Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Races of Man - An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography
Author: Deniker, Joseph
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Races of Man - An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



                          Transcriber’s Note:
                          ###################

This e-text is based on the 1900 edition of the book. Minor punctuation
errors, as well as inconsistencies in hyphenation, have been tacitly
corrected; misspelled or inconsistent proper names, however, have been
retained. Geographical names and names referring to tribes or nations
have been harmonised.

Extremely wide tables have been split and reformatted. A number of
symbols have been used to indicate formatting of passages or special
characters:

    Underscores (_text_): italic
    Forward slashes (/text/): small caps
    Hash marks (#text#): bold
    equals signs (=text=): vertically formatted text

The following passages have been corrected or need to be commented:

    p. 59: ‘aveolocondylean’ → ‘alveolocondylean’
    p. 108: Lung capacities in cubic metres are wrong; should read
        ‘cubic decimetres’ or ‘litres’; ‘per second’ should read ‘per
        minute’
    p. 194: ‘Canis familiaris matris opitimæ’ → ‘Canis familiaris
        matris optimæ’
    p. 286 (left column of table): ‘fair hair’: ‘fair’ added according
        to Chapter IX.
    p. 293: ‘Southern Mongolia’ → ‘Southern Mongolian’
    p. 294: ‘geographico-lingustic’ → ‘geographico-linguistic’
    p. 404: ‘corollay’ → ‘corollary’
    pp. 486, 487: ‘Bornea’ → ‘Borneo’
    p. 493: ‘Figs. 197 and 198’ → ‘Figs. 147 and 148’
    p. 533: ‘as follow:’ → ‘as follows:’
    p. 557: ‘Venezeula’ → ‘Venezuela’
    pp. 578, 580: ‘M.’ (metres) → ‘MM.’ (millimetres)
    Footnote 13: ‘orang-outan’ → ‘orang-utan’
    Footnote 79: ‘Feftschrift’ → ‘Festschrift’
    Footnote 108: ‘Amenians’ → ‘Armenians’
    Footnote 329: ‘Semetic’ → ‘Semitic’
    Footnote 599: missing footnote anchor added
    Footnote 631: ‘Gutemala’ → ‘Guatemala’



                  _THE CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE SERIES._

                      /Edited by/ HAVELOCK ELLIS.


                           THE RACES OF MAN.


[Illustration: Naga of Manipur in gala costume, with caudiform
appendage.

(_Phot. lent by Miss Godden._)]



                           THE RACES OF MAN:

                      AN OUTLINE OF ANTHROPOLOGY
                            AND ETHNOGRAPHY

                                  BY

                     J. DENIKER, Sc.D. (/Paris/),

       _Chief Librarian of the Museum of Natural History, Paris;
       Honorary Fellow of the Anthropological Institute of Great
     Britain; Corresponding Member of the Italian Anthropological,
          Netherland Geographical, and Moscow Natural Science
                           Societies, etc._

                  WITH 176 ILLUSTRATIONS AND 2 MAPS.

                                LONDON

                         WALTER SCOTT, LIMITED

                          PATERNOSTER SQUARE

                                 1900



PREFACE.


My object in the present work has been to give in a condensed form the
essential facts of the twin sciences of anthropology and ethnography.
The very nature of such an undertaking condemns the author to be brief,
and at the same time somewhat dogmatic; inevitable gaps occur, and
numerous inequalities in the treatment. To obviate, partly at least,
such defects, I have endeavoured not merely to present the actual
facts of the subject, but also to summarise, with as much fidelity as
possible, the explanations of these facts, in so far as such may be
educed from theories among which there is often sufficient perplexity
of choice. In many cases I have ventured, however, to give my personal
opinion on different questions, as, for instance, on the signification
of the laryngeal sacs among anthropoid apes, on many questions of
anthropometry in general, on the classing of “states of civilisation,”
on fixed and transportable habitations, on the classification of races,
on the races of Europe, on the Palæ-American race, etc.

My book is designed for all those who desire to obtain rapidly a
general notion of ethnographic and anthropological sciences, or to
understand the foundations of these sciences. Thus technical terms are
explained and annotated in such a manner that they may be understood by
all.

Those who may wish for further details on special points will be able
to take advantage of the numerous bibliographical notes, at the foot
of the pages, in which I have sought to group according to plan the
most important or accessible works. I believe that even professional
anthropologists will be able to consult my work profitably. They will
find condensed in it information which is scattered over a vast crowd
of notes and memoirs in all languages. I trust also that they may
appreciate the Appendices, as well as the lists in the text itself,
in which are collected from the best sources some hundreds of figures
relating to the chief dimensions of the human body.

The illustrations which complete and elucidate the text have been
selected with very great care. With two or three exceptions, the
“types” of the different peoples are photographs of well-authenticated
subjects, often such as have been observed and measured by competent
authorities, or by myself.

I attach too much importance to the systematic illustration of
anthropological works not to fail to express here my sincere
indebtedness to the institutions and individuals who have been good
enough to lend me blocks and photographs. I have thus to thank
the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, the
Anthropological Society and the Anthropological School of Paris, the
India Museum, the Museum of Natural History of Paris, the Smithsonian
Institution of Washington, Dr. Beddoe, Prince Roland Bonaparte, M.
Chantre, Drs. Collignon and Delisle, Herr Ehrenreich and his editors
Fr. Vieweg & Sons, Professor Haddon, Dr. Lapicque, Mr. Otis Mason, Dr.
Sören Hansen, MM. S. Sommier, P. and F. Sarasin and their editor Herr
C. Kreidel of Wiesbaden, Dr. Ten Kate, Mr. Thurston, Miss Godden, Miss
Werner, and Messrs. Harper & Bros.

I desire also to thank in this place Dr. Collignon, Mr. Havelock Ellis,
and M. Salomon Reinach, for the trouble they have taken in revising the
proofs of certain parts of my work.

                                                        J. DENIKER.



CONTENTS.


    INTRODUCTION.

                                                                    PAGE

    /Ethnic Groups and Zoological Species/                             1

    Difficulties in applying to Man the terms of zoological
    nomenclature--Criterion of species--Terms to give to the
    “Somatological Units” constituting the genus _Homo_--Monogenesis
    and Polygenesis--The “Ethnic Groups” are constituted by
    the different combinations of the “Somatological Units” or
    “Races”--Somatic characters and ethnic characters.


    CHAPTER I.

    /Somatic Characters/                                              12

    /Distinctive Characters of Man and Apes/.--Monkeys
    and anthropoid apes--Erect attitude--Curvature of the
    spine--Brain--Skull--Teeth--Other characters--Differences
    less accentuated in the fœtus and the young than in the
    adult.

    /Distinctive Morphological Characters of Human Races/.--_Stature_:
    Individual limits--Dwarfs and giants--Average stature of different
    populations--Influence of environment--Differences according
    to sex--Reconstitution from the long bones--_Teguments_:
    Skin--Hair of head and body--Four principal types--Microscopic
    structure--Correlation between the hair of the head and the
    pilosity of the body--_Pigmentation_: Colouring of the skin, the
    eyes, and the hair--Changes in the pigment.


    CHAPTER II.

    1. /Morphological Characters/--(_continued_)                      53

    _Cranium or Skull_: Cranial measurements--Orbits and orbital
    index--Nasal bone and nasal index--Prognathism--_Head of the living
    subject_: Cephalic index--Face--Eyes--Nose and nasal index in the
    living subject--Lips--_Trunk and Limbs_: The Skeleton--Pelvis
    and its indices--Shoulder blade--Thoracic limb--Abdominal
    limb--_Proportions of the body in the living subject_--Trunk and
    neck--Curve of the back--Steatopygy--_Various Organs_: Genital
    organs--Brain--Its weight--Convolutions--The neuron--Its importance
    from the psychical point of view.


    CHAPTER III.

    2. /Physiological Characters/                                    105

    _Functions of nutrition and assimilation_: Digestion, alimentation,
    growth, temperature of the body, etc.--_Respiration and
    circulation_: Pulse, composition of the blood, etc.--Special
    odour--_Functions of communication_: Expression of the emotions,
    acuteness of the senses, etc.--_Functions of reproduction_:
    Menstruation, menopause, increase in the number of conceptions
    according to season, etc.--_Influence of environment_:
    Acclimatation--Cosmopolitanism of the genus _Homo_ and the races of
    mankind--Cross-breeding.

    3. /Psychological and Pathological Characters/.--Difficulties of
    studying them--Immunities--Nervous diseases of uncivilised peoples.


    CHAPTER IV.

    /Ethnic Characters/                                              123

    Various stages of social groups and essential characters of
    human societies: Progress.--Conditions of Progress: Innovating
    initiative, and tradition--Classification of “states of
    civilisation.”

    I.--/Linguistic Characters/.--_Methods of exchanging ideas within
    a short distance_--Gesture and speech--Divisions of language
    according to structure--Jargons--_Communications at a relatively
    remote distance_: optic and acoustic signals--_Transmission of
    ideas at any distance and time whatever_--Handwriting--Mnemotechnic
    objects--Pictography--Ideography--Alphabets--Direction of the lines
    of handwriting.


    CHAPTER V.

    II.--/Sociological Characters/                                   144

    1. /Material Life/: _Alimentation_:
    Geophagy--Anthropophagy--Preparation of
    foods--Fire--Pottery--Grinding of corn--Stimulants
    and Narcotics--_Habitation_: Two primitive types of
    dwellings--Permanent dwelling (hut)--Removable dwelling
    (tent)--Difference of origin of the materials employed in the two
    types--Villages--Furniture--Heating and lighting--_Clothing_:
    Nakedness and Modesty--Ornament precedes dress--Head-dress--Ethnic
    mutilations--Tattooing--Girdle, necklace, and garland the
    origin of all dress--Manufacture of garments--Spinning
    and weaving--_Means of Existence_: tools of primitive
    industry--Hunting--Fishing--Agriculture--Domestication and rearing
    of animals.


    CHAPTER VI.

    II. /Sociological Characters/--(_continued_)                     197

    2. /Psychic Life/: _Games and Recreations_--Their
    importance--Games of children and adults--Sports
    and public spectacles--Masks--_Fine Arts_--Graphic
    arts--Ornamentation--Drawing--Sculpture--Dancing--Its
    importance among uncultured peoples--Pantomime and
    dramatic art--Vocal and instrumental music--Instruments of
    music--Poetry--_Religion_--Animism--Its two elements: belief in
    the soul, and belief in spirits--Fetichism--Polytheism--Rites
    and ceremonies--Priesthood--International
    religions--_Myths_--_Science_--Art of
    counting--Geometry--Calculation of time--Clocks and
    calendars--Geography and cartography--Medicine and surgery.


    CHAPTER VII.

    /Sociological Characters/--(_continued_)                         229

    3. /Family Life/.--Relations of the two sexes before
    marriage--_Marriage and family_--Theory of promiscuity--Group
    marriage--Exogamy and endogamy--Matriarchate--Degrees of
    relationship and filiation--Polyandry--Levirate--Polygamy and
    monogamy--Patriarchate--Rape and purchase of the bride--Duration
    of conjugal union--_Children_--Birth--Nurture--Name of the child
    and of adults--Initiation, circumcision, etc.--_Old men and their
    fate_--_Funereal rites_--Mourning.

    4. /Social Life/.--(_a_) _Home life of a people_--_Economic
    organisation_--The forms of property depend on production--Common
    property and family property--Village community--Individual
    property--_Social organisation_--Totemism--Clan rule--Family
    rule--Territorial rule--Caste and class rule--Democratic
    rule--Social morals--Right and justice--Taboo--Retaliation,
    vendetta, and ordeals--Secret societies--Extra legal
    judges--Formulæ of politeness--(_b_) _International life
    of peoples_--Absence of sympathetic relations--Hostile
    relations--_War_--Arms of offence--Bow and arrows--Arms of
    defence--Neutral relations--_Commerce_--Money--Cowry--Transports
    and means of communication--Primitive vehicles--Navigation.


    CHAPTER VIII.

    /Classification of Races and Peoples/                            280

    Criticism of anthropological classification--Frequent confusion
    of the _classing of races_ and _of peoples_--The determining of
    races can be based only on _somatic characters_--For the classing
    of peoples, on the contrary, it is necessary to take into account
    _ethnic characters_ (linguistic and sociological), and above all
    _geographical distribution_--_Classification of races proposed by
    the author_--Succinct characterisation of the twenty-nine races
    which are therein mentioned--_Classification of ethnic groups_
    adopted in this work.


    CHAPTER IX.

    /Races and Peoples of Europe/                                    299

    Problem of European ethnogeny--I. /Ancient Inhabitants Of
    Europe/--_Prehistoric races_--Quaternary period--Glacial and
    interglacial periods--Quaternary skulls--Spy and Chancelade races
    or types--Races of the neolithic period--Races of the age of
    metals--_Aryan question_--Position of the problem--_Migration_ of
    European peoples in the _historic period_--II. /European Races of
    the Present Day/--Characteristics of the six principal races and
    the four secondary races--III. /Present Peoples of Europe/--/A/.
    _Aryan peoples_: Latins, Germans, Slavs, Letto-Lithuanians, Celts,
    Illyro-Hellenes--/B/. _Anaryan peoples_: Basques, Finns, etc.--/C/.
    _Caucasian peoples_: Lesgians, Georgians, etc.


    CHAPTER X.

    /Races and Peoples of Asia/                                      359

    /Ancient Inhabitants of Asia/.--Prehistoric times--_Pithecanthropus
    erectus_ (Dub.)--Ages of stone and metals.--/Present Inhabitants of
    Asia/.--Races of Asia--I. _Peoples of Northern Asia_--Yeniseian,
    Palæasiatic and Tunguse groups.--II. _Peoples of Central
    Asia_--Turkish, Mongolian, and Thibetan groups--Peoples of the
    south-west of Thibet and of South China (Lolo, Miao-tsé, Lu-tsé,
    etc.).--III. _Peoples of Eastern Asia_--Chinese, Coreans, and
    Japanese.--IV. _Peoples of Indo-China_--Aborigines, Mois, Kuis,
    Siam, Naga, etc.--More recent mixed populations: Annamese,
    Cambodians, Thai, etc.--V. _Peoples of India_--Castes--Dravidians
    and Kolarians--Indo-Aryans and unclassified populations--VI.
    _Peoples of Anterior Asia_--Iranians and Semites.


    CHAPTER XI.

    /Races and Peoples of Africa/                                    426

    /Ancient Inhabitants of Africa/.--Succession of races on the “dark
    continent”--/Present Inhabitants of Africa/--/I/. _Arabo-Berber
    or Semito-Hamite Group_: Populations of Mediterranean Africa and
    Egypt--/II/. _Ethiopian or Kushito-Hamite Group_: Bejas, Gallas,
    Abyssinians, etc.--/III/. _Fulah-Zandeh Group_: The Zandeh,
    Masai, Niam-Niam populations of the Ubangi-Shari, etc., Fulbé or
    Fulahs--/IV/. _Nigritian Group_: Nilotic Negroes or Negroes of
    eastern Sudan--Negroes of central Sudan--Negroes of western Sudan
    and the Senegal--Negroes of the coast or Guinean Negroes, Kru,
    Agni, Tshi, Vei, Yoruba, etc.-/V/. _Negrillo Group_: Differences of
    the Pygmies and the Bushmen--/VI/. _Bantu Group_: Western Bantus of
    French, German, Portuguese, and Belgian equatorial Africa--Eastern
    Bantus of German, English, and Portuguese equatorial
    Africa--Southern Bantus: Zulus, etc.--/VII/. _Hottentot-Bushman
    Group_: The Namans and the Sans--/VIII/. _Populations of
    Madagascar_: Hovas, Malagasi, Sakalavas.


    CHAPTER XII.

    /Races and Peoples of Oceania/                                   474

    The Stone Age in Oceania--/I/. _Australians_: Uniformity of
    the Australian race--Language and manners and customs of the
    Australians--Extinct _Tasmanians_--/II/. _Populations of the
    Asiatic or Malay Archipelago_: Papuan and Negrito elements in the
    Archipelago--Indonesians and Malays of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
    etc.--/III/. _Melanesians_: Papuans of New Guinea--Melanesians
    properly so called of the Salomon and Admiralty Islands, New
    Hebrides, New Caledonia, etc.--/IV/. _Polynesians_: Polynesians
    properly so called of Samoa, Tahiti, and Sandwich Islands, New
    Zealand, etc.--Micronesians of the Caroline and Marianne Islands,
    etc.--Peopling of the Pacific Islands and of the Indian Ocean.


    CHAPTER XIII.

    /Races and Peoples of America/                                   507

    The four ethnic elements of the New World--_Origin of the
    Americans_--/Ancient Inhabitants of America/--Problem
    of palæolithic man in the United States--Palæolithic
    man in Mexico and South America--Lagoa Santa race;
    Sambaquis and Paraderos--Problem of the Mound-Builders and
    Cliff-Dwellers--Ancient civilisation of Mexico and Peru--_Present
    American Races_--_American languages._

    /Peoples of North America/--/I/. _Eskimo_--/II/. _Indians of
    Canada and United States_: _a._ Arctic--Athapascan group; _b._
    Antarctic--Algonquian-Iroquois, Chata-Muskhogi, and Siouan
    groups; _c._ Pacific--North-west Indians, Oregon-California and
    Pueblo groups--/III/. _Indians of Mexico and Central America_:
    _a._ Sonoran-Aztecs; _b._ Central Americans (Mayas, Isthmians,
    etc.)--Half-breeds in Mexico and the Antilles.

    /Peoples of South America/--/I/. _Andeans_: Chibcha, Quechua, and
    other linguistic families; the Araucans--/II/. _Amazonians_: Carib,
    Arawak, Miranha, and Panos families; unclassed tribes--/III/.
    _Indians of East Brazil and the Central Region_: Ges linguistic
    family; unclassed tribes (Puri, Karaya, Bororo, etc.); Tupi-Guarani
    family--/IV/. _South Argentine_: Chaco and Pampas Indians, etc.;
    Patagonians, Fuegians.


    /Appendix/                                                       577


    /Index of Authors/                                               597


    /Index of Subjects/                                              604



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


    FIG.                                                            PAGE

    Naga of Manipur in gala costume                       _Frontispiece_

    1. Skull of gorilla                                               16

    2. Skull of man                                                   17

    3. Microscopic section of skin and of hair                        34

    4. Mohave Indians of Arizona                                      35

    5, 6. Pure Veddah of Dangala Mountains of Ceylon              36, 37

    7. Toda woman (India)                                             39

    8. Kurumba man of Nilgiri Hills                                   40

    9. Agni Negro of Krinjabo, Western Africa                         41

    10. Dolichocephalic skull of an islander of Torres Straits        57

    11. Brachycephalic skull of a Ladin of Pufels (Tyrol)             57

    12, 13. Skull of ancient Egyptian exhumed at Thebes           60, 61

    14, 15. Jenny, Australian woman of Queensland                 66, 67

    16. Japanese officer (old style)                                  70

    17. Two men, Nagas of Manipur                                     71

    18. Eye of a young Kalmuk girl of Astrakhan                       78

    19. Welsh type of Montgomeryshire                                 79

    20. Kalmuk of Astrakhan                                           81

    21. Jew of Algiers                                                82

    22. Persian Hadjemi                                               83

    23. A, Skull with Inca bone; B, Malar bone divided in two; C,
    Superior part of femur, etc.                                      88

    24. Hottentot woman of Griqualand                                 94

    25. Brain with indication of the three “centres of projection” and
    the three “centres of association”                               102

    26. Dakota Indian gesture language                               129

    27. Writing by notches of the Laotians                           136

    28. Coloured prehistoric pebbles of the grotto of Mas-d’Azil
        (Ariège)                                                     137

    29. Journal of the voyage of an Eskimo of Alaska                 138

    30. Petition of Chippeway Indians to the President of the United
        States                                                       139

    31. Various signs of symbolic pictography                        140

    32. Paternoster in Mexican hieroglyphics                         140

    33. Ancient Chinese hieroglyphics                                141

    34. Method of fire-making by rubbing                             150

    35.   Do.          do.       sawing                              151

    36.   Do.          do.       twirling                            151

    37. Bark vessel, used by Iroquois Indians                        154

    38. Type of Iroquois earthen vessel                              154

    39. Making of pottery without wheel                              155

    40. Primitive harvest                                            156

    41. Hemispherical hut in straw of Zulu-Kafirs                    161

    42. Hut and granary of the Ovampos (S. Africa)                   162

    43. Summer tent of Tunguse-Manegres                              164

    44. “Gher” or tent of the Kalmuks of Astrakhan                   165

    45. Hexagonal house of non-roving Altaians                       166

    46. Kraal, or Kafir village, with defensive enclosure            167

    47. Zulu girl, with head-dress, necklace, belt, and chastity
        apron                                                        171

    48. Ufhtaradeka, typical Fuegian with mantle                     172

    49. Ainu woman, tattooed round the lips                          174

    50, 51. Foot of Chinese woman artificially deformed              175

    52. Native of the Department of Haute-Garonne                    177

    53. Dancing costume of natives of Murray Islands                 179

    54. Method of making stone tools by percussion                   185

    55. Method of flaking stone by pressure                          185

    56. Knife of chipped flint of the Hupa Indians                   186

    57. Kalmuk turning lathe with alternating rotatory movement      188

    58. Principle of tackle utilised by Eskimo, landing a walrus     190

    59. Dance of Australians during the Corroboree                   200

    60. Anthropomorph ornamental design of the Papuans of New
    Guinea                                                           201

    61, 62. Zoomorph ornamental designs on a club and a spatula      202

    63. Conventional representation of an alligator                  203

    64. Ornamental motive derived from the preceding design          203

    65. Ornamental designs of the Karayas                            204

    66. Bushman painting, representing the battle going in favour
    of the Bechuana                                                  205

    67. Symbolic adzes of Mangaia Island                             207

    68. “Sansa” or “Zimba,” a musical box of the Negroes             211

    69. “Marimba,” the Negro xylophone                               212

    70. Bushman playing on the “gora”                                213

    71. Detail of construction of the “gora”                         214

    72. Eskimo geographical map                                      226

    73. Chipped flint dagger of the Californian Indians              256

    74. Axe of the Banyai (Matabeleland)                             258

    75. Missile arms of the Australians                              260

    76. Throwing-stick of the Papuans of German New Guinea           261

    77. Different methods of arrow release                           265

    78. Australian shield in wood                                    267

    79. Indonesian shields                                           268

    80. Shield of Zulu-Kafirs                                        268

    81. Money of uncivilised peoples                                 272

    82. Method of tree-climbing in India                             276

    83. Malayo-Polynesian canoe with outrigger                       279

    84. Chellean flint implement, Saint-Acheul (Somme)               302

    85. Quaternary art (Magdalenian period)                          308

    86. Spy skull, first quaternary race                             311

    87. Chancelade skull, second quaternary race                     312

    88. Islander of Lewis (Hebrides)                                 319

    89, 90. Norwegian of South Osterdalen                       322, 323

    91. Young Sussex farmer                                          326

    92. Englishwoman of Plymouth                                     328

    93. Fisher people of Island of Aran (Ireland)                    330

    94. Young woman of Arles                                         331

    95, 96. Pure type of Highlander (clan Chattan)              332, 333

    97. Anglian type, common in north and north-east of England      336

    98. Frenchman of Ouroux (Morvan)                                 337

    99, 100. Dolichocephalic Frenchmen of Dordogne                   338

    101. Englishman (Gloucestershire)                                341

    102, 103. Russian carpenter, district of Pokrovsk           342, 343

    104, 105. Russian woman, district of Veréïa                 346, 347

    106. Cheremiss of Ural Mountains                                 350

    107, 108. Kundrof Tatar (Turkoman) of Astrakhan             352, 353

    109. Georgian Imer of Kutais                                     355

    110, 111. Chechen of Daghestan                                356, 357

    112. Skull of the _Pithecanthropus erectus_ (Dab.)               360

    113. Calvaria of _Pithecanthropus_, seen from above              361

    114. Polished stone axe found in Cambodia                        364

    115, 116. Tunguse hunter (Siberia) with ski and staff       368, 369

    117. Ainu of Yezo (Japan) with crown of shavings                 371

    118. Educated Chinaman of Manchu origin                          384

    119. Leao-yu-chow, Chinese woman                                 385

    120. Young Japanese women taking tea                             388

    121. Tong King artisan of Son-tai                                390

    122. Khamti of Lower Burma, Assam frontier                       393

    123. Black Sakai of Gunong-Inas (Perak, Malay Pen.)              396

    124. Negrito chief of Middle Andaman                             398

    125. Gurkha of the Kus or Khas tribe, Nepal                      403

    126. Group of Paniyan men and children of Malabar                405

    127. Young Irula girl                                            406

    128. Santal of the Bhagalpur Hills                               407

    129. An old Toda man of Nilgiri Hills                            412

    130. Group of Todas of Nilgiri Hills                             414

    131, 132. Singhalese of Candy, Ceylon                       416, 417

    133. Tutti, Veddah woman of the village of Kolonggala            418

    134. Natives of Mekran (Baluchistan)                             421

    135. Arts and crafts among the Kafirs                            430

    136. Tunisian Berber, Oasis type                                 433

    137. Trarza Moor of the Senegal                                  434

    138. Hamran Beja of Daghil tribe                                 437

    139. Yoro Combo, fairly pure Fulah of Kayor (Futa Jallon)        442

    140. Bonna M’Bané, Mandingan-Sossé                               448

    141. Catrai, Ganguela-Bantu                                      457

    142. Swazi-Bantu woman and girl                                  466

    143. N’Kon-yui, Bushman of the region of Lake Ngami              467

    144. Hova of Tananarivo                                          472

    145. Ambit, Sundanese of Java (Preanger prov.)                   476

    146. Natives of Livuliri (near Larantuka, Floris)                479

    147, 148. Buri, a Solorian of Adanara Island                480, 481

    149, 150. “Billy,” Queensland Australian                    484, 485

    151. Young Papuan woman of the Samarai people                    492

    152. Papuans of the Kerepunu tribe at Tamain-Hula (New Guinea)   496

    153. Woman of the Fuala clan (New Caledonia)                     498

    154, 155. Tahitian woman of Papeete                         502, 503

    156. Tahitian of Papeete                                         504

    157. West Greenland Eskimo                                       518

    158, 159. Gahhigué-Vatake, a Dakota-Siouan Indian           522, 523

    160. Woman of Wichita tribe, Pawnee Nation, Ind. Terr., U.S.     525

    161. Christian Apache Indian                                     529

    162. Young Creole woman of Martinique                            538

    163. Miztec Indian (Mexico)                                      539

    164. Miztec women (Mexico)                                       541

    165. Guaraunos chief, with his two wives                         548

    166. Guaraunos of the mouth of the Orinoco                       549

    167, 168. Kalina or Carib of Dutch Guiana                   554, 555

    169, 170. Miranha Indian of Rio Yapura                      558, 559

    171. Bakairi, Carib tribe of upper Xingu                         562

    172. Aramichaux Indian (Carib tribe of French Guiana)            566

    173. Bororo woman (unclassified tribe of Matto Grosso)           568

    174. Kamanakar Kipa, young Yahgan Fuegian girl                   574

    175. Tualanpintsis, Yahgan Fuegian, and his wife Ticoaeli        575


    /Map/ 1. Europe in the first glacial period                      303

      „   2. Approximate distribution of the races of Europe         327



THE RACES OF MAN.

INTRODUCTION.

ETHNIC GROUPS AND ZOOLOGICAL SPECIES.

    Difficulties in applying to Man the terms of zoological
    nomenclature--Criterion of species--Terms to give to the
    “Somatological Units” constituting the genus _Homo_--Monogenesis
    and Polygenesis--The “Ethnic Groups” are constituted by
    the different combinations of the “Somatological Units” or
    “Races”--Somatic characters and ethnic characters.


The innumerable groups of mankind, massed together or scattered,
according to the varying nature of the earth’s surface, are far from
presenting a homogeneous picture. Every country has its own variety
of physical type, language, manners, and customs. Thus, in order to
exhibit a systematic view of all the peoples of the earth, it is
necessary to observe a certain order in the study of these varieties,
and to define carefully what is meant by such and such a descriptive
term, having reference either to the physical type or to the social
life of men. This we shall do in the subsequent chapters as we proceed
to develop this slight sketch of the chief general facts of the
physical and psychical life of man, and of the most striking social
phenomena of the groups of mankind.

But there are some general terms which are of more importance than
others, and their meaning should be clearly understood from the first.
I refer to expressions like “people,” “nation,” “tribe,” “race,”
“species,” in short, all the designations of the different groupings,
real or theoretic, of human beings. Having defined them, we shall by so
doing define the object of our studies.

Since ethnography and anthropology began to exist as sciences, an
attempt has been made to determine and establish the great groups
amongst which humanity might be divided. A considerable diversity of
opinion, however, exists among leading scientific men not only as to
the number of these groups, of these “primordial divisions” of the
human race, but, above all, as to the very nature of these groups.
Their significance, most frequently, is very vaguely indicated.

In zoology, when we proceed to classify, we have to do with beings
which, in spite of slight individual differences, are easily grouped
around a certain number of types, with well-defined characters, called
“species.” An animal can always be found which will represent the
“type” of its species. In all the great zoological collections there
exist these “species-types,” to which individuals may be compared in
order to decide if they belong to the supposed species. We have then
in zoology a real substratum for the determination of species, those
primordial units which are grouped afterwards in genera, families,
orders, etc.

Is it the same for man? Whilst knowing that the zoological genus _Homo_
really exists quite distinct from the other genera of the animal
kingdom, there still arises the question as to where the substratum is
on which we must begin operations in order to determine the “species”
of which this genus is composed. The only definite facts before us are
these groups of mankind, dispersed over the whole habitable surface of
the globe, to which are commonly given the names of peoples, nations,
clans, tribes, etc. We have presented to us Arabs, Swiss, Australians,
Bushmen, English, Siouan Indians, Negroes, etc., without knowing if
each of these groups is on an equal footing from the point of view of
classification.

Do these real and palpable groupings represent unions of individuals
which, in spite of some slight dissimilarities, are capable of forming
what zoologists call “species,” “sub-species,” “varieties,” in the
case of wild animals, or “races” in the case of domestic animals? One
need not be a professional anthropologist to reply negatively to this
question. They are _ethnic groups_ formed by virtue of community of
language, religion, social institutions, etc., which have the power of
uniting human beings of one or several species, races, or varieties,[1]
and are by no means zoological species; they may include human beings
of one or of many species, races, or varieties.

Here, then, is the first distinction to make: the social groups that
we are to describe in this work under the names of clans, tribes,
nations, populations, and peoples, according to their numerical
importance and the degree of complication of their social life, are
formed for us by the union of individuals belonging usually to two,
three, or a greater number of “somatological units.” These units are
“theoretic types” formed of an aggregation of physical characters
combined in a certain way. The separate existence of these units may
be established by a minute analysis of the physical characters of
a great number of individuals taken haphazard in any given “ethnic
group.” Here are, then, entities, theoretic conceptions exactly like
“species” in zoology; only instead of having within our reach the
“types” of these species as in zoological collections, we are obliged
to rest content with approximations thereto, for it is a very rare
occurrence to meet with an individual representing the type of the
somatological unit to which he belongs. Most frequently we have to do
with subjects whose forms are altered by blendings and crossings, and
in whom, setting aside two or three typical traits, we find only a
confused mixture of characters presenting nothing striking. Ordinarily,
the more peoples are civilised the more they are intermixed within
certain territorial limits. Thus the number of “somatological units” is
so much the greater when the “ethnic groups” are more civilised, and
it is only among entirely primitive peoples that one may hope to find
coincidence between the two terms. In reality, those peoples are almost
undiscoverable who represent “somatological units” comparable to the
“species” of zoology.

But, it may be asked, do you believe that your “somatological units”
are comparable with “species”? Are they not simple “varieties” or
“races”?

Without wishing to enter into a discussion of details, it seems to me
that where the genus _Homo_ is concerned, one can neither speak of the
“species,” the “variety,” nor the “race” in the sense that is usually
attributed to these words in zoology or in zootechnics.

In effect, in these two sciences, the terms “species” and “variety” are
applied to wild animals living solely under the influence of nature;
whilst the term “race” is given in a general way to the groups of
domestic animals living under artificial conditions created by an alien
will, that of man, for a well-defined object.

Let us see to which of these two categories man, considered as an
animal, may be assimilated.

By this single fact, that even at the very bottom of the scale of
civilisation man possesses articulate speech, fashions tools, and
forms himself into rudimentary societies, he is emancipated from a
great number of influences which Nature exerts over the wild animal;
he lives, up to a certain point, in an artificial environment created
by himself. On the other hand, precisely because these artificial
conditions of life are not imposed upon him by a will existing outside
himself, because his evolution is not directed by a “breeder” or a
“domesticator,” man cannot be compared with domestic animals as regards
the modifications of his corporeal structure.

The data relating to the formation of varieties, species, and races
can therefore be applied to the morphological study of man only with
certain reservations.

This being established, let us bear in mind that even the distinction
between the species, the variety (geographical or otherwise), and the
race is anything but clearly marked. Besides, this is a question that
belongs to the domain of general biology, and it is no more settled in
botany or in zoology than in anthropology. The celebrated botanist,
Naegeli, has even proposed to suppress this distinction, and definitely
show the identical nature of all these divisions by instituting his
_great_ and _small species_.[2]

The idea of “species” must rest on the knowledge of two orders of
facts, the morphological resemblances of beings and the lineal
transmission of their distinctive characters. Here, in fact, the
formula of Cuvier is still in force to-day in science. “The species is
the union of individuals _descending one from the other or from common
parents_, and of those who resemble them as much as they resemble each
other.”[3] (I have italicised the passage relating to descent.) It is
necessary then that beings, in order to form a species, should be like
each other, but it is obvious that this resemblance cannot be absolute,
for there are not two plants or two animals in nature which do not
differ from each other by some detail of structure; the likeness or
unlikeness is then purely relative; it is bound to vary within certain
limits.

But what are these limits? Here we are on the verge of the
arbitrary, for there exists no fixed rule determining the point to
which individual unlikeness may go in order to be considered as
characteristic of a species. A difference which entitles one zoologist
to create a species hardly suffices, according to another, to
constitute a “variety,” a “sub-species,” or a “race.” As to the second
criterion of species drawn from the transmission and the descent of
characters, it is theoretic rather than practical. Without dwelling on
the numerous examples of “varieties” as fertile among themselves as
“species,”[4] let us ask ourselves how many zoologists or botanists
have verified experimentally the fertility of the species which they
have created. In the large majority of cases, the species of plants and
animals have been established solely from morphological characters,
very often from the examination of dead specimens, and without any
guarantee that the beings in question proceeded from common parents and
that when crossed they would be fertile or not.

In the case of man, as in that of the majority of plants and animals,
fertility or non-fertility among the different groups has not been
experimentally proved, to enable us to decide if they should be
called “races” or “species.” To a dozen facts in favour of one of the
solutions, and to general theories in regard to half-breeds, can be
opposed an equal number of facts, and the idea, not less general, of
reversion to the primitive type.[5] And again, almost all the facts in
question are borrowed from cross-breeding between the Whites and other
races. No one has ever tried cross-breeding between the Australians and
the Lapps, or between the Bushmen and the Patagonians, for example.
If certain races are indefinitely fertile among themselves (which has
not yet been clearly shown), it may be there are others which are not
so.[6] A criterion of descent being unobtainable, the question of the
rank to be assigned to the genus _Homo_ is confined to a morphological
criterion, to the differences in physical type.

According to some, these differences are sufficiently pronounced for
each group to form a “species”; according to others they are of such
a nature as only to form racial distinctions. Thus it is left to the
personal taste of each investigator what name be given to these.

We cannot do better than cite upon this point the opinion of a writer
of admitted authority. “It is almost a matter of indifference,” says
Darwin, “whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or
ranked as ‘species’ or ‘sub-species,’ but the latter term appears the
most appropriate.”[7] The word “race” having been almost universally
adopted nowadays to designate the different physical types of mankind,
I shall retain it in preference to that of “sub-species,” while
reiterating that there is no essential difference between these two
words and the word “species.”

From what has just been said, the question whether humanity forms a
single species divided into varieties or races, or whether it forms
several species, loses much of its importance.

The whole of this ancient controversy between monogenists and
polygenists seems to be somewhat scholastic, and completely sterile
and futile; the same few and badly established facts are always
reappearing, interpreted in such and such a fashion by each disputant
according to the necessities of his thesis, sometimes led by
considerations which are extra-scientific. Perhaps in the more or less
near future, when we shall have a better knowledge of present and
extinct races of man, as well as of living and of fossil animal species
most nearly related to man, we shall be able to discuss the question
of origin. At the present time we are confined to hypothesis without a
single positive fact for the solution of the problem. We have merely
to note how widely the opinions of the learned differ in regard to the
origin of race of certain domestic animals, such as the dog, the ox,
or the horse, to get at once an idea of the difficulty of the problem.
And yet, in these cases, we are dealing with questions much less
complicated and much more carefully studied.

Moreover, whether we admit variety, unity or plurality of species in
the genus _Homo_ we shall always be obliged to recognise the positive
fact of the existence in mankind of several somatological units having
each a character of its own, the combinations and the intermingling of
which constitute the different ethnic groups. Thus the monogenists,
even the most intractable, as soon as they have established
hypothetically a single species of man, or of his “precursor,” quickly
cause the species to evolve, under the influence of environment, into
three or four or a greater number of primitive “stocks,” or “types,”
or “races,”--in a word, into somatological units which, intermingling,
form “peoples,” and so forth.

We can sum up what has just been said in a few propositions. On
examining attentively the different “ethnic groups” commonly called
“peoples,” “nations,” “tribes,” etc., we ascertain that they are
distinguished from each other especially by their language, their mode
of life, and their manners; and we ascertain besides that the same
traits of physical type are met with in two, three, or several groups,
sometimes considerably removed the one from the other in point of
habitat. On the other hand, we almost always see in these groups some
variations of type so striking that we are led to admit the hypothesis
of the formation of such groups by the blending of several distinct
somatological units.

It is to these units that we give the name “races,” using the word in
a very broad sense, different from that given to it in zoology and
zootechnics. It is a sum-total of somatological characteristics once
met with in a real union of individuals, now scattered in fragments of
varying proportions among several “ethnic groups,” from which it can no
longer be differentiated except by a process of delicate analysis.

The differences between “races” are shown in the somatological
characteristics which are the resultant of the continual struggle
in the individual of two factors: variability, that is to say, the
production of the dissimilar; and heredity, that is to say, the
perpetuation of the similar. There are the differences in outer form,
in the anatomical structure, and in the physiological functions
manifested in individuals. Thus the study of these characters is
based on man considered as an _individual_ of a zoological group. On
the other hand, the differences between the ethnical groups are the
product of evolutions subject to other laws than those of biology--laws
still very dimly apprehended. They manifest themselves in ethnical,
linguistic, or social characteristics. The study of them is based on
the grouping of individuals in _societies_.

To study these two categories of characteristics, either in their
general aspect as a whole, or in describing successively the different
peoples, is to study mankind with the object of trying to assign the
limits to the “races” constituting the ethnical groups, and to sketch
the reciprocal relations and connections of these groups with each
other.

The science which concerns itself more especially with the
somatological characteristics of the genus _Homo_, whether considered
as a whole in his relation to other animals, or in his varieties,
bears the name of _anthropology_; that which deals with the ethnical
characteristics is called _ethnography_ in some countries and
_ethnology_ in others.

This latter science should concern itself with human societies under
all their aspects; but as history, political economy, etc., have
already taken possession of the study of civilised peoples, there only
remain for it the peoples without a history, or those who have not been
adequately treated by historians. However, there is a convergence of
characters in mankind, and we find even to-day the trace of savagery in
the most civilised peoples. Ethnical facts must not then be considered
separately. We must compare them either among different peoples, or,
down the course of the ages, in the same people, without concerning
ourselves with the degree of actual civilisation attained.

Certain authors make a distinction between ethnography and ethnology,
saying the first aims at describing peoples or the different stages
of civilisation, while the second should explain these stages and
formulate the general laws which have governed the beginning and
the evolution of such stages. Others make a like distinction in
anthropology, dividing it theoretically into “special” and “general,”
the one describing races, and the other dealing with the descent of
these races and of mankind as a whole.[8] But these divisions are
purely arbitrary, and in practice it is impossible to touch on one
without having given at least a summary of the other. The two points
of view, descriptive and speculative, cannot be treated separately.
A science cannot remain content with a pure and simple description
of unconnected facts, phenomena, and objects. It requires at least a
classification, explanations, and, afterwards, the deduction of general
laws. In the same way, it would be puerile to build up speculative
systems without laying a solid foundation drawn from the study of
facts. Already the distinction between the somatic and the ethnic
sciences is embarrassing; thus psychological and linguistic phenomena
refer as much to the individual as to societies. They might, strictly
speaking, be the subject of a special group of sciences. In the same
way, the facts drawn from the somatic and ethnic studies of extinct
races are the subject of a separate science--Palethnography, otherwise
Prehistory, or Prehistoric Archæology.

The object of this book being the description of ethnical groups
now existing on the earth, and of the races which compose them, the
title of “Ethnography” might fitly be given to it in conformity with
the classifications which have just been mentioned. Nevertheless, it
contains in its early chapters a summary, as it were, of what these
classifications style “General Anthropology and Ethnology,” for the
descriptions of the several peoples can scarcely be understood if we
have not in the first instance given at least a general idea of the
somatic as well as the ethnic characters which serve to distinguish
them.



CHAPTER I.

_SOMATIC CHARACTERS._

DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS OF MAN AND APES.

    Monkeys and anthropoid apes--Erect attitude--Curvature of the
    spine--Brain--Skull--Teeth--Other characters--Differences less
    accentuated in the fœtus and the young than in the adult.

DISTINCTIVE MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS OF HUMAN RACES.

    _Stature_: Individual limits--Dwarfs and giants--Average stature
    of different populations--Influence of environment--Differences
    according to sex--Reconstitution from the long bones--_Teguments_:
    Skin--Hair of head and body--Four principal types--Microscopic
    structure--Correlation between the hair of the head and the
    pilosity of the body--_Pigmentation_: Colouring of the skin, the
    eyes, and the hair--Changes in the pigment.


_Distinctive Characters of Man and Apes._

The physical peculiarities distinguishing man from the animals most
nearly allied to him in organisation, and those which differentiate
human races one from another, are almost never the same. I shall in
a few words point out the former, dwelling at greater length on the
latter, which have a more direct connection with our subject.

From the purely zoological point of view man is a placental or
_Eutherian_ mammal, because he has breasts, because he is more or less
covered with hair, because his young, nourished in the womb of the
mother through the medium of the placenta, come fully formed into the
world, without needing to be protected in a pouch or fold of skin, as
in the case of the marsupial mammals (implacentals or _Metatherians_),
or completing their development in a hatched egg, as in the case of the
monotremata or _Prototherians_.

In this sub-class of the placental mammals, man belongs to the order
of the _Primates_ of Linnæus, in view of certain peculiarities of his
physical structure--the pectoral position of the breasts, the form,
number, and arrangement of the teeth in the jaw, etc.

The order of the Primates comprises five groups or families: the
Marmosets (_Hapalidæ_), the _Cebidæ_, the _Cercopithecidæ_, the
anthropoid apes (_Simidæ_), and lastly, the _Hominidæ_.[9] Putting
aside the first two groups of Primates, which inhabit the New World,
and which are distinguished from the three other groups by several
characters, let us concern ourselves with the apes of the Old World and
the _Hominians_. Let us at the outset remember that the monkeys and the
anthropoid apes exhibit the same arrangement of teeth, or, as it is
termed, the same “dental formula,” as man. This formula, a character of
the first importance in the classification of mammals, is summed up,
as we know, in the following manner: four incisors, two canines, four
premolars, and six molars in each jaw.

The _Cercopithecidæ_ walk on their four paws, and this four-footed
attitude is in harmony with the structure of their spine, in which the
three curves, cervical, dorsal, and lumbar, so characteristic in man,
are hardly indicated; thus the spine seems to form a single arch from
the head to the tail. As to this last appendage, it is never wanting
in these monkeys, which are also provided with buttock or ischiatic
callosities, and often with cheek-pouches.

The _anthropoid apes_ form a zoological group of four genera only.
Two of these genera, the gorilla and the chimpanzee, inhabit tropical
Africa; the two others, the orang-utan and the gibbon, are confined to
the south-east of Asia, or, to be more precise, to Indo-China, and the
islands of Sumatra and Borneo. We can even reduce the group in question
to three genera only, for many naturalists consider the gibbon as an
intermediate form between the anthropoid apes and the monkeys.[10]
The anthropoids have a certain number of characters in common which
distinguish them from the monkeys. Spending most of their life in
trees, they do not walk in the same way as the macaques or the baboons.
Always bent (except the gibbon), they move about with difficulty on
the ground, supporting themselves not on the palm of the hand, as do
the monkeys, but on the back of the bent phalanges. They have no tail
like the other apes, nor have they cheek-pouches to serve as provision
bags. Finally, they are without those callosities on the posterior part
of the body which are met with in a large number of _Cercopithecidæ_,
attaining often enormous proportions, as for instance, among the
_Cynocephali_. The gibbon alone has the rudiments of ischiatic
callosities.

If we compare man with these apes, which certainly of all animals
resemble him most, the following principal differences may be noted.
Instead of holding himself in a bending position, and walking supported
on his arms, man walks in an erect attitude--the truly biped mode of
progress. In harmony with this attitude, his vertebral column presents
three curves, cervical, dorsal, and lumbar, very definitely indicated,
while they are only faintly marked in the anthropoids, and almost
absent in the monkeys. This character, moreover, is graduated in man;
in civilised man the curvature in question is more marked than among
savages. There is no need, however, to see in that any “character of
superiority.” It is quite simply an acquired formation; it is more
marked in civilised man just because it is one of the conditions
of the stability of the vertebral column, a stability so essential
in sedentary life, while a curvature less marked gives much more
flexibility to the movements, at once so numerous and varied, of the
savage.[11]

But to what does man owe this erect and biped attitude? Professor
Ranke has put forward on this subject a very ingenious hypothesis.[12]
According to him, the excessive development of the brain, while
conducive to enlargement of the skull, would at the same time determine
the change of attitude in a being so imperfectly and primitively
biped as was our progenitor. In this way would be assured the perfect
equilibrium on the vertebral column of the head, made heavy by the
brain. Without wishing to discuss this theory, let me say that several
peculiarities in the anatomical structure of man, compared with those
of anthropoid apes and other mammals, give it an air of plausibility.

