose, or color. But any such classification must be
artificial and largely unsound, just because it disregards the majority
of traits. The only classification that can claim to rest upon a true or
natural basis is one which takes into consideration as many traits as
possible, and weights the important more heavily than the unimportant
features. If the outcome of such a grouping is to leave some peoples
intermediate or of doubtful place in the classification, this result is
unfortunate but must be accepted.
RACIAL CLASSIFICATION OF MANKIND
_Texture _Hair of
of Hair Body and
_Primary Stocks and Races_ of Head_ Face_ _Head_ _Nose_
CAUCASIAN OR “WHITE”
Nordic Wavy Abundant Narrow Narrow
Alpine ” ” Broad ”
Mediterranean ” ” Narrow ”
Hindu ” ” ” Variable
MONGOLOID OR “YELLOW”
Mongolian Straight Slight Broad Medium
Malaysian ” ” ” ”
American Indian ” ” Variable ”
NEGROID OR “BLACK”
Negro Woolly Slight Narrow Broad
Melanesian ” ” ” ”
Dwarf Black ” ” Broad ”
OF DOUBTFUL CLASSIFICATION
Australian Wavy Abundant Narrow Broad
Vedda, Irula, Kolarians,
Moi, Senoi, Toala, etc. ” Moderate ” ”
Polynesian ” ” Variable Medium
Ainu ” Abundant Narrow ”
* * * * *
_Primary Stocks and Races_ _Prognathism_ _Skin Color_ _Stature_
CAUCASIAN OR “WHITE”
Nordic Slight Very “white” Tall
Alpine ” White Above aver.
Mediterranean ” Dark white Medium
Hindu Moderate Brown Above aver.
MONGOLOID OR “YELLOW”
Mongolian Medium Light brown Below aver.
Malaysian ” Brown ”
American Indian ” ” Tall to med.
NEGROID OR “BLACK”
Negro Strong “Black” Tall
Melanesian ” ” Medium
Dwarf Black Moderate ” Very short
OF DOUBTFUL CLASSIFICATION
Australian Strong Black Above aver.
Vedda, Irula, Kolarians,
Moi, Senoi, Toala, etc. Medium Dark brown Short
Polynesian ” Brown Tall
Ainu ” Light brown Medium
* * * * *
_Primary Stocks and Races_ _Remarks_
CAUCASIAN OR “WHITE”
Nordic Hair blond, eyes light.
Alpine Hair brown, eyes brown.
Mediterranean
Hindu Probable Australoid admixture in South.
MONGOLOID OR “YELLOW”
Mongolian “Mongolian” eye, broad face.
Malaysian
American Indian Broad face.
NEGROID OR “BLACK”
Negro
Melanesian
Dwarf Black Bushmen show several special features.
OF DOUBTFUL CLASSIFICATION
Australian Negroid traits preponderate, some Caucasian
resemblances.
Vedda, Irula, Kolarians, Generalized pre-Caucasian with Australoid
Moi, Senoi, Toala, etc. resemblances. “Indo Australians.”
Polynesian Perhaps Mongoloid with some Caucasian
traits and local Negroid admixture.
Ainu A generalized Caucasian or divergent
Mongoloid type.
Hair and eyes are “black” unless otherwise stated in Remarks.
23. THE GRAND DIVISIONS OR PRIMARY STOCKS
If now we follow this plan and review the peoples of the earth, each with
reference to all its physical traits, we obtain an arrangement something
like that which is given in the table on the previous page. It will be
seen that there are three grand divisions, of which the European, the
Negro, and the Chinaman may be taken as representative. These three
primary classes are generally called Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid.
The color terms, White, Black, and Yellow, are also often used, but it is
necessary to remember that they are employed merely as brief convenient
labels, and that they have no descriptive value. There are millions of
Caucasians who are darker in complexion than millions of Mongoloids.
These three main groups account for more than nine-tenths of all the
nations and tribes of the world. As to the number of individuals, they
comprise probably 99 per cent of all human beings. The aberrant forms
are best kept separate. Some of them, like the before-mentioned Ainu and
Australians, appear to affiliate preponderantly with one of the three
great classes, but still differ sufficiently in one or more particulars
to prevent their being included with them outright. Other groups, such as
the Polynesians, seem to be, at least in part, the result of a mixture
of races. Their constituent elements are so blended, and perhaps so far
modified after the blending, as to be difficult to disentangle.