In fact, while with the majority of mammals the equilibrium of the head
is assured by very powerful _cervical ligaments_, and with anthropoid
apes by very strong muscles, extending from the occiput to the spinous
processes of the cervical vertebræ, twice as long as those of man
(Figs. 1 and 2, _a_), which prevent the massive muzzle from falling
upon the chest and pressing on the organs of respiration,[13] we see
nothing of a similar kind in the genus _Homo_--no cervical ligament,
and no powerful muscles at the nape of the neck. The very voluminous
brain-case of man suffices to counterbalance the weight of the much
reduced maxillary part, almost without the aid of muscles or special
ligaments, and the head balances itself on the vertebral column (Fig.
2).

This equilibrium being almost perfect, necessitates but very thin and
flexible ligaments in the articulation of the two occipital condyles
of the skull on the atlas. The slight muscles to be found behind the
articulation are there only to counterbalance the trifling tendency of
the head to fall forward.

In connection with this point, we must remember that Broca and several
other anthropologists see, on the contrary, in the biped attitude, one
of the conditions of the development of the brain, as that attitude
alone assures the free use of the hands and extended range of vision.
Somewhat analogous ideas have lately been put forward by men of science
of the first rank like Munro and Turner.[14]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 1.--Skull of Gorilla, one-fourth actual size.

_a_, spinous processes of cervical vertebræ; _b_, cranial crests,
sagittal and occipital.]

In any case, let us remember in regard to this point, that at birth man
still bears traces of his quadrupedal origin; he has then scarcely any
curves in the vertebral column. The cervical curve only shows itself
at the time when the child begins to “hold up its head,” in the sitting
posture to which it gradually becomes accustomed--that is to say about
the third month. On the other hand, as soon as the child begins to walk
(the second year), the prevertebral muscles and those of the loins act
upon the lower regions of the spine and produce the lumbar curve.

Thus, perhaps, the chief fact which determines the erect attitude so
characteristic of man is the excessive development of his brain, and
the consequent development of the brain-case.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 2.--Skull of Man, one-fourth natural size.

_a_, spinous processes of cervical vertebræ.]

It is in this excessive development of the brain that the principal
difference between man and the anthropoid apes must be sought. We know
in fact from the researches of numerous anthropologists (see Chapter
II.) that the average weight of a man’s brain in European races (the
only races sufficiently known in this respect) is 1360 grammes, and
that of a woman’s is 1211 grammes. These figures may rise to 1675
grammes in certain instances, and fall to 1025 in others.[15] Brains
weighing less than 1000 grammes are generally considered as abnormal
and pathological.

On the other hand, the brains of the great anthropoid apes (gorilla,
chimpanzee, and orang-utan), the only ones comparable to man in
regard to weight of body, have an average weight of 360 grammes. This
weight may rise to 420 grammes in certain isolated cases, but never
exceeds this figure. And even in these cases, with the orang-utan, for
example,[16] it only represents one half per cent. of the total weight
of the body, while with European man the proportion is that of at least
three per cent., according to Boyd and Bischoff.[17]

The excessive development of the brain and of the brain-case which
encloses it is correlative, in the case of man, with the reduction of
the facial part of the skull. In this respect the difference is also
appreciable between him and the animals. In order to convince ourselves
of this we have only to compare the human skull with that of any ape
whatever, placing both in the same horizontal plane approximately
parallel to the line of vision.[18]

Viewed from above, or by the _norma verticalis_, as the anthropologists
say, the bony structure of the human head leaves nothing of its
facial part to be seen (Fig. 11); at the very most may be observed,
in certain rare instances, the lower part of the nasal bones, or the
alveolar portion of the upper jaw (Fig. 10). On the other hand, with
apes, anthropoid or otherwise, almost all the facial part is visible.
Examined in profile (_norma lateralis_), the bony structure of the
heads of man and monkeys presents the same differences.

With the anthropoid apes, the facial portion forming a veritable muzzle
rises, massive and bestial, _in advance_ of the skull, while with
man, very reduced in size, it is placed _below_ the skull. The facial
angle, by means of which the degree of protuberance of the muzzle may,
to a certain point, be measured, exhibits notable differences when
the skulls of man and animals are compared in this particular. On
continuing the examination of the profiles of the bony structures of
the two heads in question, we notice also the slight development of the
facial part of the malar bone in man, as compared with its temporal
part, and the contrary in the ape; as well as the difference in the
size of the mastoid processes, very strong in man, very much diminished
proportionately to the dimensions of the head in the anthropoid apes.

Seen from the front (_norma facialis_), the human skull presents a
peculiarity which is not observed in any anthropoid skull, namely,
that the top of the nasal opening is always situated higher than the
lowest point of the lower edge of the orbits (Fig. 12); while in the
anthropoid apes it is always found below this point. Lastly, if the
skulls in question, always placed on the horizontal plane, are compared
from behind (_norma occipitalis_), it will be noted that on the human
skull the occipital foramen is not seen at all; on the skulls of
monkeys it is plainly visible, if not wholly, at least partly.[19]

All the other characters which distinguish man from the anthropoid apes
are only the consequences of the great enlargement of his brain-case,
at the expense of the maxillary part of the face, and of the erect
attitude and biped progression.

Let us take, for instance, those enormous crests which give an aspect
at once so strange and horrible to the skulls of the adult males of the
gorilla and the chimpanzee. These projections are due to the extreme
development of the masticatory muscles which move the heavy jaws and
of the cervical muscles, ensuring the equilibrium of the head. Not
having found sufficient room for their insertion on the too small
brain-case, they have, so to speak, compelled the bony tissue in the
course of development to deposit itself as an eminence or crest at
the point where the two lines of insertion meet on the crown of the
head. The best proof of this is that the young have no crests, and
that on their skulls the distance between the temporal lines marking
the insertion of the temporal muscles is almost as great as it is in
man. In the gorillas, it is the same with the enormous spines of the
cervical vertebræ, to which are fixed the muscular masses of the nape
of the neck. These crests and these processes being less developed
in the orang-utan, its head is not so well balanced, and its heavy
muzzle falls on its chest. So one may suppose that the laryngeal
sacs, considerably larger than those of the gorilla, serve him as
air-cushions to lessen the enormous weight of the jaw resting on the
trachea. The gibbon, better adapted to biped progression, and having a
less heavy jaw, has no skull-crests. Further, with it, the ventricles
of Morgagni, that is to say, the little pouches situated behind the
vocal cord in the larynx, never develop (except in one species,
_Hylobates syndactylus_) into enormous air-sacs as in the orang-utan.
In this respect, the gibbon approaches much nearer to man than the
other anthropoids, but it is also more distinguished from him than the
others by the excessive length of the arms, or, to be more exact, of
the pectoral limbs. It holds itself erect and walks almost as well as
man, aided by the long arms and hands which touch the ground even when
the animal is standing quite upright, and which he uses as a pendulum
when walking. In the case of three other anthropoids, which bend
forward in walking, the pectoral limb is shorter than in the gibbon but
longer than in man.

The first toe, opposable in the anthropoid apes and unopposable in
man, the relative length of the toes and fingers generally, etc., only
constitute modifications correlative to the erect attitude and biped
movement of man, and to his terrestrial habitat as opposed to the
arboreal habitat of the anthropoid apes, and to their biped movement
necessitating the support of the hands.

The differences in the form and size of the teeth are also the
consequence of the inequality of the development of the maxillary part
of the face in man, and in the apes in general.

The size of the teeth in proportion to that of the body is less in man
than in the apes (Figs. 1 and 2). Putting aside the incisors and the
canines, the size of the molars and the premolars of these animals is
larger in relation to the length of the facial portion of the skull.
The “dental index” of Flower, that is to say the centesimal relation of
the total length of the row of molars and premolars to the length of
the naso-basilar line (from the nasal spine to the most advanced point
of the occipital foramen), is always greater in the anthropoid apes
than in man; in the latter it is never above 47.5, while it is 48 in
the chimpanzee, 58 in the orang, and 63 in the gorilla.

As to the arrangement of the teeth on the alveolar arch, with man they
are in a compact line forming a continuous series without any notable
projection of any one tooth above the common level; while in all the
apes is observed an interval (_diastema_) between the canines and the
lateral incisors of the upper jaw, and between the canines and the
first premolars of the lower jaw. These gaps receive in each jaw the
projecting part of the opposite canine.

Like the anthropoid apes, man has five tubercles in the lower molars,
while the monkeys have in general only four. This rule admits,
however, of numerous exceptions: very often the fifth posterior
tubercle is wanting in the two last molars in man; on the other
hand, it is regularly found in the last molar in certain kinds of
monkeys (_Cynocephali_, _Semnopitheci_). As to the wisdom tooth, in
certain pithecoid apes (_Cynocephali_, _Semnopitheci_) it is greater
in size than the anterior molars; whilst in certain others, like the
_Cercopitheci_, it is much less than the two first molars. With the
anthropoid apes this tooth is of the same size as the other molars or
a little smaller, and it is generally the same with man, though in
somewhat frequent cases it is entirely wanting. The dental arch is
different as regards form in man and in apes. In man it has a tendency
towards the parabolic and elliptical form, whilst in apes it usually
takes the form of U.

It should be noted that all the characters that distinguish man from
the anthropoid apes have a tendency to become more marked with the
development of civilisation and life in a less natural environment, or
artificially modified, as we have already seen in regard to the curves
of the vertebral column. Thus the absence of the fifth tubercle in the
lower molars has been more often noted in European races (29 times out
of 51, according to Hamy) than with Negroes and Melanesians. The wisdom
tooth seems to be in a state of retrogressive evolution among several
populations. Especially in the white races it is nearly always smaller
than the other molars; the number of the tubercles is reduced to three
instead of four or five; very often in the lower jaw it remains in its
alveola and never comes through.

In the same way the little toe tends, in the higher races (perhaps
owing to tight boots), to become atrophied and formed of but two
phalanges instead of three. Pfitzner has noted this reduction in thirty
feet out of a hundred and eleven that he examined.[20]

It is perhaps in similar retrogressive evolutions due to the “social
environment” that we must seek the explanation of a great number of
characters of “inferiority” and “superiority,” so called, of certain
races.

The difference between man and the ape in regard to teguments is
not so appreciable as might be thought. Man comes into the world
covered almost entirely with _lanugo_ or short fine hair. This hair
is afterwards replaced in early infancy by permanent hair which only
occupies certain parts of the body. Primitive man, it may be presumed,
was entirely covered with hair, except perhaps on the front part of
the trunk, where natural selection in the struggle with parasites
(infesting that warm part of the mother’s body in contact with the
young when being suckled) would soon cause the disappearance of the
hair from that place, as indeed we see in apes.[21] It is curious
to observe in this respect that the disposition of the hair of the
arms in man is far from recalling that of the anthropoid apes, as
Darwin thought, but rather resembles the disposition observed among
the monkeys. In fact, instead of being directed upwards towards the
bend of the elbow, this hair is turned downwards towards the wrist in
the higher half of the arm, and transversely in its lower half. The
anthropoid apes being accustomed to cover the head with their arms,
or to keep them above their head so as to cling to the branches of
the trees on which they spend their life, the hairs may have taken in
this case an opposite direction to that of the primitive type of the
Primates by the simple effect of gravity.[22]

Space does not permit us to pass in review several other characters
distinguishing man from the anthropoid apes: absence of certain muscles
(_acromiotrachelian_, etc.) in the former, simplicity of the cerebral
folds in the latter, the absence of the lobulation of the liver and
that of the penile bone in the former and their presence in some of the
anthropoid apes, etc.

Let me say in conclusion that all these distinctions are only very
marked when adult individuals are compared, for they become accentuated
with age. The fœtus of the gorilla at five months bears a very close
resemblance to the human fœtus of the same age. A young gorilla
and a young chimpanzee, by their globular skull, by their not very
prominent muzzle, and by other traits, remind one of young Negroes. In
comparing the skulls of gorillas, from the fœtal state through all
the stages of growth to the adult state, we can follow step by step the
transformation of a face almost human into a muzzle of the most bestial
aspect, as a result of the excessive development of the face in front
and below in the anthropoid ape, and the growth of the skull upward
and behind in man, as if these parts moved in different directions in
relation to a central point in the interior of the skull near to the
_sella turcica_.[23]


_Distinctive Characters of Human Races._

In treatises on anthropology, anatomy, and physiology will be found
all the information wished for on the different somatic characters of
man, as well as on their variations according to sex, age, and race. It
would be exceeding the limits of our subject were I to describe here,
one by one, all the anatomical or morphological characters drawn from
the bony, muscular, nervous, and other systems of which the human body
is composed. We shall only pass in review the characters which possess
a real importance in the differentiation of races. These are much less
numerous than is generally supposed, and belong for the most part to
the category of characters that are observed in the living subject.
It is generally believed that the sole concern of anthropology is the
description of skulls. This is one of the common errors of which there
are so many current among the general public on scientific subjects.
To be sure, the skull, and especially the head, of the living subject
furnish the principal characters which differentiate races, but there
exist several others, without a knowledge of which it is difficult to
direct one’s steps in the midst of the diversity of forms presented by
the human body according to race. We distinguish in general two kinds
of somatic characters: (1) those dealing with the form and structure of
the body--morphological characters; and (2) those which are connected
with its different functions--physiological characters, with which we
will include psychological and pathological characters.

We shall first examine the morphological characters, beginning with
those furnished to us by the body as a whole--the stature, the nature
of the tegument (the skin and hair), and its colouring. We shall
afterwards pass to an examination of the morphology of the head, and
the different parts of the body, with their bony framework (skull and
skeleton). We shall complete this brief account by a glance at the
internal organs, muscles, brain, viscera.

_Stature._--Of all the physical characters which serve to distinguish
races, stature is perhaps that which has hitherto been regarded as
eminently variable. It has been said that not only does stature change
with age and sex, but that it varies also under the influence of
external agencies. These variations are unquestionable, but it must
be remarked that they are produced in a similar way in all races, and
cannot exceed certain limits imposed by race.

Even from birth stature varies. Setting aside individual variations,
the new-born are on an average a little taller, for example, in
Paris (499 millim. for boys) than in St. Petersburg (477 millim.).
Unfortunately we have hardly any data in regard to this important
question for the non-European populations. Here in a tabulated form is
the average height of the new-born of different populations, so far as
information has been obtainable.


AVERAGE STATURE.

    -----------------+----------------+----------------+------------
                     |    /Boys/.     |     /Girls/.   |
    /Populations/.   +-------+--------+-------+--------+ /Name of/
                     |Millim.|Inches. |Millim.|Inches. | /Observer/.
    -----------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+------------
    Annamese         |  474  | 18.49  |  464  | 18.10  | Mondière.
    Russians of      |       |        |       |        |
      St. Petersburg |  477  | 18.60  |  473  | 18.45  | Mies.
    Germans          |       |        |       |        |
      of Cologne     |  486  | 18.95  |  484  | 18.88  | Mies.
    Americans        |       |        |       |        |
      of Boston      |  490  | 19.27  |  482  | 18.80  | Bowditch.
    English          |  496  | 19.35  |  491  | 19.31  | C. Roberts.
    French           |       |        |       |        |
      of Paris       |  499  | 19.52  |  492  | 19.35  | Mies.
    -----------------+-------+--------+-------+--------+------------

According to this table there would also be from the time of birth an
inequality of stature of the two sexes; boys exceed girls by a figure
which varies from 2 to 10 millim., that is to say on an average half
a centim. (less than a quarter of an inch). The data relating to
different races are insufficient; it may be remarked, however, that
with people very low in stature, like the Annamese (1 m. 58, or 5 feet
2 inches), on the average the new-born are also shorter than those
of people of greater stature, as, for instance, the English or the
inhabitants of the United States. The French (average height 5 feet 5
inches) appear to be an exception to this rule.

We shall examine at greater length in Chapter IV. increase of stature
in connection with all the phenomena of growth. Let me for the present
say that as regards man, the age of 18 to 25 years, according to race,
may be considered as the practical limit of this growth. In order to
make a useful comparison of statures of different populations, we
should only take, then, adults above these ages.

It must be said on this point that the greater part of the reliable
information which we possess concerning stature relates solely to
men, and among these, more especially to conscripts or soldiers. And
it has often been objected that the figures in documents furnished in
connection with the recruiting of armies do not represent the true
height of any given population, for the conscripts, being in general
from 20 to 21 years of age, have not yet reached the limit of growth.

This is true in certain cases; for example, when we have the
measurements of all conscripts, who, in fact, grow from 1 to 2
centimetres during their military service; but when we have only the
measurements of those enrolled, that is to say only of men above the
standard height (and that is most frequently the case), the question
presents a different aspect. The average height of this picked
section of the population, higher by 1 to 2 centimetres than that of
men of their age in general, may be considered (as I have elsewhere
shown[24]) to represent the average stature of the whole number of
adult males of any given population. We may then, while making certain
reservations, take the height of those enrolled (but not that of all
the conscripts) as representing the height of the adults of any given
population.

The individual limits between which the height varies are very wide.
It is admitted in general that the limits of height in the normal man
may vary from 1 m. 25 (4 feet 1 inch) to 1 m. 99 (6 feet 6-3/4 inches).
Below 1 m. 25 begins a certain abnormal state, often pathological,
called Dwarfism. Above 2 m. we have another corresponding state called
Giantism. Dwarfs may be 38 cent. high (15 inches), like the little
feminine dwarf Hilany Agyba of Sinai (Joest), and giants as high as 2
m. 83 (9 feet 5 inches), like the Finn Caïanus (Topinard).[25]

Dwarfism may be the result of certain pathological states
(microcephaly, rickets, etc.), as it may be equally the result of
an exceeding slowness of growth.[26] In the same way giantism is
often seen associated with a special disease called acromegaly,
but most frequently it is produced by an excessive growth. In any
case, exceptional statures, high or low, are abnormal phenomena, the
acknowledged sterility of dwarfs and giants being alone sufficient to
prove this.

Extreme statures which it is agreed to call normal, those of 1 m. 25
and 1 m. 99, are very rare. One might say that, in general, statures
below 1 m. 35 and above 1 m. 90 are exceptions. Thus in the extensive
American statistics,[27] based on more than 300,000 subjects, but one
giant (above 2 m.) is met with out of 10,000 subjects examined, and
hardly five individuals in 1000 taller than 1 m. 90 (75 inches). Again,
in the statistics of the Committee of the British Association,[28]
which embrace 8,585 subjects, only three individuals in a thousand
have been found taller than 1 m. 90. Yet in these two cases,
populations of a very high stature (1 m. 72 on an average) were being
dealt with. If we turn to a population lower in stature, for instance
the Italian, we find only one subject 1 m. 90 or above in height in
7000 examined, according to the statistics of Pagliani.[29] In the same
way, low statures under 1 m. 35 (53 inches) are met with only once
in every 100,000 cases among the subjects examined by the American
Commission, and not once among 8,585 inhabitants of the United Kingdom;
even in a population low in stature, like the Italians, only three such
in every 1000 subjects examined are to be found. We do not possess a
sufficient number of figures to be able to affirm that among all the
populations of the globe the instances of all these extreme statures
are exceptional, but what we know leads us to suppose that it is so,
and that the limits of normal stature in man are between 1 m. 35 and 1
m. 90.

The figures of individual cases are much less interesting than the
averages of the different populations, that is to say the height
obtained by dividing the sum of the statures of individuals by the
number of subjects measured. On comparing these averages it becomes
possible to form a clear idea of the difference existing among the
various peoples. But here there is an observation to make.

The data of this kind published up to the present in the majority
of books may often lead to error. In fact, as a general rule they
give only the average height without stating the number of subjects
measured. Very often it is only the rough guess of a traveller who has
not even measured at all the populations of which he speaks. In other
cases we have averages drawn from the measurements of two, three, or
four subjects, which are evidently insufficient for a standard which
varies so much in one individual and another, and even in the same
individual according to the hour of the day.

We know, in fact, that man measures one or two centimetres more
on rising in the morning than on going to bed at night, when
the fibro-cartilaginous discs situated between the vertebræ are
compressed, more closely packed, and the vertebral column is more bent.
Unscrupulous conscripts whose stature is near the regulation limit know
perfectly well that if the day before the official examination they
carry heavy loads, they compress their intervertebral discs so that
their height is sometimes diminished by three centimetres.

It is necessary then, in order to avoid error, not only to have
measurements taken from adult subjects, but also from several series
containing a great number of these subjects. Calculation and inference
have shown us that it is necessary to have at least a series of one
hundred individuals to guarantee the exact figure of the height of a
population but slightly blended. Series of 50 to 100 individuals may
still furnish occasionally good indications, and series of 25 to 50
individuals an approximation; but with series under 25 individuals
doubt begins and the figures are often most deceptive.

I have brought together and grouped in the table at the end of
this volume (Appendix I.) average statures calculated in series of
twenty-five individuals or more. These series have been based on the
collation of hundreds of documents, of which limits of space prevent a
full enumeration.

An examination of our table shows that the extreme averages of
different populations fluctuate, in round figures, from 1 m. 38 (4
ft. 6 in.) with the Negrillo Akkas, to 1 m. 79 (5 ft. 10.5 in.) with
the Scots of Galloway.[30] But if we set aside the pigmy tribe of the
Akka, quite exceptional as regards stature, as well as the Scots of
Galloway, and even the Scots of the north in general (1 m. 78), who
likewise form a group entirely apart, we arrive at the extreme limits
of stature, varying from 1465 mm. with the Aeta or Negritoes of the
Philippines, and 1746 mm. with the Scots in general. In round figures,
then, we can recognise statures of 1 m. 46 (4 feet 9.5 inches) and
1 m. 75 (5 feet 9 inches) as the extreme limits of averages in the
different populations of the globe. The medium height between these
extremes is 1 m. 61, but if we put on one side the exceptional group
of Negritoes (Akka, Aeta, Andamanese, and Sakai), we shall note that
the rest of mankind presents statures which ascend by degrees, almost
uninterruptedly, from millimetre to millimetre between 1 m. 54 and 1
m. 75, which makes the average 1 m. 65 (5 feet 5 inches), as Topinard
has discovered.[31] Topinard has likewise proposed the division of
statures, since universally adopted, into four categories, viz.: short
statures, under 1 m. 60; statures under the average, between 1 m. 60
and 1 m. 649; statures above the average, between 1 m. 65 and 1 m. 699;
and lastly, high statures, 1 m. 70 and over.

Our table shows conclusively that there are many more populations
(almost double the number) whose stature is above or under the average,
than populations of a short or high stature.

Short stature is rare in Africa, being found only among the Negrillo
pigmies and Bushmen; in South America a few tribes of low stature
are also met with; but the true home of low stature populations is
Indo-China, Japan, and the Malay Archipelago. In the remaining portion
of Asia this low stature is only met with again in Western Siberia, and
among the tribes called Kols and Dravidians in India.

Statures under the average predominate in the rest of Asia (with the
exception of the populations to the north of India and anterior Asia)
and in Eastern and Southern Europe, while statures above the average
comprise Irano-Hindu populations, the Afrasian Semites, the inhabitants
of Central Europe, as well as the Melanesians and Australians.

Thus high stature is plainly limited to Northern Europe, to North
America, to Polynesia, and especially to Africa, where it is met with
as well among Negroes as among Ethiopians.

What is the influence of environment on stature? This is one of the
most controverted questions. Since the time of Villermé the statement
has been repeated in a variety of ways that well-being was favourable
to growth and increase in stature, and that hardship stunted growth.
There are facts which seem to prove this. In a population supposed
to be formed of a mixture of many races, the well-fed upper classes
appear to possess a higher stature than the lower classes; thus, while
the English of the liberal professions are 69.14 inches (1757 mm.) in
height, the workmen of the same nation are only 65.7 inches (1705
mm.).[32] But can we not likewise adduce here the influence of race?
That predominating in the aristocracy and well-to-do classes does not,
perhaps, predominate in the working classes. Beddoe[33] and others
have remarked that the stature of miners is lower than that of the
population around them; in the same way, workmen in shops and factories
are inferior in height to those who labour in the open air, and this
in Belgium (Houzé) as well as in England (Beddoe, Roberts) or Russia
(Erisman, Anuchin).[34] According to Collignon,[35] the populations
of Normandy and Brittany living in the neighbourhood of railways and
high-roads are superior in height to those living in out-of-the-way
places. He concludes from this that the material conditions of
life being improved since the formation of roads, the stature of
the population has increased. According to Ammon and Lapouge, the
population of the towns in France and Southern Germany are taller in
stature than those of the country, because of the migration towards
urban centres of the tall dolichocephalic fair race which they call
_Homo Europeus_. However, Ranke observed just the opposite, and there
are other objections to be raised against this theory, based on the
data of recruiting. These town-dwellers of high stature are perhaps
only conscripts too quickly developed; town life accelerates growth,
and town-dwellers have nearly reached the limit of their height while
dwellers in villages have not finished growing. This is so true that
in countries where statistics have been taken of the civic population,
as in England for example, the population of the towns is shorter in
stature than that of the country. Beddoe explains this fact by the bad
hygienic conditions in towns, the want of exercise and drinking habits
of dwellers in cities.[36]

To conclude, the influence of environment cannot be denied in many
cases: it may raise or lower stature, especially by stimulating or
retarding and even arresting growth; but it is not demonstrated that
such a change can be perpetuated by hereditary transmission and become
permanent. The primordial characteristics of race seem always to get
the upper hand, and the modifications produced by environment can alter
the stature of the race only within very restricted limits. Thus miners
of a high stature like the Scotch, for example, while shorter than
the Scotch of the well-to-do classes, will be still taller than the
individuals of the well-to-do classes in, for example, Spain or Italy,
and much more so than those of Japan (1 m. 59). Stature is truly then a
character of race, and a very persistent one.

So far I have spoken only of the height of men. That of women (as
regards adult women of seventeen to twenty-three years of age,
according to race) is always lower than the height of men, but by how
much? Tentatively, Topinard gave the figure 12 centimetres as the
general difference between the stature of the two sexes in all races.
The data for the height of women being very scarce, I have only been
able to bring together thirty-five series of measurements of women
comprising each more than fifteen individuals, for comparison with
series of measurements of men.

It follows from this slight inquiry that in twenty cases out of
thirty-five, that is to say, almost two-thirds, the difference in
height between the two sexes in any given population hardly varies more
than from 7 to 13 centimetres (3 to 5 inches); fourteen times out of
thirty-five it only varies from 11 to 13 centimetres (4.5 to 5 inches),
so that the figure of 12 centimetres (5 inches) may be accepted as the
average. Besides, the difference does not appear to change according to
the average stature, more or less high, of the race: it is almost the
same for the Tahitians and the Maricopas, who are tall, as it is for
the Samoyeds and the Caribs, who are short.[37]

Thus, then, in a general way, the categories of statures--tall, short,
etc.--for women will be comprised within the same limits already
indicated for man, only reduced by 12 centimetres for each category.
Thus, high statures for women will begin at 1 m. 58 instead of 1 m. 70;
short statures under 1 m. 48 instead of 1 m. 60.

The stature of a living man is naturally higher than that of his
skeleton, but what the difference is is not exactly known. It can
hardly, however, exceed 2 or 3 centimetres, according to Topinard,
Rollet, and Manouvrier.

By means of measurements of the long bones of the limbs (femur,
humerus, etc.), the height of the skeleton of which they form part may
be approximately calculated. For this purpose we make use of Rollet’s
formula,[38] according to which the length of the femur must be
multiplied by 3.66 for the height of man, and by 3.71 for the height
of woman, or multiply the length of the humerus by 5.06 or by 5.22,
according to sex. But this formula is only applicable to subjects
whose stature is near the average, 1 m. 65. In the generality of
cases we must substitute for it more exact calculations by the help
of Manouvrier’s tables.[39] It is by this means that Rahon[40] has
been able to determine approximately the height of the prehistoric
populations of France, which will be dealt with in Chapter IX.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 3.--Microscopic section (partly schematic) of
skin and of hair: A, of a European; B, of a Negro.

_c.c._ horny layer or cuticle and _c.p._ pigmented layer (rete
Malpighii) of the epidermis; /D/. corium; _g.su._ sweat gland; _c.e._
excretory duct; _pa._ hair papilla, and _fo._ hair follicle; _m._
_erector pili muscle_; _g.s._ sebaceous gland; _p._ hair.]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 4.--Mohave Indians of Arizona; smooth hair type.
(_Phot. Ten Kate._)]

_Teguments: The Skin._--The human skin is essentially composed of two
parts, the corium (Fig. 3, /D/) and a superficial epidermis; the latter
is formed in its turn of two cellular layers, the horny layers (Fig.
3, _c.c._), the quite shallow cells of which are freely exposed to the
air, and Malpighi’s layer situated beneath it, with granules of pigment
in more or less quantity in its lower range of cells (Fig. 3, _c.p._).
In certain places the epidermis is modified so as to form either a
mucous membrane, as, for instance, on the lips, or a horny substance,
sometimes transparent (as the cornea of the eye) and sometimes only
translucent and more or less hard (the nails).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 5.--Pure Veddah of Dangala Mountains of Ceylon;
wavy hair type.

(_Phot. Brothers Sarasin._)]

There is little to say about the differences in the nature and
structure of the skin according to race. Its colouring, of which I
shall speak later on (see _Pigmentation_), is more important. Attention
has been drawn to the hardness of the corium and the velvety softness
of the skin in the negro; the latter quality is probably due to the
profusion and size of the sebaceous glands which accompany the hair.
Bischoff has made an interesting observation on the relative rarity of
the sweat glands (which are found in the thickness of the corium, Fig.
3, _g.su._) among the Fuegians,[41] but comparative studies on this
subject have not been pursued in regard to other races. The disposition
of the papilla ridges on the tips of the fingers, so well studied by
Galton,[42] is of great interest as regards the identification of the
individual; but from this fact alone, that it is a good characteristic
of the individual, it loses all its value as a characteristic of race.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 6.--Same subject as Fig. 5, front view.

(_Phot. Brothers Sarasin._)]

_Hair of the Head and Body._--The most important horny product of the
skin, as regards the differentiation of races, is undoubtedly the
hair of the head and body. The general structure and number of the
hairs (about 260 to each square centimetre) hardly show any difference
between race and race; on the other hand, the length of the hair of the
head, the relation of this length in one sex to that in the other, the
nature of the hair, its consistence, its transverse section, its form,
its colour, vary much according to race.

The body hair has its origin in a layer of the epidermis, deeply
imbedded in the corium as though it were in a little sac or follicle
(Fig. 3, _fo._); from the bottom of this sac, and covering by its
root a little papilla (Fig. 3, _pa._) filled with vessels designed
to nourish it, each hair rises and pushes its way to the outside;
it is always accompanied by a little muscle which can move it (Fig.
3, _m.r._), and by a sebaceous gland (Fig. 3, _g.s._) designed to
lubricate it.

Four principal varieties of hair are usually distinguished in
anthropology, according to their aspect and their nature--straight,
wavy, frizzy, and woolly. It is easy to form a clear idea at first
sight of the differences which are presented by these varieties, but
the most careful examination shows that the differences are deeper, and
can be pursued even into the microscopic structure of the hair.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 7.--Toda woman (India); curly hair type.

(_Phot. Thurston._)]

_Straight and smooth hair_ (_droit_ or _lisse_ in French, _straff_ or
_schlicht_ in German) is ordinarily rectilinear, and falls heavily in
bands on the sides of the head; such is the hair of the Chinese, the
Mongols, and of American Indians (Fig. 4). Straight hair is ordinarily
stiff and coarse, but it is sometimes found tolerably fine; for
example, among the western Finns. It is true that in this case it has
a tendency to become wavy. _Wavy hair_ (_ondé_ in French, _wellig_
in German) forms a long curve or imperfect spiral from one end to
the other (Figs. 5 and 6). It is called curly when it is rolled up
at the extremity (Fig. 7). The whole head of hair when wavy produces
a very pleasing effect; I will merely cite as examples certain fair
Scotchwomen. The type is very widespread among Europeans, whether dark
or fair. The frizzy type (_frisé_ in French, _lockig_ in German) is
that in which the hair is rolled spirally, forming a succession of
rings a centimetre or more in diameter (Fig. 8). Such is the hair of
the Australians (Figs. 21 and 22), the Nubians, of certain Mulattos,
etc. Lastly, the type of woolly hair (_crépu_ in French, _kraus_ in
German) is characterised by spiral curves exceedingly narrow (from 1
millimetre to 9 millimetres as the maximum); the rings of the spiral
are very near together, numerous, well rolled, and often catch hold
of each other, forming tufts and balls, the whole result recalling in
appearance sheep’s wool (Fig. 9). The type admits of two varieties.
When the hair is relatively long and the spirals sufficiently broad,
the whole head looks like a continuous fleece, as with certain
Melanesians (Fig. 153), or the majority of Negroes (Figs. 9 and 47).
In his classification of the human races, Haeckel[43] has taken this
type as characteristic of the group of _eriocomes_. But when the hair
is short, consisting of very small spirals, it has a tendency, when
tangled, to form little tufts, the dimensions of which vary from the
size of a pea to that of a pepper-corn; these tufts are separated
by spaces which appear bald (pepper-corn hair). This type (called
_lophocome_ by Haeckel) is very widespread among Hottentots and
Bushmen, but the majority of Negroes have it in their infancy, and even
at adult age, especially towards the temples, on the forehead--briefly,
in all the places where the hair remains very short (Fig. 9). We must
not think that the disposition of which I have just spoken is due to
the hair being stuck in the skin of the head like the bristles of a
brush, for the mode of insertion is the same in all races, with Bushmen
as with Europeans or Mongols. At the most it may be noted that the
rows of hair in Negroes are more irregular, and are closer together in
certain places, leaving in other rows intervals between them of two or
three millimetres. Only, as a consequence of the shortness and the
excessive twisting, the hair gets entangled and the spirals catch hold
of each other, so forming glomerules or tufts.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 8.--Kurumba man of Nilgiri Hills; frizzy hair
type.

(_Phot. Thurston._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 9.--Agni Negro of Krinjabo, Western Africa;
woolly hair type.

(_Photo. Thoman, lent by Collignon._)]

Does there exist any difference of form between straight, waved,
frizzy, or woolly hair? The microscopical examination of transverse
sections of the hair allows us to reply affirmatively to this
question. This examination, already applied to the hair in 1822 by
Heusinger, then successively by Blower (of Philadelphia), Kölliker,
Pruner-Bey, Latteux, and Waldeyer,[44] has yielded results which have
been vigorously discussed, and are still debatable if we cling to the
individual and absolute figures, comparing sections made according
to defective methods, or carried out on different levels of the
hair. But if we calculate the _index_--that is to say, the relation
of the breadth to the length (= 100) of the section (and that in a
great number of individual cases)--we obtain satisfactory results, as
Topinard and Ranke[45] have shown in general, as also Baelz in the case
of the Japanese, and Montano in the case of the races of the Malay
Archipelago.[46]

If we consider a great number of microscopical sections, all obtained
from the same level of the hair, we note that straight hair gives
a circular section, whilst woolly hair gives one in the form of a
lengthened ellipse. This ellipse is less extended, a little more filled
out, in the sections of wavy hair. If the major axis of the ellipse be
supposed to equal 100, the minor axis will be represented by figures
varying from 40 to 50 for the woolly hair of the Bushmen and the
Hottentots, from 50 to 60 for that of the Negroes, while the straight
hair of the Eskimo will have this axis = 77, that of the Thibetans =
80, that of the Japanese = 85, etc. The hair of Europeans represents an
elliptical section in which the major axis being = 100, the minor axis
will be represented by figures varying from 62 to 72 (Topinard). It can
be said to-day with certainty, after the work of Unna,[47] that the
woolly hair of Negroes rolls up into a compact spiral precisely because
of the flattened shape of this elliptical section, and of the special
form of the follicle and papilla. In fact, in the Negro the follicle,
instead of being straight, as in the European (Fig. 3, A), is curved
inward in the form of a sabre, or even of the arc of a quarter of a
circle (Fig. 3, B); further, the papilla is flattened instead of being
round. One would say that the hair has encountered in its development
so much resistance on the part of the dermis (which is so hard, in
fact, among the Negroes), that it would be twisted, as it were, from
the first. Emerging from an incurvated mould, it can only continue to
roll up outside, given especially its flattened shape; it rolls up into
a spiral, the plane of which, at the beginning, is perpendicular to the
surface of the skin.[48] As to the thickness of the hair, it appears
that in general it is greater in straight hair than in woolly; however,
the hair of the western Finns is straight and fine at the same time.

A certain correlation appears to exist between the nature of the hair
and its absolute and relative length. Thus straight hair is at the
same time the longest--Chinese, Americans, Indians (Fig. 4), while
woolly hair is shortest, from 5 to 15 centimetres (Fig. 9); wavy hair
occupies an intermediate position. Moreover, the difference between the
length of the hair of men and women is almost inappreciable in the two
extreme divisions. In certain straight-haired races the hair of the
head is as long with men as with women; one need but to call to mind
the plaits of the Chinese, or the beautiful heads of hair of the Red
Indians, which may attain in certain cases a length of even two metres
(Catlin). In frizzy-haired races the hair of the head, on the contrary,
is equally short in the two sexes; the hair of the head of women among
the Bushmen, Hottentots, and even Negroes, is not appreciably longer
than among the men. It is only in the categories of wavy and in part
of frizzy hair, that the differences are appreciable. With European
men the length of the hair rarely exceeds 30 or 40 centimetres, while
with the women it averages 65 to 75 centimetres, and may attain in
exceptional cases to 2 metres (as in the case of an Englishwoman,
according to Dr. D. Watson).

Another fact to be noted is that the general development of the pilose
system on the face, as on the rest of the body, seems also to be in
relation to the nature of the hair of the head.

Straight-haired races are ordinarily very glabrous, the men have hardly
a rudimentary tuft of beard--American Indians (Fig. 4), Mongols (Fig.
20), Malays; while in the wavy or frizzy-haired races, the development
of the pilose system is considerable--Australians, Dravidians, Iranians
(Fig. 22), Ainus (Fig. 117), etc. The woolly-haired races are not,
however, included in this rule; glabrous types (Bushmen, western
Negroes) are found side by side with rather hairy types (Melanesians,
Akka, Ashanti). There appears to be a certain likeness between the
abundance of hair on the head and on the body. Thus, according to
Hilgendorf, the Japanese who are glabrous have from 252 to 286 hairs to
each square centimetre on the head, whilst the hairy Ainus have only
214. Negroes and white men do not appear, however, to present the same
differences (Gould). Even baldness results largely from the nature of
the hair. According to Gould, baldness is ten times less frequent among
Negroes than among Whites, between 33 years and 44 years, and thirty
times less so between 21 and 32. Among Mulattos it is more frequent
than among the Negroes, but less than among Whites. Lastly, among Red
Indians it seems to be still more rare than among Negroes. White hair
follows almost the same rule.[49]

In the mass, the human races may be divided according to the character
of their hair as follows:--

_Woolly Hair._--Bushmen, Negro, and Melanesian races.

_Frizzy Hair._--Australian, Ethiopian, Beja, Fulbé, etc., and Dravidian.

_Wavy Hair._--The white races of Europe, of Northern Africa, and Asia
(Melanochroi or the dark-complexioned Whites, and Xanthochroi or pale
Whites).

_Fine, straight, or lightly-waved Hair._--Turco-Tatars, Finns, Ainus,
and Indonesians (Dyaks, Nagas, etc.); lastly,

_Coarse straight Hair._--Mongolians and American races, with some
exceptions. It must be noted that, in the manifold blendings of races,
characteristics of the hair amalgamate. Thus the half-breeds between
Negroes and American Indians have, most frequently, the hair frizzy or
wavy. But there are also frequent reversions to the primitive type,
almost always, however, a little weakened.

There are no races of _hairy men_. Everything that has been said of
different “hairy savages” in the interior of Africa or Indo-China
resolves itself into the presence of a light down (probably the remains
of embryonic lanugo) in the case of the Akkas of the Upper Nile, or
to the fortuitous existence of one or two families of hairy men and
women from Burma exhibited some years ago in Europe and America. Other
“phenomena” have been shown, like the famous Julia Pastrana or the
“Dog-men” of Russia. All these subjects are only particular cases of
atavism, or of a reversion to the probable primordial condition of
man or of his precursor at the period when he was as hairy as, for
instance, the anthropoid apes of to-day; they are by no means the
representatives of a hairy race.

The beard is, as we know, one of the sexual characteristics of man,
although many fine ones are found among certain women, notably among
the Europeans of the south, and especially among Spanish women. The
more hairy the body, the thicker as a rule is the beard. In the
glabrous races (Mongols, Malays, Americans) a few straggling hairs are
all that can be seen at the corners of the mouth and on the chin (Figs.
20 and 168); in the very hairy races, like the Ainus, the Iranians,
certain Semites, the Todas, the Australians, the Melanesians, the beard
is strong and abundant on the lips, the chin, and the cheeks, where
it reaches sometimes to the cheek-bones (Fig. 22); in the Negro and
Bushmen races neither the moustache nor the beard can attain to great
dimensions, because of the curly nature of the hair (Figs. 140 and
143). The eyelashes and the eyebrows are likewise much developed in
races having an abundant beard, and this is the case in both sexes; we
have only to recall the thick and joined eyebrows of the Persian women.
On the other hand, among the Mongolians we note the small development
of the eyelashes in relation to the particular structure of their eye
(see p. 77).

_Pigmentation._--The distribution of the pigment which gives the
colouring to the skin, to the hair, to the iris, varies much according
to race, and forms, along with the nature of the hair, a good
distinctive characteristic. As I have already stated above, the pigment
is accumulated principally in the lowest layers of the rete Malpighii
(Fig. 3, _c.p._), but it is also met with in small quantities in
the horny layer, and even in the dermis.[50] According to race, the
microscopic granules of pigment of a uniform brown are very unequally
distributed around the nuclei of the cells, to which they give the
most varied tones from pale yellow to dark brown, almost black. As the
pigment exists in all races, and in all parts of the body, it is to its
more or less plentiful accumulation in the cells that the colouring of
the skin and its derivatives is due. Further, there must be added, for
certain races at least, the combination with the tint of the blood of
the vessels, as seen through the skin.

Every one knows that our white races become tanned in the sun; the
cause of this is the pigment, developing abundantly and being
deposited in the cells under the combined action of air, heat, and
light; the congestion of the vessels has also something to do with it.
In the same way, persons living a long time in dense forests or in dark
though airy places end by becoming paler, in consequence of the loss of
the pigment, but recover colour immediately on re-exposure to the sun.
But the modifications produced by the action of air and sun vary even
among Europeans according to the colouring peculiar to their race.

Thus among the fair races of Northern Europe the skin, burnt by
the sun, becomes red, as if swollen; on the other hand, among the
dark-coloured peoples of the Mediterranean, it takes a bronze tint.
There are thus between these two races notable differences, if not
in the chemical nature of the pigment, which is scarcely likely, at
least in regard to its quantity. It is the same with other races
generally, and ten principal shades of colour at least can easily be
distinguished. In the first place, among Whites, three shades: 1st,
pale white; 2nd, florid, or rosy, peculiar to the Scandinavians,
English, Dutch, etc.; 3rd, brownish-white, peculiar to Spaniards,
Italians, etc. In the races called Yellow, three varieties of colour
can likewise be distinguished: 4th, yellowish-white, a sickly hue
the colour of wheat, as, for example, among certain Chinese; 5th,
olive-yellow, the colour of new portmanteau leather, as among the
majority of South American Indians, Polynesians, and Indonesians;
6th, dark yellow-brown, dark olive, or the colour of dead leaves, as
among certain Americans, Malays, etc. In the dark-skinned races, four
shades at least must be distinguished: 7th, red, copper-coloured, as,
for example, among the Bejas, Niam-Niam, Fulbé; 8th, reddish-brown,
chocolate, as among the Dravidians, the Australians, certain Negroes
and Melanesians; lastly, 9th, sooty black, and 10th, coal-black, for
example, among the different Negro populations.

In order to avoid an arbitrary designation of colours, anthropologists
make use of chromatic tables, in which examples of the chief
variations of colour are marked by numbers. The best table, almost
universally adopted, is that of Broca, of thirty-four shades.[51] The
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland has published a
very practical and simplified edition of it,[52] which contains only
the ten numbers of principal shades proposed by Topinard, namely, those
I have just enumerated.

The pigment is not uniformly distributed, as I have said, through the
whole body, and this is so with the Whites as well as with the darkest
races. In all of them the parts of the body most deeply coloured are
the nape of the neck, the back (as with animals), the back part of the
limbs, the arm-pits, the scrotum, and the breasts; the belly (as with
animals), the insides of the hands, the soles of the feet, are among
the most lightly coloured. The parts covered by garments are less
coloured among white and yellow races than the parts uncovered; it is
affirmed, but without reliable proofs, that the contrary takes place
among the dark and black populations.

In the iris, the pigmentation assumes a particular character. As we
know, this perforated diaphragm of the eye is composed, histologically,
of three layers: an anterior epithelial one; a middle one, the
“stroma,” with muscular fibres, designed to enlarge or reduce the
pupil; and lastly, a posterior layer, called the pigmental layer. But
it must not be thought that this layer is the only repository of the
pigment of the iris. It is also found accumulated in the thickness
of the stroma, and between the muscular fibres. In both places the
granules of the pigment have the same brown colour as in the rest
of the body, but the pigment of the posterior or pigmental layer is
only seen through the stroma and appears blue or grey, more or less
light or dark, according to its quantity, just as the black veins of
the blood appear to us blue through the skin. On the contrary, the
pigment accumulated in the stroma or between the muscular fibres of the
iris exhibits its natural yellow, brown, or almost black colouring,
according to the quantity of it, under the form of a trail radiating
very clearly from the pupil towards the periphery of the eye occupying
one-third, two-thirds, or even the whole of the iris.

Seen at a certain distance, irises without pigment in their stroma
appear blue or grey; those having the whole or the greater part of
this charged with pigment appear brown, dark brown, or almost black,
according to the quantity of this pigment. But irises having a blue or
grey foundation strewn with yellowish spots of pigment appear green,
yellow, yellowish-grey, greenish-grey, etc.

There are thus distinguishable only three fundamental shades of the
iris, or, as is commonly said, of the colour of the eyes: light (blue
or grey); dark (bright or dull brown or black); and intermediate
shades (green, yellow, yellowish-grey, greenish-grey, etc.). This
classification is entirely based on the quantity of pigment in the iris.

It is only in fair European races that blue or grey eyes are found,
perhaps also in the Turco-Ugrian races; light-brown eyes are met with
among some Mongolians. In all the other populations of the earth the
eyes are dark-brown or black. It is the same with the colouring of the
hair. It varies appreciably among the wavy-haired races, much less
so among the straight and frizzy-haired races, and remains always
black among the woolly-haired races. Four principal shades can be
distinguished in the hair--black, dark-brown, chestnut-brown (_châtain_
in French), and fair. In this last shade, golden must be separated from
flaxen and dull grey-reddish hair. Red hair of all shades is only an
individual anomaly, accompanied besides, almost always, by freckles
(_ephelides_) on the face and neck. There are no red-haired races, but
light and chestnut hair may have a reddish reflection in it. Red hair
is very common in countries where several white-coloured races (brown
or fair) are intermixed. In these crossed races there are found heads
of hair of all colours--black, brown, fair, reddish-brown, dull-grey,
chestnut, etc. This is the natural result of the intermixture of blood.
Among a dark-haired people, which has remained free from intermixture,
or has only intermingled with dark-haired races, an exceptional
red-haired individual constitutes a pathological condition, called
“erythrism” by Broca. Erythrism can only manifest itself in certain
races; at least, until now no example has been instanced among the
Negroes; on the other hand, erythrism is somewhat common among the Jews
of Europe, and among such Jews it is most frequently associated with
frizzy hair.[53]

The colouring of the hair depends not only on the pigment, but on the
more or less quantity of air in the medulla of the hair, which blends
the white and grey tones with the general tint given by the pigment.
In the air, the hair fades, becomes less highly coloured, duller.
Certain acids of the perspiration render the hair reddish-brown, as for
instance, under the arm-pit.

At birth pigment is found in the body in less quantity than in
the adult state. Every one knows that the hair of children, often
light-coloured at birth and in early years, becomes darker as they grow
up. Almost all our European children are born with blue eyes, and the
pigment only begins to increase in the iris, transforming the eyes into
grey, brown, or black at the end of some weeks, or even months after
birth. New-born Chinese, Botocudos, Malays, Kalmuks, are much less
yellow than the adults of these people, and, lastly, Negroes at birth
are of a reddish-chocolate or copper colour, which only becomes darker
at the end of three or four days, beginning in certain places, such as
the nape, nipples, scrotum, etc.

The presence of temporary spots of pigment noticed among new-born
Japanese by Grimm and Baelz, among the Chinese by Matignon, among
the Tagals of the Philippines by Collignon, and among the Eskimo by
Sören-Hansen,[54] is more puzzling. These are somewhat large blue,
grey, or black spots, situated in the sacro-lumbar region and on
the buttocks, which disappear about the age of two, three, or five
years. The existence of these spots, like that of the ephelides in the
European child, would prove rather the migration of pigmental granules
to the places selected than a general increase of them. In most races
women appear to have clearer skin than men; in that respect, as in
many other characters, they have a closer resemblance to children. It
is thought by some that the hair of women is lighter than that of men
among European races.[55]

Among Negroes the pigment is visible not only on the skin, in the hair,
and the iris, but also in the sclerotic, in the mucous membrane of the
lips, the mouth, the genital organs, etc.; the internal organs, even,
are not free from it; the suprarenal capsules, the mesentery, the
liver, the spleen, are often coloured with black spots of pigment, and
even the brain contains numerous pigmented points in its envelopes and
in its grey matter. Such an abundance of pigment would become a danger
to the White, as is proved by certain diseases, melanism, for example,
in which the pigment especially invades the viscera, or Addison’s
disease, in which, on the contrary, there is an over-production of
pigment in the skin and the mucous membranes.

The total absence of pigment, which may occur with the Negro as with
the White, is termed albinism. This may be accompanied, if complete
(that is to say, when, besides the white skin and hair, the iris
is also deprived of pigment, and appears red), by somewhat serious
affections of the eyesight. But, in every respect, albinos are weakly,
and probably not fertile amongst themselves.

In considering from all points of view the nature of hair and
pigmentation in general, we cannot help noticing a certain correlation
between these two characters. In fact, to the white colouring of the
skin corresponds, in a general fashion, wavy hair, the colouring of
which varies often in accord with the colour of the eyes and the
shades of the skin (white, fair, brown races); to the yellow colouring
corresponds straight, smooth hair; to the reddish-brown skin, frizzy
hair; and to the black, woolly hair.



CHAPTER II.

1. MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS (_continued_).

    _Cranium or Skull_: Cranial measurements--Orbits and orbital
    index--Nasal bone and nasal index--Prognathism--_Head of the living
    subject_: Cephalic index--Face--Eyes--Nose and nasal index in the
    living subject--Lips--_Trunk and Limbs_: The Skeleton--Pelvis
    and its indices--Shoulder blade--Thoracic limb--Abdominal
    limb--_Proportions of the body in the living subject_: Trunk and
    neck--Curve of the back--Steatopygy--_Various Organs_: Genital
    organs--Brain--Its weight--Convolutions--The neuron--Its importance
    from the psychical point of view.


Having treated of the body in its general aspect, we shall now examine
from the morphological point of view its different parts: the head,
trunk, limbs, etc., as well as their relations to each other and their
reciprocal dimensions, both in the skeleton and the living subject.

_Cranium or Skull._--This part of the skeleton forms the object
of investigation of a very extended branch of anthropology called
craniology.

Craniology must not be confounded with the cranioscopy of the
phrenologists, a sham science founded by Gall, who wished to establish
a connection between certain bumps or irregularities of the surface of
the skull and the parts of the brain in which, as was pretended, were
localised the different intellectual functions. It is now demonstrated
that the inequalities of the external table of the cranium walls have
no relation whatever with the irregularities of the internal table, and
still less have they anything in common with the conformation of the
various parts of the brain. But if there be no such direct connection
as this between the cranium and the brain, there is nevertheless a
certain remote relation between them, and the brain has attained such
a development in man that the study of everything which concerns it,
immediately or remotely, possesses great interest. This would alone
suffice to explain the pre-eminent position assigned to craniology
in the natural history of man. But there exist still other reasons
why the study of the skull is one of the most cultivated branches of
anthropology. As in the case of all the other mammals, the skull in man
is one of the parts of the skeleton, and even of the entire body, which
exhibits the greatest number of well-marked variations. The differences
in the form and the dimensions of the skull in correlation with those
of the brain and the masticatory organs, serve to distinguish races
and species, both in man and other vertebrata. Besides, the teeth,
which characterise not only genera but even families and orders of
the mammifera, are always attached to the skull, though not forming
part of the bony system. We may also observe that the skull, with the
other bones of the skeleton, constitutes the only anatomical document
of prehistoric man which has come down to us; it is only in studying
it that we can connect and compare, from the point of view of physical
type, existing with extinct races of mankind.

The characters that may be observed in the skull are very numerous, and
may be divided into _descriptive_ characters, which give an account
of the conformation of the bony structure of the head and its parts,
and _craniometrical_ characters, which give the dimensions of these
parts by exact measurements taken by means of special apparatus or
instruments. These two orders of characters are complementary to each
other. The cranial characters vary according to race, but within the
limits of each race there are other lesser variations according to age
and sex.

The general form of the cranium, as also the number, the consistence,
and structure of the different parts which compose it are modified
as the individual develops and grows older. Formed of a single
cartilaginous and membranous substance at the beginning of embryonic
life, the cranium is composed in the last fœtal state of a great
number of _points of ossification of various texture_. At birth the
number of these points has considerably diminished; they have united
for the most part to form the different parts of the _bones of the
cranium_ or _brain case_ and the _bones of the face_; as the child
grows, these points grow and end by being contiguous; about the age
of eighteen or twenty years they form bones separated by _sutures_.
There are twenty-one separated bones described in classic treatises
on anatomy. Later on these bones begin to unite, the _sutures_ which
separate them disappear, and in extreme old age the cranium is formed
of a bony mass almost as continuous and homogeneous as was the cranial
cartilaginous and membranous mass in the embryo. According to the
number of the pieces composing the cranium, and also according to their
position, structure, and conformation, according to the degree of
obliteration of the sutures and the order in which the obliteration of
each suture takes place, according to the general form of the forehead,
the angle of the lower jaw, according to the volume and dimensions of
the skull, and lastly, according to the state of the dentition, etc.,
the nearly exact age of the individual to whom the skull had belonged
may easily be discovered in this cycle of development. Other characters
serve to distinguish the sex: the forehead is straight and rounded in
woman, retreating in man; the cranial cavity is less in woman than in
man in any given race; the orbital edges are sharper in woman, the
impress of the muscles less marked, the weight of the skull in general
less than that of the masculine skull, etc.[56] Lastly, the characters
of race are numerous and special. I shall proceed briefly to enumerate
some of them. First in order of importance comes _cranial capacity_, or
the volume of the cavity of the brain-case, which gives an idea of the
volume of the brain, and approximately of its weight.

Cranial capacity may vary to the extent of double the minimum figure
(from 1100 cubic centimetres to 2200 cubic centimetres) among normal
individuals in the human race. The average capacity for the races of
Europe is from 1500 to 1600 cubic centimetres; that of the skulls of
Asiatic races appears to be very nearly the same; that of the Negro
races and Oceanians a little smaller, perhaps from 1400 to 1500 cubic
centimetres on an average. That of the Australians, the Bushmen, and
the Andamanese is still less, from 1250 to 1350 cubic centimetres.
But it must not be forgotten that the volume of the head, as with
its other dimensions, has a certain relation to the height of the
individual, and, as a matter of fact, Bushmen and Andamanese are very
short in stature; Australians, however, are of average height. Partly,
too, to their disproportion of height must, probably, be attributed
the difference between the volume of the cranium in man and in woman.
According to the series examined, this sexual difference may extend
from 100 to 200 cubic centimetres, and even beyond, in favour of
man. The cranial capacity of woman represents from eighty-five to
ninety-five of the cranial capacity of man.[57] The cranial capacity
of lunatics, of certain criminals, and especially of celebrated or
distinguished men, scholars, artists, statesmen, etc., appears to be
slightly superior to the average of their race. We shall revert later
to the question of cranial capacity in connection with weight of brain.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 10.--Dolichocephalic skull of an islander of
Torres Straits. Cephalic index, 61.9.

(_After O. Thomas._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 11.--Brachycephalic skull of a Ladin of Pufels
(Tyrol). Cephalic index, 95.

(_After Holl._)]

The general form of the brain-case is an oval, but this oval may
be more or less rounded, quite globular (Fig. 11), or more or less
elongated to resemble an ellipse, the major axis of which is almost
double the minor (Fig. 10). The numerical expression of the cranial
form is given in anthropology by what is called the _cephalic
index_--that is to say, by the relation of the length of the cranium
(ordinarily measured from the glabella to the most prominent point of
the occiput (Figs. 10 and 13, /A B/) to its greatest breadth (Fig.
10, /C D/, Fig. 12, /M N/)). Reducing uniformly the first of these
measurements to 100, we obtain the different figures for the breadth,
which expresses the cranial form; thus very round skulls (Fig. 11)
have 85, 90, and even 100 (extreme individual limit) for index, while
elongated skulls (Fig. 10) may have an index of 70, of 65, and even
of 58 (extreme individual limit). According to Broca’s nomenclature,
skulls having indices between 77.7 and 80 are mesaticephalic or
mesocephalic; those having the indices below this figure are
sub-dolichocephalic (up to 75), or dolichocephalic (beyond 75, Fig.
10); those which have the index above 80 are sub-brachycephalic (up
to 83.3), or brachycephalic (above 83.3, Fig. 11).[58] Peoples or
ethnic groups being formed of various elements, it is in most cases
impossible to determine, after the examination of an isolated skull, to
which population it belongs; all that can be said is that the skull is
brachy- or dolicho-cephalic, orthognathous or prognathous, etc. We must
have a certain number of skulls (from ten to thirty at least, according
to the homogeneity of the population) to be able to discern the
constituent elements of this population as far as they are manifested
in the cranial characteristics. The _average_ measurements are then
deduced from a given number of skulls, by adding the individual
measurements and dividing them by the number of skulls examined. But
the average of any measurement whatever only gives a very general and
somewhat vague idea of the actual dimensions of skulls. To determine
it we must _co-ordinate_ and _seriate_ these skulls--that is to say,
arrange them, for example, in an ascending order of figures expressing
their cephalic index. In this manner we can discover one or several
indices around which the skulls are grouped in the largest number. It
is thus that we can often discern two or three cranial elements in the
same population.[59]

If we apply these methods to the study of the cephalic index, we see
that generally the crania of Negroes, Melanesians, Eskimo, Ainus,
Berbers, the races of Northern Europe, etc., are dolichocephalic, while
those of the Turkish peoples, the Malays, certain Slavs, Tyrolese,
etc., are brachycephalic; that the dolichocephalic predominate in Great
Britain, while the brachycephalic are in a majority in France, etc.
(See p. 75, and Appendix II.)

The relation of the height to the breadth or to the length of the
skull gives likewise an idea of its general form. It is thus that
we recognise low skulls (platycephalic), medium (orthocephalic or
metriocephalic), or high (hypsicephalic).

In order more correctly to describe the different peculiarities
of the cranium, and to be able to refer the measurements to fixed
co-ordinates, it is desirable to place the skull, when being studied,
on a horizontal plane. Unfortunately, anthropologists are far from
being agreed as to this initial plane. In France, in England, and
in many other countries, that adopted is the alveolocondylean plane
of Broca (Fig. 13, /L K/), which passes through the condyles and
the alveolar border of the upper jaw; it is nearly parallel to the
horizontal plane passing through the visual axes of the two eyes in
the living subject; whilst in Germany the plane still in favour is one
passing through the inferior border of the orbit and the centre or
top of the contour of the auditory meatus[60] (Fig. 13, /N M/). The
skull once conveniently placed in position according to a horizontal
plane, the different views of it are the following: seen from above
(_norma verticalis_ of Blumenbach, Figs. 10 and 11), from below (_norma
basilaris_), from the side or in profile (_norma lateralis_, Fig. 13),
from the full face (_norma facialis_, Fig. 12), or from behind (_norma
occipitalis_).

In regard to the face, different measurements express its general
form; thus the relation of the bi-zigomatic length (Fig. 12, /I G/) to
the total height of the bony structure of the head (Fig. 12, /K L/),
or to its partial height from the glabella to the alveolar border of
the upper jaw-bone (Fig. 12, /F H/), serves to separate skulls into
brachy-or dolicho-facial, or, as they are also called, _chamæprosopes_
and _leptoprosopes_. Other characters, such as the excessive
development of the supraciliary ridges (Fig. 13, /A/), also give a
special physiognomy to the bony structure of the face.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 12.--Skull of ancient Egyptian exhumed at Thebes,
with principal craniometrical lines.]

But the parts that deserve particular attention are the orbits and
the nasal skeleton. The orbital orifice represents a quadrilateral
figure more or less irregular, more or less angular or rounded, the
length and breadth of which can be measured. According to Broca,[61]
the breadth is measured from the point called dacrion (Fig. 12, /X/)
(situated at the intersection of the fronto-lachrymal suture and the
crista lachrymalis) to the most distant point of the opposite edge of
the orbit (Fig. 12, /Y/); the height (Fig. 12, /T Z/) is also measured
perpendicularly to the preceding line. The relation of this height to
the breadth = 100, or the orbital index, expresses in figures the form
of the more or less shallow quadrilateral of the orbit. What are called
average orbits, or _mesosemes_, are those whose index varies from 83
(Broca), or from 84 (Flower), to 89; shallow orbits, or _microsemes_,
those which have the index lower than 83 or 84; finally, higher or
large orbits, _megasemes_, those which have their index from 90 and
upwards. The annexed table gives the orbital indices of the principal
populations of the globe.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 13.--Same skull as Fig. 12, profile view.]

TABLE OF ORBITAL INDICES.

(Crania of both Sexes together; series of more than 10 subjects.)

    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
    No. of |                       |Orbital|
    Crania.|    Ethnic Groups.     |Index. |    Observer.
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
                           MICROSEMES.
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
      49   |New Caledonians        | 80.6  | Broca.
      14   |Tasmanians             | 80.8  | Flower.
     101   |Australians            | 81.5  | Fl., Tur., C.E.[62]
      22   |Kaffirs                | 83    | Broca.
      21   |Bushmen                | 83    | Turner.
      16   |Hottentots             | 83.9  |}
      53   |Spanish Basques of     |       |}Broca, Hamy
           |    Zaraus             | 83.6  |}
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
                        MESOSEMES (84-89).
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
      23   |Papuans of the         |       |
           |  Northwest(Rubi)      | 84    | C.E.
      20   |Ruck Islanders         |       |
           |  (Carolines)          | 84.1  | Virchow.
      11   |Croats                 | 84.3  | Broca.
      20   |Papuans in general     | 84.4  | Broca.
      13   |Botocudos              | 84.7  | Rey.
      68   |Melanesians            | 85.1  | Flower.
     132   |Ainus                  | 85.2  | Koganei.
      20   |Negroes of Kordofan    | 85.1  | Broca.
      84   |Western Negroes        | 85.4  | Broca.
      96   |Papuans of the         |       |
           |  N. W. (Kordo)        | 85.8  | C.E.
      11   |Natives of             |       |
           |  Admiralty Islands    | 86    | Turner.
      43   |Negroes                | 86.3  | Flower.
      80   |Auvergnats             | 86.5  | Broca.
      11   |Vitians (Fiji)         | 87    | Flower.
      18   |Maori                  | 87    | Turner.
     208   |Various Europeans      | 87    | Flower.
      48   |Fuegians               | 87.5  | Mantegazza, Hya., Den.
      31   |Japanese               | 88    | Baelz.
      63   |Southern Bretons       | 88.1  | Broca.
      19   |Eskimo                 | 88.2  | Broca.
      33   |English                | 88.4  | Flower.
      43   |Veddahs                | 88.5  | Sarasin, Fl.
      28   |Corsicans              | 88.6  | Broca.
      26   |Kabyles                | 88.9  | Broca.
      16   |Hindus                 | 89.2  | Flower.
      11   |Bugis of Mangkassar    | 89.2  | C.E.
      28   |Berbers                | 89.5  | C.E.
      28   |Arabs                  | 89.5  | Ten Kate.
      11   |Dyaks                  | 89.8  | C.E.
      19   |Javanese               | 89.5  | C.E.
      12   |Tatars of the Volga    | 89.5  | C.E.
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
                     MEGASEMES (90 AND UPWARDS).
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------
      69   |Kalmuks                | 90.2  | Den., Ivanovs.
      26   |Indians of N. America  | 90.8  | Broca.
      13   |Modern Mexicans        | 90.8  | Broca.
      43   |Javanese               | 91.1  | Broca.
      88   |Polynesians            | 91.6  | Fl., Broca.
      14   |Andamanese             | 91.7  | Flower.
     127   |Am. Indians in gen.    | 91.7  | Broca.
      17   |Malays                 | 91.9  | C.E.
      30   |Peruvians not deformed | 92    | Broca.
      16   |Modern Aztecs          | 92.1  | C.E.
    -------+-----------------------+-------+------------------

The capacity of the orbital cavity and its depth are also measured,
but, as the researches of L. Weiss have demonstrated, there is no
correlation between the form of the skull (dolicho- or brachy-cephalic)
and this depth. On the other hand, it appears to have some relation
with the form of the face; broad faces (_chamæprosopes_) have deeper
orbits than long faces (_leptoprosopes_).[63]

The skeleton of the nose presents numerous variations according to
race. The nasal bones may be more or less inclined, one in relation
with another, so as to form either an almost flat plane or a sort of
prominent roof; their outline may be straight, concave, or convex;
their breadth and their length also vary. The form of these bones,
together with the nasal opening which is found below, may be expressed
by the figures of the nasal index--that is to say, of the relation
between the height of the bony mass (from the root of the nose to
the anterior nasal spine) and its breadth (lines /V B/ and
/E D/ of Fig. 12). According to the greater or lesser breadth
of the nasal bones and of the nasal opening, the skull is called
_leptorhinian_ (long-nosed) or _platyrhinian_ (flat-nosed); the
intermediate forms bear the name of _mesorhinian_. The form of the
nasal opening appears to be transmitted very tenaciously by heredity
(Broca).

The following table, in which I have introduced only series of more
than ten skulls, gives the distribution of the principal ethnic groups
according to their nasal index.

It is easy to see in running the eye over this table, that almost all
the populations of the so-called white races are leptorhinians, while
all the yellow populations are comprised exclusively in the group of
mesorhinians, and Negroes and Bushmen in that of the platyrhinians.

The Polynesians seem to be leptorhinians, the Melanesians with the
Australians show a tendency towards platyrhiny.

NASAL INDEX OF THE CRANIUM.

(Series of more than 10 Skulls of both Sexes together.)

    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
    Number of|                                 |Nasal |
     Skulls. |         Ethnic Groups.          |Index.|   Observer.
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
                       /Leptorhinians/ (less than 48).
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
       46    |Eskimo                           | 42.2 |Broca, Flower
       54    |Spanish Basques                  | 43.8 |Broca
       17    |Guanches                         | 44.2 |Broca
       28    |Arabs                            | 44.4 |C.E.
       28    |Berbers                          | 46.2 |C.E.
       32    |English                          | 46.0 |Flower
       83    |Auvergnats                       | 46.2 |Broca
       17    |Frisians                         | 46.3 |Topinard
      122    |Parisians                        | 46.7 |Broca
       12    |Tatars of the Volga              | 47.1 |Ten Kate
       52    |Argentine Araucans               | 47.1 |Ten Kate
      127    |American Indians in general      | 47.2 |Ten Kate
       48    |Fuegians                         | 47.5 |Mant., Hyad.,
             |                                 |      |  Den.
       15    |Botocudos                        | 47.2 |Rey., Virch.
       18    |Maoris                           | 47.5 |Turner
       88    |Polynesians                      | 47.9 |Flower, Broca
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
                         /Mesorhinians/ (48-53).
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
       11    |Natives of the Admiralty Is.     | 48.0 |Flower
       72    |Italians of  Lombardy            | 48.3 |Flower
       28    |Sardinians                       | 48.6 |Flower
       66    |Kalmuks                          | 49.0 |Denik., Ivanovs.
       94    |Chinese                          | 49.1 |T. K., Br., Fl.
       31    |Japanese                         | 49.5 |T. K., Baelz
       16    |Hindus                           | 50.0 |C.E.
       11    |Bugis of Mangkassar              | 50.0 |C.E.
       21    |Annamese                         | 50.1 |Topinard
       33    |Marvars (India)                  | 50.0 |Flower
       21    |Russians (chiefly of Kazan)      | 50.3 |Malief
       14    |Andamanese                       | 50.6 |Flower
      126    |Ainus                            | 50.9 |Koganei
       19    |Inhab. of Ruck Isl. (Carolines)  | 51.2 |Virchow
       29    |Permiaks                         | 51.7 |Malief
       43    |Veddahs                          | 51.8 |Saras., Flower
       17    |Malays                           | 51.9 |C.E.
       11    |Dyaks                            | 51.9 |Montano
      135    |New Caledonians                  | 52.3 |C.E.
       16    |Modern Aztecs                    | 52.1 |C.E.
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
                          /Platyrhinians/ (over 53).
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------
       25    |Negroes of Fernando Po           | 53.7 |Topinard
       11    |Negroes of the Sudan,            |      |
             |Darfour, etc.                    | 54.2 |C.E.
       35    |Negroes of Senegal               | 55.1 |C.E.
       25    |Negroes of Upper Guinea          | 55.2 |C.E.
       22    |Nubians (Bejas)                  | 55.1 |Broca
       18    |Negroes of Kordofan              | 55.4 |Topinard
       13    |Fijians of Viti-Levu (interior)  | 56.5 |Flower
      132    |Australians                      | 56.2 |Fl., Br., Turner,
             |                                 |      |C.E.
       21    |Bushmen                          | 58.4 |Turner
       15    |Negroes of Lower Guinea          | 58.8 |C.E.
       12    |Kafirs                           | 61.7 |C.E.
    ---------+---------------------------------+------+-----------------

_Prognathism_, that is to say the degree of projection of the
maxillary portion of the face, is a characteristic trait of certain
skulls; however, it does not seem to play so important a part in the
classification of races as anthropologists had thought twenty or thirty
years ago. It presents too many individual varieties to be taken as a
distinctive character of race. The degree of prognathism is measured by
means of different _facial angles_, of which that of Cloquet, passing
by the forehead, the upper alveolar point (between the two incisors),
and the external auditory meatus (Fig. 13, /F O K/), is one of the
best. However, as it expresses the relation of points too far removed
from each other, it is better to confine ourselves to the measurement
of _alveolar prognathism_, that is to say, of the sub-nasal projection
of the face. This prognathism is measured with the angle determined by
the alveolar point, the external auditory meatus, and the nasal spine
(Fig. 13, /F′ O K/).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 14.--Jenny, Australian woman of Queensland.
Height, 1 m. 56; cephalic index, 71.2; nasal index, 119.

(_Photo. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

Among numerous other measurements which give indications for certain
characters we must cite: the minimum frontal diameter (Fig. 12, /S
J/); the interorbital line; the length and the breadth of the palate,
the relation of which constitutes the _palatal index_, etc. Among the
measurements of the curves it is necessary to note the horizontal
circumference of the head, the antero-posterior curve with its frontal,
parietal, and occipital portions, etc. Besides the facial angles, a
great number of others are taken; the more important are the sphenoidal
angle and the different occipital angles (of Daubenton, Broca, etc.),
which give the inclination of the occipital foramen in relation to a
horizontal plane. The measurements of these angles furnish valuable
indications on the characters called _seriary_, to which we have
recourse in order to compare man with animals which bear the closest
resemblance to him.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 15.--Same subject as Fig. 14, seen in profile.
Example of nose concave and flattened, of prognathism, and of prominent
superciliary arches.

(_Photo. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

But all these measurements do not suffice to exhaust the data of the
morphology of the skull. There still remain a host of _descriptive_
characters: the general form of the skull, pentagonal, oval,
elliptical, etc.; the contour of the face more or less angular or
rounded, its _canine fossa_ more or less deep, its zygomatic arches,
and its molar bones more or less projecting, etc. Certain anomalies
in the sutures of the bones, as for example the persistence of the
medio-frontal suture, the dispositions of the _pterion_ (point of union
of the sutures between the frontal, the temporal, the sphenoid, and
the parietal bones), are only important as seriary characters, but
there are others which possess some value in the differentiation of
races. The _Wormian bones_, or points of ossification inserted between
the bones of the skull, are of the number. One of these bones found
between the parietal bones and the occipital, has even received the
name of the _Inca bone_ (Fig. 23, /A/), on account of its very frequent
occurrence among Peruvian crania (deformed or not). In fact, it is met
with in an imperfect state 20 times in 100 and perfect 5.4 times in
100 among Peruvians, while in Negro crania it is found only 6 times
in 100 imperfect, and 1.5 perfect; among Europeans it is still more
rarely imperfect, and is hardly ever met with perfect (Anuchin). This
peculiarity seems to be a special character of the American race,
seeing that among the crania of the Indians of the New World (outside
Peruvians) the anomaly in question is found 10 times in 100 imperfect
and 1.3 times perfect. Among the Indians of Rio Salado, an affluent of
the Gila in Arizona, the frequency of this anomaly is still greater
than among Peruvians (5.7 perfect cases against 5.4 in Peru).[64] In
the same way, the presence of a suture which divides into two, more or
less imperfectly, the malar bone (Fig. 23, /B/) appears to be a special
character of Ainu and Japanese crania; Hilgendorf has even proposed to
call the lower portion of the malar bone thus formed _os japonicum_
(Fig. 23, /B/, _a_). While the suture is only met with 11 or 12 times
in 100 in Mongolian races, and 9 times in 100 in European races
according to Ten Kate,[65] it is found from 25 to 40 times in 100 among
Japanese according to Doenitz.

It is well understood that in the description of crania the alterations
of form produced by all kinds of causes are taken into account. (Such,
for example, is the considerable asymmetry or _plagiocephaly_ due
to a physiological cause, as the hypertrophy of the capacity of the
skull, or its atrophy in the pathological cases of _hydrocephaly_ or
_microcephaly_, and so many other ethnic deformations which will come
up for treatment in Chapter V., etc.)

_The head of the living subject_ furnishes more numerous characters
than the skull, especially if the face be considered with the play of
feature. Sometimes an examination of the face suffices to determine the
race of the subject.

The measurements of the head are about fifty in number, but they are
not all of equal importance. Very few of them, indeed, are really
useful.

The chief of the _angular measurements_ is the facial angle; great
importance was formerly attached to it when prognathism, or the degree
of projection of the maxillary region, was considered as a character
of inferiority. In spite of the numerous instruments invented (double
square, Harmand’s instrument, Jacquard’s goniometer, etc.), great
precision in these measurements is not attainable. The only angle which
can be taken with sufficient exactitude, thanks to the facial medium
goniometer of Broca, is Cuvier’s angle, formed by a line running either
from the glabella or the point between the eyebrows to the interval
between the incisor teeth, and by another line starting from the
external auditory meatus towards this interval. This angle enables us
to estimate the _total prognathism_ and the _alveolar prognathism_,
but the variations which it presents are too slight (3 to 4 degrees),
taking race with race, to constitute a distinctive character.
Prognathism of the lips, pushed forward to form the prominence of the
“muzzle,” which gives so characteristic an expression to the profile
of certain Negroes or Australians (Fig. 15), is not expressed by this
measurement, and ordinarily cannot be measured in any way.

Among the _measurements of the curve of the head_ the principal
are those of the _horizontal circumference_ with its _anterior
and posterior portions_, the limits of which are found at the
supra-auricular point, that is to say, in the depression which is
found immediately in front of the spot where the helix of the pinna
of the ear is inserted. The value of this measurement has also been
exaggerated, it being said that men of well-developed minds have the
circumference greater than men without intellectual culture. The
comparative observations of Broca made on house-surgeons and attendants
of hospitals seem to bear out the assertion; but they have not been
confirmed, and stature appears to have a decided relation with the size
of the head.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 16.--Japanese officer (old style), born at Tokio.
Example of elongated face.

(_Phot. Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

The measurements in a straight line are more numerous and more
important than those of angles and curves. Those which give the
antero-posterior diameter or maximum length of the head (from the
glabella to the most prominent point of the occiput, as on the cranium)
and the transverse maximum diameter, are the first to note. We have
already seen (p. 57) that their centesimal relation constitutes what
is called the _cephalic index_. Let us note afterwards the _total
height of the head_ (projection on a vertical plane), the _maximum
breadth of the face_ (between the zygomatic arches) and the different
“lengths” of the face, the relation of which to the breadth constitutes
the _facial index_. The latter is far from expressing the form of
the face as well as does the cephalic index the form of the head,
on account of its irregularity, and the want of agreement between
anthropologists with regard to the “facial lengths.” Nevertheless
we distinguish according to these measurements elongated faces or
_leptoprosopic_ (Fig. 16), short faces or _chamæprosopic_ (Fig. 17),
and medium faces, _meso-_ or _ortho-prosopic_ (Fig. 14).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 17.--Two men, Nagas of Manipur. Examples of large
faces with prominent cheek-bones.

(_Phot. Miss Godden._)]

Other measurements taken are the _frontal minimum diameter_ or minimum
breadth of the forehead (between the temporal ridges of the frontal
bone, which makes a projection under the skin); the _distance between
the inner angles_ or _canthus_ of the eyes is a good measurement,
especially if it be compared with the _breadth of the nose_, taken by
just touching with the points of the callipers the alæ of the nose.
Referred to the length of the nose (between the root of the nose and
the point of insertion of the septum) reduced to 100 it gives the
_nasal index_, one of the important characters in the classification of
races. Among several other measurements may be mentioned the _breadth
of the mouth_ between the commissure of the lips, the subject being
in repose; the _length and the breadth of the ears_, etc. All these
measurements are taken either with callipers or with sliding compasses,
similar to those used by shoemakers or engineers, or with special
instruments.[66]

Measurements taken on the living subject can never be as accurate as
those obtained on the cranium; but, on the other hand, they may be
much more numerous, and the greater number of observations compensates
largely for individual errors due to difficulties of the mode of
operation. Further, when measuring heads of living subjects, there is
the advantage of knowing sex, approximate age, and exact origin, while
in the case of one-half the crania examined, one or more of these
particulars may be wanting. All these conditions sufficiently explain
why, in these latter days, the attention of anthropologists is directed
towards measurements of living subjects, among which those of the head
occupy the foremost place.

Do the measurements of the head of the living subject correspond to the
measurements of the cranium? Various researches made with the object of
elucidating this question leave it still unsettled. It was believed at
first, for instance, that the _bregma_, or point of junction between
the coronal and the sagittal sutures in the cranium (Fig. 11, O),
corresponded in the head with the most prominent point of the line
passing from the supra-auricular point to another perpendicularly to
the horizontal plane; but the very careful researches of Broca and
Ferré have shown that this point is always in front of the bregma
by a quantity which varies according to sex and individual. The
correspondence of the _tourbillon_ of the hair with the _lambda_, or
point of junction on the cranium of the sagittal and occipital sutures
(Fig. 11, /F/), has not either been clearly demonstrated. The
principal measurement, the _cephalic index_, does not appear always to
correspond on the cranium and on the head of the living subject. _A
priori_, the living head should have the index a little higher than
the cranium, the muscles of the temporal region being thicker than
those of the supra-occipital and frontal region. However, experiments
made in connection with this subject are contradictory. According to
Broca, two units must be subtracted from the index taken on the living
subject in order to obtain the index on the cranium; this is also the
opinion of Stieda and Houzé and a great number of anthropologists,
while Mantegazza and Weisbach advocate the reduction of the index by
three units; and Virchow and Topinard do not admit any. In the face of
these divergent opinions, it is best to give the indices on the cranium
and the living subject separately as they are, and indicate the rate of
reduction or augmentation.

However, in a general way, one may admit, and I admit in this book,
the difference of two units between the indices of the cranium and the
living subject. In this way the two may be compared by adding these
two units to the index of crania and removing them from the index of
the living subject. I have given (p. 57) the divisions of the cephalic
index of the cranium; those of the living subject are the same with the
addition of two units.

We may now proceed to examine a little more closely the principal
measurements and the indices on the living subject by beginning
precisely with the _cephalic index_, which I believe to be, in spite
of the recent criticisms of Sergi[67] and Ehrenreich,[68] one of the
good characteristics of race, enabling us to make some secondary
partitions in the principal partitions of the genus _Homo_, based,
as we shall see afterwards (Chapter VIII.), on the colour of the skin
and the nature of the hair. Assuredly this index cannot express by
itself alone the true form of the head or the cranium, but it supplies
very clearly a first indication which gives a much better idea than
detailed description, useful, to be sure, but rendering the study
almost impossible when it is a question of comparing with one another a
great number of different types. On the other hand, this index has such
a fixity within the limits of any given race, that it is difficult to
conceive how it could be dispensed with. The figures given by different
authors when they rest on a sufficient number of subjects agree so
much among themselves as to the cephalic index, that it is impossible
to deny its fixity. The recent researches of Gonner[69] on one hundred
children of Basel, far from weakening the assertion, as it would
appear, speak in its favour; made on only the new-born or children one
month old, they confirm what was already known, that the cephalic index
varies with age, and by no means contradict its fixity. Ordinarily,
at birth children appear to be more dolichocephalic than the adults
of their race, but from the first month the head grows faster in
breadth than in length; thus at the end of the first month, according
to Gonner, the head is broadened in 52 children in 100, and remains
stationary in 9 per 100. My own researches lead me to believe that the
heads of children increase at first in breadth, to arrive afterwards
gradually at a definite form, which is fixed about the age of ten,
twelve, or fifteen years, according to race.

If instead of comparing, as Gonner has done, children of one month
old with their parents, he had taken children from ten years upwards,
he would have arrived at the same results as Spalikowski, who on
forty-eight infants at Rouen found forty-one of which the cranial form
corresponded with their parents. The researches of O. Ammon, Johansson
and Westermarck, Miss Fawcett and Pearson, as well as my own (yet
unpublished), lead to the same result.[70]

The differences of the cephalic index according to sex are
insignificant. According to my personal researches, this difference
hardly exceeds on the average 0.7 in the living subject and 1.5 in
the cranium; and even this latter figure is exaggerated. It may, in a
general way, be admitted that the difference between the cephalic index
of men and women hardly exceeds one unit--that is to say, the degree
of personal error in the observation. This difference is, in any case,
less than the discrepancies between the different series of a single
and homogeneous race.

In the table of the cephalic index which appears at the end of this
volume (Appendix II.), however, I have given only the figures relating
to men. A few series comprising individuals of both sexes appear
there as exceptional cases. I have taken care to mark these with a
letter S. In this table will be found side by side with indices taken
on the living subjects some taken on crania, but no series contains
measurements of crania and heads intermingled. The series of ten to
twenty subjects or crania in the table appear there exceptionally, for
the only series furnishing figures really exact are those comprising
more than twenty individuals.

An inspection of the table shows us that there is a certain regularity
in the distribution of the different cranial forms on the surface of
the earth.

Dolichocephaly is almost exclusively located in Melanesia, in
Australia, in India, and in Africa. Sub-dolichocephaly, diffused in the
two extreme regions, North and South, of Europe, forms in Asia a zone
round India (Indo-China, Anterior Asia, China, Japan, etc.), but is
met with only sporadically in other parts of the world, especially in
America. Mesocephaly is frequent in Europe in the regions bordering
on the sub-dolichocephalic countries, as well as in different parts of
Asia and America. Sub-brachycephaly, much diffused among the Mongolians
of Asia and the populations of Eastern Europe, is very rare elsewhere.
Lastly, brachycephalic and hyper-brachycephalic heads are almost
exclusively limited to Western and Central Europe, to some populations
of Asia, Turco-Mongols, Irano-Semites, and Thaï-Malays.

Has the form of the head, so far as the cephalic index can express
it, an influence on the volume of the brain, and consequently on
its weight, and even perhaps on the mentality? This question is
subordinate to another, namely: To what point is the weight of the
brain the expression of the psychical value of this organ? We shall
see further, on p. 101, that the weight can only be considered as a
very rough approximation for the solution of psychological questions.
But even in recognising in the weight of the brain the exaggerated
importance that too long has been attributed to it, it may be said that
it is not in relation with the conformation of the skull. The only
investigation made into this matter--that of Calori--restricted to the
figures of adults (from 20 to 60 years) by Topinard,[71] shows us that
among Italian men the brachycephalic have on an average 27 grammes of
brain more than the dolichocephalic, while among Italian women it is
the dolichocephalic who have the better of the brachycephalic by 21
grammes. The differences in the two shapes being so very trifling, one
may consider one’s self equally intelligent whether dolichocephalic or
brachycephalic.

Next to the form of the head, that of the face is of great importance
in recognising races. It may be more or less long or broad, oval (Fig.
109), ellipsoidal (Fig. 136), or round (Figs. 119, 164, and 169), with
soft contours or very angular, and then it may be found as an elongated
rectangle (Fig. 121) or a square (Fig. 124); it may approximate also to
the pentagonal form (Fig. 17), etc.

The _forehead_ may be broad or narrow, low or high, retreating
(oblique, Fig. 21) or straight (Figs. 24 and 90), it may present a
medium protuberance, as for instance, among many Negro tribes (Fig.
140), etc. The _superciliary arches_ may be absent (Mongolian races) or
very prominent, overhanging the eyes (Australians, Fig. 15; Veddahs,
Fig. 5).

The _cheek-bones_ may be little developed (Europeans) or very prominent
(Mongolians, Figs. 17 and 20; Bushmen, Fig. 24, etc.), but cheek-bones
projecting forward must be distinguished from those developed
laterally. The _chin_ may be pointed, rounded, square, projecting,
retreating (Fig. 15), but these variations are of little importance,
and may be found in conjunction with the most diverse forms of the
face, while giving to it its own character. The posterior angles of
the lower jaw may be more or less wide, and thus help to produce the
angular contour of the face; quadrangular in the case of the square
chin (Fig. 121), or with pentagonal contour in the case of the pointed
chin (Fig. 118).

The _eyes_ furnish also some differences of form. We distinguish the
ordinary eye, as in our countries, and the _oblique_ or _narrowed
Mongolian eye_. The latter presented in its most perfect form is
characterised as follows. It is placed obliquely, so that its external
angle is higher than its inner angle (Fig. 121). This disposition is
due to the too high attachment of the external palpebral ligament to
the skull, as Regalia has shown.[72] Its palpebral aperture is much
narrower than in the ordinary eye, and instead of having the form of
an almond, it has rather that of a scalene triangle (Figs. 18 and 118)
or of a little fish whose head corresponds to the inner angle (Fig.
119). But these peculiarities are not the most important, and may be
met with, though rarely, in ordinary eyes. The essential characters
of the Mongolian eye consist, as Metchnikof[73] has shown, in a
puffiness of the upper eyelid, which turns down at the inner angle of
the narrowed eye, and, instead of being free, as in the ordinary eye,
is folded towards the eyeball, forming a fixed fold in front of the
movable ciliary edge; this last becomes invisible and the eyelashes
are scarcely seen. Moreover, towards the inner angle of the eye, the
eyelid forms a fold covering more or less the caruncula, and sometimes
extending more or less far below (Fig. 18). These peculiarities,
which can be met with quite often among the children of all races as
a transitory characteristic, may be explained up to a certain point
by the very small development of the pilous system in general in
people among whom they persist. For among Europeans, for instance, the
inversion of the eyelid (_entropion_) may become a cause of disease
(_trichiasis_) precisely on account of the growth of the eyelashes.[74]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 18.--Eye of a young Kalmuk girl of Astrakhan.
Example of Mongoloid eye

(_from nature_).]

Sometimes this puffiness only extends to the outer part of the
eyelid; we have thus a variety of the Mongolian eye, with a palpebral
triangular opening, very frequent among the eastern Finns (Fig. 106)
and the Turco-Tatar populations.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 19.--Welsh type of Montgomeryshire. Eyes and hair
dark.

(_Photo. and particulars, Beddoe._)]

The _nose_, by the variety and the fixity of its forms, presents one
of the best characters for distinguishing races. We can express by
means of the nasal index of Broca its width (measured by just touching
the alæ of the nose) in relation to its length (from the root to the
sub-nasal spine) supposed = 100. This index varies in the proportion
of one to three (from 40 to 120), according to race. Among the
platyrhinians, the breadth of the nose exceeds 85 (Fig. 14); among the
leptorhinians, this breadth is less than 70 (Fig. 16); lastly, among
the mesorhinians, it oscillates between 70 and 85, according to the
nomenclature of R. Collignon.[75] I give in Appendix III. a table of
the nasal indices of the principal populations; I have only introduced
into it series of more than ten individuals, whose measurements have
been taken according to the Broca-Collignon method, explained above.[76]

Besides the general form of the nose given by the nasal index, there
remain a host of descriptive characters which may be observed in
this organ. It may be more or less flattened (examples: Negroes,
Melanesians, Mongolians), or more or less prominent (Europeans,
Jews, Arabs). Its profile may be: (1) straight and sometimes sinuous
(examples: Turco-Tatars, Europeans, Fig. 19); (2) concave (certain
Finns, Bushmen, Lapps, Australians, Fig. 15); (3) convex and sometimes
arched (American Indians, Semites, Fig. 21). Each of these forms may
be in combination with a fine, thick, or medium tip, and with a plane
of the nostrils directed upwards, downwards, or horizontally. A.
Bertillon[77] admits at least fifteen varieties of the forms of the
nose. In the majority of cases concave noses have the extremity thick,
and the plane of the nostrils directed upward (Figs. 9, 14, and 15);
convex noses, on the contrary, have most frequently the tip fine,
and the plane of the nostrils directed downward (Figs. 21, 102, 103,
and 134). But there are also convex noses with very thick tips, for
instance, among the Jews and the Iranians of the Assyroid type (Fig.
22), or again, among the Papuans and the Melanesians (Fig. 53), as well
as concave noses with fine tips, for instance, among certain European
races (Figs. 97, 104, and 105). Broad noses are most frequently
flattened (Figs. 14, 15, and 24), but the flattening may also extend
to narrow noses, as for example among the Mongols (Fig. 20). The
sunken, very depressed root of the nose is almost always associated
with a considerable prominence on the supraciliary arches: examples,
Australians, Fuegians, etc. (Figs. 14, 15, and 48).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 20.--Kalmuk of Astrakhan. Example of convex and
flattened nose.

(_Phot. S. Sommier._)]

In a general way, as may be seen from the table, the leptorhinians,
who have for the most part the convex and straight noses, with fine,
straight, or turned-down tips, are met with almost exclusively
among Europeans, Eurasians, Armenians, Caucasians, and Eurafricans
(Arabo-Berbers), as well as among the inhabitants of anterior Asia.
The mesorhinians, among whom the form of the profile of the nose
varies much, include different populations of India, some American,
Turco-Tatar, and Mongol peoples. And lastly, the platyrhinians, having
most frequently the profile convex and the tip turned up, comprise the
whole of the black populations of Africa, Oceania, and India.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 21.--Jew of Algiers. Example of convex and
prominent nose.

(_Phot. Coll. Mus. Hist. Nat., Paris._)]

At birth and during early infancy the nose is most frequently concave,
with the tip turned up (Fig. 130); it only becomes straight or convex
in the adult; in old age it has a tendency to become convex with the
tip turned down (Bertillon, Hoyer). In the dead body it always takes
the arched form. According to Broca and Houzé, the nasal index has a
tendency to get lower--that is to say, the nose becomes relatively
thinner as the individual advances in age; according to Hoyer,[78] the
contrary takes place.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 22.--Persian Hadjemi. Example of Assyroid nose.