Each of the three great primary stocks falls into several natural
subdivisions.
24. CAUCASIAN RACES
Three of the four Caucasian races live, in whole or part, in Europe;
the fourth consists of the Hindus.[6] The three European races are the
Nordic, the Alpine, and the Mediterranean. Some authorities recognize
a greater number, but all admit at least these three. They occupy
horizontal belts on the map. Beginning with the Nordic and ending
with the Mediterranean they may be described as successively darker
skinned, darker eyed, darker haired, and shorter in stature. The Alpine
race, which lies between the two others, is however more than a mere
transition; for it is broad headed, whereas the Nordic and Mediterranean
are both narrow or long headed. The Nordic type is essentially
distributed around the Baltic and North seas. The Mediterranean race
occupies the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, in Asia and Africa as well
as in Europe. In ancient times it seems to have prevailed everywhere
along these coasts. At present the Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor are
mostly occupied by broad headed peoples of more or less close affinity
to the Alpines. This Alpine race is perhaps less homogeneous than the
two others. A central Frenchman, a Serb, a Russian, and an Armenian are
clearly far from identical (§ 30). They have enough in common, however, to
warrant their being put in the one larger group.
It must be clearly understood that these races have nothing to do with
the modern political nationalities of Europe. Northern Germany is
prevailingly Nordic, southern Germany, Alpine. Northern Italy is Alpine,
the rest of the peninsula Mediterranean. All three races are definitely
represented in France. The average north Frenchman stands racially nearer
to the north German than to his countryman from central France, whereas
the latter links up in physical type with the south German. Nationality
is determined by speech, customs, religion, and political affiliations.
Its boundary lines and those of race cut right across one another.
The British Isles did not escape the process of race blending that has
gone on in Europe for thousands of years. The bulk of the blood of their
inhabitants during the past thousand years has been Nordic, but there is
an Alpine strain, and most authorities recognize a definite “Iberian,”
that is, Mediterranean element. The first settlers in America carried
this mixture across the Atlantic, and through the years immigration
has increased its compositeness. Scandinavians and north Germans have
added to the Nordic component in the population of the United States;
south Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Russians, and Jews to the Alpine; the
Italians have injected a definite Mediterranean element. The Negro alone
has not been admitted into the make-up of our white society; but the
reverse holds: a considerable and growing percentage of the “colored”
people in the United States are from one-sixteenth to fifteen-sixteenths
Caucasian.
The Hindu is in the main a narrow headed, dark skinned Caucasian, not
very different from the Mediterranean. When he entered India he probably
found there an aboriginal population which may have been Negroid but
more likely was related to the Australians or perhaps constituted a dark
proto-Caucasian or Indo-Australian race. A fairly thorough intermixture
has taken place in India during the last three thousand years, with the
result that the originally pure Caucasian type of the Hindu has been
somewhat modified, while most of the less numerous or less vigorous
aboriginal population has become submerged. The definite Caucasian type
is best preserved in the north; the traces of the dark skinned aboriginal
race are strongest in southern India.
25. MONGOLOID RACES
The Mongoloid stock divides into the Mongolian proper of eastern
Asia, the Malaysian of the East Indies, and the American Indian. The
differences between these three types are not very great. The Mongolian
proper is the most extreme or pronounced form. It was probably the latest
to develop its present characteristics. For instance, the oblique or
“Mongolian” eye is a peculiarity restricted to the people of eastern
Asia. The original Mongoloid stock must be looked upon as having been
more like present-day Malaysians or American Indians, or intermediate
between them. From this generalized type peoples like the Chinese
gradually diverged, adding the epicanthic fold of the oblique eye and
other peculiarities, while the less civilized peoples of America and
Oceania kept more nearly to the ancient type.
Within the East Indies, a more and a less specifically Mongoloid
strain can at times be distinguished. The latter has often been called
Indonesian. In certain respects, such as relatively short stature and
broad nose, it approaches the Indo-Australian type described below. Among
the American Mongoloids, the Eskimo appears to be the most particularized
subvariety.