(_Author’s Phot. Coll._)]

The ears present few characteristic traits for distinguishing
races,[79] but the same cannot be said of the lips. They are thin in
the so-called white races and among Mongols; very thick and protruding
among the Negroes; somewhat thick among Malays, Melanesians, etc. Their
form contributes much towards hiding or accentuating dental or alveolar
prognathism.

_Skeleton of the Trunk and Limbs._--The parts of the skeleton other
than the head furnish but few materials for characterising races. We
have already seen (p. 14) that the differences of curvature in the
_vertebral column_ according to race may be explained by the mode of
life. As to the other peculiarities of the spine,--spinous processes
split in the cervical vertebræ,[80] narrow sacrum, etc.,--all that can
be said about them is that they are more frequent among Negroes, and
perhaps among Melanesians, than among Whites.

The _pelvis_ has more importance on account of its function from
the obstetrical point of view, and of its influence on the general
form of the body. Unfortunately this part of the skeleton has only
been studied in very inadequate series among a dozen populations.
Subjoined is given:--1st, the table of _pelvic index_--that is to
say, the centesimal relation between the maximum breadth of the
pelvis (between the iliac crests) and its height (from the top of the
iliac crest to the lowest point of the ischion), taking for our unit
sometimes the first of these measurements following Turner, sometimes
the second following Broca; 2nd, the table of the index of the inlet
(_pelvic or brim index_ of English authors)--that is to say, the
relation of the antero-posterior diameter of this aperture (from the
middle of the promontory of the sacrum to the pubic symphysis) to its
maximum transverse diameter, which, let us suppose, = 100.[81] It
will be remarked that the tables, formed of series of five subjects
at least, are given in separate parts for men and for women, as the
sexual differences are very appreciable in the pelvis of all races.
In a general way the pelvis is broader and less high, its slope more
pronounced, in woman than in man. The iliac fossa are wider in the
former than in the latter; the _superior inlet_ or _brim_ is elliptical
or reniform in woman, in the form of a playing-card heart in man,
etc. But, as may be seen by our table, if these differences are very
appreciable in certain races, notably among Whites and Negroes, they
become less and less among Melanesians, among whom the pelves of the
two sexes approximate nearly to the masculine type.

Has the form of the pelvis, and especially that of the inlet, any
relation to the form of the head of the fœtus and of the child?
Exact data for solving this question are wanting. However, comparing
from our tables the index of the superior inlet and that of the
cephalic index, it may be observed that, in a general way, pelves with
a large aperture are met with in brachycephalic races, and pelves with
a narrow aperture in dolichocephalic races. But there are numerous
exceptions: I note at least four (English, Russian, Swedish mesocephal
and Malay women) in the meagre list of 12 series of women that, with
much difficulty, I have been able to draw up.

The form of the _shoulder-blade_ varies little with race. The _scapular
index_--that is to say, the centesimal relation between the breadth of
the shoulder-blade and its length (measured on the vertebral edge and
taken as the unit of comparison)--oscillates between 64.9 (Australians)
and 70.2 (Andamanese). In a list of 14 series of from 10 to 462
shoulder-blades that I have drawn up from the works of Broca, Livon,
Turner, Topinard, Garson, Martin, Hyades, Sarasin, Hamy, Koganei,
and my own measurements, the populations are arranged as follows:
index from 64.9 to 66.6, Australians, Europeans, Fuegians, Bushmen,
Ainus, Peruvians, Polynesians; indices from 67.2 to 70.2, Japanese,
Veddahs, Hindu-Sikhs, Malays, Negroes, Melanesians, Andamanese. This
classification suffices to show that the greater or less breadth of
the shoulder-blade has almost no value as a seriate character or as a
character of race. It is the same with the _sub-spinal index_, which it
has been proposed to add to the foregoing in order to judge of the form
of the shoulder-blade.[82]

    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                  MEN.
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
    Number |                        |      |
      of   |     Ethnic Groups.     |Index.|    Observer.
    Pelves.|                        |      |
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
                1_a_.--INDEX OF HEIGHT (TURNER).[83]
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
       7   |Fuegians                |  77  |Garson, Martin.
       7   |Australians             |  77  |Garson, Turn., Vern.
      46   |Europeans               |  79  |Verneau, Turner.
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
        1_b_.--PELVIC INDEX OR INDEX OF WIDTH-HEIGHT (BROCA).
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
      17   |Negroes in general      | 121.3|Garson, Verneau.
      11   |Melanesians             | 122.7|Verneau.
      46   |Europeans               | 126.6|Garson, Verneau.
       5   |Fuegians                | 129.8|Hyades, Deniker.
           |                        |      |
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
                 2.--INDEX OF THE SUPERIOR INLET.
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
      63   |Europeans} Princ. French|  80  |Verneau, Flower.
       8   |         }  „   Italians|  82  |Marri.
      17   |Fuegians                |  85.1|Deniker, Hyades,
           |                        |      | Martin, Garson.
      12   |New Caledonians         |  91  |Verneau.
      38   |Negroes                 |  92.3|Turner, Henning,
           |                        |      | Verneau, Vrolik.
      24   |Australians             |  96.6|Flower, Turner,
           |                        |      |  Vern., Ecker, etc.
      14   |Andamanese              |  98.7|Turner, Fritsch.
       5   |Bushmen                 |  99.5|Gar., Turn., Flow.
           |                        |      |
           |                        |      |
    -------+------------------------+------+--------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                 WOMEN.
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
    Number |                        |      |
      of   |     Ethnic Groups.     |Index.|    Observer.
    Pelves.|                        |      |
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
                 1_a_.--INDEX OF HEIGHT (TURNER).
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
      28   |Europeans               |  74.3|Garson, Verneau.
       7   |Australians             |  76.6|Gars., Turn., Vern.
       8   |Andamanese              |  76  |Gars., Turn.
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
        1_b_.--PELVIC INDEX OR INDEX OF WIDTH-HEIGHT (BROCA).
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
      13   |Andamanese              | 125.5|Garson.
      10   |Melanesians             | 129  |Garson, Verneau.
       5   |Australians             | 130.4|Garson, Verneau.
      10   |Negresses               | 134.2|Garson, Verneau.
      28   |Europeans               | 134.9|Garson, Verneau.
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
                 2.--INDEX OF THE SUPERIOR INLET.
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------
      33   |Europeans} Princ. Engl. |  77.6|Garson.
      49   |         }  „    French |  79  |Verneau.
      14   |Japanese                |  82.8|Dönitz, Werner.
       5   |Hawaiians               |  83  |Turner.
      13   |Fuegians                |  83  |Deniker, Hyades,
           |                        |      | Sergi, Martin.
      50   |Russians                |  84.8|Filatof.
       9   |Italians                |  86.7|Marri.
      32   |Negresses               |  88.4|Turner, Verneau.
       8   |Australians             |  88.5|Turn., Vern., Garson.
       8   |Bushmen                 |  91.6|Muller, Hux., Ver., Fl.
      16   |Andamanese              |  91.7|Henning.
      20   |Malays                  |  94.8|Garson, Flow., Turn.
    -------+------------------------+------+---------------------

As to the skeleton of the limbs, here is a summary of what can be said
about it from the point of view which specially concerns us now. In the
_thoracic limb_ the _humerus_ presents an interesting peculiarity: the
perforations of the _olecranon cavity_ (which receives the extremity of
the ulna) are very frequent in prehistoric bones in Europe (10 to 27
times in 100), as well as in America (31 times).[84]

This perforation is met with more often among men than women, perhaps
because it is more especially connected with the extent and frequent
repetition of the movements of flexion and extension. Here is its
growing frequency in the races from a list which I have drawn up with
series varying from 20 to 249 humeri: white population of the United
States (3.8 times in a hundred), French, Fuegians, Ainus, Basques,
Melanesians, Japanese, Negroes, Polynesians, Mongolians, and American
Indians (36.2 times in a hundred). The _torsion of the humerus_--that
is to say, the degree of rotation of the lower part of this bone in
relation to its upper part, is a character of a certain seriate value;
but it is of no use in the differentiation of races. Besides, the
degree of torsion varies too much in the same race: it is greater in
woman than in man, in short than in long humeri (Manouvrier, Martin,
etc.). This torsion is measured by the _angle of torsion_, which is
taken either according to Broca’s method or Gegenbaur’s. This is
how the different peoples are arranged according to the decreasing
figures of this angle (series of 10 humeri): according to Broca’s
system:--Melanesians (angle of 141°), Guanches, Arabs or at least
Kabyles, Polynesians, Negroes, Peruvians, Californians, Europeans,
French (164°); according to Gegenbaur’s system:--Ainus (149.5°),
Fuegians, Veddahs, Japanese, Swiss, Germans (168°). Until further
discoveries are made, a single fact becomes prominent from the
examination of this character--that is, that the torsion appears to be
greater in white races than in black and yellow. In the ulna Collignon
has noted a special incurvation in certain prehistoric bones.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 23.--A, Skull with Inca Bone, _b_; B, Malar Bone
divided in two (_a_, _os Japonicum_); C, superior part of femur with
third trochanter (3), and the hypo-trochanteric fossa (_x_); 1 and 2,
normal trochanters.]

In the _femur_ one peculiarity has especially attracted the attention
of anthropologists in recent times; it is the more or less frequent
presence of the _third trochanter_ (Fig. 23, C 3), or tuberosity
situated between the great (_ibid._, 1) and the lesser (_ibid._, 2)
trochanter on the offshoot from the _linea aspera_ which furnishes a
point of attachment to the lower part of the _gluteus maximus_. This
projection, pointed out and studied for the first time by Houzé,[85]
appears in infancy as a special centre of ossification analogous
to those of the other diaphyses (Török, Deniker, Dixon), and so
does not seem to depend on the greater or less development of the
_gluteus maximus_ (Bertaux).[86] The third trochanter is almost always
accompanied by a _hypotrochanteric fossa_ (Fig. 23, C).

Here is the frequency with which the third trochanter occurs according
to a list which I have compiled:--

    -------+-----------------------------+-----------+----------------
           |                             |Frequency  |
    Number |                             |per 100    |
    of     |           Populations.      |of the 3rd |   Observers.
    Femurs.|                             |trochanter.|
    -------+-----------------------------+-----------+----------------
       42  |Belgians and French of the   |           |
           |   Reindeer Period           |    13     | Houzé
       28  |Negroes                      |    21     | Houzé, Costa
       68  |Ainus                        |    26.5   |}Koganei
       73  |Japanese                     |    28.8   |}
       67  |Inhabitants of Brussels      |    30.2   | Houzé
      102  |Italians                     |    30.4   | Costa
       54  |Hungarians                   |    36.1   | Török
      110  |Belgians and French of the   |           |
           |   Polished Stone Period     |    38     | Houzé
       76  |Fuegians                     |    64.3   | Hyad., Denik.,
           |                             |           |   Martin, Costa
    -------+-----------------------------+-----------+----------------

Two points will be observed in this table, the rarity of the third
trochanter among Negroes, and its excessive frequency among the
Fuegians. The women of the latter have also the hypochanteric fossa 80
times in a 100 (out of 76 femurs examined); it almost forms then, like
the third trochanter, a character of race.

In the _tibia_ attention has been called to _platycnemia_--that is to
say, the transversal flattening in the upper third of the diaphysis
of the bone, so that its posterior side becomes transformed into a
border. It has been supposed that this form is a reversion towards
the simian type, but Manouvrier[87] has shown that platycnemia never
attains in the anthropoid apes the degree which it presents in the
human race, where it is due especially to the development of the
_tibialis posticus_ muscle which plays a great part in the maintenance
of the upright position, and in the movements of walking and running.
The degree of platycnemia may thus vary according to the more or less
sedentary or wandering habits of the different populations.

_The retroversion of the head of the tibia_--that is to say, the slope
of the articular surface of it behind--pointed out and described for
the first time by Collignon in prehistoric tibias, is also not a simian
character. According to Manouvrier,[88] it is often met with among
Parisians in a degree superior to that exhibited by anthropoid apes.
This retroversion, generally associated with platycnemia, is connected
with the half-bending attitude of the lower limb in the manner of
walking which is called the _bending gait_, common among peasants, and
especially mountaineers. The retroversion is more marked in the tibia
of the new-born child than in that of the adult, and this appears
to have a connection with the permanent bending of the knee during
intra-uterine life.

_The length of the bones of the pelvic and thoracic limbs_ varies
according to race, but it is difficult to establish the degree of these
variations, owing to the small number of observations made. Besides,
we can more profitably substitute for measurements of limbs on the
skeleton those of the living subject; in the latter case we can at
least relate all the measurements to the true height of the subject,
whilst the height is never exactly known from the skeleton.

However, the measurements of the long bones have their importance, for
they permit us to _reconstitute_ approximately, as we have already seen
(p. 33), _the height_ of subjects of which we have only the bones, as
is the case of all populations that have preceded us.

It is for this reason that I give the following figures derived
from nine series of from five to seventy-two skeletons. The length
of the humerus represents from 19.5 (Polynesians) to 20.7 per cent.
(Europeans) of the height of the skeleton; that of the radius from
14.3 (Europeans) to 15.7 (Negroes); that of the femur from 26.9 (South
Americans) to 27.9 (New Caledonians); lastly, the length of the tibia
represents from 21.5 (Esthonians) to 23.8 per cent. (New Caledonians)
of the height of the skeleton. Thus the differences are insignificant,
and the variations between race and race do not extend beyond the
limits of a unit and a half for each of the bones.

The length of the radius in relation to the humerus (= 100) exhibits
variations a little more appreciable. It is 72.5 among Europeans, 76
among New Caledonians, 79 among Negroes, 79.7 among Veddahs, 80.6
among Fuegians, 81.7 among Andamanese. Let us note that the fore-arm,
relatively to the arm, is much longer in the fœtus in the first
stages of development and in early infancy than in the adult;[89] it is
shortened in proportion to the height as the fœtus and the infant
grow.

_Proportions of the Body in the Living Subject._--In spite of the
quantity of material accumulated, we have not been able up to the
present to make any use of the differences which these proportions
exhibit according to race. The reason is that these differences are
very trifling. In order to understand this proposition better I will
give by way of illustration the proportions which we may consider as
nearly normal in a European of average stature (1 m. 65, or 5 ft. 5
ins.). Topinard established thus the principal proportions of the
European,[90] assuming the height = 100.

    Head                                          13
    Trunk and neck                                35
            (32.7 without neck.)
    Thoracic limb                                 45
    Arm                                           19.5
    Forearm                                       14
    Hand                                          11.5
    Abdominal limb                                47.5
        (from the ischiatic plane to the ground.)
    Foot                                          15
    Span of arms (middle finger of one hand to
        middle finger of the other.)             104.4

The proportions in the different populations of the earth oscillate
round these figures without diverging from them more than three units,
or five at most. Thus, for example, the proportions of the height of
the head vary between 11.4 and 15, according to Rojdestvensky;[91] the
proportions of the trunk without the neck from 32.6 to 32.8, according
to Topinard, etc.

The length of the thoracic limb scarcely varies more than between 42.6
and 47.6, according to the lists of sixteen and twenty-seven series
published by Ivanovsky and Topinard,[92] and according to a third list
of twenty-four series that I have drawn up. We can count on the fingers
the populations in which the proportion for the hand exceeds the figure
11 with its decimals or sinks below it; it is the same in regard to the
foot, of which the figure 15 with its decimals is rarely exceeded or is
not reached.[93] The variations of length for the abdominal limb do not
extend further than from 45.1 to 49.2 (Topinard), etc.

The thoracic perimeter exceeds half the height in all adult populations
of the world, except perhaps some groups of Georgian Svanes and Jews,
or other populations which happen to be in bad hygienic conditions.

Thus proportions of the limbs are not good characters of race. Besides,
certain dimensions (length of limbs, of the head) are always dependent
on height. Thus individuals and races of high stature have the face
and abdominal limb a little more elongated than individuals and races
of short stature. On the other hand, individuals and races of short
stature have in general the head larger, the trunk shorter, and the
thoracic perimeter relatively more considerable than individuals and
races of high stature, but the differences are very trifling as a
general rule.

_Trunk and Limbs of the Living._--To complete our study on the
living subject, let us again note some peculiarities. The _neck_
is ordinarily long and thin among Negroes, Ethiopians (Figs. 9 and
138), and on the contrary short among the majority of the American
Indians (Figs. 163 and 169); the shoulders are very broad among the
women of the latter (Fig. 165), and very narrow among the Chechen
and Lesghi women. Usually the long neck is associated with a form of
trunk like an inverted pyramid and a high stature, while the short
neck surmounts a cylindrical trunk and is associated with a low
stature. _Ensellure_--that is to say, the strongly marked curve of the
dorso-lumbo-sacral region--is especially marked among Spanish women
whose lumbar incurvation is such, and the movements of the lumbar
vertebræ so extensive, that they are able to throw themselves backwards
so as even to touch the ground (Duchenne of Boulogne). Ensellure is
also more marked among Negroes than among Whites. It must be noted that
it may also be merely a consequence of abdominal obesity, pregnancy, or
_steatopygia_.

By the last-mentioned term is designated excessive projection of
the buttocks due to the accumulation of subcutaneous fat (Fig. 24);
these are physiological fatty tumours proceeding from the hypertrophy
of the adipose tissue more or less abundant in these regions among
all races, and analogous to the fatty tumours of the cheeks of the
orang-utan, which are simply Bichat’s fatty balls existing among men
and among the anthropoids,[94] only excessively developed. As in those
tumours, the fat of the steatopygous masses does not even disappear
after disease which has emaciated the rest of the body. Steatopygia
is characteristic of the Bushman race; it is only met with in all its
characters (alteration of form on the lateral and anterior sides of the
thighs; persistence even in emaciation, etc.) among populations into
the composition of which enters the Bushman element: Hottentots (Fig.
24), Nama, etc. The cases of steatopygia observed among other Wolof or
Somali women, for example, are only the exaggeration of adipose deposit
among the muscular fibres, as with Europeans, not of the subcutaneous
adipose layer. Steatopygia is especially marked in the Bushman woman,
in whom it commences to develop only from the age of puberty; but it
exists also, though in a less degree, in the male of that race (Fig.
143).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 24.--Hottentot woman of Griqualand (Cape
Colony); 35 years; height, 4 ft. 8 ins.; cephalic index, 76.4. Example
of steatopygia. (_Photo. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

We cannot enlarge on other exterior characters: on the form of the
trunk and of the limbs; on the leg with poorly developed calf, and the
foot with the prominent heel which is observed among certain Negroes
(but not among all); on the more or less diverging big toe which is
remarked among the majority of the peoples of India, Indo-China, and
the insular world dependent on Asia, from Sumatra to Japan, etc.

Two words, however, on the subject of the pretended existence of
races of _men with tails_. We must relegate to the domain of fable
the cases of this kind which are announced from time to time in
publications for the popularisation of science so called. The costumes
of certain populations have given rise to the fable of men with tails
(see frontispiece). Isolated cases of men having as an anomaly a
caudal excrescence more or less long, free, or united to the trunk,
are known to science, and numbers have been described, but no single
serious description has ever been given of populations with tails.[95]
Quite recently, again, Lartschneider has demonstrated that the
ilio-coccygian and pubio-coccygian muscles in mammifera have lost in
man their character of symmetrical and paired skeleton muscles, and
are driven back towards the interior of the pelvis as single unpaired
muscle plates (fibres of the _levator ani_). Primitive man has never
had a caudal appendage since he acquired the biped attitude; the
disappearance of the tail is even one of the indispensable conditions
of that attitude.[96]

The different internal or external organs of man afford also some
special characters, though not very numerous, for differentiating race.

The _muscular system_, little known outside white races, has, up to
the present, not given any important indication on this point. At the
very outside, we can say, thanks to the works of Chudzinsky, Le Double,
Macalister, Popovsky, Testut, Turner, etc., and the Committee of the
Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland, that certain muscular
anomalies are more frequent in the Negro than in the White, and that
the muscles of the face are less differentiated in the former than in
the latter.[97] In the splanchnic system some differences have also
been observed between the White and the Negro, notably the excessive
volume of the liver, the spleen, the suprarenal-capsules, and, in
general, the hypertrophy of all the organs of excretion in the latter
compared with the former. The venous system appears also to be more
developed in the Negro than in the White. Somewhat notable differences
must certainly be observable in the structure and general conformation
of the organs of the voice and of speech--tongue, larynx, lungs. But
our knowledge on this subject is still very imperfect. Attention has
been drawn to the feeble development of the anterior fibres of the
stylo-glossal muscle of the tongue, the greater development of the
Wrisberg cartilage of the larynx with the muscles stronger in the Negro
than in the White,[98] but nothing is known about the larynx of other
races.

There is nothing, even to the bony parts of the vocal apparatus, which
does not undergo ethnic variations. Thus the larger cornua of the
_hyoid bone_ are not attached to the body of it in 75 to 95 per cent.
of cases observed among the Indians of America, whilst the same anomaly
is met with in only 25 to 35 per cent. of cases among Europeans, and
only in 30 per cent. among Negroes, which probably harmonises with the
differences in the production of sounds in the language of each of
these peoples.[99]

The _genital organs_ also present some differences according to race,
but rather in the dimensions of the various parts than in their form.
The only peculiarity worth notice is the exaggerated development of the
labia minora among the Bushman women, known under the name of “apron.”
This peculiarity, which appears from infancy, is met with only among
the Bushman race and the people into whose composition enters the
Bushman element--Hottentots, Nama, Griqua, etc.[100]

The breasts of women may also present variations of form. Ploss[101]
classes them under four heads according to their height, which is
inferior, equal, or more or less superior to the diameter of their
base; we have thus mammæ like a bowl or the segment of a globe,
hemispherical, conical, and pyriform. These forms may be found in
combination with a more or less extended and prominent areola, and with
a nipple which may be discoidal, hemispherical, digitiform, etc. It
is especially among Negresses that we meet with conical and pyriform
mammæ, and digitiform nipples, while mammæ shaped like the segment of a
sphere predominate among Mongolian and European women of the fair race;
women of the south-east of Europe and hither Asia have for the most
part hemispherical breasts.

Among the internal organs, the _brain_, or better, the _encephalon_,
deserves a little more attention. I have already said with regard
to cranial capacity (p. 56) that appreciable differences have been
observed in the volume of the brain-case according to age, sex, and
race. This difference is in harmony with irregularity in the volume and
consequently in the weight of the brain. At birth, European boys have
334 grammes of brain on an average, girls 287 grammes. This quantity
increases rapidly up to 20 years of age, remains almost stationary
between 20 and 40 or 45, then begins to decrease, slowly at first,
until 60 years, then more rapidly.

Let me also add that the weight of the encephalon varies enormously
according to individuals. Topinard[102] in a series of 519 Europeans,
men of the lower and middle classes, found that variations in weight
extended from 1025 grammes to 1675 grammes. The average weight of
the brain among adult Europeans (20 to 60 years) has been fixed by
Topinard, from an examination of 11,000 specimens weighed, at 1361
grammes for man, 1290 grammes for woman. It has been asserted that
the other races have a lighter brain, but the fact has not been
established by a sufficient number of examples. In reality all that can
be put against the 11,000 brain-weighings mentioned above concerning
the cerebral weights of non-European races, amounts to nothing, or
almost nothing. The fullest series that Topinard[103] has succeeded in
making, that of Negroes, comprises only 190 brains; that of Annamese,
which comes immediately after, contains only 18 brains. And what
do the figures of these series teach us? The first series, dealing
with Negroes, gives a mean weight not much different from that of
Europeans--1316 grammes for adult males of from 20 to 60 years; and
the second, dealing with the Annamese, a mean weight of 1341 grammes,
almost identical with that of Europeans. For other populations we have
only the weight of isolated brains, or of series of three, four, or
at most eleven specimens, absolutely insufficient for any conclusions
whatever to be drawn, seeing that individual variations are as great
in exotic races as among Europeans, to judge by Negroes (1013 to 1587
grammes) and by Annamese (from 1145 to 1450 grammes). Even in the great
series of Europeans, surprises await us in comparing the figures.
Thus Peacock found an average of 1388 grammes for the English from a
series of 28 brains, whilst Boyd finds 1354 grammes from a series of
425 brains. The difference (34 grammes) is greater here than between
the brains of Annamese and Europeans, and hardly less than that which
we have just found between Negroes and Europeans (45 grammes). For the
French the figures are more in agreement. Broca found from the weights
of 167 brains an average of 1359 grammes, and Bischoff[104] from 50
brains an average of 1381 grammes; difference, 22 grammes.

Not having at our disposal sufficient data for the weight, let us see
if the cranial capacity could not supply them, for we know, since the
investigations of Manouvrier,[105] that we have just to multiply by
the co-efficient 0.87 the capacity of the cranial cavity to get with
reasonable exactitude the weight of the brain which it contained.
This is what we learn from the figures of cranial capacity brought
together by Topinard,[106] after the necessary corrections, and
reduction to cubic measurement by the system of Broca: among Europeans
the measurement is 1565 c.c. on an average for men, varying from 1530
c.c. (22 Dutch) to 1601 c.c. (43 Finns). We have in various series the
following succession of cranial capacities for the populations of the
other parts of the world: the greatest is contained in a series of 26
Eskimo (1583 c.c.), the least that of 36 Australians (1349 c.c.) and
of 11 Andamanese (1310 c.c.). Between these two extremes the other
populations would be thus arranged in a decreasing order of capacity:
36 Polynesians (1525 c.c.), 18 Javanese (1500 c.c.), 32 Mongols (1504
c.c.), 23 Melanesians (1460 c.c.), 74 Negroes (1441 c.c.), and 17
Dravidians of Southern India (1353 c.c.).

The difference between the highest and lowest of these figures is 255
c.c., a little greater than that which is shown between man and woman
in all races. On the other hand, Manouvrier[107] gives the following
weights, deduced from cranial capacities: 187 modern Parisians, 1357
grammes; 61 Basques, 1360 grammes; 31 Negroes, 1238 grammes; 23 New
Caledonians, 1270 grammes; 110 Polynesians, 1380 grammes; and 50
Bengalis, 1184 grammes; the difference of the two extremes is 196
grammes. Must we then see in these differences the influence of stature
and bulk of body, as appears unquestionable in the sexual difference?
We are tempted to believe it when we see that the mean weight of the
largest brain in Europe has been found among the Scotch (1417 grammes,
an average obtained by Reid and Peacock from 157 brains), whose
stature is the highest of the human family, and that the mean weight
of the Italians, whose average stature is rather small, is only 1308
grammes (from 244 cases weighed by Calori). The Polynesians and the
Caucasians,[108] peoples of high stature, also outweigh the Andamanese
and the Javanese, of very low stature. However, we see (from weights
and cranial capacity) that Negro populations of very high stature, also
Australians and New Caledonians of medium stature, have the cerebral
weight much smaller than the Eskimo and certain Asiatics of low
stature, like the Javanese.

There is here a double influence, that of stature and that of race.
We might have introduced a third element--the weight of the body,
but it represents too many different things, and may vary according
to the degree of stoutness of the individual, the dietary regimen,
etc. C. Voit found, when operating on two dogs of nearly equal bulk,
that the weight of the brain of the well-fed dog represented 1.1 per
cent. of the weight of its body, whilst the brain of the dog which had
fasted for twenty-two days represented 1.7 per cent. of the weight
of the body.[109] At all events, we cannot deny the influence of the
bulk of the active parts of the body on the volume of the brain.[110]
But then a new question arises. Is the increase of the volume of
the brain made at the cost of the white substance formed solely of
conducting-fibres, or of the grey substance formed principally of
cells with their prolongations (neurons), that is to say, of the
part which is exclusively affected by the psychic processes? This
question still waits its solution. It is not the gross weight of the
brain, but really the weight of the cortical layer which should be
compared in the different races and subjects, in order to judge of
the quantity of substance devoted to the psychic functions in each
particular case.[111] Before the very delicate weighings of this kind
are made, we have a round-about method of ascertaining the quantity
of that substance by the superficial area which it occupies. The
cerebral cortex, composed of the grey substance, forms on the surface
of the brain sinuous folds called _cerebral convolutions_. Now, in
brains of equal volume, the greater the surface of the cortex, the
more numerous, sinuous, and complicated will be these folds. As the
thickness of the grey layer is very much the same in all brains, it
is evident that the complexity in the structure of the convolutions
corresponds to the increase of the grey substance, and consequently
of the psychic force. Now, the little that is known of the cerebral
convolutions in different races, and of various subjects in the same
race, appears to conform to this deduction. The brains of idiots, of
the weak-minded, present very simple convolutions, almost comparable to
those of the anthropoid apes, whose brain is like a simplified diagram
of the human brain. On the other hand, distinguished personages, great
scholars, orators, men of action, exhibit a complexity, sometimes
truly remarkable, of _certain_ convolutions. I say expressly certain
convolutions, for all these folds, arranged according to a certain
plan, common to all men, have not the same value from the physiological
point of view. In the grey layer of certain of them are the centres
of motor impulses, and of the general sensibility of the body (for
example, those which are arranged around the fissure of Rolando, Fig.
25, 2, 2), and only regulate the voluntary movements of the limbs,
the trunk and the head; others are connected with different forms of
sensibility--visual (Fig. 25, 4), auditory (Fig. 25, 6), gustatory,
olfactory, etc. But there are, between the different motor or sensorial
regions (_centres of projection_) which take nearly a third of the
grey substance of the brain, a great many more convolutions the grey
substance of which is connected with no special function (white spots
in Fig. 25). What is their purpose? Basing his opinion on the tardy
_myelinisation_[112] of the nerve-fibres which terminate in it,
subsequent to the birth of the individual and to the myelinisation of
the fibres of the sensory and motor centres, Flechsig[113] supposes
that these convolutions were designed to enable the different
cerebral centres to communicate with each other and to render us
conscious of this communication; therefore he has named their grey
substance “_centres of association_” (Fig. 25, 1, 3, 5). Without the
convolutions, the other centres would remain isolated and condemned to
a very restricted activity. Now, as the eminent anatomist Turner[114]
has shown so clearly, it is found that the convolutions of the sensory
and motor centres do not present any great differences in the brain of
a child, a monkey, a Bushman, or of a European man of science, like
Gauss; what differentiates these brains is the degree of complexity of
the convolutions concerned with association. There, then, is the part
of the brain which we want to utilise for the purpose of comparison,
reduced by almost a third. But let us suppose that differences of
volume and weight are found in these two-thirds of the grey substance.
Have we more reason to think that we are approaching the solution of
the problem?

[Illustration: /Fig./ 25.--Brain with indication of the three “centres
of projection” (2, general sensibility; 4, visual; 6, auditory) and
the three “centres of association” (1, frontal; 3, parietal; 5,
occipito-temporal); 1, fissure of Rolando; 7, Island of Reil.

(_After Flechsig._)]

It is believed that certain cells of the grey substance only, the
great and the little pyramidal-shaped cells, are associated with
the psychical functions, and that each of these, forming with its
axis-cylinder, dendrons and other branching prolongations what is
called a _neuron_, is not in constant connection with, and does not
occupy a fixed position once for all in regard to, other similar
_neurons_, but may by means of its prolongations place itself
alternately in contact with a great number of these.[115] Hence the
complexity of the nervous currents resulting from these continual
changes of contact. Thus the cerebral activity might not merely
be measured by the quantity and the size of the cells of the grey
substance, but also by the number and the variety of the habitual
contacts which are probably established after an education, a training
of the cells. As from the same number of keys of a piano the tyro can
produce only a few dissimilar sounds, while an artist elicits varied
melodies, so from cerebral cells practically equal in number a savage
is only able to extract vague and rudimentary ideas, while a thinker
brings out of them intellectual treasures. How far are we, then, from
the true appreciation of cerebral work with our rude weighings of an
organ in which, with one part that would assuredly help us to the
solution of the problem, we weigh at least three other parts having
nothing or almost nothing to do with it! And even if we succeeded in
finding the number, the weight, and the volume of the neurons, how are
we to estimate the innumerable combinations of which they are capable?
The problem appears almost insoluble. However, in science we must
never lose hope, and--who knows?--perhaps some day the solution of the
question will be found, and it will then appear as simple as to-day it
appears a matter of course to see through the body with radioscopical
apparatus.



CHAPTER III.

2.--PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

    _Functions of nutrition and assimilation_: Digestion, alimentation,
    growth, temperature of the body, etc.--_Respiration and
    circulation_: Pulse, composition of the blood, etc.--Special
    odour--_Functions of communication_: Expression of the emotions,
    acuteness of the senses, etc.--_Functions of reproduction_:
    Menstruation, menopause, increase in the number of conceptions
    according to season, etc.--_Influence of environment_:
    Acclimatation--Cosmopolitanism of the genus _Homo_ and the races of
    mankind--Cross-breeding.

3.--PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

    Difficulties of studying them--Immunities--Nervous diseases of
    uncivilised peoples.


2.--PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

The differences observable in the fulfilment of the organic
functions--nutrition, respiration, circulation of the blood,
reproduction, etc.--according to race are unquestionable; but they
are still too little studied for us to be able to speak with as much
certainty of them as of morphological differences. Further, these
functions exhibit so many individual variations that it will always be
difficult to rely on averages; besides, the latter present as far as we
know a great uniformity.

_The functions of nutrition and assimilation_ scarcely present any
varieties according to race. Indigent populations living from hand to
mouth by hunting, fishing, the gathering of fruit, etc., exposed to
the alternations of famine and plenty, surprise us by their faculty of
absorbing a great quantity of food; thus the Eskimo and the Fuegians
feed for several days running on a stranded whale. The tendency to
obesity is observed in certain races more than in others; very
frequent among the Kirghiz, it is rare among their neighbours the
Kalmuks, etc. The early obesity of Jewish women, which is besides
artificially fostered in Africa and in the East, is also to be
noted. Growth in different races would prove of some interest, but
investigations into this subject have been made only in Europe and
America.[116] Great difficulties stand in the way of these inquiries
among uncivilised peoples, as it is almost impossible to ascertain the
exact age of individuals. In a general way stature and weight increase
with age somewhat irregularly, and as if by fits and starts; almost
always a period of rapid growth in height succeeds a period of calm,
during which the dimensions of the body increase in width (shoulders,
pelvis, etc.). It has also been remarked that growth in height is
especially rapid from the month of April to July and August, that it
diminishes from November to March; and that, lastly, weight increases
especially from August-September to the end of November. Sexual
differences make themselves felt from birth. We have already seen (p.
26) that at birth the stature of boys exceeds that of girls by a figure
which varies from two to eight millimetres (.08 to .32 of an inch),
let us say of half a centimetre (less than the quarter of an inch)
on an average. During the first year stature increases very rapidly:
the child a year old is one and a half times as tall as at birth. The
increase is less rapid until the fourth year, when the height is double
what it was at birth. From the fourth year the growth is a little
slower till the age of puberty, when there is a fresh start, and when
the sexual differences are especially marked; girls grow more rapidly
than boys between ten and fifteen years of age, but after fifteen
boys take the lead and grow at first quickly, then slowly till their
twenty-third year, at which age they have almost attained the limit of
their stature; while women seem to stop growing at twenty.

The size of most of the organs increases pretty regularly; the heart in
girls at the age of puberty and the brain in the two sexes are the only
exceptions to this rule. The weight of the brain is 2-1/2 times greater
at one year than at birth, 3-1/3 at five years, 3.7 at ten, and 3.9
at fifteen; later its growth diminishes, to reach its maximum before
the age of twenty, 4 times its initial weight, and to decline slightly
after forty or forty-five years.

At birth the brain represents 12.4 per cent. of the total weight of
the body, at a year old 10.9 per cent., at five 8.4, at fifteen 3.8,
and at twenty-five 2.3 per cent. only.[117] Unfortunately we have
hardly any parallel observations on non-European populations. The only
observations of this kind based on a sufficient number of subjects
(several thousands) relate to the Japanese. According to Baelz, the
stature of the Japanese increases after the age of puberty only 8 per
cent., whilst it increases 13 per cent. among Europeans. On the other
hand, Drs. Hamada and Sasaki say that growth diminishes greatly among
Japanese men from sixteen or eighteen, and is found to be completely
arrested at the age of twenty-two.[118] There is abundance of evidence
that Negroes, Melanesians, and Malays attain their maximum height
between eighteen and twenty-one. Dietary regimen and comfortable
circumstances have a great influence on growth, as I have already said
when speaking of stature (p. 31).

The activity of transformations in the system certainly presents
differences according to climate, but not according to race. Thus the
alimentary supply is conditioned solely by the heat required.[119]
The _temperature of the body_ hardly varies two or three tenths of a
degree, for instance, among two peoples so different as regards type
and mode of life as the French of the north and the Fuegians. In fact,
the temperature taken in the mouth is from 37.1° to 37.2° C. among the
former and 37.4° among the latter.[120] Besides, among Europeans the
individual variations range between 37.1° and 37.5° C. Among Negroes
the temperature appears to be, on the contrary, a little lower than
that of Europeans.

Let us pass on to the _respiratory functions_. The vital capacity or
the quantity of air in the expanded lungs, which is 3.7 cubic metres
among the English according to Hutchinson, and from 3 to 4 cubic metres
among Europeans in general, falls to 3 metres among the Whites and the
Indians of the United States (Gould), and even to 2.7 among the Negroes
of this latter country. The difference is very trifling; however, it
has to be taken into consideration, seeing that among Europeans persons
of high stature have an absolute capacity superior to that of people
of low stature. Frequency of respiration seems to be greater among
uncivilised peoples than with Europeans (14 to 18 respirations per
minute); it is from 16 to 20 respirations among the Fuegians, 18 to
20 among the Mongol-Torgootes, 19 among the Kirghiz, and 18 among the
Afghans.[121]

For the _circulation of the blood_ here are a few scattered data. The
pulse is the same among the Fuegians (72 beats per second) and the
Tarantchi of Chinese Turkestan (72.9 beats) as among Europeans (71 to
72); it is a little faster among the Whites and the Negroes of the
United States (74.8 and 74 beats), and much faster among the Indians
of America and the Mulattos (76.3 and 77 beats), among the Torgootes
(76.6), and among the Kirghiz (77.7). The number of red globules in the
blood varies but little according to race: Europeans have on an average
five millions of them to the cubic millimetre, Hindus and Negroes seem
to have half a million less, and the Fuegians half a million more.[122]
But these differences are insignificant when we think that the number
of these elements of the blood may vary by a million in the same
subject according to the state of his health, nutrition, etc.

Certain travellers (Erman, Huc) have asserted that they could recognise
a population by its _odour_. Without going so far as this, it must be
admitted that some ethnic groups and, more particularly, the Negroes
and the Chinese have their specific odour, which gets fainter with
scrupulous cleanliness, but, it is said, never disappears. In the case
of the Negro this odour is due especially to the abundance of the
secretion of his very voluminous and numerous sebaceous glands. It was
on this property that the planters relied for putting their dogs on the
scent of the fugitive Negro. The Blacks themselves are perfectly aware
of it, it appears, and those of the West Indies have even framed this
proverb--

    “The Lord He loves the nigger well,
    He knows His nigger by the smell.”

The odour of musk exhaled by the Chinese is attested by a great amount
of evidence; that of the Australians and New Caledonians appears to be
also duly reported. We must not confound these odours _sui generis_
with those which certain peoples contract from the food they eat, as,
for instance, the odour of garlic among the populations of Southern
Europe and the Jews.[123]

With regard to _muscular force_, the data furnished by the dynamometer
are deceptive, and cannot teach us anything; besides, the individual
differences are enormous.

_Functions of Relation._--A whole chapter could be written on the
muscles and gestures serving for the _expression of the emotions_, and
on their differences according to race.[124] Let us content ourselves
with a single example connected with astonishment and surprise. These
feelings are expressed almost everywhere by the raising of the eyebrows
and the opening of the mouth; several peoples (Eskimo, Tlinkits,
Andamanese, Indians of Brazil) accompany this play of feature by a slap
on the hips; the Ainus and the Shin-Wans of Formosa give themselves a
light tap on the nose or the mouth, whilst the Thibetans pinch their
cheek. The Negro Bantus have the habit of moving the hand before the
mouth as a sign of astonishment, and the Australians, as well as the
western Negroes, protrude their lips as if to whistle (Fig. 141). In
a general way the play of physiognomy is more complicated the more
the people is civilised. Certain peoples execute movements of facial
muscles difficult to imitate, such as the protrusion of the upper lip
alone, which the Malays execute with the same facility and grace as
a chimpanzee (Hagen). I shall speak in Chapter IV. of conventional
gestures. The _attitudes of the body_ in repose also vary with the
different peoples: the kneeling attitude is common to Negroes (Figs.
135 and 142); the squatting position is frequently used by them and the
peoples of the East, and also by the Americans; the upright position on
one foot, the other being bent and the sole supported on the knee of
the former, is met with as well in Oceania as among the Bejas, Negroes,
etc.[125]

The _acuteness of the senses_ is superior to ours among uncultured and
half-civilised peoples. The Andamanese can discover certain fruits in
the forests a long way off, being guided solely by the sense of smell.
Taking as a unit the normal visual acuteness calculated according
to the formula of Snellen, we shall have the following figures for
different populations:--1.1 for the Germans; 1.4 for the Russians; 1.6
for the Georgians; 2.7 for the Ossetes and Kalmuks; 3 for the Nubian
Bejas; and 5 for the Indians of the Andes. It is in a Kalmuk that the
individual maximum of visual acuteness (6.7) has been noted.[126] An
interesting fact has been observed by Dr. Herzenstein from the study
of 39,805 Russian soldiers, viz., that visual acuteness is greater as
the pigment of the iris and the hair is more developed. In fact, we
only find among the fair-haired 72.4 per cent. of individuals whose
visual acuteness is stronger than the normal, and 2.7 per cent. whose
acuteness is weaker, whilst among the dark-haired the corresponding
figures are 84.1 and 1.7; they see then, other things being equal,
better than the fair-haired.[127]

_The functions of reproduction_ are so difficult to study, even among
civilised peoples, that it is almost impossible to say anything
positive about them when dealing with savage peoples. Thus, for
example, we can scarcely draw up an exact table of the first appearance
of menstruation. This period varies from the age of ten (Negresses of
Sierra Leone) to that of eighteen (Lapps). The influence of climate
is unquestionable; authors as competent as Tilt in England, Krieger
in Germany, Dubois and Pajot in France, are agreed on this point.
They state that the first indication of the period of puberty appears
between eleven and fourteen in warm countries, between thirteen and
sixteen in temperate countries, and between fifteen and eighteen in
cold countries. But they are also obliged to admit the influence of
other factors--race, occupation, dietary regimen, etc. Thus in Austria,
with the same climate and in the same social conditions, Jewish
girls menstruate at fourteen to fifteen, Hungarian girls at fifteen
to sixteen, and Slovak girls at fourteen to sixteen (Joachim); on
the other hand, it is known that dwelling in a town, indolent life,
premature sexual excitations, accelerate the appearance of the menses.
Alimentation has also its share of influence in the matter. Thus
among the badly-fed girls of the despised caste of Illuvar (Southern
India) their periods appear at about sixteen, while the girls of India
in general menstruate at eleven, twelve, or thirteen.[128] It must
not be thought that in all countries the appearance of the menses
is also indicative of the period when sexual relations begin. Among
the majority of the peoples of India, among the Turks, the Mongols,
the Persians, among the Polynesians, the Malays, and the Negroes,
young girls enter into sexual relations much before the appearance
of the menses--at eleven, ten, and even nine years of age. The time
when marriage takes place is also not an indication; it is a matter
of social convention, among the savage as among the half-civilised.
Thus among the Mongol Torgootes girls begin to have sexual relations
at fourteen on an average, and marry at eighteen; for boys the
corresponding figures are fourteen and a half and nineteen (Ivanovsky).

The time of the _appearance of the critical age_ is subject to so many
fluctuations that even for European populations it is scarcely possible
to establish averages, but most of the figures oscillate around the
ages of forty-five to fifty. It is known that in woman ovulation
goes on regularly throughout the year without those accelerations
or exasperations of the genesic functions in certain seasons which
are observed among animals in heat. In this respect the human female
differs totally from wild animals (except the apes, among whom
menstruation has been noted), and approximates closely to the female of
domestic animals. And yet certain facts seem to indicate that it has
not always been so. These facts have reference to the greater frequency
of conceptions during certain periods of the year.

The Swedish physician Wargentin was the first to point out in 1767
this frequency in his own country. Since then, several statisticians,
doctors, and naturalists have confirmed it: Quetelet for Belgium and
Holland (maximum of births in February, the maximum of conceptions in
May); Wappæus for Central Europe (two maxima of conception, in winter,
and at the end of spring or the beginning of summer); Villermé (same
periods) for different countries, including those of the southern
hemisphere; Sormani for Italy (conceptions in July); Mayr for Germany
(conceptions in December); Beukemann for the different provinces of
the German empire (maximum of conceptions in December in the north,
in spring in the south); Hill for India (maximum of conceptions,
December-January); lastly, different authors for Russia (maximum of
conceptions in winter).

The explanations which have been put forward up to the present of
this phenomenon are of different kinds. According to certain authors,
the maxima observed in many countries in the spring are owing to the
fact of there being in this season “plenty of everything,” better
nourishment, in short, something which compels the genesic instinct
of man, like that of most animals, to participate in the “awakening
of nature.” To this it is replied by other observers that in certain
countries the maxima are reported in the winter months, that is to say
in the season when the temperature and the relative absence of the good
things of life do not seem to be _a priori_ favourable to generation;
these scientists look for the cause in the social organisation. They
notice that in countries of the north it is in the month of December
that, after having finished their work in the fields, the inhabitants
give themselves up to festivities and rejoicings, and that it is
in this month the greatest number of unions are contracted; on the
other hand, in the south the most popular festivals are those of the
spring at the awakening of nature. Others, again, assert that these
differences are owing as much to religion as to latitude.

All these explanations are somewhat unscientific, and have never been
verified by figures or experience. According to Rosenstadt,[129] cosmic
and social influences do not count at all in the question, for often
the periods during which recrudescence of conceptions occurs are the
same for countries differing entirely in climate, religion, and manners
(Italy, Russia, Sweden). These influences may, at the most, create
conditions favourable to the bringing about of the phenomenon, may
prepare the ground for it. But as to the phenomenon itself it would
be, according to Rosenstadt, merely the remains in man of his animal
nature, a “physiological custom” inherited from the animals, his
ancestors.

Primitive man would inherit from his ancestors the habit of procreating
by preference at particular times. On the arrival of this period of
sexual excitement fecundations would take place wholesale. With the
development of civilisation man has sexual relations all the year
round, but the “physiological custom” of procreating at a certain
period does not entirely disappear; it remains as a survival of the
animal state, and manifests itself in the recrudescence of the number
of conceptions during certain months of the year. This conclusion is
corroborated by the fact that among certain savage tribes copulation
seems to take place at certain periods of the year; for example,
among the Australians at the time of the yam harvest (see Chap. VII.,
_Marriage_, etc.).[130]

It is perhaps as a survival of these habits that we must regard the
annual festivals followed by wholesale marriages among the Sonthals,
and the wholesale marriages still practised to-day in Brittany on the
eve of Lent. Thus in the little market-town of Plougastel-Daoulas
(Finistère), containing only 7000 inhabitants, thirty-four marriages
were celebrated at once on the 5th of February 1896, and the preceding
year, before Lent, forty-eight couples had been united on the same
day in this locality.[131] The famous “Bharzwad Jang,” or “Marriage
of the Shepherds,” a ceremony practised by certain tribes (Mer, Shir,
Rabai) of Western Kathiawar (India), is also perhaps a survival of
this custom. It consists in the celebration of marriage on the same
day, but at stated intervals (of about twenty-four years), of all the
bachelors of the tribe. At the last ceremony of this kind, which took
place from the 28th of April to the 3rd of May 1895, 775 couples were
thus married at once.[132]

The question of the _fertility_ of women in different populations is
one of great interest as regards the future of these populations, but
it is scarcely more than outlined yet. If we know in a general way
that the birth-rate is very low in France and somewhat low in the
non-immigrant part of the population of the United States, that it is
very high in Russia and among the Jews, etc., we know almost nothing
about the subject in connection with uncivilised peoples; in their
case, as in our own, we must take into account the different elements
of the problem--social conditions, voluntary limitation (Australians),
infanticide (Polynesia), etc.

_Influence of Environment._--I can scarcely treat here as fully as I
could wish such interesting questions as the influence of external
circumstance, of acclimatation and crossings or hybridisation,
inasmuch as they are still very little and imperfectly studied. The
direct influence of environment has rarely been observed with all the
scientific exactness to be wished. Ordinarily we have to rest satisfied
with phrases which do not mean a great deal.[133] Even the influence
of conditions so abnormal as the complete absence of light and solar
heat, those sources of everything living, during several months, has
only been observed incidentally. Nossiloff,[134] however, has noted day
by day the influence of the polar night on an ordinary population (not
hardened and picked, like the crews of polar expeditions) and proved
its depressing action, manifesting itself in general apathy of body
and mind, in a tendency to drowsiness, and in diminution of the height
and the thoracic perimeter; this action is especially noticeable in
children, who visibly pine away during this period. Unfortunately the
observations of Nossiloff are limited to a small number of subjects.

It is more than probable that all the modifications which the organism
undergoes as a result of the influence of environment are mostly of
a chemical nature, and have only a remote effect on the human frame.
According to W. Kochs,[135] the whole question of acclimatation in
tropical countries resolves itself into the quantity of water in the
organism. He bases his deductions principally on the difference found
to exist in the quantity of water contained in the flesh of oxen of
the Argentine Republic in comparison with that found among cattle of
Northern Germany. The former have from 80 to 83 per cent. of water,
while the latter have from 72 to 75 per cent. only. If it is the same
with man, as Kochs supposes, he would have from 7 to 8 per cent. less
solid matter to burn in his body in the tropics than in temperate
countries, and the vital energy would be affected accordingly. Thus
only the organism that had acquired the quantity of water necessary
for supporting the heat of the tropics would be acclimatised; this is
so true that Whites acclimatised in tropical countries suffer more
from the cold in Europe than their compatriots who have never left
Europe.[136] Besides, the Negroes of Senegal begin to suffer from
cold when the thermometer falls below 20° C. (68° Fahr.), whilst the
Fuegians who are not more warmly clad bear very well the cold of 0° to
-4° C. (32° to 25° Fahr.).

Taken as a whole, the genus _Homo_ is _cosmopolitan_. In fact, man
inhabits the whole earth from the icy regions of Greenland (in the
neighbourhood of the eightieth degree of N. latitude) to the torrid
zone which stretches between the tropic of Cancer and the Equator. He
is found in countries situated at 75 or 200 metres below the level
of the sea (Caspian depression, depression of Louktchin in Eastern
Turkestan), as well as on table-lands at an elevation of more than
5000 metres (Thibet). But if we consider the numerous sub-divisions of
the genus _Homo_ which are called species, sub-species, or races, the
question of cosmopolitanism becomes more complicated as at the same
time the positive data for its solution are less numerous.

Apart from the European and Negro races, peoples have never changed
their habitat abruptly--have not transported themselves in a body
into climates very different from their native country, though slow
migrations, advancing from place to neighbouring place, have been
numerous at all times and among all peoples; these have been followed
by acclimatation, the sole criterion of cosmopolitanism. It must also
be remarked that civilised peoples withstand better than savages
changes of every kind. In this respect the former bear a stronger
resemblance than the latter to domestic animals, which rarely become
sterile outside of their native country. According to Darwin,[137]
this results from the fact that civilised peoples, as well as domestic
animals, have been subjected in the course of their evolution to more
numerous variations, more frequent changes of place, and also more
important crossings.

The question whether each race of mankind can live and reproduce
itself--that is to say, become acclimatised--on any point of the globe
will, evidently, only be resolved when attempts of this kind are
undertaken by each race and pursued during several generations. Now
there are no exact data on this subject except for the so-called white
race and in some measure for Negroes. Without reckoning cosmopolitan
peoples like the Jews and the Gypsies, it is certain that the majority
of European peoples can as a race get acclimatised in the most diverse
regions, in Canada (English and French) as in Brazil (Portuguese and
Germans), Mexico (Spaniards), Australia (English), Southern Africa
(Dutch Boers). The assumed failures of acclimatation are connected
with countries where there has never been any European _colonisation_
(India, Java), and where it is known that there are isolated cases of
the collective acclimatation of several families.

According to Clements Markham and Elisée Reclus, the Englishman not
only as an individual but as a race is able to live in the Cisgangetic
peninsula.[138] Many generations of Englishmen have flourished in
various parts of India. Numerous examples could be cited of children
being acclimatised without detriment to their strength or health.
According to Francis Galton, the mortality in 1877 of European soldiers
in India (12.7 per 1000) was less than that of native soldiers (13.4)
and Hindus in general (35). In the Dutch Indies the Dutch have kept
themselves in good health for several generations.[139] We must leave
out of the question certain unhealthy regions (like Lower Senegal)
where the natives suffer almost as much as Europeans. On the whole,
the so-called white race appears to have the aptitude of acclimatation
in all countries, provided, of course, that it makes the necessary
sacrifices for several generations.

If it be said of certain regions that they are not colonisable by
Europeans, it is thereby implied that the sacrifices entailed by
acclimatation are out of all proportion to the advantages to be gained
by colonisation. As to Negroes, they thrive in temperate countries like
the United States, where they multiply at the same rate as the Whites.
By a strange anomaly they do not seem to thrive as well in Mexico, in
the Antilles, and in Guiana--that is to say in the same isothermal zone
(26°-28° C., or 70°-82° Fahr.) as their native country; nevertheless
they live and reproduce there.

Upon the whole, if we consider (1) that the most mixed and most
civilised races are those which are soonest acclimatised, (2) that
the tendency of races to intermingle, and of civilisation to develop,
goes on increasing every day in every part of the world, we may affirm
without being accused of exaggeration that the cosmopolitanism of
mankind, if it does not yet exist to-day in all races (which seems
somewhat improbable), will develop as a necessary consequence of the
facility of acclimatation. For it to become general is only a matter of
time.

As to the fertility of acclimatised families, it has been established
outside of hybridisation. Thus it has been possible to trace back
certain English families in the Barbadoes for six generations.[140] As
much may be said of the French in the islands of Mauritius and Réunion.
In the Brazilian province of Rio Grande do Sul, between 25°-30° S.
latitude--that is, in a sub-tropical region--it has been ascertained
that there are three or four generations of German colonists,
whose children enjoy very good health.[141] Lastly, in Matabeleland
there are already two or three generations of Dutch.[142] It must
be said that certain European races are more capable than others of
becoming acclimatised in tropical countries. Thus it is universally
acknowledged that people of the south of Europe--Spaniards, Italians,
Provençals--become sooner acclimatised in Africa and equatorial America
than the English and the Germans of the north.

But in spite of the facility of acclimatation, race-characters hardly
seem to change in the new environment; the chemical constituents of the
tissues having changed, the body adapts itself without change either in
outward form or even colour.

The German colonists of Brazil and the Steppes of the Volga bear
a perfect resemblance to each other after more than a century of
separation from their race-brothers of Swabia or Franconia. It is the
same after two or three centuries with the English of the Barbadoes,
the French of Réunion, the Dutch of the Transvaal, etc.

The phenomena of _hybridity_ are even less studied than those of the
influence of environment; I shall speak of some of these in regard to
different populations, but the facts are too isolated and disputed for
any general conclusions to be drawn.

In reality, all that we know is that a great number of races produce
half-breeds by crossing, but whether these half-breeds in so crossing
produce a new race or revert to one of the ancestral types has not been
demonstrated. Humanity appears to move in a confused medley of the most
diverse and composite forms, without any one of them being able to
persist; for the means of persistence, artificial selection or sexual
selection, are wanting. The only selection which may have a decided
influence on the predominance of the characters of a race in its
interminglings is that which proceeds from the _number_ of individuals
of each of the races concerned in the blending and their respective
fecundity, but this selection has hardly begun to be studied.


3.--PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

It remains to speak of _psychological characters_--that is to say,
of temperament and the different manifestations of mind, feeling,
and affections. But it must be admitted that it is almost impossible
to treat these in the face of many contradictory facts. Speaking
generally, it may be said that the American and Mongoloid races are
grave, meditative, a little obtuse, melancholic; and that, on the
contrary, the Negro races and Melanesians are playful, laughing,
lively, and superficial as children. But there are many exceptions to
such general rules. Each traveller, each observer, tends to judge in
his own way a given people according to the nature of the relations
(pacific, hostile, etc.) which he has had with it. We are unable to
affirm anything when we have once made up our minds to escape from the
commonplace generalities that savages are wanting in foresight and
general ideas, that they are cruel, that their imitative faculties are
highly developed, etc.

_Pathological characters_ are better known, as for example, in regard
to immunities. It is a proved fact that Negroes, for instance, are
proof against the contagion of yellow fever; that they resist much
better than Europeans the terrible intermittent fevers which prevail on
the coasts of Africa. But if savage peoples enjoy certain immunities,
they are, on the contrary, very susceptible to the infectious diseases
which civilised peoples introduce among them; whole tribes have been
exterminated by syphilis, measles, and consumption in South America,
Polynesia, and Siberia.[143] There are also diseases peculiar to
certain populations, such, for example, as the _sleeping sickness_
among the Wolofs and Songhaï, which manifests itself in an invincible
tendency to sleep.[144] It has long been asserted that savage peoples
are not afflicted by nervous and mental diseases. Nothing of the
kind. The genuine “great hysteria” of Charcot has been observed among
Negresses of Senegal, among Hottentot women and Kafirs, as well as
in Abyssinia and Madagascar.[145] Other nervous diseases have been
noticed among Hurons and Iroquois,[146] and in New Zealand. Some forms
of neurosis appear to be limited to certain ethnic groups. Such is the
“Amok” of the Malays--a sort of furious and imitative madness perhaps
provoked at the same time by suggestion. Developed especially among the
Malays, it is also met with among the Indians of North America, where
it has been called “jumping” by the Whites. The “Myriachit” of the
Ostiaks and other natives of Siberia, the “Malimali” of the Tagals of
the Philippines, the “Bakchis” of the Siamese, are similar diseases.
Under the name of “Latah” are designated among the Malays all sorts of
nervous diseases, but more particularly the imitative madness which
impels women to undress before men, to throw children up in the air
in imitation of a game of ball, etc. Besides, the name Latah is also
given to a mental state in which the patient is afraid of certain
words (tiger, crocodile), and which is met with somewhat frequently
not only among the Malays, but also among the Tagals and the Sikhs of
India.[147]



CHAPTER IV.

_ETHNIC CHARACTERS._

    Various stages of social groups and essential characters of
    human societies: Progress.--Conditions of Progress: Innovating
    initiative, and tradition--Classification of “states of
    civilisation.”

I.--LINGUISTIC CHARACTERS.

    _Methods of exchanging ideas within a short distance_--Gesture
    and speech--Divisions of language according to
    structure--Jargons--_Communications at a relatively remote
    distance_: optic and acoustic signals--_Transmission of ideas
    at any distance and time whatever_--Handwriting--Mnemotechnic
    objects--Pictography--Ideography--Alphabets--Direction of the lines
    of handwriting.


So far we have considered man as an isolated being, apart from the
groupings which he forms with his fellows. But in order to get a
correct idea of the sum-total of the manifestations of his physical
life, and especially of his psychical life, we must further consider
him in his social environment.

Nowhere on the earth has there been found a race of men the members of
which lived completely alone and isolated as the majority of animals
are seen to do. It is in fact but very rarely that the latter combine
into societies; they form a family group only temporarily during the
period of raising the young, etc. Man, on the contrary, becomes almost
helpless apart from society, incapable of maintaining the struggle for
existence without the help of his fellow-men. The development of all
the manifestations of “sociality” is then the measure of progress of
human societies. The more man is “socialised,” if I may thus express
it, the less he depends on nature.

This dependence on nature has long served as a criterion in ethnography
for dividing peoples into two groups--the “civilised” and the “savage.”
The name given by the Germans to “savages,” _Naturvölker_ (peoples
in a state of nature), explains sufficiently this way of looking at
things. According to their greater or less dependence on nature,
peoples were divided into hunters, shepherds or nomads, and tillers
of the soil or settlers, without, however, characterising in a very
precise way each of these states. Morgan was the first to bring a
little definiteness into this nomenclature, and at the same time he
has shown the necessity of introducing another criterion into the
estimate of states of civilisation. In fact, to establish the three
forms of socialisation--_savage_, _barbarous_, and _civilised_--he has
accepted as a distinctive mark between the second and the third the
existence of handwriting--that is to say, of the material means used by
the two forces necessary to the inception and maintenance of progress:
innovating initiative, and conservation of what has been acquired.[148]
He has not made as much of this classification as, in my opinion, he
might have done. In fact, the ethnic groups of the earth only differ
among themselves from the social point of view by the _degree_ of
culture--its essence being always and everywhere the same: pursuit of
more and more easy means of satisfying wants and desires. Now, if the
form assumed by this species of activity, in a word, if _production_,
subject to the influence of climate, geographical position, etc., is
the basis of all social development, as Grosse has so well shown,[149]
the nature and evolution of the needs and desires themselves depend
up to a certain point on the “temperament” of the race, which must
likewise be taken into consideration. The nature and amount of psychic
force in any given society, the evolution of which is effected by its
mode of production, may in its turn, having attained a certain degree
of development, re-act on the economic state, and modify it. We see
nothing like this in the animal communities. Bees and ants arrange
their hives and manage the affairs of their community to-day as they
did a thousand insect-generations ago. It is very probable that race
has something to do with psychic force, but up to the present time the
fact has not been scientifically demonstrated. However that may be, in
order to form a correct opinion as to the degree of civilisation of any
people, we should have to take into consideration not only its material
culture, but also its _état d’âme_, its psychology, to realise the
psychical resources which it has at its command. Thus certain peoples
(Australians, Bushmen), though at the bottom of the scale as regards
material culture, are nevertheless well endowed from the artistic point
of view; in the same way the Polynesians of a hundred years ago, who
were inferior in knowledge of pottery and metallurgy to the Negroes,
were superior to them in general intelligence and the richness of their
mythology.

But progress is only possible if, side by side with individual power
of initiating change, there exists in the social aggregate what may be
called the power of conservation. There may be produced among savage
peoples, as Ratzel[150] has so well pointed out, persons of exceptional
natural talent, men of genius; but the activity of these will almost
always be sterile. Even if they succeed in ameliorating the material
condition, in raising the moral or intellectual level of the members of
their tribe or of their class, the result of their activity has only an
ephemeral existence, their efforts are not continued, and after their
death, for want of the conservative power, everything falls back into
the primitive condition. The secret of civilisation lies not so much in
efforts of isolated individuals as in accumulation of these efforts,
in the transmission from one generation to another of the acquired
result, of a sum-total of knowledge which enables each generation to
go further without beginning everything over again _ab ovo_. In this
way progress is unlimited by the very conditions of its origin, and
civilisation is only the sum of all the acquisitions of the human mind
at any given period.

The conservative and transmittive power become really established in a
society only when the means of communicating thought are sufficiently
developed, when language has taken a definite form, and an easy
method is devised of fixing it by conventional signs more or less
indelible and transmissible to future generations. Thus, to estimate
different states of civilisation we must have recourse to linguistic
characters, understanding by such everything which concerns the means
of communicating ideas in time and space--that is to say, spoken or
mimetic language and its graphic representation. But before passing
rapidly in review the linguistic characters, I owe the reader a
few words of explanation of the terms which I am about to use in
designating “states of civilisation.”

In these latter days a classification of these states nearly
in accordance with the desiderata which were formulated at the
beginning of this chapter has been proposed by Vierkandt.[151] This
classification takes material culture into account, but the primordial
division which is adopted in it, between peoples in a state of nature
(or better, uncivilised) and civilised peoples, is based on the
development of certain psychical traits denoting a greater or less
development of individuality, of the spirit of free investigation, etc.
Savage peoples, without any true civilisation, are divided in this
classification into semi-civilised and uncivilised properly so-called,
with sub-divisions into nomads and tillers of the soil for the former,
and hunters and wanderers for the latter.

Admitting the criterion of the existence or non-existence of writing
and the relative value of the two elements of progress mentioned
above, I arrive at a classification of “states of civilisation” which
recalls somewhat that of Vierkandt, but which differs from it on
several points. It may be summarised as follows:--

(1) _Savage peoples_, progressing exceedingly slowly, without writing,
sometimes possessing a pictographic method; living in little groups of
some hundreds or thousands of individuals. They are divided into two
categories: _hunters_[152] (examples: Bushmen, Australians, Fuegians)
and _tillers of the soil_ (examples: Indians of North America,
Melanesians, the majority of Negroes).

(2) _Semi-civilised peoples_, making an appreciable but slow progress,
in which the conservative power predominates, forming authoritative
societies or states of several thousands or millions of individuals;
having an ideographic or phonetic writing, but a rudimentary
literature. They are divided likewise into two categories: _tillers of
the soil_ (examples: Chinese, Siamese, Abyssinians, Malays, Ancient
Egyptians, and Peruvians) and _nomads_ (examples: Mongols, Arabs).

(3) _Civilised peoples_, making rapid progress, in which the initiating
and innovating power predominates, forming states based on individual
liberty, and consisting of several millions of individuals; having
a phonetic writing and a developed literature. Their economic state
is especially characterised by _industrialism_ and _cosmopolitan
commercialism_ (examples: the majority of the peoples of Europe and
North America).

Having said this much, we shall begin the study of ethnic characters
with those which we may consider the indispensable condition of all
associability, that is to say the linguistic characters.


I.--LINGUISTIC CHARACTERS.

Without pursuing the inquiry whether language is born of inarticulate
cries, of onomatopæias or otherwise, whether it has a single or a
multiple origin, we may content ourselves with stating the fact, that
language does not constitute the only means by which men may understand
each other and communicate ideas. There are several others. They may
be arranged in three groups:--means of communicating near at hand:
gestures and words; means of communicating at a relatively remote
distance: various signals; means of communicating at any distance and
time whatever: writing.

_Gestures._--Many gestures are natural and common to all men. All who
have had to ask for anything to eat or drink in a foreign country
without knowing the language, must have appreciated this means of
international communication. However, the same gestures do not always
and everywhere signify the same thing. Let us take, for example, the
simplest ideas, negation and affirmation. In Central and Northern
Europe these ideas are expressed, as every one knows, by a bending of
the head forward and by lateral movements of the head. But there are
few exotic peoples (Andamanese, Ainus, certain Hindus) who make use of
the same gestures. Most of them, on the contrary, affirm by shaking
the head laterally (Arabs, Botocudos, certain Negroes) and deny by
raising it; most frequently this latter gesture is accompanied by
an uplifting of the eyebrows (Abyssinians) or a particular smacking
of the tongue (Syro-Arabs, Naya-Kurumbas, etc.). The natives of the
Admiralty Islands express negation by a tap on the nose.[153] In
Italy and generally in Mediterranean Europe, the signs of negation,
with many other feelings besides, are expressed by gestures of the
hands; thus to say “no,” the hand is moved sharply before the breast,
the fingers being closed except the forefinger, which is held up
vertically. Perhaps the practice of carrying burdens on the head, thus
preventing the movements of this part of the body, has had something
to do with the abundant development of gestures with the arms by which
the European of the south may be recognised. An almost analogous sign,
but consisting in a slow movement outward and downward, signifies
“yes” among the Indians of North America. These last have pushed to
the utmost limits the use of the language of gesture. G. Mallery has
collected the treasures of this language, which is being lost to-day,
and has drawn up a vocabulary of it.[154] At the period when this
language flourished, the Indians were able to express by gestures not
only common and proper nouns, but also verbs, pronouns, particles,
etc.; they made elaborate speeches by combining the gestures of the
body, the head, and the arms. They introduced abbreviations exactly
as that is done in pictographic writing. Here is an example of how a
Dakota Indian (Fig. 26) says by means of gestures, _I am going home_:
he brings his hand with the forefinger stretched out towards his breast
(_I_), then extends it forward and outward as high as the shoulder (_am
going_), and, closing the fist, he lets it drop abruptly (_home_). It
is supposed that extreme diversity of dialects has been the chief cause
of the development of this strange sign-language; it would serve as a
bond between tribes which could not converse with one another.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 26.--Dakota Indian gesture language.

(_After Mallery._)]

_Speech._--Setting aside the almost unique example of the North
American Indians, gestures are generally only the auxiliaries of
_speech_. The latter, which is the exclusive appanage of the genus
_Homo_, while it is formed of a somewhat limited number of articulate
sounds, nevertheless presents such a mass of varied combinations of
these sounds that at first one would expect to be lost in the multitude
of languages, dialects, idioms, vernacular forms, etc. Fortunately,
linguists have been able to establish the fact that, in spite of
their apparent diversity, dialects are capable of being grouped into
languages, and the latter into linguistic families, which, in their
turn, have been reduced, according to their morphological structure,
to three principal groups: _monosyllabic_ or isolating languages,
_agglutinative_ languages, and _inflectional_ languages.

In the _monosyllabic languages_ all the words are _roots_, there are
neither suffixes nor prefixes nor any modification of the words, and
their relation in a proposition is only given by the respective places
which they occupy in it. Thus in the Chinese language the word _ta_
may signify “great, greatness, greatly, to enlarge,” according to its
position in the phrase. The grammar is entirely a matter of syntax.
Homophonous words of various signification abound in it, and in speech
are only distinguished by the way in which they are pronounced, by the
_tones_, high, low, rising, falling, interrogatory, etc.

In _agglutinative languages_ the words are formed of several elements,
adhering, agglutinated together, of which one only possesses its own
peculiar value, the others being coupled with it to define it, and
having an entirely relative signification. The first of these elements
is the root of the word, whilst the others are only obsolete roots,
having lost their own signification, and are reduced to the rank of
determinative particles or _affixes_ with a definite meaning. The
affixes may be placed before the root (as in the Bantu languages), and
then they bear the name of prefixes, or at the end (as in Turkish and
Mongolian), and then they are called suffixes. Thus the suffix _lar_
or _liar_ in Turkish gives the signification of the plural of the word
to which it is joined (ex. _arkan_, the rope; _arkanlar_, the ropes);
the suffix _tchi_ designates the person concerned with something,
etc., for instance, _arkantchi_, rope-maker; the suffix _ly_ indicates
possession (ex. _arkanly_, with a cord, attached). Other suffixes,
_la_, _lyk_, denote action, quality (_arkanla_, to attach with a cord;
_arkanlyk_, the best kind of cord).[155]

Among the agglutinative languages we distinguish a special group called
_polysynthetic_ or _incorporating languages_; this group is formed
exclusively of American idioms. It is characterised by the phenomenon
of incorporation, by syncope or by ellipsis, of nouns to the verb, so
as to form but one word of the whole proposition; for instance, in
Algonkin, the phrase-word _nadholiniu_, “bring us the canoe,” is formed
of the elided words _naten_ bring, _amochol_ canoe, _i_ euphonic, and
_niu_ to us. A similar incorporation takes place when in Italian they
say, for instance, _dicendo-ci-lo_, “in telling it to us.”

The _inflectional languages_ differ from the agglutinative to this
extent, that the root may modify its form to express its relations
with another root. But this change is not indispensable; sometimes the
inflection may be attained by the modification of prefix or suffix.
Thus, in Hebrew, the root _mlch_ gives, when modified, _malach_ he
reigned, _malchu_ they reigned, _melechu_ the king, _melachim_ kings,
etc.

With the exception of the Chinese, the peoples of Indo-China, and
the Thibetans, who speak monosyllabic languages, and also the
Indo-Europeans and the Semito-Hamites, who use inflectional languages,
all the rest of mankind belongs, by its mode of speech, to the division
of agglutinative language. It must not be thought, however, that the
difference is very marked in the three categories which I have just
mentioned. We have already seen, for example, that the inflectional
languages, like Italian, may have agglutinative forms; the Arab,
the Frenchman, the Provençal have also recourse occasionally to
agglutination; on the other hand, most of the isolating languages of
Indo-China and Thibet exhibit several agglutinative characteristics,
and even in Chinese, that pre-eminently monosyllabic language, there
may be distinguished “_full_” _roots_ having their signification, and
“_empty_” _roots_ playing the part of affixes.

It was thought until quite recently that originally all the languages
of the earth were monosyllabic, that by a process of evolution they
became transformed into agglutinative languages, passing thence into
the final and most perfect form, the inflectional. But the immense
disproportion between the number of peoples speaking the agglutinative
languages and that of the other two categories; the presence of the
agglutinative forms in monosyllabic languages; the unequivocal tendency
of several inflected languages, like English, towards monosyllabism;
lastly, the recent researches of Terrien de Lacouperie into the
ancient pronunciation of Thibetan and Chinese words, have appreciably
shaken this belief: one is rather led to see in agglutination the most
primitive form of language. From it would be derived monosyllabism,
polysyntheticism, and inflection; the two latter forms would tend in
their turn towards monosyllabism.[156] I shall mention with regard to
each of the principal ethnic groups, the peculiarities of the languages
which they speak, and in Chapter VIII. I shall say a few words about
linguistic classifications and the relation between “peoples” and
“languages.” For the moment it is enough to point out that besides
morphological structure, there are other characters: vocabulary,
grammatical and phonetic forms, which enable us to group the allied
idioms into linguistic families. Let me add that side by side with
the thousands of languages and principal dialects distributed among
the populations of the earth, there exist _jargons_, that is to say,
semi-artificial languages, originating especially in the necessities of
commerce.[157]

Let us not forget either that the different sexes and certain castes
or classes, especially of sorcerers and priests, have often a special
language, sacred or otherwise, but always unknown to persons of the
other sex or of other castes, and kept secret. Language varies also
among certain peoples (for example, among the Javanese) according as a
superior speaks to an inferior, or _vice versâ_.

_Signals._--To communicate at a distance relatively remote, all peoples
make use of optic or acoustic signals. _Optic signals_ are at first
amplified gestures; thus the various tribes of Red Indians recognised
each other at a distance by making conventional signs with the arms and
the body. An arm raised high with two fingers uplifted and the others
closed, signified “Who are you?” etc. Signals by means of lighted
fires, to announce the tidings of a beast killed, the approach of the
enemy, etc., still remain in use among the Indians of America, not
only in the north, but also in the south of the continent as far as
Cape Horn. Signalling by means of objects visible from afar, of a more
complicated kind, is in everyday use even among civilised peoples,
forming the basis of optic telegraphy; and there exists for sailors
of all nations a truly international language, by means of flags of
different colours, the code and the dictionary of which are found on
board of every ship bound on a long voyage.

Among _acoustic signals_, apart from conventional cries and sounds of
instruments, we must note two kinds of language of a quite special
character. There is, firstly, the _whistle language_, which by means of
whistles more or less loud, succeeding in a certain order and produced
simply by the mouth, sometimes by introducing into it two fingers,
enables a conversation to be held at a distance.

This language has attained a high degree of perfection in the Canary
Islands,[158] but is also known in other parts of the globe (among
the Berbers of Tunis, for instance). This language, however, must
not be confounded with conventional signals, always the same, given
by the whistle for commands in the navy, for example. The other mode
of communicating at a distance, a highly developed one, is the _drum
language_ of the Dualas and other Bantu Negroes of the Cameroons, the
Gallas, the Papuans, etc. With simply a drum they succeed, by varying
the number and the order of the beats, in forming a veritable language
of two hundred to three hundred words, very complicated and difficult
to learn.[159]

_Writing._--The idea of communicating his thought graphically, in time
and in space, to his fellow, must have come to man from the origin
of civilisation; but through what stages must it have passed before
becoming embodied in a system at once so simple and ingenious as that
of alphabetic writing! Before inventing phonetic writing in general,
man must have passed through the period of ideographic writing, and
this is already an advance on another and prior method of representing
and communicating thought, a method much more simple, which may be
called in a general way _the use of symbolic objects and mnemonic
marks_. As typical of this use of symbolic objects we may mention
the messages of the Malays of Sumatra, which are formed of packets
containing different objects: small quantities of salt, pepper, betel,
etc., having respectively the signification of love, hate, jealousy,
etc. According to the quantity and arrangement of the objects in the
packet the message serves to express such or such a feeling. This
system attains its perfection in the _Wampums_ of the Red Indians.
These are either chaplets of beads of different colours fashioned from
shells (Fig. 83, 7), also used as money, or embroideries made with the
same beads on long ribbons forming kinds of belts, which have the
value of diplomatic documents to the Indians.[160] The staff-messages
in use among the Melanesians, the Niam-Niams, the Ashantis, and the
peasants of Lusatia and Silesia, etc., have the same signification.
This is often a sort of passport or a summons; the form of the staff,
as well as the particular marks which it bears, are so many signs to
make known the commands of the chief, or of the mayor, the order of the
day for the assembly, etc.

The notches which these staffs sometimes bear form a connecting link
with the mnemonic marks which the less civilised peoples have the habit
of making on trees, on bits of bark, or pieces of wood. It is the first
step towards writing properly so called. Little horn tablets bearing
notches have been found in the sepulchral caverns of the quaternary
period at Aurignac (Dordogne). Even still the Eskimo, the Yakuts,
the Ostiaks, the Macusis of Guiana, the Negroes of the west coast of
Africa, the Laotians, the Melanesians, the Micronesians, commonly make
use of them to keep their accounts, or note simple facts; they even
continue in use among Europeans, as a survival of the old practice
under the form of “baker’s tallies,” or words to denote letters
(_Buchstabe_, little staff of “beechwood,” in German), etc. Here, for
instance, is the translation of what was conveyed by a notched tablet
found by Harmand in a Laotian village attacked by a cholera epidemic
(Fig. 27): Twelve days from now (12 notches to the right) every man
who shall venture to penetrate into our enclosure will remain a
prisoner, or pay us four buffaloes (4 notches lower down) or twelve
ticals (pieces of money) as ransom (12 notches). On the other side, but
doubtful, is the number of men (8), women (9), and children (11) of the
village.[161]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 27.--Writing by notches of the Laotians.

(_After Harmand, Engraving of the Soc. Anthrop. Paris._)]

An analogous mnemotechnical object is the _knotted cord_, which is
met with among a great number of peoples, Ostiaks, Angola and Loango
Negroes, Malagasi, Alfurus of the Celebes, etc. According to the number
and colour of the cords, and the number of the knots which they bear,
events past or to come are brought to mind, accounts of a bartering
transaction kept, etc. Among the Micronesians of the Pelew Islands,
when two individuals make an appointment with one another for a certain
date, each makes on a cord as many knots as there remain days to run.
Undoing a knot each day and coming to the last knot at the date of
the appointment, they of necessity recall it. According to Chinese
tradition, the first inhabitants of the banks of the Hoang-ho, before
the invention of writing properly so called, also made use of little
cords knotted to notched staffs as mnemonic instruments. Besides,
is not our practice of tying a knot in our handkerchief to remember
something a simple survival of these customs? The method of expressing
certain events and certain ideas by means of knots made in different
ways and variously arranged has been carried to the last degree of
perfection in the case of the _quipus_ of the ancient Peruvians. The
_quipus_ are cord rings to which are attached various little cords of
different colours. On each of these little cords are found two or more
knots variously formed. The Peruvian and Bolivian shepherds again make
use of similar _quipus_, but much less complicated, to keep accounts.
Let us also note in the same order of ideas the different marks of
ownership, of family relationship, of tribeship (the _Totems_ of the
Red Indians, the _Tamgas_ of the Kirghiz, etc.), which it is the custom
to put on weapons, dwellings, animals, and even the bodies of the men
(New Zealand). Hence are derived trade-marks and armorial bearings.

Lastly, are not the pebbles bearing strokes printed in red, the number
of which varies from one to nine, and several other signs (Fig. 28),
found by M. Piette[162] in the palæolithic stations of the south of
France, at Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), also mnemonic objects? It has been
asserted that they were playing dice, but the size of the pebbles is
against this view.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 28.--Coloured prehistoric pebbles of the grotto
of Mas-d’Azil (Ariège). 1 and 1/A/, two sides of the same pebble; 2,
pebble with three marks; 3, pebble with four marks differently arranged.

(_After Piette._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 29.--Journal of the voyage of an Eskimo of
Alaska. Example of pictography.

(_After Mallery-Hoffmann._)]

The methods which I have just mentioned are the precursors of true
writing. This really only begins with drawings expressing a sequence
of ideas, with _pictography_. Imperfect attempts at pictography are
found in the drawings of the Melanesians, representing different events
of their life; in certain rock-pictures of the Bushmen (Fig. 64) and
Australians. But already among the Eskimo, side by side with the
simple representation of objects, certain figures are seen to appear
denoting action or relations between objects: this is the beginning of
ideographic writing. Here, for example, is the gist of a hunting story
engraved by an Eskimo of Alaska on an ivory whip (Fig. 29). The first
figure (1) represents the story-teller himself, his right hand making
the gesture which indicates “I,” and his left, turned in the direction
in which he is going, means “go.” Continuing our translation, we read
the subsequent figures as follows:--(2) “in a boat” (paddle raised);
(3) “sleep” (hand on the head) “_one_ night” (the left hand shows a
finger); (4) “(on) an island with a hut in the middle” (the little
point); (5) “I going (farther);” (6) “(arrive at) an (other) isle
inhabited” (without a point); (7) “spend (there) _two_ nights;” (8)
“hunt with harpoon;” (9) “a seal;” (10) “hunt with bow;” (11) “return
in canoe with another person” (_two_ oars directed _backward_); (12)
“(to) the hut of the encampment.” As is evident, this ideography bears
a relation to the language of gesture. It might be thus assumed _a
priori_ that it is highly developed among the Indians of North America,
and as a matter of fact it is. The number of pictographs on tablets
of wood, bits of bark, skins (often on those forming the tent), is
enormous in every tribe. These are messages, hunting stories, songs,
veritable annals embracing cycles of seventy, a hundred and more years
(the latter bear the picturesque name of “winter tales”).[163] We may
judge of the degree of development of this art among the Indians by
the following example of a petition (Fig. 30) presented in 1849 to the
President of the United States by the Chippeway chiefs asking for the
possession of certain small lakes (8) situated in the neighbourhood
of Lake Superior (10), towards which leads a certain road (11). The
petition is painted in symbolic colours (blue for water, white for
the road, etc.) on a piece of bark. Figure 1 represents the principal
petitioning chief, the totem of whose clan is an emblematic and
ancestral animal (see Chapter VII.), the _crane_; the animals which
follow are the totems of his co-petitioners. Their eyes are all
connected with his to express unity of view (6), their hearts with
his to express unity of feeling. The eye of the crane, symbol of the
principal chief, is moreover the point of departure of two lines: one
directed towards the President (claim) and the other towards the lakes
(object of claim). In the other pictographs the symbolism is carried
yet further by the reproduction either of parts of the object for
the object itself (head or footmarks for the whole animal, etc.), or
by conventional objects for very complicated ideas. Thus the Dakotas
indicate “a fight” by the simple drawing of two arrows directed against
each other (Fig. 31, 1); the Ojibways represent morning by the rising
sun (2), “nothing” by the gesture of a man stretching out his arms
despairingly (3), and “to eat” by the gesture of the hand carried to
the mouth (4), exactly as the ancient Mexicans and Egyptians have drawn
it in their hieroglyphics, or again, the natives of Easter Island (Fig.
31, 5) in their rude attempt at ideographic writing on their “speech
tablets.”[164] The writing of these tablets is but a series of mnemonic
signs which succeed each other in _boustrophedon_ arrangement (see p.
142), being used for sacred and profane songs, or for magical rites.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 30.--Petition of Chippeway Indians to the
President of the United States. Example of pictography.

(_After Schoolcraft._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 31.--Various signs of symbolic pictography: 1,
war; 2, morning; 3, nothing; 4 and 5, to eat.]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 32.--Paternoster in Mexican hieroglyphics.]

From a similar pictographic method is derived the figurative writing
in hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Mexicans of the
table-land of Anahuoc and their neighbours the Mayas of the peninsula
of Yucatan. This mode of writing is a step in advance; certain figures
have the phonetic value of the first syllable of the word which they
represent. It is the rebus or “iconomatic” system, as Brinton calls
it. Thus the first words of the Lord’s Prayer are represented in
the Mexican code by the figures of a flag (Fig. 32) (_pantli_), a
stone (_tetl_), the fruit of the Indian fig (_nochtli_), and another
stone (_tetl_), the first syllables of which form pa-te-noch-te
(Pater-noster).[165] The drawings not representing more than sounds, in
this species of writing there is a tendency to simplify them, and thus
we see the primitive figure being transformed into a conventional sign
representing a sound, a syllable. This transformation may be traced
in the Egyptian hieroglyphics as well as in the cuneiform writing of
the ancient Assyrians. In Chinese writing the same phenomenon has
taken place, as is evident from Fig. 33, which represents the ancient
hieroglyphics side by side with the modern--morning, 1; the moon, 2;
a mountain, 3; tree, 4; dog, 5; horse, 6; man, 7. These characters,
though simplified, have kept their first signification corresponding to
the figure. The association of these figures with the purely phonetic
signs constitutes one of the principal resources of Chinese writing,
which enables homophonic words,[166] etc., to be distinguished.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 33.--Ancient Chinese hieroglyphics (top line),
Modern (bottom line).]

Chinese characters have been adopted by only one people with an
agglutinative language, the Japanese, who along with these characters
(_Mana_) use another method of writing (_Kana_), which is syllabic. The
Egyptians, speaking an inflectional language, had, on the contrary, to
abandon hieroglyphic writing at an early period in order to pass on to
syllabic writing and running characters (hieratic and demotic). It is
supposed that from the Egyptian (hieroglyphic and hieratic) writing was
derived the alphabet styled the Phœnician, the prototype of most of
the alphabets of the world.[167]

The _direction_ of the lines in writing is especially determined by
the nature of the materials written upon. As long as it is a question
of tracing on rocks, monuments, etc., there is no dominant direction,
and the signs are disposed, as in the pictograph, at hazard, in
any direction whatever. Even the ancient Greeks wrote sometimes
from right to left, sometimes from left to right, sometimes in
“boustrophedon”--that is to say, alternately, in both directions, as
oxen walk during ploughing.

But from the time people began to write on palm leaves, on bits of
bark, on tablets, papyrus, paper, it has been found necessary to choose
a uniform direction.

The brush of the Chinese determined the direction downwards and from
right to left, as for painting. The ancient Syriac _estranghelo_ was
also written in the same way, but from left to right; this direction
still persists in Mongol writing, which is derived from it, while
Arabic had transformed it into horizontal writing from right to left.
And to-day certain peoples, for instance the Somalis, yet write Arabic
downwards, and read it from right to left, turning over the leaf at
90°. Writing from right to left may have been favoured by the sacred
custom of the Arabs placing themselves with their face to the east,
the light coming from the right; besides, contrary to what takes place
with us, in Arabic writing the paper must be made to move from left to
right with the left hand, while the right hand, which writes, remains
motionless.[168]

The propagation of the different methods of ancient and modern writing
and their adoption by different peoples, are closely bound up with
the religion and progress in civilisation of these peoples. Thus
the Mussulman world has adopted the Arabic writing; the Buddhists
of the north, without distinction of race, hold in great esteem the
sacred Thibetan characters, whilst those of the south venerate the
Pali writing. The Mongol and Manchu alphabets are remains of the
Uighuro-Nestorian influence and of the Syriac writing in Central Asia,
as the Javanese alphabet is the remains of the civilising domination
of the Hindus in Java. With the expansion of European colonisation
the characters of the Latin alphabet become more and more prevalent;
in Europe even, they tend to relegate to the second place the other
characters (gothic, cyrilic, etc.). At the same time, new modes of
writing are coming to the front, the telegraphic alphabet, stenography,
precursors of a writing of the future, universal, international,
simple, and rapid.



CHAPTER V.

II.--SOCIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS.

    1. /Material Life/: _Alimentation_:
    Geophagy--Anthropophagy--Preparation of
    foods--Fire--Pottery--Grinding of corn--Stimulants
    and narcotics--_Habitation_: Two primitive types of
    dwellings--Permanent dwelling (hut)--Removable dwelling
    (tent)--Difference of origin of the materials employed in the two
    types--Villages--Furniture--Heating and lighting--_Clothing_:
    Nakedness and modesty--Ornament precedes dress--Head-dress--Ethnic
    mutilations--Tattooing--Girdle, necklace, and garland the
    origin of all dress--Manufacture of garments--Spinning
    and weaving--_Means of existence_: tools of primitive
    industry--Hunting--Fishing--Agriculture--Domestication and rearing
    of animals.


1. MATERIAL LIFE.

_Alimentation._--The first and most imperious preoccupation of man
at all times is the search for food. It is therefore natural that we
should begin our brief account of sociological characters with those
relating to this preoccupation.

In tropical countries man finds in nature without effort edible plants
in sufficient quantity for his support. It is said that in the island
of Ceram a single sago-tree will yield what will nourish a man for a
whole year.

In temperate countries there are also not wanting vegetable species
which, with only slight effort on man’s part, produce nutritive
substances. The animal world also supplies everywhere a great variety
of species suitable for food. These, for the most part, belong to the
division of vertebrates or molluscs; however, certain of the arthropods
(crustaceans, insects, etc.), echinoderms (sea-urchins), nay, even
worms (large earthworms of China, Tonkin, and Melanesia), also furnish
their contingent to human gluttony.

The mineral kingdom contributes only salt, which, however, is unknown
to certain tribes, as, for example, the Veddahs (Sarazin), the Somalis
(Lapicque), etc. Besides, according to Bunge,[169] peoples whose food
is almost exclusively animal (as is the case of the Veddahs, Eskimo,
etc.) never eat salt, while those whose chief food is of vegetable
origin experience an irresistible need for this condiment, probably
because of the insufficiency of mineral substances in plants.

Perhaps also to this need of supplying the deficiency of mineral
substances (calcareous or alkaline salts) is due the habit of eating
certain earthy substances--kaolin, clay, limestone. _Geophagy_ has,
in fact, been observed in all parts of the world: in Senegal (the
earth called “konak”), in Persia (argillaceous earth from Nichapur
and the saline steppes of Kirman, composed of carbonate of magnesia
and chalk),[170] and especially in the Asiatic archipelago, in India,
and South America. In the markets of Java are sold little squares or
figures in baked clay (“ampo” in Javanese) which are much valued,
especially by pregnant women.[171] In Calcutta are sold similar
products, and in several towns of Peru hawkers offer for sale little
figures in edible earth. The Indians of Bolivia eat a white clay, a
kind of kaolin called “pasa.”[172] The Whites settled in South America
are likewise addicted to geophagy. Women assert that the eating of
earth gives a delicate complexion to the face. The same custom has
also been pointed out among women in several countries of Europe, more
especially in Spain, where the sandy clay which is used for making the
“alcarrazas” is especially in vogue as an edible earth.[173]

We must now pass on to speak of another food--human flesh.
_Anthropophagy_ is much less general than is usually believed. Many
peoples have been wrongly accused of this crime against humanity by
travellers who have had neither the time nor the means necessary to
verify the fact, and by writers who here formed a hasty generalisation
from isolated facts.[174]

Cannibalism has also been too hastily inferred from the observation
of facts like “head-hunting,” or the practice of adorning houses with
human skulls and bones. As with human sacrifices, these are perhaps
survivals of ancient cannibalism, but not proofs of its existence at
the present time.

Besides, it must be noted that most of the statements of authors
have reference to bygone times, which would lead us to suppose that
anthropophagy is a custom tending to disappear among all peoples, even
among those who have not been converted to one of the religions whose
dogmas condemn this practice (Christianity, Buddhism, worship of Riamba
in Africa,[175] Islamism, etc.).

It appears from the very conscientious work of P. Bergemann,[176] that
actually the only regions of the world where anthropophagy has been
really proved to exist are Oceania (including the Asiatic Archipelago),
Central Africa, and Southern America.