26. NEGROID RACES
The Negroid stock falls into two large divisions, the African Negro
proper, and the Oceanic Melanesian; besides a third division, the Dwarf
Blacks or Negritos, who are very few in numbers but possess a wide and
irregular distribution. The Negroes and the Melanesians, in spite of
their being separated by the breadth of the Indian Ocean, are clearly
close relatives. A trained observer can distinguish them at sight, but
a novice would take a Papuan from New Guinea or a Melanesian from the
Solomon or Fiji Islands to be an African. Perhaps the most conspicuous
difference is that the broad nose of the African Negro is flat, the broad
nose of the Melanesian often aquiline. How these two so similar Negroid
branches came to be located on the opposite sides of a great ocean is a
fact that remains unexplained.
The Negrito or Dwarf Negroid race has representatives in New Guinea, in
the Philippines, in the Malay Peninsula, in the Andaman Islands, and
in equatorial Africa. These peoples are the true pygmies of the human
species. Wherever they are racially pure the adult males are less than 5
feet in stature. They also differ from other Negroids in being relatively
broad headed. Their skin color, hair texture, nose form, and most other
traits are, however, the same as those of the other Negroids. Their
scattered distribution is difficult to account for. It is possible that
they are an ancient and primitive type which once inhabited much wider
stretches of territory than now in Africa, Asia, and Oceania. On account
of their inoffensiveness and backwardness, the Negritos, according to
this theory, were gradually crowded to the wall by the larger, more
energetic populations with which they came in contact, until only a few
scattered fragments of them now remain.
The Bushmen and in some degree the Hottentots of South Africa may also
be provisionally included with the Negritos, although distinctive in a
number of respects. They are yellowish-brown in complexion, long headed,
short and flat eared, short legged, hollow backed, and steatopygous.
On the whole Negroid characteristics prevail among them. They are, for
instance, frizzy-haired. Their extremely short stature may justify their
tentative inclusion among the Negritos.
27. PEOPLES OF DOUBTFUL POSITION
One thing is common to the peoples who are here reckoned as of doubtful
position in the classification: they all present certain Caucasian
affinities without being similar enough to the recognized Caucasians
to be included with them. This is true of the black, wavy-haired,
prognathous, beetling-browed Australians, whose first appearance
suggests that they are Negroids, as it is of the brown Polynesians, who
appear to have Mongoloid connections through the Malaysians. In India,
Indo-China, and the East Indies live a scattered series of uncivilized
peoples more or less alike in being dark, short, slender, wavy haired,
longish headed, broad nosed. The brows are knit, the eyes deep set, the
mouth large, beard development medium. Resemblances are on the one hand
toward the Caucasian type, on the other toward the Australian, just as
the geographical position is intermediate. The name Indo-Australian is
thus appropriate for this group. Typical representatives are the Vedda
of Ceylon; the Irula and some of the Kolarian tribes of India; many of
the Moi of several parts of Indo-China; the Senoi or Sakai of the Malay
Peninsula; the Toala of Celebes. These are almost invariably hill or
jungle people, who evidently represent an old stratum of population,
pushed back by Caucasians or Mongoloids, or almost absorbed by them. The
dark strain in India seems more probably due to these people than to
any true Negroid infusion. Possibly the Indo-Australians branched off
from the Caucasian stem at a very early time before the Caucasian stock
was as “white” as it is now. In the lapse of ages the greater number of
the Caucasians in and near Europe took on, more and more, their present
characteristics, whereas this backward branch in the region of the
Indian Ocean kept its primitive and undifferentiated traits. This is a
tempting theory to pursue, but it extends so far into the realm of the
hypothetical that its just appraisal must be left to the specialist.
[Illustration: FIG. 8. Relationship of the human races. Distances between
the centers of circles are indicative of the degree of similarity.]
Figure 8 attempts to represent graphically the degree of resemblance
and difference between the principal physical types as they have been
summarized in the table and preceding discussion; the genealogical tree
in figure 9 is an endeavor to suggest how these types may have diverged
from one another in their development.
[Illustration: FIG. 9. Tentative family tree of the human races.]