The Battas of Sumatra, the natives of the Solomon Islands, of New
Britain, and of certain islands of the New Hebrides, as well as a large
number of Australian tribes, are known as incorrigible cannibals. We
can speak less confidently as to the other inhabitants of Oceania.
Dyaks, Fijians, New Caledonians, Karons of New Guinea, seem to
have abandoned cannibalism. In South America positive facts abound
concerning the anthropophagy of the Arovaques and certain Indians of
Columbia, the Botocudos and some other Brazilian tribes; but for the
rest of the continent they resolve themselves into the statements of
ancient travellers or to the report of survivals. On the other hand,
Central Africa appears to be the chief seat of anthropophagy. It is of
frequent occurrence among the Niam-Niams, the Monbuttus, the Bandziris,
and other tribes of the River Ubangi, as well as among the tribes of
the Congo basin, the Basangos, the Manyuema, the tribes of Kassai, etc.
We have likewise genuine proofs enough for the Fans of French Congo and
certain tribes of the Benguelas. In general, cannibalism appears to be
unknown in Africa beyond the tenth degree of latitude to the north and
south of the Equator.

Cannibalism is practised for three reasons: necessity, gluttony,
superstition.

_Necessary Anthropophagy_ may take place in consequence of the want
of animal food, as in Australia, or in consequence of accidental
circumstances (shipwreck, famine), as it may occur even among civilised
peoples; but this kind of cannibalism is as rare as that which is
attributable to _gluttony_. It is said, however, that the Melanesians
of the Solomon Islands, the New Hebrides, and New Britain hunt man
merely to satisfy their taste for human flesh. The Niam-Niams pursue
the same kind of sport not only for the flesh, but for the human
fat which they utilise for lighting purposes. Various tribes of the
Ubangi buy slaves or capture men separated from their fellows in order
to fatten them up and eat them afterwards; sometimes, to improve
the flavour of this kind of meat, the carcasses are left to soak in
water; similar facts have been observed among the Manyuema. However
that may be, the majority of cases of cannibalism may be explained
by _superstitious beliefs_. There is especially a belief in the
possibility of appropriating the virtues and the qualities of a man by
eating the whole or certain portions of his body--the heart, the eyes,
the liver. Sometimes drinking the blood of the victim is regarded as
sufficient.[177]

Of the three causes which I have just enumerated the first two are
probably the remains of downright anthropophagy--that is to say, of
the habit of eating one’s relatives and especially one’s offspring
just the same as any other flesh, as it exists among many animals. The
Australians, for example, are known to eat their children which they
have killed for other reasons (restriction of progeny).

R. S. Steinmetz[178] has thought it possible to bring together all
these cases of anthropophagy under the name of “endocannibalism,” or
the practice of eating parents and relatives. He mentions a great
number of tribes in which this practice exists alone or combined with
“exocannibalism,” that is to say the habit of eating the flesh of
strangers. This second sort of cannibalism, much more widely diffused,
however, than endocannibalism, is alone amenable to moral, religious,
or social ideas, while endocannibalism is but the remains of a natural
state of primitive man, the residue of instincts which still stirred
his soul at the period when he wandered solitary through the virgin
forests without realising the possibility of forming any social group
whatever.[179]

Ritual anthropophagy persists for a considerable length of time, and
may accord with a relatively developed civilisation. The Battas, the
Monbuttus, the Niam-Niams, are tribes almost half civilised; one
has a well-developed method of writing and a style of ornament, the
others have a fairly advanced social organisation. As a survival,
anthropophagy manifests itself not only in the practice of cutting
off the heads (Dyaks) in human sacrifices, but also in a multitude
of religious or superstitious practices among a great number of even
civilised peoples. The belief in the supposed curative properties of
human flesh, especially that of executed criminals, is still in full
force in China,[180] and was so in Europe in ancient times and in the
Middle Ages; the Salic law forbade the magical practices associated
with anthropophagy. To drink from the skull of an enemy was a very
widespread custom in Asia and Europe, and even until the beginning of
this century the remains of the skull of a hanged criminal figured
among the remedies in the pharmacopœias of Central Europe.

_Preparation of Foods._--There is no people on earth which eats all its
food quite raw, without having subjected it to previous _preparation_.
Some few northern tribes, the Eskimo, the Chukchi, eat, it is true,
reindeer’s flesh and fish quite raw, but they cut these up, prepare
dried provisions from them, and moreover they cook their vegetable food.

Food is prepared by cutting it into pieces, subjecting it to a
fermentation, moistening it, triturating it, and especially by exposing
it to the action of fire.

No tribe exists, even at the bottom of the scale of civilisation,
which is not to-day acquainted with the _use of fire_, and as far back
as we can go into prehistoric times we find material traces of the
employment of fire (cinders, charcoal, pieces of worn-out pyrites,
cracked flint, etc.). However, the _preservation_ of fire produced by
the natural forces (conflagrations, lightning, volcanoes, etc.) must
have preceded the _production_ of fire (Broca, Von den Steinen). Most
of the forces of nature transformable into heat--light, electricity,
motion, and chemical affinity--have been turned to account by man in
the production of fire with more or less success. Kindling flame by
concentrating the solar light with bi-convex glasses and mirrors,
mentioned from the remotest antiquity, could never have become general.
It is the same with electricity. On the other hand, motion and chemical
affinity have been at all times, and still are, pre-eminently the two
productive forces of fire. Motion is utilised in three different ways:
by the friction of two pieces of wood, by the striking together of two
pieces of certain mineral substances, or by pneumatic compression. The
last method is little used; it has been observed among the Dyaks of
Borneo and in Burma. It is based on the principle of the _pneumatic
tinder-box_ of our scientific demonstration rooms. But the two other
modes of utilising motion are still in general use among all savage
peoples.[181]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 34.--Method of fire-making by rubbing.

(_After Hough._)]

A little red-hot ember capable of setting fire to certain substances
(tinder, down, dry grass, etc.) may be obtained either by rubbing
together two pieces of wood, or by sawing one across the other, or
by turning the end of one in a little hole made in the other. Hence,
three ways of making fire by friction, each having a well-defined
geographical area. The first way (simple rubbing), the most primitive
and the least easy, is employed especially in Oceania. It consists in
rubbing a little stick of hard wood, bending it downward, against a
log of soft wood held between the knees (Fig. 34). A little channel is
thus hollowed out of the log, and in the end the operator succeeds in
obtaining incandescent particles of pulverised wood, which gather at
the bottom of the channel. He has only to throw in a little dry grass
or tinder and to blow upon it to obtain the flame.

The _sawing_ method (Fig. 35) is employed by the Malays and by some
Australian tribes, as well as in Burma and India. A piece of bamboo
split longitudinally is sawn with the cutting edge of another piece of
bamboo until the sawdust becomes hot and sets fire to the tinder on
which it falls.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 35.--Method of fire-making by sawing.

(_After Hough._)]

The _twirling_ or _rotatory_ method (Fig. 36), which consists in
turning the end of a fragment of wood supported on the surface of
another fragment, is the most generally used. It is met with among
Negroes, the Indians of North and South America, the Chukchi, in
certain regions of India, etc. The most primitive apparatus consists
of a log or board of soft wood, held horizontally with the feet, on
which is placed the blunted point of a cylindrical stick of hard wood.
Twirling the stick rapidly between the hands in both directions, a
little hole is hollowed and the dust of the wood which gathers around
the point becomes incandescent. It is thus that some tribes of Zulus
and of Australians, the Ainus, etc., make fire.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 36.--Method of fire-making by twirling among the
Kafirs.

(_After Wood._)]

But to this primitive apparatus important improvements are made among
other populations, especially among the Redskins and the Eskimo.
The hole in a horizontal board is hollowed out beforehand, then a
communication is made between this hole and one of the vertical faces
of the board by a channel through which escapes to the outside the
woody powder produced by rubbing, in the form of little incandescent
cylinders, which falls on the tinder. As to the upright stick,
different contrivances are fitted to it to render its motion more rapid
and more regular. Thus the Eskimo wind round it a cord which is drawn
alternately in both directions;[182] in this case the upper end of the
stick is held by an assistant or by the operator himself. They apply
also to these apparatus a mouth-drill, etc.

The second method of obtaining fire, that of _striking together_
two pieces of iron pyrites or two pieces of flint, or flint against
pyrites, must, like the first, have been known from the most
remote period. To-day it is only employed by some few backward
tribes--Fuegians, Eskimo, Aleuts. With the knowledge of iron, which
replaced pyrites, the true “flint and steel” was invented; it very
quickly superseded in Europe and Asia the production of fire by
friction, as, in its turn, it has been superseded by apparatus
utilising the chemical affinity of different bodies (matches).

But the old processes survive in traditions, in religion. Thus the
present Brahmins of India obtain fire for religious ceremonies by
the friction of two sticks, in front of shops where English matches
are sold; it is still by friction that the Indians of America, amply
provided with matches, procure fire for the sacred festivals. Even
in Europe, in Great Britain, and in Sweden, at the beginning of this
century the fire intended for superstitious uses (to preserve animals
and people against contagious diseases) was kindled by rubbing together
two pieces of wood. This practice was forbidden by a decree, dating
from the end of last century, in the same district of Jönköping whence
to-day are sent forth by millions the famous Swedish matches.[183]

The long and difficult processes of obtaining fire compel savage tribes
to preserve it as one of the most precious things. Almost everywhere
it is to women that the care is committed. Among the Australians,
women who let the fire go out are punished almost as severely as were
the Roman vestals of old. The Papuans of Astrolabe Bay (New Guinea)
prefer to go several leagues in search of fire to a neighbouring tribe
than to light another (Miklukho-Maclay). The preparation of “new fire”
among a great number of tribes, especially in America and Oceania, is
celebrated with festivals and religious ceremonies.[184]

_Cooking._--Fire, once discovered, heat, light, and at the same time
the means of rendering a great variety of foods more digestible, were
artificially assured to man. But it is somewhat difficult to roast a
piece of meat in the fire, especially when there is not a metal skewer
at hand, as was the case with primitive man. So, at an early stage,
he tried to find some method of cooking his food, especially fruits.
He heated stones in the open fire, and with these stones he cooked
his meat and vegetables. The process is still in use to-day among
tribes unacquainted with pottery. Thus the Polynesians before their
“civilisation” by Europeans proceeded in the following way to cook
their food. Stones heated in the fire were put at the bottom of a hole
dug in the ground; upon these stones was spread a layer of leaves, on
which were placed the fruit of the bread-tree, then a fresh layer of
leaves and other heated stones; care being taken to cover the whole
with leaves and earth. In half-an-hour a delicious dish was drawn out
of the hole.[185]

Among most savage Indonesians food is cooked in bamboo vessels filled
with water, in which heated stones have been previously plunged. This
method of cooking with stones is also in use at the two extreme points
of America, among the Indians of Alaska and the Fuegians. It is even
used in Europe among the Serbian and Albanian mountaineers.

_Pottery._--But real cooking, even of the simplest sort, is only
possible with the existence of _pottery_, the manufacture of which must
have followed closely on the discovery of a method of obtaining fire,
for no example is known of unbaked pottery.

There are still peoples unacquainted with this art, such as the
Australians and the Fuegians, but the absence of it is not always
the sign of an inferior degree of civilisation, as we may see in the
Polynesians before the arrival of Europeans, and also the present
Mongols, whose cooking utensils consist of iron, wooden, and leather
vessels, for pottery which easily breaks would be an encumbrance in
nomadic life.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 37.--Bark vessel, used by Iroquois Indians.

(_After Cushing._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 38.--Type of Iroquois earthen vessel, moulded on
the bark vase of Fig. 37.

(_After Cushing._)]

The most primitive pottery is made without the potter’s wheel. In its
manufacture we may admit, with Otis Mason,[186] three special methods
of working. _Modelling_ by hand; _moulding_ to an exterior or interior
mould, usually a basket or other object of wicker-work, which burns
away afterwards in the baking (Figs. 37 and 38); and lastly, a method
of proceeding which may be called _coiling_ in clay. Long strings of
clay are taken and rolled so as to form a cone or a cylinder, or any
other form of the future pot, then the sides are made even.

The Zuñi Indians of New Mexico begin this work in a little basket-dish
(Fig. 39), which shows the connection of this method with that of
moulding, whilst the Wolofs, whom I have seen working in the same way,
as well as the Kafirs (Fig. 135, to the left), have only as a base to
work upon a clay disc or a wooden porringer, moulding being unknown
to them. But in both cases this mode of manufacture is already a step
towards pottery formed by the wheel, only instead of the clay it is the
hand of the workman which turns, naturally much more slowly. Besides,
the primitive wheel, that is to say, a disc or a board set in motion
by the hand, sometimes without a pivot, as still seen in China, does
not revolve with the dizzy speed of the true wheel, the construction of
which is an adaptation of the general processes of the transmission of
forces by means of levers and wheels.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 39.--Making of pottery without wheel by the Zuñi
Indians (coiling method).

(_After Cushing._)]

In regard to pottery it must be noted that its manufacture is left
almost exclusively to women among most of the tribes of America, while
it is entrusted without distinction to men and women in Africa.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 40.--Primitive harvest, the women (Shoshones)
gathering wild grain.

(_After Powell._)]

_Grinding of Corn._--We need not dwell on the means of preparing food
independently of the action of fire (milk and its products, pemmican,
etc.); they vary infinitely. Let us deal briefly, however, with the
method of preparing grain. Many peoples are unacquainted with flour:
they eat the grain either roasted or cooked, as we do still the most
anciently known perhaps of the graminaceæ, rice and millet. In the
primitive state of agriculture certain tribes of North America combined
in one single operation the threshing, winnowing, and roasting of
grain. After being triturated between the hands, the grain is thrown
into a basket-dish (Fig. 40) in which are red-hot stones; the straw
burns, the husk comes off and partly burns too, whilst the grain is
being roasted.

From the time when some intelligent man perceived when crushing a
grain of corn, perhaps by chance, between two stones, that flour might
supply a more delicate food than roasted grain, the art of the miller
was discovered. There are three ways of preparing flour: pounding in a
mortar, trituration on a flat surface, and true grinding by means of
a mill turned by the hand or other motor power--animals, water, wind,
steam.

The mortar, used by a great number of savage or half-civilised
tribes to crush not only grain but also the roots of starchy plants,
cassava, yam, etc., must have been known for a very long time. Its
most primitive form is met with among the Indians of North America--a
block of granite or sandstone in which a cavity has been made, with a
piece of porous rock, almost cylindrical, for the pestle. In Africa
and Oceania the mortar and pestle are of wood. Almost everywhere the
pounding is done by women. The rudest hand-mills, such as are met with
among the Arabs, the Kabyles, the Bushmen, are made of a round stone
pierced in the centre, turned on another stone by means of a handle
passing through the hole. Incisions on the triturating surface of the
millstone is not found as yet in these primitive machines.

_The preservation of food_ is known to a great number of savage and
half-civilised tribes. The Eskimo preserve their meat by means of
cold, many fisher peoples resort to salting, the art of preparing true
pemmican by enclosing the food in a mass of grease or honey is known to
the Veddahs of Ceylon, to Negroes, etc.

_Stimulants._--Among most savage peoples special _fermented
beverages_ are found: “koumiss,” or fermented mare’s milk, among
the Turco-Mongols; bamboo beer among the Moïs of French Indo-China;
millet or eleusine beer among the Negroes; sago-juice wine among the
populations of the coast of the Indian Ocean--Dravidians (Fig. 81),
Indonesians, Malays; “pulque,” derived from the juice of the agave,
among the Mexicans of the high table-lands. I must lastly mention
“kava,” the national beverage of the Polynesians, concocted from the
juice of the leaves of a pepper-plant (_Piper methysticum_), which is
made to ferment by means of the ptyalin of the saliva, these leaves
being previously chewed in company, each spitting out his “quid” into
the common dish.

The distillation of fermented liquids for the purpose of obtaining
alcohol is known to most semi-civilised peoples. We need but instance
the “arka” of the Turco-Mongols derived from “koumiss,” the arrack of
the Chinese and Japanese, etc.

Among the stimulants, tonics, narcotics, drugs, etc., other than
fermented beverages, and tea, coffee, and chocolate of international
fame, must be mentioned the kola nut used as a stimulant on a large
scale in the whole of Western Africa; the “maté” (_Ilex paraguayensis_)
taking the place of tea in a large portion of South America; different
roots and certain fish (like the _Fistularia serrata_ of Java)[187]
used by way of aphrodisiacs; lastly, the “coca” of the Peruvians and
Bolivians (_Erithroxylon coca_), the leaves of which taken as an
infusion plunge you, says Mantegazza, in the most delicious dreams,
while pulverised and chewed with lime they only act as a stimulant.
It is possible that the chewing of _betel_ or _siri_, that is to say,
areca palm nut mixed with shell lime and wrapped in a leaf of betel
(_Chavica betle_), produce the same effect; but this habit appears to
be induced by hygienic considerations in regard to the mouth. However
that may be, the chewing of betel nut, inseparable from Malaysian
civilisation, always has a tendency to blacken the teeth of peoples
addicted to it.[188]

The practice of tobacco smoking, universal at the present day, only
spread into Europe in the sixteenth century. In the primitive home of
this plant, America, the Indians smoke moderately, although the pipe
with them plays a ceremonial part (“the calumet of peace,” etc.). The
pipe, which in Europe is yielding place to the cigar, is still held in
great honour throughout the whole of Asia, where ethnographers point
out more than 150 ethnic varieties of this object, without counting
the numerous forms of “narghile.” The cigarette appears to be of Malay
origin.[189] The habit of smoking opium, which so speedily becomes an
invincible passion, tends at the present day to spread wherever Chinese
influence penetrates: in Corea, Indo-China, etc.

The practice of smoking haschish, a product of Indian hemp (_Cannabis
Indica_), is localised in Persia and Asia Minor; but it is found also
among the Baluba Negroes of the Congo basin, who attach to it a great
importance from the politico-religious point of view.

Not satisfied with eating, drinking, inhaling by the mouth, and chewing
stimulants, man absorbs them too by the nose. The habit of taking a
pinch of snuff, formerly the fashion in the best society of Europe,
seems now to be relegated to the lower classes. But among several of
the Bantu Negroes of Uganda, of the Cameroons, and the east coast of
Africa, snuff-taking (introduced by Europeans?) is still in great
honour, and Kafirs in high positions carry coquettishly very small
snuffboxes in the lobe of their ears. Instead of snuff, the Mura
Indians of the Lower Amazon take “parica,” a very stimulating powder,
which is derived from the dry seeds of a vegetable called “Inga.” The
stuff is taken by two persons together, during the festival of the
ripening of the Inga. One of these Indian braves puts the parica into a
tube and puffs it into the nose of his companion.[190]

As Letourneau[191] judiciously observes, the chief motive for the
use of various drugs and stimulants all over the earth is the desire
experienced by every human being to emancipate himself, if even for
a moment, from the ordinary conditions of existence. He is only too
happy to be able to find at pleasure, in the midst of the fatigues, the
annoyances, and the miseries of daily life, a moment of forgetfulness,
the semblance of refuge.

_Habitation._--The natural shelters--caverns, overhanging rocks, holes
in the ground, thick foliage, hollow trunks of trees, etc.--must have
been utilised by primitive man as places of abode. But which of these
shelters served as a model for the first artificial dwellings? Not
the cavern, for even now it is made use of just as it is by civilised
populations in China, Tunisia, Afghanistan, and even France, in the
valley of the Cher. Besides, with the exception, perhaps, of the huts
of the Eskimo, half underground and covered with a dome of ice blocks,
constructions in mineral substances are scarcely found among savage
peoples.[192] Substances of vegetable origin were those first utilised
for fixed habitations (hut, etc.), and substances derived from animals
for dwellings which could be carried.[193]

The _hut_, which is the prototype of the _fixed habitation_, is derived
probably from the _screen_ formed of a series of branches stuck in the
ground, as one sees it still among the Australians. Sometimes this
screen is constructed of large palm-leaves resting against crossed
branches, as for example among the Veddahs of Ceylon, Andamanese, the
Botocudos, and other Indians of Brazil. The leafy branches of these
screens had but to be arranged in the form of a circle or in two
parallel rows, their tops joined together, the interstices stopped
up with grasses, moss, and bark, in order that the frail shelter
might be transformed into a stronger dwelling, a better protection
against the inclemencies of the weather. The form which this primitive
dwelling was thus obliged to take depended then, before everything
else, on the arrangement of the branches of the screen: if put in the
form of a circle the hut became conical provided the branches used
in its construction were rigid and but little spread out (Fuegians);
hemispherical, cupola-shaped, if they were flexible and leafy
(Australians); if they were placed in two parallel rows the hut took
the form of a two-sided roof, flat (Indians of the Amazon), or convex
(Todas), according to the materials.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 41.--Hemispherical hut in straw of Zulu Kafirs.

(_After Wood and other sources._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 42.--Hut and granary of the Ovampos (South
Africa).

(_After Wood._)]

Trying to secure themselves still better from the rain, the wind,
and the sun, the first architects must have dug out the soil beneath
the hut, as the Ainus, the Chukchi, the Kamtchadales still do at the
present time, and this may have suggested the idea, as Tylor says,[194]
of extending the vertical walls above the ground. The rushes, the
little twigs, and the clods of potter’s clay or grass which were
used at first to stop up the holes, eventually formed the walls, and
the ancient hut thus raised was transformed into a dwelling a little
more comfortable, having _roof_ and _walls_. This was probably the
origin of the hive-shaped huts of the Zulu Kafirs (Fig. 41), and the
cylindrical, conical-roofed huts of the Ovampos (Fig. 42), and the
Gauls of the time of Cæsar. Straw entering into the composition of
the roof, and sometimes even the body of these dwellings, they may be
styled _straw huts_ or _thatched huts_. As to the quadrangular huts,
they are transformed in the same manner into those little houses so
characteristic of the Muchikongos, of French Congo and the coast of
Guinea.[195] Among the peoples inhabiting the shores of the Pacific
and Indian Oceans, from the Kamtchadales and the Indians of the
north-west of America to the Maoris and the natives of Madagascar, the
quadrangular houses are erected on poles even when they are far from
water. The materials of which they are constructed are bamboos, reeds,
and palm-leaves.[196]

In order to give solidity to the straw and reed-built walls, it must
have been necessary at an early period to plaster them over with
potter’s earth (Senegal, palafittes of the bronze age in Europe).
In very dry countries it was seen that lumps of clay were able of
themselves to form sufficiently solid walls, and this observation has
led naturally enough to the making of sun-dried bricks, which were
known to the Babylonians, to the Egyptians, and are still used to-day
in the Sudan, in Turkestan, and Mexico.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 43.--Summer tent of Tunguz-Manegres, of
birch-tree bark (exceptional type).]

_Movable Habitations._--From the moment when the tired hunter of
primitive times fell asleep beneath the skin of a wild beast spread out
on two or three poles, and folded it up on the morrow to carry it away
with him in his wanderings, the _tent_ was invented. Skins continued
to be the best material for its construction until the invention of
felt and stuffs, plaited or woven of a sufficient breadth. Bark has
only been used exceptionally, in Siberia for example, and for summer
tents only (Fig. 43). Like the hut, the tent may be circular, conical
(Indians of North America), cupola-shaped (Kafirs), or quadrangular in
the form of a prismatic roof (Thibetans, Gypsies). The last-mentioned
of these forms has not been improved on, and the Arab tent of the
present day, which is derived from it, differs from its prototype only
in its dimensions and the awning set up at the entrance. On the other
hand, the two circular forms have been improved on by the use of pieces
of wattling instead of poles, and felt instead of skins. The tent has
thus become a comfortable dwelling, the best suited to the life of
half-civilised nomads, a real house with a roof, conical in the “Gher”
of the Mongols (Fig. 44), almost hemispherical in the “Yourte” of the
Kirghiz.[197] This dwelling of the nomads has even served as a model
for the permanent wooden habitations of the tribes of the Yenisei or
Altai. Their wooden house has a ground-plan of hexagonal or octagonal
form, imitating the circular yourte or felt tent (Fig. 45), and it is
only little by little, under Russian influence, that it is transformed
into a four-sided house.[198] The “mazankis” of the Teleuts of Siberia
and the Little Russians with their walls of fascines plastered with
clay and lime, are only imitations of wattled tents.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 44.--“Gher” or tent of the Kalmuks of Astrakan,
part being raised in order to show framework and interior.


(_Photo. S. Sommier._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 45.--Hexagonal house of non-roving Altaians,
constructed in imitation of the felt tent of the nomads.


(_After Yadrintsev._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 46.--Kraal, or Kafir village, with defensive
enclosure.

(_Partly after Wood._)]

As social life becomes more complicated, there appear, side by side
with the dwelling properly so called, other structures: granaries
and storehouses, ordinarily built on wooden pillars (among the
Malays and the Ainus), or on a clay stand (among the Negroes of the
Sudan) or a wooden support (Fig. 42), to protect them against the
attacks of wild beasts. Access to them, as to the houses on poles,
is gained by primitive ladders, a series of notches in a tree-trunk.
Other structures, light straw huts on trees, serve as refuges in
case of attack and as posts of observation to watch the movements
of enemies. The idea of defence was also the first motive for the
grouping of houses into villages. In non-civilised countries almost
always the villages and urban agglomerations are surrounded with
palisades (Kraal of the Kafirs, Fig. 46), ditches, sometimes filled
with traps and prickles (Laos), lastly, with walls. Watch-towers
replace the airy posts of observation on trees (example: Lesghi
village of the Caucasus). According to the forms of propriety (see
Chapter VII.), several families may inhabit enormous houses in
which each has a special apartment adjoining the common space in
which dwell the non-married people (Nagas, Mossos, Pueblo Indians).
The “communal houses,” so general in all Oceania and among certain
peoples of Indo-China, which serve at the same time as “bachelor’s
dens,” as “clubs,” as temples, as inns, represent the common rooms of
phalansteries as separated from the private parts.

With habitations are naturally connected _furniture_, methods of
_heating_ and _lighting_. Among primitive peoples all the furniture
consists of some skins and straw or dry grass for bed and seat. Mats
are already a sign of a fairly advanced civilisation; carpets, seats,
and beds come after (Figs. 44 and 120). The wooden pillow in the
form of a bench is found from Japan and New Guinea to the country of
the Niam-Niams and the Eastern Sudan, where it must probably have
penetrated from Egypt. Chests for linen, plate, etc., are quite late
inventions.

For heating purposes a fire in the middle of the hut was used in the
first instance. The Fuegians burn enormous trees, which project from
the hut and are brought forward into the fire as the end is consumed.
The smoke issues by the open extremity of the hut. The Altaians, the
Kamtchadales, the Tunguses, the Kalmuks, are content with a similar
fire kept in the middle of the tent or wooden house (Figs. 44 and 45).
Among the Russian peasants one may meet with houses, “koornaïa izba,”
having a stove, but not a chimney; the smoke issues by the windows
and by an orifice in the roof. In Corea the smoke of the stove is
carried under the planks; in China under a sort of clay bed (Kang).
The mantelpiece, raised above the hearth, appears to be a European
invention which preceded that of the true chimney, which latter
appeared in the eleventh century. Among the Eskimo the seal oil, which
burns in great lamps of earth dried in the sun, serves to give warmth
and light at the same time.

Very finely made lamps have been described as existing among the
Indians of North America. The Polynesians burn coco-nut oil in a half
of the shell of the coco-nut itself, using the fibres which cover the
fruit by way of wick. In Egypt, in Babylon, in Europe, lamps have been
known from the earliest times.[199] But most primitive peoples are
still content to burn fat pine-knots or resinous torches for lighting
purposes. The Moïs-Lays of French Indo-China obtain light by means of
little pieces of fir-wood burning aloft on a chandelier formed of a
double metal fork.[200] This description may be applied word for word
to the “loocheena” of the Russian peasants, the use of which has not
disappeared at the present time. Moreover, the torch was much used in
the whole of Europe side by side with closed and open lamps before the
invention of the candle, the light of which grows dim to-day before the
petroleum lamp even in China and Turkestan, and before the electric
light among us.

_Dress and Ornament._--To say that primitive man went about quite naked
is almost a commonplace, but to say that nudity is not synonymous
with savagery would appear a paradox to many. And yet nothing is more
true. Among the peoples who know nothing of dress there are some
quite savage, like the Fuegians, the Australians, the Botocudos, and
others who have attained a certain degree of civilisation, like the
Polynesians (before the arrival of Europeans) and the Niam-Niams. Let
us remember, moreover, that the Greeks of classic antiquity only half
covered their nakedness. It does not necessarily follow that the less
clothes a people wears the more savage it is. It is a question of
climate and social convention, entirely like the emotion of modesty,
which is not at all something natural and innate in man. It is not met
with among animals, and one could mention dozens of cases of peoples
among whom the sentiment is entirely lacking. On the contrary, the
fashion of covering the female genital organs, for example among
different tribes of the Amazon,[201] and the male organs among the New
Caledonians[202] or the New Hebrideans, is such as rather to attract
attention to these parts than to hide them. The same thing may equally
be said of the little ornamented aprons barely covering the genital
organs which are worn by the Kafir women (Fig. 47), etc. Certain
authors (Darwin, Westermarck) even think that ornament in general,
that of the region of the abdomen in particular, was one of the most
powerful means of sexual selection, by attracting attention to the
genital organs. It is, rather, the garment which gives birth to the
sentiment of modesty, and not modesty which gives birth to the garment.
Among a people as civilised as the Japanese, men and women bathe
together quite naked without any one being shocked. It was the same in
Russia during the last century.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 47.--Zulu girl with the three types of ornament:
head-dress, necklace, and belt; also leather chastity apron decorated
with pearls.

(_Phot. lent by Miss Werner._)]

And yet, to prove how conventional all this sentiment of modesty is,
it is only necessary to say that the Japanese are shocked to see the
nude in works of art;[203] that it is as indecent for a Chinese woman
to show her foot as for a European woman to expose the most intimate
parts of her body; that a Mussulman woman surprised in the bath by
indiscreet eyes hastens before anything else to hide her face, the rest
of the body being exposed to view without any great shock to modesty;
that a European woman could never uncover her breast in the street and
does it in a ballroom, etc.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 48.--Ufhtaradeka, typical Fuegian with primitive
mantle of seal-skin; height, 1 m. 56; ceph. ind., 79.1.


(_Phot. of the Scientific Miss. of Cape Horn, Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist.,
Paris._)]

Starting from the primordial nudity of mankind, we are led to inquire
what was the motive which prompted men to clothe themselves. In
countries with a rigorous climate it was the necessity of protecting
themselves from cold and damp, but in the other parts of the world this
has not been the case. The sentiment of vanity, the desire of being
different from others, of pleasing, of inspiring with horror, begot
ornaments which became transformed little by little into dress.

_Adornment of the Body._--Strange as it may appear at the outset, the
fact that ornament preceded dress is well established in ethnography.
It is, moreover, often difficult to draw the boundary-line between the
two. Thus the _first_ and most primitive _mode of personal adornment_
is certainly that in which the body itself is adorned without the
putting on of any extraneous objects whatsoever. And the most simple
of these primitive adornments, the daubing of the body with colouring
matter, may also be considered as one of the first garments. Almost
all peoples who go naked practise this mode of adornment (Figs. 59 and
124), but it is held in special esteem on the American continent. The
colours most used are red, yellow, white, and black, yielded by such
substances as ochre, the juice of certain plants, chalk, lime, and
charcoal. Certain tribes of the Amazon basin fix a covering of feathers
on their body, daubed with a sticky substance. The painting of the face
(Figs. 158 and 159) is colouring only of a modified form. Thibetan
women coat their face over with a thick layer of paste or starch, which
with a refinement of coquetry they inlay with certain seeds arranged
so as to form designs more or less artistic, without interfering with
the red spots on the cheeks made with the juice of certain berries.
Chinese women only put a thin coating of rice-starch without seeds, and
the Javanese women, like our ladies of fashion, are content with rice
powder. The red spots on the cheeks of Mongolian and Thibetan women
are the prototypes of the paint which spoils so unnecessarily the
fresh complexion and the faces, naturally so beautiful, of the women of
Southern Europe (Spain, Serbia, Roumania).

The custom of applying lac to the teeth, in vogue among the Malays,
the Chinese, and the Annamese; the colouring of the lips so generally
practised from Japan to Europe; the dyeing of the nails and the hair
with “henna” (_Lawsonia inermis_) in Persia and Asia Minor; lastly,
the painting of the eyebrows and eyelashes in the east, the dyeing of
the hair in the west, are various manifestations of this same mode of
primitive adornment.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 49.--Ainu woman tattooed round the lips.]

Side by side with colouring must be placed tattooing, which leaves more
indelible marks. There exists an infinite number of varieties of it,
which, however, may be reduced to two principal categories: _tattooing
by incision_, in which the design is produced by a series of scars or
gashes, and _tattooing by puncture_, in which the design is formed
by the introduction under the skin of a black powder by means of a
needle. The first method is practised by dark-skinned peoples, Negroes,
Melanesians, Australians (Figs. 14, 15, 149, and 150). In this case
the incision having injured the non-pigmented dermic layer the scars
are less coloured than the surrounding skin. Tattooing by puncture
is only possible among clear-skinned peoples; among the latter may
be instanced the New Zealanders, the Dyaks, and the Laotians, called
“green-bellies.” In the case of a great number of peoples, tattooing is
restricted to one sex only, chiefly to women (Ainus, Fig. 49, Chukchi),
or else to certain categories of persons (postilions and drawers of
carriages in Japan; sailors, criminals, and prostitutes in Europe).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 50.--Foot of Chinese woman artificially deformed.

(_After photograph._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 51.--Skeleton of the foot represented in Fig. 50,
with outline of shoe.]

Tattooing may be already considered as an _ethnic mutilation_; but
there exist many others of a less anodyne character which are also
connected with ornamentation. Chinese women deform their feet by means
of tight bandages, and end by transforming them into horrible stumps
(Figs. 50 and 51), which only allow them to walk by holding on to
surrounding objects. European and other “civilised” women compress
themselves in corsets to such an extent that they bring on digestive
troubles, and even displacement of the kidneys.[204] The Australians
draw out the teeth of young men on their reaching the age of puberty;
Negroes of the western coast of Africa break the teeth and transform
them into little points; the Malays file them into the form of a
half-circle, a saw, etc. As to cranial deformations, a whole chapter
would not suffice to describe them all. Topinard distinguishes four
principal types of such, without counting the various special forms
(trilobate skull of the islanders of Sacrificios, etc.). In general the
skulls are lengthened by this practice into a sort of sugar-loaf, the
top of which points more or less upward and backward. It is chiefly
by compression, by means of bandages, boards, or various caps and
head-dresses, that the desired form of the head is obtained.[205]

Intentional deformation is practised by the Chinooks and other Indian
tribes of the Pacific slope of the United States; by the Aymaras of
Bolivia; in the New Hebrides; among a great number of tribes of Asia
Minor, where the deformed skulls recall those which Herodotus had
described under the name of _macrocephali_. In Europe the custom of
altering the shape of the head has spread a little everywhere; the
best known deformation is that which Broca had described under the
name of “Toulousaine,” and which is still practised both in the north
and south of France (Fig. 52). What effect may deformation of the head
have on intellectual development? Inquiries made in this direction
afford no positive information; but it may be presumed that without
being as harmful as some people believe, the deformation, by displacing
the convolutions of the brain, may favour the outbreak of cerebral
diseases in persons predisposed to them.[206]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 52.--Native of the Department of Haute-Garonne
whose head has undergone the deformation called “Toulousaine.”

(_Phot. Delisle; engraving belonging to the Paris Anthro. Society._)]

_Adornment with Objects attached to the Body._--The perforation of the
ear, the nose, and the lips is made with the view of placing in the
hole an ornament of some kind or other. Thus this species of mutilation
may be considered as a natural step towards the _second manner of
adornment_, which consists in placing or suspending gauds on the body.
When people have few garments or none at all they are compelled to
hook these objects to the body itself. The Botocudo perforates the
lobes of the ears and the lower lip to insert into them heavy wooden
plugs; other Indians of South America perforate the cheeks to stick
feathers therein; the Papuans and the Australians the nasal septum,
that it may hold a bone or stick (Figs. 53 and 149); the Caribs and
the Negroes of the Ubangi the lower lip, for the insertion of crystal,
bone, or metal rods, or simply pins. Similar customs persist, moreover,
among peoples more amply clothed. The nose-rings among the Dravidians
or among Tatar women; the ear-pendants of the American Indians (Figs.
158, 159, 160, and 161); the bone plugs placed in the cheeks among the
Eskimo; the metal plates or precious stones inlaid in the teeth among
the Malays of Sumatra, exist to prove this point. And the ear-rings of
our civilised European women are the last vestige of a savage form of
adornment which requires the mutilation of an organ.

The hair also is used to attach ornaments: flowers, jewels, ribbons,
chips, feathers (Figs. 47, 117, 154, 158, 159, and frontispiece). As
to the arrangement of the hair, it depends a great deal on its nature.
The Negroes, with their short and woolly hair, are enabled to have a
complicated head-dress (Figs. 47 and 141). Peoples with smooth hair are
content to leave it floating behind (Americans, Fig. 160, Indonesians),
or to gather it up into a chignon (Annamese, Coreans, Eskimo), in
one or several plaits (Chinese), or in several rolls or bands, stuck
together and disposed in various ways (Mongols, Japanese, Fig. 120,
Chinese). But it is among peoples with frizzy and slightly woolly hair
that the head-dress attains a high degree of perfection. We have but to
mention the capillary structures of the Bejas (Fig. 138), the Fulbés
(Fig. 139), the Papuans and some Melanesians, whose mops of hair with a
six-toothed comb coquettishly planted at the top are so characteristic
(Figs. 152 and 153).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 53.--Dancing costume of natives of Murray Islands
(Torres Straits). Type of Papuan (in the centre), Melanesian (on the
right), and mixed race (on the left).

(_Phot. Haddon._)]

The custom of shaving the hair of the head and the beard, as well as
the habit of plucking out the hairs, are more general among peoples
whose pilous system is little developed than among hairy peoples.
All the Mongolians, all the Indians of America, and almost all the
Oceanians shave or pluck out the hair. Amongst them the razor,
sometimes a fragment of obsidian or glass, is used in conjunction
with depilatory tweezers. The wearing of the beard or long hair is
often a matter of fashion or social convention. From the time of the
patriarchs the beard has been honoured in the East, while in the West
the fluctuations of fashion or opinion have made of its presence or
absence a sign of opposition (Protestant clergy before the eighteenth
century in Germany, Republicans of the middle of this century in
France), or a distinctive mark of certain classes (Catholic clergy,
servants, actors, soldiers in many states). Several superstitious ideas
are connected with human hair. From at least the ninth century to the
end of the Middle Ages, the Slavs and the Germans shaved the crown of
their children’s heads, believing that it facilitated teething.

It would take too long to enumerate all the peoples among whom the
cutting of the hair is a stigma of slavery or degradation; certain
peoples cut their hair as a sign of mourning (Dakota Indians, etc.),
others, on the contrary, let it grow very long for the same reason.
On the other hand, the habit of letting the nails grow to a length of
several centimetres, so general among the wealthy classes in Indo-China
and Malaysia, is inspired chiefly by vanity; the object being to show
that they have no need to resort to manual labour in order to live.

_The Girdle, Necklace, and Garland._--Ornaments fixed to the body
without mutilating it (the _second stage in the evolution of ornament_)
are very varied. Originally strips of hide, sinews of animals, or
herbaceous twigs, sometimes plaited, were fastened around the head
or parts of the body where there was a depressed surface, above a
bony projection or a muscular protuberance--the neck, the waist, the
wrists, the ankles, as is still seen among the Fuegians (Fig. 174),
Melanesians, Bushmen, and Australians. According to the parts of the
body thus adorned, four classes of ornaments may be recognised:
garlands, collars, belts (Fig. 47), and bracelets (on the arms and
legs). To these simple bands men began at first to attach all sorts of
secondary ornaments: bright shells (frontispiece and Figs. 53 and 151),
seeds and gay-coloured insects, beads of bone and shell-fish (Figs.
151, 159, and 160), claws of wild beasts, teeth and knuckle bones of
animals and human beings (Figs. 158 and 159), bristles and hoofs of the
Suidæ, pieces of fur, feathers of birds, leaves and flowers. And it
is to these superadded ornaments that we may trace the origin of the
garment proper. The thong of the head, over and above its utilitarian
purpose as a quiver (the Bushmen push their arrows into it), becomes
transformed into the crown of feathers so well known among the American
Indians and Melanesians (Fig. 53), into a wreath of flowers among the
Polynesians, into all kinds of head-covering among other tribes (Figs.
22, 40, 107, 108, 109, 115, 134, 145, etc.).

To the thong of the neck or collar may be suspended a beast’s skin,
and you have it then transformed into a mantle. Among the Fuegians
this piece of skin is so scanty that they are obliged to turn it about
according to the direction of the wind in order to protect the body
effectually (Fig. 48). The thong of the waist, the girdle, was likewise
laden with different appendages, and became transformed into a skirt.
The leafy branches which the Veddahs push under their belt, the pieces
of bark upheld by the belt among the Niam-Niams, the Indo-Malayan
“sarong” (Figs. 126 and 146), which combines the functions of a skirt
and a belt,--these are all merely the prototype of the skirt.

Space fails us to show in detail how the other ornaments and garments
have sprung from these humble beginnings. How from the bracelet
proceeded the ring; how the stone, the twisted tooth, the perforated
shell (Figs. 53 and 152) replaced the thongs in this class of ornament;
how, when once metals became known, gold and silver plates, hollow
and solid rings in gold, silver, copper, or iron (Figs. 112 and 158),
brass wire rolled several times around the neck and the limbs, were
substituted for thongs of skin, blades of grass, and shell beads. The
inlaying of precious stones has transformed ornament. The wearing of
massive metal becomes uncomfortable even in the climate of the tropics;
in certain countries of Africa, rich ladies of fashion have slaves
specially employed in emptying pots of water over the spiral-shaped
bracelets which coil around the whole arm or leg and become excessively
hot in the sun (J. G. Wood).

It is necessary, however, to say a few words about the _fabrication of
stuffs_ and the _making of garments_.

The skins of animals--ox, sheep, reindeer, horse, seal, dog, eland,
etc.--were used at first just as they were. Then men began to strip
off the hair when there was no necessity to protect themselves from
cold, soaking the skin in water, to which they added sometimes cinders
or other alkaline substances. This is still the method adopted by the
Indians of the far west to obtain the very coarse and hard ox-hide for
their tents. But if they wish to utilise it for garments, or if they
have to deal with the skin of the deer, they scrape it afterwards with
stone or metal scrapers, cut it into half the thickness and work it
with bone polishers to render it more supple.[207] Tanning comes much
later among half-civilised peoples (like the ancient Egyptians, etc.).
Apart from the mammals, few animals have furnished materials for the
dress of man;[208] the famous mantles and hats of birds’ feathers so
artistically worked by the Hawaiians and the ancient Mexicans were
only state garments, reserved for chiefs; clothes of salmon skin,
prepared in a certain way, have not passed beyond the territory of a
single tribe, the Goldes of Amoor; the fish-bladder waterproofs of the
Chukchi are only fishing garments. On the other hand, the number of
plants from which garments may be made is very great. Several sorts of
wood supply the material of which boots are made (the sabot in France
and Holland). The bark of the birch is utilised also for plaited boots
(“lapti” of the Russians and Finns), the bark of several tropical
trees, almost in its natural state or scarcely beaten, is employed as a
garment by the Monbuttus, the Niam-Niams, the tribes of the Uganda, and
is characteristic of Zandeh peoples in general; this kind of garment
is also found in America (among the Warraus of Guiana and the Andesic
tribes). In Oceania the preparation of stuffs from the beaten bark of
paper mulberry (_Brusonnetia papyrifera_) has attained a high degree
of perfection, and the “Tapa” of Tahiti with its coloured and printed
patterns, the “Kapa” of Hawaii, might enter into competition with woven
stuffs.[209]

The latter have been known since remote antiquity. Woven stuffs are
found in the pile-dwellings of the bronze age in Europe and in the
pyramids of Egypt. But it seems that the _plaiting_ of vegetable fibres
and grasses, as it is still practised to-day with esparto grass,
must have preceded true weaving. The Polynesians still manufactured,
at the beginning of this century, robes plaited with the stems of
certain grasses, and plaited straw hats are made by Malays, Indians of
North-west America, etc. On the whole, weaving is only plaiting of a
finer substance, yarn, which itself is only very thin cord or twine.
The process of spinning cord or thread is always the same. In its most
primitive form it consists simply in rolling between the palms of
both hands, or with one hand on the thigh, the fibres of some textile
substance. This is how the Australian proceeds to make a line with
his wife’s hair, or the New Zealander when he transforms a handful of
native flax, inch by inch, into a perfect cord. The Australian had only
to transform into a spindle the little staff with two cross-pieces, on
which he rolls up his precious line, to effect a great improvement in
his art.[210] In fact, the spindle is a device so well adapted for its
purpose that it has come down from the most remote Egyptian antiquity
into our steam spinning factories almost without alteration in form.
Primitive weaving must have been done at first with the needle, like
tapestry or modern embroidery, but soon this wearisome process was
replaced by the following arrangement: two series of threads stretched
between two staffs which may be alternately raised and lowered half
(_warp_) by means of vertical head-threads attached to wooden sleys;
between the gaps of the threads passes the shuttle carrying the woof,
which is thus laid successively above and below each thread of the
warp. This is the simplest weaving-loom.

The dyeing of thread and stuffs by an application of mordants (kaolin
especially) is known to all peoples acquainted with weaving. Nature
supplies colours such as indigo, turmeric, litmus, purple, madder,
etc., which are subjected to transformations by being left to steep
with certain herbs. The Polynesians were acquainted even with printing
on textures by means of fern-fronds or Hibiscus flowers, which they
steeped in colour and applied to their “tapa.”

The primitive “tailors” cut their hides or stuffs with flint knives,
sewing the pieces together in shoemaker fashion; they made holes with
a bone or horn awl and passed through them a thread made of the sinews
of some animal, or of woven grass, etc. Sewing with needles is less
common among uncultured peoples, but it has been found in Europe from
the neolithic period.