28. CONTINENTS AND OCEANS
One fact about the classification stands out clearly, namely, that the
three grand races are not limited to particular continents. It is true
that the center of gravity of the Caucasians is in or near Europe, that
the biggest block of Negroids is situated in Africa, and the largest mass
of Mongoloids in Asia. It is even possible that these three types evolved
on these three continents. But each of them is _inter-continental_ in its
present distribution. Western Asia and northern Africa as well as Europe
are Caucasian. There are Negroids in Oceania as well as in Africa, and
the Mongoloids are found over Oceania, Asia, and both Americas.
In fact the distribution of the three primary races can better be
described as oceanically marginal than as continental. The Caucasian
parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa surround the Mediterranean Sea. The
African and the Oceanic branches of the Negroid race are situated on
the left and right sides of the Indian Ocean. The Mongoloid habitat in
Oceania, in eastern Asia, and in North and South America almost encloses
the Pacific Ocean. (Figs. 10 and 11.)
29. THE HISTORY OF RACE CLASSIFICATIONS
Most of the early classifications of mankind tried to identify races
and continents too closely. The first attempt was that of Linnæus in
the middle of the eighteenth century. He distinguished and described
four varieties of mankind, which he called _Europæus albus_, _Asiaticus
luridus_, _Americanus rufus_, and _Afer niger_; that is, European White,
Asiatic Yellow, American Red, African Black.
The next classification, that of Blumenbach in 1775, is essentially the
same except for adding a fifth or Oceanic variety. Blumenbach’s five
human races, the Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malayan,
still survive in many of the geographies of our elementary schools,
usually under the designations of White, Yellow, Black, Red, and Brown;
but they no longer receive scientific recognition.
[Illustration: FIG. 10. Outline distribution of the primary racial
stocks of mankind according to the three-fold classification,
Australians, Ainu, Vedda, Polynesians, etc., being included in the stock
with which they appear to affiliate most closely. A larger map with
more shadings would be required to do even approximate justice to the
intricacies of a complete race classification.]
[Illustration: FIG. 11. Circumpolar map of primary race distribution
(legend as in Figure 10).]
As time went on, the continental principle of race classification
came to be recognized as inadequate, and there was a tendency among
anthropologists to accept the distinctness of certain specialized groups
like the Australians, Bushmen, Eskimo, and Ainu, which were often
elevated into races substantially equal in rank with the great races
like the Mongoloid. Thus Peschel distinguished: (1) Mediterranean or
Caucasian; (2) Mongoloid (including the East Indians and Americans); (3)
Negro; (4) Australian; but then separated off (5) Dravida of southern
India; (6) Papuans, and (7) Hottentot-Bushmen, as if these smaller groups
were coördinate with the grand ones. Nott and Gliddon also recognized
seven races, although somewhat different ones: European, Asiatic, Negro,
American, Malay, Australian, and Arctic. This is the fivefold scheme of
Blumenbach with Australian and Arctic added.
30. EMERGENCE OF THE THREEFOLD CLASSIFICATION
On the other hand the feeling gained ground, especially as the result
of the labors of French anthropologists, that mankind could be
satisfactorily accounted for by a division into Caucasian, Negroid, and
Mongoloid. Those who adopted this principle tried to fit divergent types
like the Australians and Polynesians into one or the other of these three
great groups. Some little doctoring had to be done in this process, and
some salient facts estimated rather lightly. It is for this reason that
it has seemed best here not to make our tripartite classification too
exhaustive. This threefold classification clearly absorbs the great mass
of mankind without straining, but it is soundest to recognize that this
same basic classification requires a certain margin of extensions along
the lines indicated in our table.
The classification made by the French anthropologist Deniker is one of
the most elaborate yet devised. It recognizes 6 grand divisions, 17 minor
divisions, and 29 separate races. The primary criterion of classification
is hair texture.