_Means of Existence._--To procure food and the necessary raw materials
for the construction of a shelter and the making of clothes, man had to
resort at an early stage to various tools, arms, and instruments, which
rendered his hunting, fishing, and fruit-gathering expeditions more
productive.[211]

We will glance rapidly, in the first place, at _tools of a general
character_ needed for all kinds of work. Among most uncultured peoples
the raw materials used for making tools were, and are, stone, wood,
bone, shell, horn. The metals--copper, bronze, iron, steel--only came
later on. This does not mean that the knowledge of the use of metals is
necessarily connected with a superior stage of civilisation. Thus most
Negroes of Central Africa are excellent blacksmiths (Fig. 135), though
otherwise less advanced than certain peoples unacquainted with metals,
like the New Zealanders or the Incas of Peru, for example (before the
arrival of the Europeans).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 54.--Method of making stone tools by
_percussion_; the first blow.

(_After Holmes._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 55.--Method of flaking stone by _pressure_; the
splinter (_c_) is severed by outside pressure on the stone with a
pointed bone (_a_).

(_After Holmes._)]

We cannot dwell on the methods of working each of the materials from
which tools may be made. It is enough to say that there are two
principal methods of working stone--cutting and polishing. The chips
are removed from a stone either by percussion with another stone (Fig.
54), or by pressure with the end of a bone or piece of pointed wood
(Fig. 55). It was thus that the Europeans of the post-tertiary period
obtained their flint tools (Fig. 84), and to-day the same process may
still be seen in operation, less and less frequently it is true, among
the Eskimo when they are making their knives, and among the Fuegians
and Californians when they are preparing their spear-heads or arrows,
etc. (Figs. 56 and 73). The process of polishing takes longer and
produces finer tools (Figs. 71 and 112). In Europe it succeeded that
of stone-cutting, and it flourished among the peoples of Oceania and
America before the arrival of Europeans. Polished tools are obtained by
rubbing for a long time a chipped or unchipped stone against another
stone with the addition of water and sand, or the dust of the same rock
from which the tool is made.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 56.--Knife of chipped flint of the Hupa Indians;
it is mounted on a wood handle with pitch. Attached to a longer handle
it becomes a spear.

(_After Ray, U.S. Nat. Museum._)]

As to metals, of the two methods of working them, _forging_, which
can be adopted in the case of native metals, is more general amongst
uncultured peoples than _casting_, which implies a knowledge of
treating the ore. The Indians of America could forge copper, gold, and
silver before the arrival of Columbus, but the casting of bronze or
iron-ore was unknown to them. On the other hand, Negroes know how to
obtain iron by smelting the ore, and from the very earliest times the
peoples of Europe, Anterior Asia, China, and Indo-China were acquainted
with the treatment of copper ore,[212] and obtained bronze by the
amalgamation of copper with tin, and sometimes with lead or antimony
(in Egypt, Armenia, the Caucasus, Transylvania).

In the early stages of material progress the objects manufactured were
not differentiated; the weapon of to-day became the tool of to-morrow,
the agricultural implement of the day after. However, there are savages
who have sometimes special instruments for cutting or chopping (axes,
knives, saws of stone or shell), saws for scraping or planing (scrapers
and raspers of stone, bone, shell, etc.), for piercing (awls of bone
or horn, stone bits), for hammering and driving in (stone hammers),
etc. As to the fastenings which keep together the different parts of
the tools, these are chiefly _bands_ (sinews, strips of hide or bark,
plaited or spun cords) and the sticky preparations of various gums and
resins. An axe or a knife is fixed to its handle by means of cords of
plaited coco-nut fibres in Polynesia (Fig. 71) and very rarely among
Negroes (Fig. 74), by resin in Australia and among the Hupa Indians of
the Oregon (Fig. 56), and by sinews or strips of sealskin among the
Chukchi and the Indians of California (Fig. 73).

The invention of primitive “machines” followed that of tools. Alternate
rotatory motion must have been utilised in the first instance as being
the easiest to obtain. Example: the flint-pointed drill of the Indians
of the north-west of America, the apparatus for making fire (see Fig.
36), or the turning-lathe of the Kalmuks (Fig. 57), the Egyptians
and the Hindus, moved by the palms of the hand at first, with a cord
afterwards, and later again with a bow.[213] The transformation of this
alternating motion into a continuous circular one must probably have
resulted from the use of the spindle furnished with its wheel. In this
instrument, so simple in appearance, is found the first application
of the important discovery that rotatory movement once produced may
be maintained during a certain time by a heavy weight performing the
function of a fly-wheel.

The potter’s wheel (p. 55) is a second application of the same
principle; rollers for the conveyance of heavy objects are a third
(see Chap. VII., _Transports_). The screw and the nut appear to be
a comparatively recent invention, presupposing a degree of superior
development. Certain authors see in the use of twisted cords, and the
cassava-squeezer of the Caribs of Guiana,[214] the first steps towards
that invention. The principle of the single pulley is frequently
applied by savages, and the compound pulley or tackle-block is known to
the Eskimo, who make use of it to land huge cetaceans (Fig. 58).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 57.--Kalmuk turning lathe with alternating
rotatory movement obtained by means of a strap (_a_); (_c_) block of
wood to make a porringer; (_d_) bench for the workman.

(_After Reuleaux._)]

We may divide the activity displayed by uncivilised and even
half-civilised peoples in procuring the necessaries of life into four
great categories: hunting, fishing, agriculture with fruit-gathering,
and cattle-breeding.

_Hunting_ is almost the only resource of uncivilised peoples; it
is still a powerful auxiliary means of livelihood with nomads and
primitive tillers of the soil, and it is only among civilised peoples
that it assumes the character of a sport. Originally, man was obliged
to hunt without weapons, as certain tribes still sometimes do. On dark
nights, when the cormorants are asleep, the Fuegian hunter, hanging by
a thong of seal-skin, glides along the cliffs, holding on to jutting
points of rock; when near a bird he seizes it with both hands and
crushes its head between his teeth, without giving it time to utter a
cry or make a movement. He then passes on to another, and so continues
until some noise puts the cormorants to flight.

But more frequently the inventive faculty is brought into play to
construct all kinds of weapons for facilitating the capture of prey.
As most of these contrivances are at the same time weapons of war,
we shall glance at them in Chapter VII. Moreover, the multiplicity
of weapons has not prevented primitive man from using all sorts of
stratagems for capturing animals. Any one who has dipped into the
old books on venery, or even into catalogues of modern gunsmiths, is
able to realise this, for most of the traps, snares, and pitfalls
represented are also found among savages. Bow-traps are especially
favoured, but the springe for birds and the pitfalls for large animals
are not despised. To these we may add the use of bait, poisoning, the
smoking of bees in order to take their honey, the imitation of the song
of birds to allure them to the gin, disguise by means of the skin of a
beast the better to approach it, and the artifices devised by man in
his war with animals are not yet exhausted. There is still the most
treacherous of all: having degraded certain animals by domestication
(falcon, dog, cat, etc.), man makes them hunt their untamed kind (see
_Domestication_).

In _fishing_ there is the same display of artifice. The simple
gathering of shells, sea-urchins, and crustaceans at low tide, mostly
left to the women, supplements but little the means of subsistence of
fishing populations. The bulk of fish and animals of aquatic habits are
taken by means of suitable weapons, and still more often by means of
traps, weirs, poisoned waters, etc.

The weapons most used in fishing are pikes with one or several teeth
(tridents, fish-spears), that the Melanesians, the Fuegians, the
Indians of Brazil, and so many other savages handle with the utmost
dexterity, never missing the fish for which they lie in wait sometimes
for hours at a time. The bow is also sometimes employed to shoot the
fish (Andamanese), but the special missile used in fishing is the
_harpoon_, the wood or bone head of which usually takes the form of a
fork or pike with one or several barbs.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 58.--Principle of tackle utilised by Eskimo,
landing a walrus. Above, on left, detail of the arrangement of the rope
round stakes.

(_After Elliot._)]

The Fuegians simply throw their harpoons like a javelin, the Eskimo
make use of instruments to hurl them (see Chap. VII.). In many harpoons
the head is only fitted to the shaft and attached to it by a long cord;
immediately the animal is wounded the shaft separates itself from the
head and acts as a float, indicating the spot where the victim has
plunged, for it will not be long before he comes again to the surface
to breathe, and other wounds are then inflicted. The Eskimo of Asia and
the Chukchi also attach bladders to the shaft as floats. But all these
weapons are chiefly employed against marine mammals (seals, sea-lions,
walruses, whales, etc.); for catching fish recourse is had to other
means. Poisoning the water appears to be one of the most primitive. It
is constantly practised by Australians, Indonesians, and Melanesians.
We have next to refer to the various devices for catching fish, which,
according to O. Mason, may be grouped into two categories--(1) those
intended to bring the fish, quietly following its way, into a place
or trap from which it cannot afterwards get out, and (2) those which
consist in getting it to swallow a hook hidden under some form of bait.

Among the former of these devices, bow-nets and sweep-nets in bamboo
and rattan are very widely used among the Dyaks, Micronesians, etc.
Cast-nets are less common among uncivilised peoples; they are met
with, however, in Polynesia. Fish-hooks other than those in metal are
made of bone, the thorns of certain trees, of wood, and especially of
mother-of-pearl. For _fishing-boats_, see Chapter VII. (_Navigation_).

_Agriculture._--It is constantly stated that man has passed
successively through three stages--that in the first he was a hunter,
in the second a nomadic shepherd, and in the third a tiller of the
soil. This is only true if we consider agriculture as it is understood
at the present day in Europe, that is to say as closely connected
with the existence of certain domestic animals (horses, oxen, etc.)
which supply man with motive power and at the same time with manure.
But there are numerous peoples, without these domestic animals, who
nevertheless are acquainted with agriculture, only it is a special
kind of agriculture which is related rather to our ornamental and
market gardening, at least by the method of cultivation.[215] Hahn has
proposed to call this species of cultivation after the principal, and
almost the only, tool which is used--“Hoe-culture” (Hackbau in German);
while cultivation by means of a plough drawn by animals might be called
true agriculture (Ackerbau).

It is evident that in the development of mankind the most primitive
hoe-culture, such as is practised by certain tribes of Africa and
South America, may well have sprung from the gathering of plants and
roots. The Australians, the Papuans (Fig. 152), and the Indians of
California even yet make use of pointed staves, hardened in the fire,
to unearth natural roots; certain Negroes and Bushmen join to the staff
a stone whorl which makes the work easier. These “digging sticks” are
the first agricultural implements; they perhaps preceded the hoe. The
habit that many Australian tribes have of returning periodically to
the same places for the gathering of fruits and roots, giving these
time to grow, is one of the first steps towards the cultivation of the
ground; it proves a comprehension of the development of a plant from
a sown seed. Hoe-culture prevails at the present time in vast regions
of tropical Africa and in South America. The tubers, maniocs, yams,
and sweet potatoes play a prominent part there, but the graminaceæ
also are represented by the maize introduced from America and rice
from Asia, and it is among the two peoples who have adopted these
cereals as the staple of their food, the Incas of Peru and the Chinese,
that hoe-culture has been improved by the introduction of manure.
Carried to a still greater degree of perfection by the employment of
artificial manure, it has been transformed by civilised peoples into
“plantations” (sugar-cane, coffee, etc.) in tropical countries and into
“horticulture” in all climates.

True agriculture could only have originated where the ox, the
horse, the buffalo, and other animals used in ploughing were first
domesticated--that is to say, in Eurasia, and perhaps more particularly
in Mesopotamia, where the art of irrigation was known at a period
when in other countries there was not even any agriculture at all.
As far back as the historic Chaldean monuments can take us we find
agriculture existing in this part of Asia. In Europe it has appeared
since the neolithic age, after the quaternary period. Domestic animals
having most probably been introduced into Egypt from Asia, it may be
supposed that before their introduction the country of the Pharaohs
was cultivated by the hoe, like the kingdom of the Incas of old, or
that of the “sons of Heaven” of the present day. Besides, in Asia,
as in Europe, hoe-culture existed thus early, and the favourite
plant cultivated was millet (_Panicum miliaceum_, L.), consumed but
little to-day, but universally known, which attests its importance in
antiquity.[216]

The system of laying lands fallow and raising crops in rotation could
only have been established with the development of agriculture.
Hoe-culture was satisfied with the total exhaustion of the soil, even
if it had to seek out new ground cleared by a conflagration of the
forests, the ashes of which were the first and only manure.

The plough, that implement so characteristic of true agriculture, has
evolved, as regards its form, from the double-handled hoe of Portuguese
Africa (Livingstone), which bears so close a resemblance to that of
the Egyptian monuments, to the “sokha” of the Russian peasants, and
even to the steam plough of the modern farmer, not to mention the heavy
ploughs, all of wood except the share and the coulter, still in use
in many rural districts of Central Europe. Reaping in both systems
of cultivation is accomplished with knives or special implements,
bill-hooks, examples of which, almost as perfect as those of to-day,
are found as far back as the days of ancient Egypt and the bronze age
in Europe; the scythe, known to the ancient Greeks, appears to be a
later improvement.

The threshing of wheat, which often constitutes but a single operation
with winnowing and the preparation of food (see p. 156) in hoe-culture,
is accomplished in true agriculture with the aid of domestic animals,
either by making them tread on the threshing-floor, or draw over the
cut corn a heavy plank strewn with fragments of flint (the _tribulum_
of the Romans, the _mowrej_ of the Arabs and the Berbers, in Syria,
Tunisia, and Egypt). For grinding, see p. 156.

The use of granaries for storing the crop is known to most
semi-civilised peoples (see p. 168); almost always the granaries
are arranged on poles (example: Ainus), or on clay stands (example:
Negroes). “Silos,” or holes in the ground for hiding the crop in, exist
among the Kabyles of Algeria, the Laotians (Neïs), the Mongols of
Zaidam (Prjevalsky), etc.

_Domestic Animals._--The breeding of domestic animals should be
considered, as I have already said, an occupation denoting a social
state superior to that in which hoe-culture is prevalent. But before
concerning himself specially with the _breeding_ of cattle, man knew
how to _domesticate_ certain animals. I emphasise this term, for
domestication presupposes a radical change, by means of selection, in
the habits of the animal, which becomes capable of reproducing its
species in captivity; this is not the case with animals simply _tamed_.

One of the first animals tamed, then domesticated, by man was
probably _the dog_. The most uncultured tribes--Fuegians and
Australians--possess domesticated dogs, trained for hunting. Europeans
of neolithic times bred several species of them: the _Canis familiaris
palustris_, of small size; a large dog (_C. f. Inostrantzewi_), the
remains of which have been found in the prehistoric settlements of
Lake Ladoga and Lake Neuchâtel, and which would be nearly allied to
the Siberian sledge-dogs; lastly, the _Canis familiaris Lesneri_, of
very slender form, with skull somewhat resembling that of the Scotch
greyhound (deerhound), which gave birth in the bronze age to two
races: the shepherd dog (_Canis familiaris matris optimæ_) and the
hunting dog (_Canis familiaris intermedius_). It is from these three
species of Arctic origin that most of the canine races of Europe and
Central and Northern Asia are descended; those of Southern Asia, of
Oceania, and Africa would be derived from a different type, represented
to-day by the _Dingo_ of Australia.[217] We may lay stress on these
differences of canine races because often the races of domestic animals
vary according to the human races which breed them. Thus, it has been
observed in the Tyrol that the geographical distribution of races of
oxen corresponds with that of varieties of the human race.

After dogs, several other carnivorous animals have been tamed with a
view to the chase: tiger, ferret, civet cat, wild cat, leopard, and
falcon; but man has only been able to domesticate two: the ferret and
the cat. The Chinese have succeeded in domesticating the cormorant and
utilising it for fishing, placing, however, a ring on its neck, so that
it cannot give way to its wild instinct to swallow the fish which it
catches.

Many animals have been domesticated by peoples acquainted only with
hoe-culture; such as the pig and the hen in Africa and Oceania; the
she-goat in Africa; the turkey, the duck (_Anas moschata_), the
guinea-pig, and the llama in America. But true agriculture begins only
with the domestication of the bovine races, the she-goat, and the ass;
and true breeding of cattle with the domestication of the camel and the
sheep among nomads. The horse and the mule do not appear until a little
later among nomads, as among sedentary peoples.

Among the domesticated bovidæ other than the ox must be mentioned the
yak in Thibet and around Thibet; the gayal of Assam and Upper Burma;
the banteng (_Bos sondaicus_) of Malaysia; and the buffalo, which
is found everywhere where rice is planted. In mentioning, besides
the animals just referred to, the reindeer of hyperborean peoples
(Laplanders, Samoyeds, Tunguses, Chukchi), we shall have exhausted the
list of nineteen domesticated mammals actually known to the different
peoples, according to Hahn. As to birds, out of thirteen, we have named
only four: cormorant, duck, hen, and turkey; to these must be added
the goose, the swan, the Guinea-fowl, the peacock, the pheasant, the
canary, the parrot, the ostrich, and, lastly, the pigeon, which perhaps
of all the winged race is the easiest to tame. The other classes of
animals have furnished few useful helpers of man. Among insects there
are the bee and the silkworm; among fishes we can mention only three:
carp, goldfish, and _Macropus viridiauratus_, Lacep., chiefly bred for
amusement by the Chinese.



CHAPTER VI.

II. SOCIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS--_continued_.

    2. /Psychic Life/: _Games and Recreations_--Their
    importance--Games of children and adults--Sports
    and public spectacles--Masks--_Fine Arts_--Graphic
    arts--Ornamentation--Drawing--Sculpture--Dancing--Its
    importance among uncultured peoples--Pantomime and
    dramatic art--Vocal and instrumental music--Instruments of
    music--Poetry--_Religion_--Animism--Its two elements: belief in
    the soul, and belief in spirits--Fetichism--Polytheism--Rites
    and ceremonies--Priesthood--International
    religions--_Myths_--_Science_--Art of
    counting--Geometry--Calculation of time--Clocks and
    calendars--Geography and cartography--Medicine and surgery.


2. PSYCHIC LIFE.

_Games and Recreations._--In two works based on carefully observed
facts, Groos has shown that animals do not expend all their muscular
and psychic energy in procuring the means of material existence, but,
further, expend this energy in games, which are really a process of
training, of education. In a greater degree is this the case with man,
that animal whose psychical life has expanded so enormously.[218] In
fact, games are the first manifestations of the psychical life not only
of man individually but of mankind as a whole.

It is necessary to distinguish between the _games of children_ and
those of adults. The former are above all imitation, while the latter
aim at either gaining an advantage or demonstrating muscular or mental
strength and skill.

The boys of “savages” handle tiny bows and lassoes made by themselves,
and hunt toy guancos, birds, and turtles made of clay and wood, in
imitation of their fathers; while the little girls treat their rag
dolls as actual children, repeating the gestures and words of their
mothers. It is the imitative game of the young.

But if the object of the game is to exercise the strength and skill,
it becomes common to children and adults. It is such with the game
of hand-ball, known to all peoples with the exception perhaps of the
Negroes; and stilts, which are met with in Europe, China, Eastern
Africa, and Polynesia. Side by side with these games in which muscular
skill plays the principal part, there are others in which attention and
quickness of the senses are put to the test. To guess in which hand
some object is hidden is a recreation among the Tlinkits, as among
Europeans. Among the Hottentots this game is complicated, inasmuch
as it is necessary to point out by a special position of the fingers
the hand of the partner which is supposed to conceal the object, thus
recalling the very ancient game known to the Egyptians, and called by
the Romans _mirare digitis_, which survives at the present time under
the name of “Morra” in Italy.

This is how it is played:--Simultaneously each partner, putting out
his hand, shows whatever number of fingers he may think fit, bending
the others, and at the same moment mentioning a number; he whose
figure equals the sum of the fingers stretched out by the two partners
wins the game. It is evident that this game, known in absolutely the
same form in China, is already a game of chance. It is the same with
most games played with dice, whether the latter be represented by
true dice (China, prehistoric Europe), or by otter’s teeth, seeds,
etc., variously marked or coloured (Indians of North America), or by
sheep’s astragali (Central Asia, Persia, etc.). _Lotto_ is known to the
Chinese, the Siamese, etc., and it was the Celestials who introduced
roulette or the thirty-four animal games into Indo-China.[219]

The chief intellectual game is chess, invented in India; varieties of
chess are the game of draughts, known wherever European civilisation
penetrates, and the game of _Uri_ or _Mugole_, spread by the Arabs
throughout the whole of Africa from Madagascar to Senegal. The object
used in this latter game is a block of wood with 16, 24, or 32 little
cups disposed in two or four rows, in which the aim is to place in a
certain way a certain number of little stones or seeds. A third variety
of the game of chess, backgammon, holds a middle place between _Uri_
and the game of dice, and in consequence is half a game of chance. It
is known under the name of _Tob_ in Egypt and Palestine, of _Pachisi_
in India, and of _Patolitzli_ in ancient Mexico.[220]

_Sports and Spectacles._--Hand-to-hand contests so prized by the
Japanese and the Mongols, horse-races esteemed by all nomads, the
superb nautical sports practised of old by the Hawaiians, in which,
standing upright or astraddle on a canoe, they descended cataracts
several metres in height,[221] and so many other sports still form,
as it were, a link between games properly so called, giving pleasure
to those taking part in them, and _spectacles_, which give pleasure
to others. Most spectacles are composed of the dance, pantomime,
scenic representations, music and song, of which I shall presently
treat. Outside the manifestation of these arts, public spectacles are
confined almost everywhere to the different ceremonies, festivals, and
processions connected with various rites or customs (initiation, common
marriages, worship of the dead, etc.), or to jugglery, exhibition of
animals, acrobatic performances, sleight-of-hand tricks, etc., most of
which have originated in India. To these we must add combats between
men and animals or between animals themselves, the best known of which
are the bull-fights so dear to the Hispano-Portuguese of Europe and
America, and the cockfights which have had ardent supporters not
only in England and the United States, but also in Spanish America,
all over the Malay Archipelago, etc. In China and Siam people are less
blood-thirsty; they are content to look at contests between crickets,
grasshoppers, and fishes.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 59.--Dance of Australians during the Corroboree
or ceremony of initiation.

(_Drawn by P. Moutet, partly after Brough Smyth and Sav. Kent._)]

_Masks_ play an important part in festivals, ceremonies, and
spectacles, as in so many other manifestations of the social life of
uncivilised and half-civilised peoples (religion, war, justice). Let us
merely mention the fantastic masks used in dances and processions among
the Javanese and the Dyaks, and especially those of the Melanesians;
certain of them are made of cocoa-nuts, with an imitation of the beard
and moustache in the fibres of this fruit, others have the human skull
as a groundwork. The Papuans are very skilful in making masks with
tortoise shells, etc.[222]

_The Arts._--Artistic manifestations are distinguished from games by
this fact, that their object is not only to afford pleasure to the
artist himself during the execution of his work, but also to cause
this pleasure to be shared by the greatest possible number of his
fellow-beings. These manifestations are called forth then by the
sentiment of human sociability, and the more they are developed in an
ethnic group the higher this group is from the point of view of social
organisation.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 60.--Anthropomorph ornamental design of the
Papuans of New Guinea.

(_After Haddon._)]

_The Graphic Arts._--It is often among the less advanced and more
uncultured peoples that we find very skilful draughtsmen. And here it
is necessary to make a distinction between design properly so called,
whether it be on the flat surface, in bas-relief, engraved, etc., and
what is generally called _ornamental_ or _decorative art_. The latter
exists among almost all peoples (except perhaps the Fuegians), and does
not always spring from artistic feeling. Sometimes vanity, the desire
to possess the most ornate object, inspires the hand of the artist,
who almost always, among the uncivilised, is not a professional. The
characteristic trait of the decorative art of primitive peoples is that
every leading idea is inspired by real objects; there are no lines
purely and voluntarily ornamental, and still less are there geometric
figures, as was thought until recent times. All the supposed figures
of this class are simplified drawings of animals, inanimate objects,
etc.[223] The most frequent ideas are inspired by animals (zoomorphs),
men (anthropomorphs), and manufactured objects (skeuomorphs); those
which are drawn from plants (phyllomorphs) are excessively rare
(Haddon).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 61.--Zoomorph ornamental design on a club (New
Guinea).

(_After Haddon._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 62.--Zoomorph ornamental design on a spatula (New
Guinea).

(_After Haddon._)]

Fig. 60 shows us, for example, in an engraving on a bark belt executed
by a Papuan, the human face transformed into an ornamental motive.
At the extremity of the object is still plainly seen a face with
both eyes, and a mouth widely opened showing a fine set of teeth;
lower down, perpendicularly to this, we see two faces with only the
mouth and a single eye left, its companion having strayed into the
intervening space between the two faces. Another example: the head of
the frigate bird, a favourite ornamental _motif_ of the half-Melanesian
populations of the south-east extremity of New Guinea, is plainly
visible in the middle of the second row, and throughout the fourth
row of ornaments on a club (Fig. 61), but it is transformed into
arabesques on the other rows. Overlapping in a certain order, this
head is transformed into spiral ornaments (Fig. 62). In the same way,
among the ancient inhabitants of Chiriqui (Isthmus of Panama) the
already somewhat diagrammatic figure of the alligator (Fig. 63) is
transformed into ornament (Fig. 64) in which it would be difficult,
without the presence of intermediate forms, to find a resemblance to
the reptile in question. Among the Karayas of Central Brazil ornaments
like those reproduced here (Fig. 65) are simplified forms of lizards
(A), bats (B), of the skin of a rattle-snake (C), and of another
snake (D).[224] Imitations of manufactured objects, drawing of cords,
arrangement of fibres in a tissue, etc., are often suggested by the
mode of manufacture of the decorated object--for example, in pottery
by the impress of the woven basket which has served as a mould in the
manufacture of the pot, etc. (see p. 154). Often the entire object is
transformed into ornament and becomes unsuitable for the use to which
it was intended, such as the double fish-hooks in mother-of-pearl
of the islanders of the Torres Straits,[225] and the ornamental and
symbolic axes of the Polynesians of the Hervey Islands or Cook’s
Archipelago (Fig. 67).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 63.--Conventional representation of an alligator;
ancient pottery of Chiriqui, Isthmus of Panama.

(_After Holmes._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 64.--Ornamental motive derived from the preceding
design (Chiriqui pottery).

(_After Holmes._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 65.--Decorative designs of the Karayas (Central
Brazil)--A, lizards (engraved on a tomb); B, flying bats; C,
rattle-snake; D, other snake (plaiting on a club).

(_After Von den Steinen._)]

It is interesting to note that the more a people loves ornament,
the less it is capable of producing drawings properly so called.
Thus the Polynesians, the Malays, the Indians of North-west America,
are past-masters in ornamentation, but they draw badly; while the
Australians, whose ornaments are rudimentary, paint on the polished
surfaces of rocks and grottos, in white, red, and yellow, large
pictures representing hunting scenes, “corroborees,” also human faces
with a sort of aureole around them (hair?), but almost always without
a mouth. The Bushmen, whose tools and arms bear no ornament, have
also their great rock-pictures. We can form an idea of them by the
annexed reproduction of a picture drawn on the wall of a cave near
Hermon, and published by Andree.[226] It represents Bushmen, who have
carried off the cattle of the Bechuanas, engaged in a struggle with
the latter, who are pursuing them. All the details of the picture are
well observed, even to the form and coats of the oxen, the respective
colours, stature, and arms of the combatants (the little yellow Bushmen
armed with bows, and the tall, black Bechuanas armed with assagais).
The Melanesians are as skilful in ornamentation as in drawing, their
drawing having a tendency to become transformed into pictography;
pictography has almost entirely swallowed up drawing among the Indians
of North America, but it reappears among the Hyperboreans (Eskimo,
Chukchi, Yakuts, Tlinkits). What all these primitive drawings lack is
perspective and relief; we should also look in vain for it in the art
of half-civilised peoples like the Chinese, the Hindus, the Persians,
the Cambodians.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 66.--Bushman painting, representing the battle
going in favour of the Bechuana, who are trying to recover their stolen
cattle.

(_After R. Andree._)]

_Sculpture_, which like drawing is met with even among the remains
of quaternary man in Europe (Fig. 85), attains little development
among uncultured peoples in general. The carved wooden articles of
the Melanesians and Negroes, the gigantic statues of the Polynesians
of Easter Island, the figures in low relief of the monuments of the
ancient Peruvians, Mexicans, and Khmers, the numerous little figures in
wood or potter’s clay of the Malays, Negroes, etc., are not superior
to the stage of development of Egyptian and Greek art earlier than
the fifth century /B.C./, in which the median or sagittal plan
of the human body is always straight, vertical, and never distorted.
Even if there is an assemblage of two or more figures, their lines are
always either parallel or perpendicular to each other.[227] Needless to
say that among many peoples “national art” has been profoundly modified
by an adopted religion, which has introduced or created an art of its
own (prohibition against representations of human figures by Islam,
conventional postures in Buddhist drawings, etc.).

_Dancing._--The productions of the graphic arts charm the eye after
completion; those of the musical arts are enjoyed only while being
performed. But there is an art which combines these two modes of
æsthetic enjoyment: it is _dancing_. Its plastic attitudes are so many
pictures, and its movements have a rhythm like music.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 67.--Symbolic adze of Mangaia Island (Hervey
Islands or Cook’s Archipelago, Polynesia), Museum of Copenhagen.

(_After Haddon._)]

This art, sunk among civilised peoples to the level of a simple
amusement, plays a large part in the life of uncultured peoples. Thus
the great nocturnal festivals of the Australians, the “Corroborees”
(Fig. 59), celebrated in connection with important events, are only a
succession of very varied dances, strictly regulated, and executed by
young men trained a long time beforehand by the elders of the tribe
for these choregraphic exercises. Men alone take part in them, as in
all serious affairs; women are only there as spectators or musicians.
It is by dancing alone that, among uncultured peoples, joy in common
is expressed in regard to a happy event which affects the whole tribe.
Let us also note that these dances are executed by a gathering of
individuals who have given proof of their solidarity, having sacrificed
part of their liberty by submitting to the discipline of the elders
in order to afford pleasure to the people of their tribe. The joy,
moreover, is mutual, for the performers “feel” the dance without seeing
it, and the spectators witness it without experiencing the immediate
effects of movement.

Dancing is then a great school of “solidarity” in primitive societies;
more than any other act, it brings into prominence the benefits of
sociality. But this favourable result is only possible in the smaller
groupings, in which at least half of the society may take part in
the dance; this condition no longer exists in civilised societies,
numbering millions on millions of members: thus in these societies the
choregraphic art is in a complete state of decay.

Dances of the character of “corroborees” are a step towards the _ritual
dances_ which play so great a part in most religions. I may instance
the epileptic dances of the Siberian and American Shamans, or the
Negro fetich-worshippers, the gyrations of the Dervishes, the masked
ballets performed by the Buddhist-Lamaite priests, the sacred dances
of the Levites among the ancient Jews, etc. Christianity retained the
dance in its rites even until the eighth century, and one may still see
the partial survival of it in what takes place in Seville Cathedral
during the Easter festival. Dancing assumed a sacred character by
being conjoined with a symbolic mimicry, especially as connected with
offerings, with sacrifices, or with religious ecstasy.

But it has also evolved in another direction by having associated with
it two other species of mimicry, one recalling strife and battles,
the other love. Hence come _warlike dances_ and _lascivious dances_.
The latter have this characteristic, that they are performed either
solely by women--as, for example, the “Hula-Hula” of the Hawaiians--or
by both sexes (Eskimo), and very seldom by men alone (the “Kaoro”
of the Australians, performed at the advent of the marriage season,
or the time of the yam harvest). Moreover, it may be presumed that
the alternating dances of men and women were, at the beginning of
societies, a powerful aid to sexual selection.

The movements performed during the dance vary with every people, and
also according to the nature of the dance. The Australians leap,
advance suddenly, then fall back with threatening or lascivious
gestures, as the case may be (Fig. 59); Negroes add to the steps and
innuendoes movements of the head and pelvis. Among most Asiatics
(Chinese, Japanese, Malays) men do not dance, and in the case of women,
the choregraphic art degenerates into a series of rhythmical movements
of the arms and trunk, without change of position. It is to mimicry,
that is to say, the first step towards pantomime, that dances imitating
the movements of animals (Eskimo, Araucans) owe their origin. The
pantomime of the uncultured, like their dancing, is always accompanied
by music and song, sometimes by masks and disguises. We have but to
develop the share of song and recitation, to render the music less
dependent on the rhythm, in order to transform these exercises into
real _dramatic representations_.[228]

Vocal and instrumental _music_ are the common property of mankind as
a whole. There is no people that does not know at least how to hum an
air of a few notes; and rare are those who have no instrument of music
(Fuegians, certain Micronesians, Veddahs). The music of uncivilised
peoples is most frequently reduced to one only of its elements,
rhythm,--better understood when we bear in mind that the greater part
of the time it forms only the accompaniment of dancing. Melody and
harmony are reduced to their simplest expressions.[229] And yet in the
opinion even of specialists it is very difficult to note the airs of
“savages,” and three-fourths of the notations published in different
works are incorrect. That is the result of these airs having been
written down according to our scale, which is heptatonic. Now this
scale, although existing even among many uncivilised peoples, is not
the only one which is used.

We find them using certain successions of sounds with fixed intervals,
that is to say, true scales of two, three, and even six sounds.
Most frequently “natural tones” (tonic, third, fifth) form the
scale (Bushmen). The airs of uncivilised peoples are often in the
_minor_ tone, for example, the following Fuegian air, transcribed by
Carfort:--[230]

[Illustration]

In fine, the scale being merely a convention based on the construction
of instruments, the most perfect of which, like our violin, can only
give half-tones or, exceptionally, quarter or third tones, there can
be no such thing as a “natural scale.” It is the musical instruments
of a people that determine the scale it uses; thus the study of these
instruments should precede that of singing.[231]

As the most primitive music may be reduced to rhythm alone, the
earliest musical instruments were objects serving to beat time; pieces
of wood clapped together, as still seen to-day among the Annamese,
or rude drums like those which the Australian women use during the
corroborees--a cloak of opossum skin stretched between the thighs,
on which they tap with a stick (Fig. 59). But, like castanets, the
triangle, etc., these, properly speaking, are not instruments of
music producing a scale, or at any rate a series of varying sounds.
Three kinds of true musical instruments may be distinguished--wind
instruments, string instruments, and percussion instruments. Of wind
instruments the most ancient is probably the flute or the shepherd’s
pipe of cane, bamboo, animal or human bone, etc., as seen among the
Botocudos and the Yurunas of Xingu (Brazil).[232] The bow was the
first corded instrument; the Kafirs and Negroes of Angola “play on the
bow” by attaching to it a gourd and tightening at will by means of a
sliding ring the cord which they play (Fig. 135). As to instruments of
percussion: the most generally used among the Negroes are the Sansá, a
sort of musical box (Fig. 68), and the xylophone, a kind of piano (Fig.
69). The most uncivilised peoples, however, have composite instruments;
as, for instance, the “gora” of the Bushmen (Figs. 70 and 71).[233]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 68.--“Sansá” or “Zimba,” a musical box of the
Negroes, placed on or in a calabash; played with the fingers.

(_After Wood._)]

The harp of the Kafirs and the gora give forth only feeble sounds,
and serve chiefly to satisfy the musical taste of the performer; they
are scarcely heard by the others. This fact, like others, proves
that music is a less powerful means of socialisation than dancing; it
affords joys more intimate, more individual, except when it is reduced
to what is its least musical element so to speak--rhythm; then the part
it plays is a considerable one, especially in warlike manifestations.
No army has been able to do without music.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 69.--“Marimba,” the Negro xylophone.

(_After Wood._)]

_Poetry._--Singing and poetry are indistinguishable during the early
stages of civilisation. The poetic productions of uncultured peoples
have as yet been very little studied,[234] but from what is known
about them it appears that the earliest creations of this kind are
repeated rhythmical phrases, expressing the most common sensations, and
concerned chiefly with the digestive functions: complaint in regard
to hunger, the pleasure experienced after feasting, or a desire for
certain articles of food as expressed in this song of the Australian--

    “The peas that the white men eat are good--
    I should like some, I should like some.”

Afterwards come the emotions of hunting: the jubilation at having
killed an animal, recitatives after the manner of the following:--

    “The Kangaroo ran very fast,
    But I ran faster still.
    How fat he was,
    How plump he was!
    What a fine roast he made!
    O Kangaroo, O Kangaroo.”

[Illustration: /Fig./ 70.--Bushman playing on the “gora.”

(_Partly after Wood._)]

War-songs are not unknown to Australian savages, but the beauties of
nature and the feelings of love are subjects only occasionally met
with in the poetry of uncivilised hunters. They begin to appear among
the Eskimo, and are highly developed among half-civilised nomads,
contemplators of nature, whose lyric poetry is sometimes inspired by
very elevated feelings, as is shown, for example, by Kalmuk songs.[235]
As to epic poetry, it is met with only among half-civilised peoples who
possess a history.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 71.--Detail of construction of the “gora.”

(_After Wood._)]

_Religion._--For a considerable time now the question has been
discussed by ethnographers, theologians, and moralists, whether or not
there exist peoples without a religion. The answer to this question
depends entirely on the meaning we give to religion. If by this word is
meant an acknowledged revealed doctrine, accompanied by a well-ordered
ritual and a strongly organised priesthood, as implied in current
speech, or even if it simply means the belief in “beings superior
to man” and in “a future beyond the tomb,” as Quatrefages would use
it,[236] there are certainly peoples who have nothing of this kind. If,
on the contrary, we content ourselves with the _minimum definition_
of religion, given by E. B. Tylor,[237] “belief in spiritual beings,”
it is difficult to find a tribe on the earth which has not this
belief. I should like to modify a little this definition of Tylor’s by
substituting “imaginary beings” for “spiritual,” to indicate clearly
their psychological origin, for it is in beings entirely created out of
their imagination that savages believe.

This belief originates chiefly in the fear of unusual or extraordinary
events, and especially of disease and death. Sometimes the idea of a
“spiritual being” is so inseparable from the sensation of fear that it
only presents itself when the latter occurs. Thus the Fuegian Yahgan
have no clear idea of “spirits,” and it is only at dusk under the
influence of fear that they imagine themselves to be attacked by the
“savages of the west,” by the “Walapatu,” which some of them regard as
ghosts, and others quite simply as individuals of a neighbouring tribe,
that of the Alakalufs.[238]

But cases of this kind are rare, and most uncivilised peoples have the
rudiments of natural religion a little more developed, a belief in
spirits less vague. We may, with the eminent ethnologist Tylor, give
the name of “Animism” to this primitive religion.

Animism in the most primitive forms consists in believing that the
body of a man contains another more subtle being, a “soul,” capable
of being temporarily separated from its envelope, and admitting
further that everything that exists, beasts, plants, stones, down to
objects fashioned by hand, have equally a soul which is endowed with
corresponding qualities. Thus the Shans of the Kieng-Tung (upper Burma)
believe that the soul leaves the body of a man asleep in the form of
an iridescent butterfly;[239] the Malays have the same ideas, and take
care on that account not to awaken a man asleep. His observation of the
shadow which exactly repeats every movement of a man, of reflections
in the water, may confirm a savage in his animistic beliefs, but what
especially establishes them are the dreams and visions during which
he lives another life and is “another man.” Death is considered as
a separation of man from his shadow or his soul, something like the
separation which is effected during sleep. Most frequently it is the
breath, the air breathed out, which represents the immaterial being
that forsakes the body. Thus, among the natives of Nias Island, the one
to become chief is he who succeeds, sometimes not without a desperate
struggle with his rivals, in swallowing the last breath of the dying
chief.[240] Besides, for the most part uncivilised people think that
death is only a prolonged sleep, and it is on that account that some
are accustomed to keep the corpse as long as possible, sometimes until
putrefaction sets in, in their huts or in the immediate neighbourhood
(see p. 243). They imagine that the soul seeks to re-enter the body,
and if it does not find it, wanders restlessly around the dwellings,
and is angry with the living who have hidden the body from it. Cases
of lethargy, of hypnotic sleep, of fainting-fits, which strike the
imagination the more forcibly because more rare than ordinary sleep,
confirm the belief in the separation of man and his double. In fine,
the mind of a savage does not regard death as a natural phenomenon, but
as a violent and very prolonged separation of man and his soul.

But what is the cause of this separation? Here comes in the second
element of animism, the belief in “spirits,” imaginary beings who take
the most diverse forms, like the soul itself. Sometimes the “soul” of
a dead man is also a “spirit”; there are here no subtle distinctions.
However, what especially differentiates “spirits” from “souls” is
this, that the former are more active, that they constantly take part
in human affairs, so that the whole life of a savage is passed in
compromises or continual struggles with spirits. Every disease, every
misfortune, every death, comes from the angry “spirit.” Happily, side
by side with wicked spirits, who are legion, there are encountered
from time to time benevolent ones, who become protectors, or “patrons”
of men. Most frequently these are the “souls” of the old men of the
tribe, of the “ancestors.” As these old men have ordinarily endowed
the tribe or the family with some material advantage by giving during
life counsels dictated by their long experience, they are laid under
contribution after death. Their memory is recalled in times of
misfortune, and advice is asked of them. This is the origin of ancestor
worship.

The number of spirits is infinite, there is a whole world of them.
Every object, sometimes every category of objects, has its spirit,
and as objects may be made so spirits may be created, or at least
may be made to communicate to objects a portion of their power. This
circumstance gives birth to _fetichism_,[241] which is only one of
the sides of animism, one of the grossest forms. Fetichistic peoples
consider certain objects called _fetiches_, _gris-gris_, etc., as
beings endowed with an inherent will and power. Every object, a piece
of wood, a bundle of grass, a stone, a nail, a claw, a lock of hair,
a horn, a rag, a bit of string, may become fetiches; the material
value of the object bears no relation to its power as a fetich; the
most insignificant things may be the greatest fetiches.[242] As to
the relations which exist between spirits and objects, they are of a
twofold character: either the fetich is regarded as an animated being,
as the material envelope of a spirit, or it is only an instrument by
which the existence of the spirit is manifested, a vehicle in some way
of part of its power. It must be remarked, however, that the two forms
of connection between the spirit and the material object are frequently
interblended, and a fetich to which sacrifices are offered as to a
living being, may become a simple amulet preserving its possessor from
wounds or any other misfortune. Fetichism is the first step towards
_idolatry_, but it is essentially distinguished from it in that idols
are only _images_, _representations_ of certain supernatural beings,
whilst fetiches are these beings themselves, or at least the direct
vehicles of a portion of their power. The boundary line between
idolatry and fetichism is, however, often difficult to define exactly.

Animism with its variants, more or less developed, is the religion
of all uncivilised peoples untouched by international or universal
religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Mahomedanism, etc., and even among
those who have accepted one of these religions, animistic ideas persist
with great obstinacy.

How many Christian peasants there are who believe as firmly in spirits,
in ghosts, in guardian genii of cattle and crops, as in the various
saints of the church with whom they sometimes confound them! Besides,
spirits, such as angels and demons, are admitted by most Christian
churches. Fetichistic practices also form part of the outer worship
of Lamaite Buddhism and Taoism, and they are not only tolerated but
prescribed by other universal religions. I need but mention the
amulets, talismans, scapularies, miracle-working relics, etc., among
Mahomedans (Figs. 139 and 140) and Christians (Fig. 161).

_Worship of Natural Objects and Phenomena._--It is impossible to review
even the principal forms which animism assumes. As society grows and
develops, the notion of the soul and of spirits is transferred from
the more immediate objects surrounding man to objects more remote and
the phenomena of nature. The latter, by reason of their greatness or
violence, are regarded as spirits much higher and more powerful than
the others. They become superior divinities entitled to “worship.” Thus
we have the worship of water (sacred rivers, Ganges, Nile), worship of
plants and especially trees (sacred forests of the Gauls, the Germans,
the Finns, the Papuans), the worship of animals and more especially
birds (the eagle of the Aztecs and the Peruvians, the ibis of the
Egyptians), and serpent-worship (prevalent everywhere, but principally
in India and Western Africa).

The worship of the elements varies according to the kind of life led
by a people; the succession of climates, the rain which gives life
to the seed, the sun which burns the grasses, etc., are incarnations
of so many divinities for agricultural peoples, while they have no
importance for peoples living by the chase. Fire is considered as a
divinity by several peoples (see p. 153). The adoration of fire was the
ancient religion of the Persians, and is still preserved to-day among
certain Parsees of India: we pass over the god Xiuhtecutli, “lord of
fire,” of the ancient Mexicans, the goddess Vesta of the Romans, etc.
Often the worship of the sun was combined with that of fire, and the
ancient solar festivals sung by Ovid have become the midsummer eve
bonfires, which the clergy still bless every year in several places in
Lower Brittany. I can only mention the legends relating to the divine
origin of fire, which all resemble more or less that of Prometheus (the
_Mahonika_ of the Polynesians, the _Tleps_ of the Circassians, etc.).
The difference between the great spirits which animate the phenomena
of nature and the little spirits concerned with the trivial facts of
man’s daily life once admitted, there is established a hierarchy in the
world of spirits entirely modelled on the hierarchy of human society.
Above gnomes, elves, demons, sprites, and so many common spirits, we
find among the Khonds[243] the six great gods (of rain, first-fruits,
procreation, hunting, war, and boundaries), who in their turn are
governed by the sun-god and his wife, the powerful goddess of the
earth. The religion of the Khonds is already _polytheism_, and this may
end either in the dualism of two contrary principles (the germs of
which are seen in the example quoted above, and which are impersonated
by Ormuzd and Ahriman of the religion of Zoroaster) or in _pantheism_
or _monotheism_.