_Deniker’s Classification_
A. Hair woolly, with broad nose.
I. 1. Bushman.
II. Negroid.
2. Negrito.
3. Negro.
4. Melanesian (including Papuan of New Guinea).
B. Hair curly to wavy.
III. 5. Ethiopian (Sudan, etc.).
IV. 6. Australian.
V. 7. Dravidian (southern India).
VI. 8. Assyroid (Kurds, Armenians, Jews).
C. Hair Wavy.
VII. 9. Indo-Afghan.
VIII. North African.
10. Arab or Semite.
11. Berber (N. Africa).
IX. Melanochroid.
12. Littoral (W. Mediterranean).
13. Ibero-insular (Spain, S. Italy).
14. Western European.
15. Adriatic (N. Italy, Balkans).
D. Hair wavy to straight, with light eyes.
X. Xanthochroid.
16. North European.
17. East European.
E. Hair wavy to straight, with dark eyes.
XI. 18. Ainu.
XII. Oceanian.
19. Polynesian.
20. Indonesian (East Indies).
F. Hair straight.
XIII. American.
21. South American.
22. North American.
23. Central American.
24. Patagonian.
XIV. 25. Eskimo.
XV. 26. Lapp.
XVI. Eurasian.
27. Ugrian (E. Russia).
28. Turco-Tartar (S.W. Siberia).
XVII. 29. Mongol (E. Asia).
In spite of its apparent complexity, this classification coincides
quite closely with the classification which is followed in this book.
Inspection reveals that Deniker’s grand division A is Negroid, C and
D Caucasian, F Mongoloid. Of his two remaining grand divisions, B is
intermediate between A and C, that is, between Negroid and Caucasian,
and consists of peoples which are either, like the East Africans, the
probable result of a historical mixture of Negroids and Caucasians, or
which, like the Australians, share the traits of both, and are therefore
admitted to have a doubtful status. The other grand division, E, is
transitional between Caucasian D and Mongoloid F, and the peoples of
which it consists are those whom we too have recognized as difficult to
assign positively to either stock. In short, Deniker’s classification is
much the more refined, ours the simpler; but essentially they corroborate
one another.
31. OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS
Another classification that puts hair texture into the forefront is that
of F. Müller. This runs as follows:
A. Ulotrichi or Woolly-haired.
1. Lophocomi or Tuft-haired: Papua, Hottentot-Bushmen.
2. Eriocomi or Fleecy-haired: African Negroes.
B. Lissotrichi or Straight-haired.
3. Euthycomi or Stiff-haired: Australian, Malay, Mongolian,
Arctic, American.
4. Euplocomi or Wavy-haired: Dravidian (S. India), Nubian,
(Sudan), “Mediterranean” (Europe, N. Africa, etc.).
The distinction here made between the Tuft and Fleecy-haired groups is
unsound. It rests on a false observation: that a few races, like the
Bushmen, had their head-hair growing out of the scalp only in spots or
tufts. With the elimination of this group, its members would fall into
the Fleecy or Woolly-haired one, which would thus comprise all admitted
Negroids; whereas the two remaining groups, the Stiff and Wavy-haired,
obviously correspond to the Mongoloid and Caucasian. The only remaining
peculiarity of the classification—and in this point also it is
unquestionably wrong—is the inclusion of the Australians in the Stiff or
Straight-haired group. But even this error reflects an element of truth:
it emphasizes the fact that in spite of their black skins, broad noses,
and protruding jaws, the Australians are not straight-out Negroids.
The underlying feature of this classification, after allowing for its
errors, is that mankind consists of two rather than three main branches:
the Ulotrichi or Negroids, as opposed to the Lissotrichi or combined
Mongoloids and Caucasians. This basic idea has been advocated by others.
Boas, for instance, reckons Mongoloids and Caucasians as at bottom only
subtypes of a single stock with which the Negroids and Australians are to
be contrasted.
Somewhat different in plan is Huxley’s scheme, which recognizes four
main races, or five including a transitional one. These are (1)
Australioids, including Dravidians and Egyptians; (2) Negroids, with the
Bushmen and the Oceanic Papuans, Melanesians, Tasmanians, and Negritos
as two subvarieties; (3) Mongoloids, as customarily accepted; (4)
Xanthochroi, about equivalent to Nordics and Alpines; (5) Melanochroi,
nearly the same as the Mediterraneans, but supposed by Huxley to be
hybrid or intermediate between the Xanthochroi and Australioids. This
classification in effect emphasizes the connection between Australoids
and Caucasians, with the Negroids as a distinctive group on one side and
the Mongoloids on the other.
Haeckel’s classification is basically similar, in that besides the usual
three primary stocks—which he elevates into species—he recognizes a
separate group comprising the Australians, Dravidians, and Vedda-like
Indo-Australians.
32. PRINCIPLES AND CONCLUSIONS COMMON TO ALL CLASSIFICATIONS
It will be seen that in spite of the differences and uncertainties as
yet prevalent in any scheme for classifying the human species, certain
principles stand out both as regards method and results; and in regard to
these principles there is substantial agreement.
First, any valid classification must rest on a combination of as many
traits or features as possible.
Second, several features of the human body are of definite significance
for the discrimination of races. Hair and hairiness are unquestionably
of great importance; stature, except in extreme cases, much less
so. Color differences in the skin, hair, or eyes are important but
difficult to handle. Shape of nose and prognathism are useful for rough
classification. The cephalic index possesses an exceptional utility in
making the finer discriminations.
Third, it is clearly impossible to find a simple and consistent scheme
within which all the varieties of man can be placed. We must not attempt
more than nature allows.
On the other hand the vast bulk of mankind does fall naturally into
three great divisions, each of which again subdivides into three or four
principal branches, in regard to whose distinctness there is no serious
difference of opinion. The scattering remainder of races are allied
sometimes to one primary stock, sometimes to another, but always with
some special peculiarities.
From such a classification as this, especially after the accumulation of
large series of accurate measurements which will permit its being worked
out to greater exactness, we may hope ultimately to reconstruct the full
and true history of the races of men, or, in any event, some reasonable
hypothesis as to their development. As yet, however, we are not in a
position to account for the origin of the races except speculatively.
33. RACE, NATIONALITY, AND LANGUAGE
The term race has here been used in its biological sense, for a group
united in blood or heredity. A race is a subdivision of a species and
corresponds to a breed in domestic animals. Popularly, the word is used
in a different sense, namely that of a population having any traits
in common, be they hereditary or non-hereditary, biological or social
(Chapter I). It is customary, but scientifically inaccurate, to speak
of the French race, the Anglo-Saxon race, the Gypsy race, the Jewish
race. The French are a nation and nationality, with a substantially
common speech; biologically, they are three races considerably mixed,
but still imperfectly blended (§ 24). Anglo-Saxon refers primarily to
speech, incidentally to a set of customs, traditions, and points of view
that are more or less associated with the language. The Gypsies are a
self-constituted caste, with folkways, occupations, and a speech of
their own. The Jews, who were once a nationality, at present, of course,
form a religious body, which somewhat variably, in part from inner
cohesion and in part from outer pressure, tends also to constitute a
caste. They evince little hereditary racial type, measurements indicating
that in each country they approximate the physical type of the gentile
population.
It may seem of little moment whether the word race is restricted to its
strict biological sense or used more loosely. In fact, however, untold
loose reasoning has resulted from the loose terminology. When one has
spoken a dozen times of “the French race,” one tends inevitably to think
of the inhabitants of France as a biological unit, which they are not.
The basis of the error is confusion of organic traits and processes with
superorganic or cultural ones; of heredity with tradition or imitation.
That civilizations, languages, and nationalities go on for generations
is obviously a different thing from their being caused by generation.
Slovenly thought, tending to deal with results rather than causes or
processes, does not trouble to make this discrimination, and every-day
speech, dating from a pre-scientific period, is ambiguous about it.
We say not only “generation,” when there is no intent to imply the
reproductive process, but “good breeding” (literally, good brooding or
hatching or birth), when we mean good home training or education; just as
we “inherit” a fortune or a name—social things—as well as ineradicable
traits like brown eye-color. Biology has secured for its processes the
exclusive use of the term “heredity”; and biologists employ the term
“race” only with reference to a hereditary subdivision of a species. It
is equally important that the word be used with the same exact denotation
in anthropology, else all discussion of race degenerates irretrievably
into illogical sliding in and out between organic and social factors. The
inherently great difficulties which beset the understanding and solution
of what are generally called race problems, as discussed in the next
chapter, are considerably increased by a confusion between what is and
what is not racial and organic and hereditary.