_Religion and Morality._--Animistic religion is destitute of the moral
element which many persons consider inseparable from religion. Its
code of morals has nothing to do with religion; it is based on public
opinion and social conventions independent of beliefs. It is only in
the more developed forms of polytheistic or monotheistic religions,
and especially in those whose ministers sought to have an effective
influence on the people, that the moral element was introduced little
by little and placed beside the dogmatic and ritual element.[244] If
the survival of the soul and the after-life form part of the beliefs of
a great number of uncultured peoples, as shown especially by funereal
rites, the life beyond the tomb is for them only the continuation of
real life; the country of the dead resembles the country of the living,
the same customs flourish there, the same usages, the same kind of
life; the Eskimo continue their fishing feats, and may even die there
a second time; the Polynesians give themselves up there to the same
pleasures as they enjoyed on earth, etc. The other world is only a
duplicate of this world, and no idea of justice is connected with it;
the evil and the good in it have the same destiny.[245]

_Rites and Ceremonies._--What is the nature of the relations of man
and spirits in primitive religion? Sometimes an attempt is made to
combat the spirits. The Fuegians barricade themselves in their huts and
keep themselves armed, in readiness to ward off blows, the whole night
long, when they fancy they hear the “walapatu”;[246] the Australians
hold an annual celebration for the purpose of getting rid of all
the ghosts of the last year’s dead; the Negroes of the Gold Coast
assemble together in arms from time to time to drive the evil spirits
from their village; rushing about in all directions, with frantic
howling, they return home and assert that they sleep more easily, and
for a while afterwards enjoy better health.[247] But these contests
with spirits are rare, and it is usually found preferable to employ
craft against them (hence exorcism, incantation, the use of symbols,
etc.), or gentleness (prayer, offerings, sacrifices). The last method,
which is most frequently used, develops into an outward cult; the
“fetich-house,” like that seen in Dahomey and other Negro countries,
becomes transformed into a temple; the place of sacrifice into an
altar, and instead of real animals or plants, images of them in paper,
butter, clay, etc., are sacrificed, or finer offerings such as grass,
flowers, perfumes, etc.

_Priesthood._--In the earliest stages of religion man put himself into
communication with spirits at his own risk and peril; but as he soon
perceived that he was frequently unsuccessful in obtaining what he
wished, and could not prevent them laying their spells on him, he was
compelled to have recourse to intermediaries. He observed that certain
individuals are better fitted to deal with spirits; that they can fall
into a trance and remain in this death-like condition long enough to
be able to treat with demons, and he came to the conclusion that they
were appointed to intercede with spirits for simple mortals and to
direct propitiatory ceremonies, offerings, and prayers. It was thus
that the priesthood arose, under the form of fetich-men or shamans, who
play so important a part in the life of Negroes, the Tunguse peoples
and Mongols, and the Indians of North America. All the functions of
life, marriage, pregnancy, the entering upon the age of puberty, birth,
death, hunting or warlike expeditions, require the offices of the
sorcerer, of the shaman, who is usually at the same time a doctor (see
below). As society develops, numerically and in civilisation, there
is formed a sacerdotal class, which sometimes holds both the temporal
power and the civil (as is still the case to-day in certain regions of
Africa, and in Thibet). Often side by side with the regular priesthood
thus constituted the ancient sorcerers continue to live and to wield
great authority over the people; in most of the Lama-Buddhist temples
the presence of a sorcerer is admitted for oracles, propitiations, etc.

_International Religions._--This is not the place to speak of universal
or international religions like _Brahmanism_, spread over India and
the Asiatic archipelago; the once flourishing _Buddhism_ of the south,
based on the doctrine of the “little vehicle” (Hinâyâna), the last
remains of which are to be found in Siam and the Island of Ceylon; the
Buddhism of the north, or Lamaism, based on the doctrine of the “great
vehicle” (Mâhāyāna), which rules the Thibetan and Mongol world,
nor of the other more or less altered forms of this religion, Chinese
Foïsm, Japanese and Annamese Buddhism, Indian Jainism, etc. And we
must take for granted as better known the other universal religions,
_Judaism_ with its sects which do not acknowledge the _Talmud_ (like
the _Karaites_ of the Crimea); _Mahomedanism_, with its two principal
divisions, the sect of _Shiahs_ (Persians) and that of the _Sunis_
(other Mahomedan peoples); _Christianity_, with its great divisions and
numerous sects (Copts, Nestorians, etc.). And we must notice finally
the “national religions”--_Taoism_ in China, _Shintoism_ in Japan,
_Confucianism_ in both these countries, etc.

_Myths._--Myths occupy an intermediate position between science,
poetry, and religion, for they try to explain all phenomena while
leaving a great deal to the imagination. The infinite variety of myths
is only apparent. They all may be reduced to a very limited number
of ideas or fancies, which are the same among all peoples. They are
all explanations, more or less simple and childish, of the origin of
plants, animals, men, the earth, the stars, etc., founded on the idea
of animism. The details change according to the nature of the country,
but the substance remains always the same. It is a vegetation of fancy
more or less luxuriant and beautiful on the common ground of animism.
Thus religion and myths are often one and the same thing, since they
are derived from a common source, from that habit which primitive
men share with children of giving a personality to every object they
contemplate, from the sun to a knife, from a blade of grass to the
ocean. We cannot dwell longer on this subject, which would require
developing at considerable length;[248] I will merely say that on
carefully studying myths we find in them psychological data relating
to the mode of thinking of a people, rather than indications of the
relations and affinity of one people with another, for borrowed details
in myths are innumerable among all peoples.[249]

_Sciences._--It is only with the rudiments of the sciences that we have
to deal in the case of uncivilised and even half-civilised peoples.

The _knowledge of numbers_ exists more or less among all the peoples
of the earth. We often say, “Such a people can only count up to three,
because it has no special word to denote a higher number.” This
reasoning is not always just, for, by adopting it, we might accuse the
French of scarcely being able to count beyond sixty, since they have no
special words for, say, seventy-five or eighty, and to express these
fall back on words already employed in counting--sixty and fifteen
or four score. Many savages employ a similar method. Thus the Yahgan
Fuegians have only words for the number one (_Kaueli_), two (_Kombaï_),
and three (_Maten_); but they make use of the words _Akokombaï_
(literally “the other two,” or “another time two”) to denote four, and
_Akomaten_ (the other three) to indicate six.[250]

Certain Australians proceed in a similar manner.[251] If these tribes
had been able to continue the same process beyond this point they would
have arrived at the duodecimal system; what they lacked for that were
objects which should always be within their reach to assist them in
this mode of calculation. Peoples who thought of distinguishing by
special words the first five figures had at once, in their fingers,
an aid to enable them to set up a decimal system. Many South American
Indians, Caribs, Tupis, and Tamanacas of the Orinoco count by the
fingers, hands, and feet, employing thus the decimal system; instead
of five they say “a hand”; instead of ten, “two hands”; instead of
twelve, “two hands and two fingers”; instead of fifteen, “two hands
and one foot”; instead of twenty, “a man”; and so forth. With the
development of civilisation the fingers of the hand are replaced by
objects, by little stones, seeds or shells, which are arranged in boxes
representing units, tens, etc. From these were derived the abaci of the
Chinese and Russians.

_Geometry--Calculation of Time._--Measures of distances, surfaces,
etc., which gave birth to geometry, are found again among certain
uncivilised peoples. The Indians of Veragua find the height of a
tree by measuring the distance from which they see it, turning their
back and bending the body in such a way that the head is between the
outstretched legs; the ancient Egyptians measured the surfaces of their
lands empirically by means of geometric figures, etc. The measurement
of time by the movement of the stars exists among all peoples, the
succession of day and night, and the phases of the moon, being the
things easiest to observe. Thus days and months or “moons” are nearly
everywhere equal. But it is not the same with regard to the year. It
is the succession of vegetation or seasons which determines periods
longer than months. Thus the Andamanese count by successions of three
seasons (cold, dry, and wet); the Papuans by successions of two seasons
(corresponding to the prevailing monsoons), but the epochs at which
these seasons arrive do not coincide exactly with lunar divisions, and
tallying computation becomes more difficult. Thus, as soon as writing
was invented, the more intelligent of the nomadic tribes, especially,
turned their attention towards noting coincidences of the position of
the sun in relation to the constellations, according to the seasons,
for the principal constellations, especially the Great Bear, Orion, the
Southern Cross, are known by almost all the peoples of the earth, who
have emerged from the state of savages dependent on the chase.

The verification of the time when the year begins (coinciding generally
with some commemorative festival) became later the business of State
astronomers (Egypt, India), who were at the same time astrologers or
magicians.

_Calendars and Clocks._--There are yet in China astronomers who
periodically harmonise the lunar with the solar year, though, for the
ordinary purposes of life, other peoples make use of the solar year
calculated either from a reign (as in ancient Egypt), or day by day in
a cycle of sixty years, formed by the combination of ten _kou_ (stock)
and twelve _tchi_ (branches), as in the Hindu calendar. A similar
calendar is found among the ancient Mexicans.[252] In regard to the
divisions of the days into hours, they are somewhat uncertain among
the Andamanese and Australians, and they begin to assume a definite
character only with the introduction of the sundial, as for example
among the Zuñi Indians, who have before nearly every cabin a pillar,
the shadow of which serves to indicate the hours. In China and in Corea
the use of the candle which burns a certain time is a remnant of the
mode of calculating time according to the duration of the fire.[253]
The running of water and sand has been utilised, as we know, in the
construction of clepsydras and other primitive clocks of classic
antiquity and of the Middle Ages.

_Geography and Cartography._--We can only indicate summarily what
primitive navigators and half-civilised nomads know of geography.
Orientation according to the cardinal points is known even to peoples
as primitive as the Fuegians and the Andamanese, but cartography is
only developed among those who draw. The Australians can draw maps on
the sand very accurately, except as regards distances; we have even
maps drawn on weapons, like that of figure 79, /F/, representing
a lagoon and an arm of Broken River, between which is situated the
territory of the tribe to which the owner of the weapon belonged.[254]
The Micronesians of the Marshall Islands construct with bamboo rods
geographical maps in which these rods represent the direction of the
currents, and the shells or seeds attached to their intersections, the
different islands.[255]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 72.--Eskimo geographical map.

(_After Holm._)]

But it is the Eskimo who excel in the cartographic art, as may be seen
from the specimen which I reproduce from S. Holm.[256] This consists
of two wooden tablets (Fig. 72). One of them (A) represents all the
fiords, bays, and capes of that part of the coast of Eastern Greenland
comprised between Kangerdenarsikajik (_a_) and Sicralik (_b_); we
must read the names of these places in the direction of the arrow.
The second tablet (B) represents the islands off the coast; situated
opposite to different bays. By bringing it near to, or removing it
from the first, we have the distance between the coast and each of
the islands. The ancient Mexicans had topographical maps, marine
charts, and even cadastral plans, much more perfect than those of the
ancient Egyptians. The Chinese maps still further surpass these models,
and remind one already of our coasting pilot books in their use of
orientation by means of the compass.[257]

I should take up the whole chapter if I were to give an account,
even in an abridged form, of everything concerning _primitive
medicine_.[258] I will merely point out that, according to their
animistic conception of the world, “savages” have no other idea of
disease than as a malevolent manifestation of a spirit who enters into
the man, of a demon who “possesses” him. Thus, fetich-men and shamans
are the first doctors. They know how to “drive” from the body of the
patient the evil spirit who torments him, to “draw out” the disease
in the form of a pebble, or some other object deftly concealed before
the operation. Moreover, the bones, mummified portions of the body
of sick persons, or of fetich-men themselves, may become after their
death relics possessing miraculous healing power, etc. For the matter
of that, even among civilised peoples diseases are often attributed
to the “evil eye,” to “spells” (France), to “Jettatura” (Italy), etc.
Among the Indians of North America there are also special healers
(medicine-men) who are held in great esteem, and who sometimes form a
corporation (_Mide_), into which admission can only be gained after
a professional examination in the “doctors’ cabin” (Schoolcraft,
Hoffmann). Along with incantations and magical proceedings, with
dancing and music, the principal remedies of the Australian healers
and the American medicine-men are scarifications, blood-letting,
and blood-sucking. Negroes show a preference for cupping-glasses.
The processes of advanced surgery among certain peoples go as far
as ovariotomy (Australians), laparotomy and the cæsarian operation
(Negroes of Uganda); but not as far as the amputation of limbs, the
fingers excepted. Trepanning, known from the quaternary period in
Europe, is also employed among Negroes, Persians, New Hebridians, etc.,
for nervous diseases, epilepsy, etc. The clyster, the great remedy of
our ancestors, is hardly used, except by the Dakota Indians and the
Negroes of the west coast of Africa, where also the doctor squirts
the drug into the sick person from his mouth through the medium of a
calabash (Monnier).[259] Attenuation of virus is even practised by,
for example, the Bushmen, who use it to cure the bite of scorpions and
serpents.[260]



CHAPTER VII.

SOCIOLOGICAL CHARACTERS--_conclusion_.

    3.--/Family Life./--Relations of the two sexes before
    marriage--_Marriage and family_--Theory of promiscuity--Group
    marriage--Exogamy and endogamy--Matriarchate--Degrees of
    relationship and filiation--Polyandry--Levirate--Polygamy and
    monogamy--Patriarchate--Rape and purchase of the bride--Duration
    of conjugal union--_Children_--Birth--Nurture--Name of the child
    and of adults--Initiation, circumcision, etc.--_Old men and their
    fate_--_Funereal rites_--Mourning.

    4.--/Social Life./--(_a_) _Home life of a people_--_Economic
    organisation_--The forms of property depend on production--Common
    property and family property--Village community--Individual
    property--_Social organisation_--Totemism--Clan rule--Family
    rule--Territorial rule--Caste and class rule--Democratic
    rule--Social morals--Right and justice--Taboo--Retaliation,
    vendetta, and ordeals--Secret societies--Extra legal
    judges--Formulæ of politeness--(_b_) _International life
    of peoples_--Absence of sympathetic relations--Hostile
    relations--_War_--Arms of offence--Bow and arrows--Arms of
    defence--Neutral relations--_Commerce_--Money--Cowry--Transports
    and means of communication--Primitive vehicles--Navigation.


The subjects about to be treated are so vast and complicated that it is
almost impossible to give an idea of them in a few words and without
going into details. So our account will of necessity be somewhat
dogmatic, and will only touch on some salient facts of family and
social life.


3.--FAMILY LIFE.

_The relations of the two sexes_ are somewhat free among uncivilised
and half-civilised peoples so long as there is no formal marriage
or birth of a child. In the whole of Oceania, Malaysia, among the
Samoyeds, Mongols, and certain Negroes, sexual intercourse between the
young people of both sexes is by no means prohibited.[261] Sometimes
even, as among the Bavenda for example, the young men and women give
themselves up to obscene “games.”[262] Uncivilised peoples among whom
the loss of virginity would be considered dishonouring to a girl are
somewhat rare (Nias islanders, Igorrotes, Malays of Menangkabau). Most
of them treat it with indifference, and among some of them defloration
is obligatory before marriage; it is effected artificially or naturally
by the parents (Bataks, Pelew islanders), by the matrons (Bissayas of
the Philippines), by the priests (Cambodia), and even, it is said, by
persons paid for this kind of work.[263] It would be possible to give
instances of many other customs which shock our ideas about chastity
and marriage. Thus in the Algerian Arab tribe of the Ouled-Naïl, no
young girl will find a husband if she has not previously acquired
a dowry by regular prostitution. On the other hand, it must not be
forgotten that the prostitution of girls before marriage was required
by certain cults of antiquity (cult of Aphrodite at Abydos, Ephesus,
etc., cult of Mylitta in Babylonia, etc.).

_Marriage and Family._--But marriage once contracted, the woman, among
almost all uncivilised and half-civilised peoples, is no longer free.
From this moment either the husband, the family on the mother’s or
father’s side, or the clan, see strictly to the observation of the
marriage rules which are in vogue, and the laws, written or unwritten,
punish every slip of the woman who was so free before marriage. It is
the contrary to what one often sees in our civilised societies. In
fine, _marriage_ is above all a social convention, and the form which
it takes in different ethnic groups is intimately connected with the
social and economic constitution of these groups. The position of
woman in society, ideas on conjugal obligations, etc., are entirely
subordinated to the ideas which prevail about property and the social
organism.

_Theory of Promiscuity._--We often hear it said that marriage has
sprung from a “state of promiscuity” in which mankind primitively
lived; every man could then couple with every woman, “like the
animals,” people sometimes add, forgetting that among animals the most
akin to man this state of promiscuity is rather exceptional, and that
the polygamous and even monogamous family exist among a great number of
birds and mammals.[264]

The theory of promiscuity or “communal marriage,” so well summed up
some time ago by Lubbock,[265] has few defenders at the present day.
We know that actually there does not exist on the earth any population
practising an “irregular promiscuity,” and the evidence of history is
reduced to three or four texts of Herodotus, Strabo, and Solinus, the
interpretation of which is far from easy.[266]

_Group Marriage._--What has been often taken for promiscuity is only
a form of marriage, different from our individual marriage, which,
nevertheless, represents the first attempt to regulate sexual relations
and to define ties of kinship in order to ensure the existence and
bringing up of children. This form of marriage, admirably studied by
Howitt and Fison[267] among the Australians, has received from them
the name of “group marriage.” Its essential feature is that men and
women, by the fact of belonging to such and such a group or clan are
not marriageable one with another, and are obliged by the fact of their
birth to contract unions with members of other groups of the tribe.

Marriage by groups is met with in its most pronounced form among
the Australians and some tribes of India (Nairs, Todas). Among the
Australians this custom co-exists with individual exogamous marriage
(the “Noa” of the Dieri of Central Australia), and exhibits itself in
its simplest form in the example of the Wotjoballuk Australians of
the north-west of Victoria. This tribe is divided into two classes
or clans, the Gamutch and the Krokitch. The men of the Gamutch clan
are by right the husbands of all the women of the Krokitch tribe, and
_vice-versâ_. But it is only a virtual right. In practice, during the
great festivals of _initiation_ (see p. 241), the old men of the tribe,
assembled in council, distribute among the bachelors of a clan the
unappropriated girls of the other clan. This marriage, called “Pirauru”
among the Dieri, and known under the name of “Paramour custom” by the
colonials, gives the right to the man of the Gamutch clan, for example,
to contract a marriage with the woman of the Krokitch clan thus
allotted to him when the occasion shall present itself; he may also
take with him one or more of these women and make her or them live with
his wife of the individual marriage. However, as the same woman may be
allotted in the successive festivals to several men, there are certain
rules of precedence to observe in the fulfilment of the conjugal
duties, if chance puts two men before their “common” wife: the elder
brother takes precedence of the younger, the man up in years of the
youth.[268]

_Exogamy and Endogamy._--Group marriage is closely connected with what
is called _exogamy_ or _exogeny_, that is to say, marriage outside
the clan, as opposed to _endogamy_ or _endogeny_, marriage within the
clan. It must be said, however, that exogamy is as often met in the
individual form of marriage, and that sometimes endogamy, interdicted
within the limits of a clan, is, on the contrary, practised within the
limits of the tribe of which these clans are the components. There is
in this case exogamy in relation to the clan and endogamy in relation
to the tribe.

_Matriarchate._--But how are matters of filiation and family to be
decided with such a system of marriage, for it is impossible to settle
the question of paternity in this case? To Bachofen and McLennan[269]
we must attribute the honour of having discovered a complete system
of filiation, in vogue among many uncivilised peoples, and the
exact opposite to that which we are accustomed to in our societies:
filiation by the mother, or _matriarchate_. Thus in our example of the
Australians of Wotjoballuk (p. 232), the posterity of a man of the
Gamutch clan married to a woman of the Krokitch clan will belong to the
Krokitch clan; if, on the contrary, the father is a Krokitch and the
mother a Gamutch, the children will belong to the Gamutch clan. This
filiation establishes the uterine relationship and, united to exogamy,
prevents marriage between nearest relatives. In fact, the son of the
first couple being of the Krokitch clan, will not be able to marry
his uterine sister, since she is of the same clan as he is, but only
an alien woman, or a relative, according to our conventions, of the
Gamutch clan, for example, the sister of his father. Theoretically, a
father of the Gamutch clan would be able to marry his daughter, since
she belongs to the Krokitch clan; but in practice these cases are
forbidden by custom, for example among the Australian Dieri,[270] or
they are avoided by the existence not of two, but of four or a greater
number of classes in the tribe, with prohibitions against the marriage
of people of certain of these classes.[271]

However, peoples who practise group marriage and exogamy have not to
regard incest very seriously, for _degrees of relationship_ are not
fixed with them as with us. To fix relationship, they make use of a
system called by Morgan, who discovered it (among the American Indians
first), and described it admirably,[272] the “_classificatory system_.”
In its simplest form, such as it is met with, for example, among the
Micronesians and the Maoris, it may be thus summed up. All persons
allied by consanguinity are divided into five groups. The first is
formed of _myself_ and my brothers, sisters, and cousins; we all bear
the same name, which is that of the whole group. The second group is
formed of my father and mother with their brothers and sisters, as
well as their cousins, all likewise bearing the same name; the third
group comprises my grandparents, with their brothers, sisters, etc.;
the fourth, the cousins of my children, whom I consider as my sons and
daughters; lastly, the fifth group is composed of the grandchildren
of my brothers and sisters, whom I consider as my grandchildren. A
similar system of nomenclature is very common among certain peoples of
India, and sometimes causes much embarrassment to English judges newly
landed. To give an example: A witness said that his father was at home
at such and such an hour; then, a few minutes after, he affirmed that
his father was in the fields. The judge is perplexed until, by a series
of questions, he elicits the fact that the witness means his “little”
father, equivalent to our term uncle.[273] Westermarck has tried to
interpret the classificatory system differently; he sees in it only
an artifice of speech, a way of addressing persons of different ages;
but as Fison judiciously observes, if it be held that this system has
no reference to degrees of relationship we should have to deny any
idea whatever of this subject to certain peoples who have no other
expressions to denote degrees of relationship.[274]

_Polyandry_, that is to say, marriage in which the woman possesses
several husbands, is considered by the majority of authors as a form
derived from group marriage. With the exception of two doubtful
examples (Khasias and Saporogian Cossacks), polyandry always assumes
the fraternal form; that is to say, the husbands of the woman are
brothers. The classic country of polyandry is Thibet. There each of
the brothers cohabits in turn with their common wife, a certain period
being allotted. Among the ancient Arabs, according to Strabo, matters
were arranged less systematically, and the first comer on his arrival
at the woman’s house asserted his marital rights, after having taken
care, however, to place his staff across the door, as is still done
in the case of temporary marriages in Persia and among the Todas,
who leave the cloak as well as the staff. Polyandry is practised by
several peoples living on the borders of Thibet (Miris, Dophlas,
Abors, Khasias, Ladakhis, etc.), but appears to be but rarely met
with elsewhere, and almost never outside of India. It is explained by
the scarcity of women in these countries (a statement not confirmed by
statistics in regard to certain of them), and by the necessities of the
pastoral life of these peoples.

_Levirate_, or compulsory marriage with a dead brother’s widow,
a very widespread custom in India (where it is called _niyoga_),
among the Iroquois and other American Indians, the Melanesians, the
Negroes, as well as the ancient Egyptians and Jews, is considered as
a survival of polyandry. However, Maine, Westermarck, and others see
in it only a custom established with a view to securing the protection
of orphan children.[275] With polyandry is also connected, on not
very good grounds it seems to me, _parental marriage_. In this form
of union the father or uncle or some other relative really cohabits
with the nominal wife of his son or nephew during the minority of the
latter. This custom, according to Shortt, prevails in India among the
Reddies or Naickers, and according to Haxthausen among the peasantry
in Russia, where a modification of this kind of relation, strongly
reprehended, however, is still known at the present day under the name
“Snokhachestvo.”[276]

_Polygamy and Monogamy._--Individual marriage, which may, as we have
seen in Australia, co-exist with group marriage, assumes two different
forms--_polygamy_ and _monogamy_. The latter does not necessarily
proceed from the former. Many savage tribes, like the Veddahs and the
Andamanese, are monogamous, as are also a certain number of mammals
and birds. Among others (Fuegians, Bushmen) polygamy is exceptional.
In reality it only takes root in societies a little more advanced, in
which, especially, the idea of individual property is already more or
less firmly planted. Woman is then considered very much as a slave,
from whom pleasure and labour may be obtained; she is treated like any
other property; the more wives a man has, the richer and more esteemed
is he. Polygamy is widely diffused over the world, either in its pure
form (Mahomedans, Australians, American Indians, Negroes, etc.) or in
its modified forms: lawful concubinage (all over the East), or unlawful
(Europe), and temporary marriage (Persia, Japan).

It is only with the development of society that _monogamy_, nominal or
real, develops, and with it a little respect for woman. She enjoys more
liberty, as do also the children who have passed a certain age. Thus is
constituted the family of to-day, in which, however, the patriarchal
spirit is still dominant.

_Patriarchate._--Individual polygamous marriage is most frequently
allied to a new form of affiliation, that of kinship through males,
which, in its turn, is rooted in the constitution of property and
the subordination of woman to man. In the matriarchate the natural
protector of the child and the family is the mother’s brother; in the
patriarchate his place is taken by the father, who extends the right
of property not only to include the mother, but also the children; he
may sell them, hire them out, etc. The patriarchate is the _régime_
under which live most half-civilised peoples and a great number of
uncivilised.

Several _matrimonial customs_ may be explained by the primitive forms
of marriage. Thus the practice of showing hospitality to a stranger
by lending him one’s wife, so common among savages and half-civilised
nomads, may be explained as a relic of group marriage, in which, as we
have seen, the exchange and the lending of women are practised.[277]
Similarly, the custom, very prevalent, especially in Malaysia, which
requires a husband to live in his wife’s family, is considered by most
authors as a relic of the matriarchate. Another custom, nearly always
allied to the first, but which is also met with as a survival in the
cases where the woman goes to live with her husband’s family, is that
prohibiting newly-married couples from speaking to their fathers and
mothers-in-law (_avoidance_). The best known form, widely diffused
from the Kafirs to the Mongols, is the forbidding of the husband not
only to speak to, but even to see his mother-in-law; if by chance he
should meet her, he is obliged to take to flight, or, at any rate, to
turn aside out of the way. Among several peoples of the Caucasus and
certain North American Indians this custom is observed only until the
birth of the first child. This custom, in a general way, is considered
as a relic either of exogamy (Tylor) or of anti-incest customs
(Westermarck).[278]

Among the most widely diffused practices having a connection with
marriage, we must mention the abduction of the wife, whether real
(Arabs, Turco-Mongols, Caribs, Patagonians, Burmese, Australians, etc.)
or simulated and symbolic, and often forming part of the marriage
ceremonies (among a host of peoples). Ethnologists are not agreed as to
the origin of this custom; some see in it the last vestiges of exogamy,
others the relic of the slavery of women, etc.

Side by side with simulated abduction there is almost always the
purchase of the wife from her parents (the “Kalym” of the Turco-Tatars,
etc.), which proves that marriage by purchase took the place of
marriage by capture in the exogamous relations between tribes, and
contributed to their social cohesion, preventing quarrels and wars
(Tylor). The _marriage portion_ is only found in societies having a
relatively high organisation. It is, as it were, a payment for the
guardianship which the husband assumes over the wife and her children
under the patriarchal system. The institution of the marriage portion
is probably derived from the practice still in vogue among many
peoples, according to which the parents offer presents in exchange for
the money or the service given as the purchase-price of their daughter.

_The duration of the conjugal union_ varies so much among different
peoples that no general rule can be laid down regarding it. From unions
of a night (under the _régime_ of group marriage, in temporary or
trial marriages) to the indissolubility prescribed by the Christian
religions, there is quite a scale of conjugal relations more or less
durable. Most frequently the husband may discard the wife when she has
ceased to please him; sometimes _divorce_ is hedged round with certain
formalities of established custom.

_Children._--In all societies, as in the animal world, the family is
principally established for the bringing up of _children_. But it is
far from true that the arrival of children is everywhere accepted
with joy. The voluntary limitation of progeny is not an invention of
advanced civilisation. Savages could teach us much on this point.
The Australians with this object practise ovariotomy on women, the
operation “mika” (artificial hypospadias) on men, or simply kill off
the superfluous infants. Infanticide on a large scale was practised by
the Polynesians before their “Europeanisation”; it exists still here
and there in Thibet, so far as girls are concerned. Some would even see
in this custom the origin of polyandry.

_Birth._--But having once decided to let a child live, the uncivilised
look well after it. One could write a volume, if one wished to
enumerate all the hygienic and at the same time superstitious customs
attendant on the pregnancy, parturition, and recovery of the woman
among different peoples. The act of generation is considered by nearly
all the uncivilised as something at once mysterious and impure. The
pregnant woman is kept quiet and rubbed; she has to occupy a hut apart
before, during, or after the birth of the child, according to the
custom of the different countries. Rarely is the woman allowed to be
confined alone; the examples quoted have reference for the most part
to isolated cases, such as may happen even among the civilised. She is
often assisted at the time of the confinement by one or more women, and
sometimes by men.[279]

Among the customs which accompany birth, the most curious is that of
the “couvade” practised by the Basques, the Indians of Brazil and
Guiana, and other peoples. According to this custom, the husband,
after the coming into the world of the child, behaves exactly as if
it were he who had been confined; he betakes himself to bed, receives
congratulations, sometimes looks after the baby. E. B. Tylor sees
in this custom a survival of the matriarchate in a society with a
patriarchal _régime_. It would be the ransom paid by the husband for
the right, which formerly belonged to the mother, to be called the head
of the house.[280]

As to the child, from the moment of his entrance into the world, every
effort is made to keep away from him the spirits which might harm
him; the Laotians, in the vicinity of the house which shelters him,
hang bells, rattles, and cloth-bands, so that, shaken by the wind,
they may make a noise and keep away evil spirits (Harmand, Neis). The
Malays and the Nias Islanders for this purpose prepare special fetiches
(Modigliani).

The _name_ which is given to a child is also the result of much care
and forethought. Fetichers, shamans, sorcerers, and priests are
consulted. The name chosen is sometimes determined by the locality
or house of the birth. Thus the Kalmuks who were exhibited at Paris
in 1882 gave the name of “Paris” to the child which one of their
number brought into the world. The Negroes of Senegal, under similar
circumstances in 1895, called one of their new-born “The Frenchman.”
But most frequently the name given is of a plant or animal (Red
Indians, Mongols, etc.). It must be said, however, that among many
peoples the name given at birth is not borne throughout life. It may
be changed more than once. The most frequent cause for doing this is
the fear of spirits; the Dyaks and the Mongols change the name of sick
persons to “deceive the spirit” who has caused the disease; among
the Fuegians, the Indians of North America, the Polynesians, and the
Malays, the name of a dead man is not allowed to be uttered, and all
his namesakes are obliged to change their name. Often, too, the name
is changed because their “trade” requires it; the Okanda healers bear
another name when they practise their art; and among civilised peoples
changes of name are bound up with certain social conditions (monks,
actors, prostitutes, etc.).

_Education of Children._--Suckling ordinarily lasts a very long time
among uncivilised peoples, till the child is two, three, four, and
five years old, sometimes even older.[281] Children are treated kindly
by uncivilised peoples, and rarely are they chastised as they are in
Europe, though a certain “discipline” appears among the half-civilised,
with the necessity of making the child learn many more things. At
the age of puberty, among most uncivilised peoples, the ceremony of
_initiation_ takes place. This is a sort of higher education with
certain tests, followed by a ceremony, after which the individual is
declared adult. It is met with among the Australians, as also among
the American Indians, Negroes, etc., with the same essential features.
The young men of the tribe are led into a place apart, where the
sorcerers, the fetichers, or the “old men,” teach them during a varying
period all that a “man” should know about social and sexual life. The
candidates are then put tests, sometimes very cruel, to make sure of
their power to resist thirst, hunger, and physical pain. Those who
emerge victorious from these tests are brought back triumphantly into
the villages, and feasted during several days.[282]

Among the operations to which young men are subjected during
initiation, we must specially notice _circumcision_, generally
practised all over Oceania, among the American Indians and other
peoples, without taking into account the Israelite and Mussulman world,
in which this custom has now but a religious symbolic signification.
Moreover, several religions have kept the custom of initiation, giving
to it very varied forms (shaving of the forelock among Buddhists, first
communion among Catholics, etc.).

_The lot of the old men_ is not an enviable one in primitive societies.
They are not cared for, and often when they become infirm they are
left to die of hunger. The voluntary suicide of the old men, which
is committed amid great pomp among the Chukchi[283] and some other
peoples, may be explained as much by the miseries of existence as by
the belief in a better life beyond the tomb, which is the basis of
_funereal rites_.[284] Among nearly all peoples it is customary to
put into the grave objects which the dead had used in their ordinary
occupations, but only such as constituted private property: weapons by
the side of a warrior, pottery near to a woman, etc.[285] These objects
are usually broken to signify that they also are dead, and that their
“soul” goes to accompany their owner into the other life. It is also
with this idea that a warrior’s favourite horse is sacrificed on his
grave (Red Indians, Altaians), or a symbolic ceremony suffices, the
animal being led in the funeral procession, a custom still practised
all over Europe at the interments of superior officers. In India women
are sacrificed, slaves in Dahomey and among the Dyaks, etc., in order
that the dead may not be deprived of anything in the other world.[286]

Funeral ceremonies and the practice of going into mourning give place
to feasts of diverse character. Among the Dualas of the Cameroons
(Western Africa), the “feast of the dead” lasts nine days, the time
required for his soul to make the journey to _Bela_, the place of
eternal rest. Among the Battas of Sumatra, we find these funeral feasts
accompanied by dances and a special kind of game, the _Topingha_. The
exhumation of the bones of the dead person at the end of a certain
time, practised by several Indonesian, Melanesian, and American tribes,
is the occasion of orgies; I may also mention the habit of visiting the
cemetery at stated periods, and taking food either on the grave or by
the side of it, which is very general in Europe.

Among the feasts organised in honour of the dead let us mention the
_Bung_ of the Japanese, at the end of which miniature skiffs in straw
are thrown into the sea, supposed to transport the souls of the dead
who have been present at the feast back to their dwelling-place.

_The modes of sepulture_, although very varied,--interment,
incineration, exposure to the air (natural mummification), embalming,
pure and simple abandonment on the earth or to the waves,--have not a
great importance from the ethnical point of view; often two or three
modes may co-exist among the same people (examples, Mongols, Papuans).

_Mourning._--Outward manifestations of grief caused by the death
of a near relative exist among all peoples of the world, even the
most uncivilised. These are, first, cries, lamentations, and tears
(Bushmen, Bechuana, ancient Egyptians, Caribs of Guiana, Italians,
Russians). Then succeed material signs displayed on the body, some of
which are the consequence of cruel practices which seem to suggest the
idea of sacrifice for the purpose of removing the anger of “the dead
man’s soul,” which wanders about the survivors. We need only mention
the cutting off of the finger-joints among the Bushmen, of the toes
among the Fijians, the drawing out of teeth in Eastern Polynesia,
the laceration of the skin among the Australians, the burnings among
the New Caledonians. Under a milder form the same idea of sacrifice
manifests itself in the custom of plucking out the hair of the beard
(Australians, Fijians), of cutting or shaving off a part or the whole
of the hair (Jews and Egyptians in ancient times, Huns, Albanians,
Hovas, Malays, American Indians, Basutos, Gallas). Certain signs
of mourning on the body seem to be caused by the desire not to be
recognised by the “spirit” of the dead person; such is the custom of
daubing the face or the whole body, practised by the Negroes of Central
Africa, the Australians, the Polynesians, etc. Among peoples who are
more clothed, the mode of dress is altered. General negligence in
dress is a sign of grief among the Bechuana and the Malays; tearing of
the garments is practised among the American Indians; the Manganya of
Southern Africa wrap the body in palm-leaves, which they wear until
they fall withered to the ground. The conventional colour of the
clothes, white among the Chinese, black among Europeans, is a sign of
the same kind.


4.--SOCIAL LIFE.

Social life may be studied both as limited to a given people (inner
life) and in the relations of one people with another (international
life).

_The inner life_ of a given ethnical group comprises economic or
property organisation, and social organisation properly so called
(administration and politics). Ideas of morals, right, and justice
depend much on the forms which these organisations have taken, as well
as on usages and customs; and the latter in their turn are derived
principally from family organisation and religious ideas.

_The international life_ of peoples manifests itself in three different
ways: either in hostile relations (war), in pacific neutral relations
(commerce), or in sympathetic relations (exchange of ideas and
feelings, feasts, congresses, etc.).

_Inner Life of a People--Economic Organisation._--_The system by
which property is held_ depends on the mode of production, for the
distribution and consumption of wealth are in intimate relation with
the mode of procuring it. Among savage hunters it is often necessary
for several to combine to catch big game; thus Australians hunt the
kangaroo in bands of several dozen individuals; the Eskimo gather quite
a flotilla of kayaks for whale-fishing. The captured kangaroos, the
whale brought to shore, are considered common property; each eats of
the spoil according to his hunger. The territory of each tribe among
the Australians and Red Indians is considered collective property;
every one hunts on it in his own way, on condition that he does not
encroach on the territory of neighbouring tribes. But in the midst of
this common property certain objects used solely by the individual, his
garments, his weapons, etc., are considered personal property, while
the tent with its furniture, etc., belongs to the family; as the canoe
which is used for whale fishing, holding five or six persons, belongs
to these persons in common.

Thus in the same society three sorts of property, collective, family,
and individual, may exist simultaneously side by side. What decides
its category is the character of the labour expended, the mode of
_production_. I have made a flint implement with my own hands, it is
mine; with the assistance of my wife and children I have built the
hut, it belongs to the family; I have hunted with the people of my
tribe, the beasts slain belong to us all in common. The animals which
I have killed by myself on the territory of the tribe are mine, and if
by chance the animal wounded by me escapes and is killed by another,
it belongs to both of us and the skin is his who gave the finishing
stroke. For this reason each arrow bears the mark of its owner.

It is thus that matters are arranged among the Tunguses and North
American Indians. Among the latter, rules have been strictly laid
down in regard to bison-hunting from the point of view of individual
property.[287]

But since the introduction of fire-arms, the balls bearing no
distinctive marks, the slain bisons are divided equally; they are
considered as common property. This example shows plainly how closely
are related production and the system by which property is held. Common
and private property do not lead among savages to monopoly, for the
products of the chase cannot be kept for long without getting spoilt;
so after having taken what he wants for himself, the hunter gives the
remainder to his relatives, his family, or the tribe. It is this which
partly explains the carelessness of savages and the absence among them
of the spirit of thrift and thought for the future.

_Family Property._--With the introduction of agriculture, most of the
objects of personal property become family property; the transformation
frequently coincides with the appearance of the patriarchal form of
family life; the land still remains for some time common property,
but soon it likewise becomes family property. The members of the same
family group enjoy in common the products of the soil, which common
labour has fertilised. This mode of property existed in Russia before
the sixteenth century, that is to say, before the establishment of
the communal ownership of the soil still in vogue to-day. It is found
in England from the thirteenth to the fourteenth century (Seebohm),
and in certain parts of France (in the Nivernais, according to the
statement of Guy Coquille) in the form of “porçonneries” having “pot
and fire” in common, working in the same fields and accumulating their
savings in the same box.[288] With the growth of population, this
family joint-ownership developed into an agricultural commune, the
true “village community” of English authors, with the alienation of
holdings and the admission of strangers into its midst, with periodic
distributions of the various strips of land. The best type of this kind
of community is the Russian “mir.” In India it is met with side by side
with the family commune among the Dravidian and Aryan peoples, and in
Western Europe numerous traces of it are found.[289] But these are only
traces and survivals, for communal property has been destroyed here as
in the Mussulman world, often by means of force, with the establishment
of the feudal system, which gave birth to the different modes of land
tenure which we find to-day. In Russia and in India the dissolution
of the communal system is still taking place under our eyes, but from
intrinsically different causes, especially the rapid increase of
population and diminution of the size of holdings.

_Social Organisation._--The constitution of society is modelled on
that of property. In the simplest cases the family organisation is
at the same time the social organisation. Under the _régime_ of
group marriage, and even after its partial replacement by individual
marriage, tribes are divided into a certain number of clans, each of
which, with the majority of peoples, has its _totem_. The totem is a
class of material objects (never an isolated object, thus differing
from the fetish) for which uncivilised man professes a superstitious
veneration, believing in a sort of mysterious connection between
himself and each representative of the class of objects. Most
frequently the totem is some species of animal or vegetable which
the members of the clan regard as their ancestor, and also as the
patron and protector of the whole clan. The Iroquoian legends relate
circumstantially how the tortoise, their totem and ancestor, got rid of
its shell and gradually developed into man. The totem is represented
on different objects belonging to the clan. Our blazons and armorial
bearings are derived from the totem, as well as marks of ownership.
The totemistic divisions are independent of the territorial divisions
of the tribe; the connection is, rather, a moral one. The inhabitants
of a territorial district may belong to several clans, and, on the
other hand, the members of one and the same “totem” may inhabit places
distant from each other.

Nearly always the totem is subject to taboo[290] (page 252). The
social organisation of _clans_ and “phratries” (groups of clans of
which the members are intermarriable) joined to totemism is widespread
among North American Indians, Australians, Melanesians of the Solomon
Islands, the Tshi-speaking tribes of the Gold Coast, etc. It exists
side by side with other social organisations among the Kirghis, the
Kevsurs of the Caucasus (Kovalewsky), the Mandingoes (Binger), etc.
Under this primitive _régime_ there are no permanent chiefs, but
intermittent councils, formed of the “old men” in each clan. If several
clans are united into a tribe, an elective chief sometimes appears, but
always invested with only a temporary and very limited power.

_Family Organisation._--With the change from the hunting to the
agricultural mode of life, with the establishment of affiliation by
blood and the patriarchal family, with the constitution of family
ownership, the social organisation is also transformed. All the members
of the family gathered under the same roof (often in the literal sense
of the word; for example, among the Indonesians and the Pueblo Indians)
constitute the social unit. Such is the origin of the commune in China
and Japan, of the “fine” in Ireland, etc. The chief of the race, the
living “ancestor,” becomes the chief of the society, and his power
tends to become hereditary.[291]

_Territorial Organisation._--When family ownership is replaced by
communal ownership, the social organisation takes the _territorial_
form. All the people inhabiting a given territory, whether related by
blood or not, form the social unit. The Russian “Volost,” the Annamese
commune, the Japanese “Mura,” the “Calpulli” of the ancient Toltecs,
are examples of this kind of grouping.[292] Sometimes these territorial
organisations form by themselves independent states, governed by an
elected chief, assisted by the delegates of each commune (Moqui in
North America, Krumen and Vakamba in Africa, Samoans in Oceania), or
controlled by popular assemblies (New Hebrideans, most of the peoples
of Western Africa and the Congo basin). Sometimes also they form part
of vaster confederations at the head of which is an elected chief, a
council, etc. (Rejangs of Sumatra with their “Pangherans,” or princes,
Afghans with their “Khans,” etc.).

_Organisation of Castes and Classes._--We may find already in the
territorial organisation of society the rudiments of the formation of
classes, shown by the development of private property and wealth, and
also by the authority of the chiefs and powerful persons who become
the “protectors” of the weak. This differentiation of classes is also
marked by the appearance of _slavery_, the result of wars and the right
of private property (enslavement for debt). It takes definite form in
the class organisation which presupposes the existence of two groups of
citizens at least--the lords and nobles, the aristocracy or directing
class, and the “people,” the plebeian or directed class. The relations
between these classes may extend from the complete servitude of the one
and the exercise of the right of life and death by the other, to an
almost absolute equality of the two.

There is similarly a perfect gradation for non-free people, as opposed
to citizens divided into two or more classes. At the foot of the
ladder are “slaves,” in the strict sense of the word, not regarded even
as men; while at the top are found those who by birth are not free, but
who by fortune or otherwise may come to occupy a position almost equal
to that of free citizens of the highest class.

What are the qualifications required in order to become _chief_ in
primitive social organisations? Most often, by election, those become
chief who are bravest in war, strongest, most skilful in the chase
(American Indians, Congolese), or the chiefs are the richest (Indians,
Polynesians, Negroes), or simply they are the biggest, the best fed
(Athapascans, according to Bancroft). But whatever may be the ground
on which they are chosen, the power of these chiefs is often most
precarious, and it may disappear with the cause of its origin (war,
hunting expedition). Chiefs elected for a stated period are invested
with more real power. Sometimes they are elected for life; this is a
step towards hereditary power which may degenerate into the purest
absolutism (ancient Dahomey). The outward ensigns of authority are
of various sorts: clubs and commander’s staffs (Oceania and Europe),
parasols (Asia, Africa),[293] etc. In the same way as the clan is
responsible for the misdeeds of each of its members, so the absolute
monarch, king, sultan, khan, prince, etc., is responsible for the
acts committed by his subjects. The corollary of the conception that
kings or other potentates represent the most skilful, influential, and
bravest men is that of forfeiture of power when the holder becomes aged
or infirm, or when he shows himself incapable of reigning (Quechuas,
Masai); in certain absolute States the right of revolt against an
incapable holder of royal power is expressly recognised (China), at
least in theory.[294]

_Feudal and Democratic Organisation._--It would be out of place here to
dwell on the development of the feudal system and the theocracy which
result from the _régime_ of classes. Let us merely say that almost all
half-civilised peoples are still in the midst of the feudal _régime_
or are just emerging from it. The recognition of individual liberty
forms the first step towards the organisations of modern European
states, constitutional monarchies or republics, in which the aim is to
reduce to a minimum governmental action and the differences of classes,
especially before the law,--to establish, in a word, a _democratic
régime_.

_Social morality_, or the basis of conduct imposed on the members of
society, is a convention recognised by the laws and by public opinion.
This is to say that it changes from one people to another, according
to the degree of culture, surrounding circumstances, etc. In the most
uncivilised tribes life has a relative security, owing to certain rules
of conduct to which each member submits from fear of punishment or the
disapprobation of public opinion. The right of the strongest is not
applied in all its brutal logic even among savages.

Their rules of morality are of course not always in accordance with
ours. Among the uncivilised, it is not a question of absolute right, of
absolute morality; everything is reduced to a very restricted altruism,
not extending beyond kin and immediate neighbours. It is wrong to kill
a man of one’s own clan, or to steal something from the collective
property of the clan; but it is, on the contrary, very praiseworthy
to strike down with a well-directed arrow a stranger to the clan, or
to carry off something from a neighbouring clan. Gradually the moral
sentiment extends to people of the same tribe, of the same class or
caste, of the same religion, but such extension is slow. Among the
civilised the moral code sometimes varies as it is applied on this or
that side of political or social boundaries.

Besides, in a general way, a number of acts regarded as culpable by the
codes of all civilised states, are yet tolerated, and even extolled,
in certain particular circumstances; such as the taking of life, for
example, in legitimate defence, in a duel, during war, or as capital
punishment. Thus in recalling examples of this kind, we shall be
less severe on a Dyak who cuts off a man’s head solely that he may
carry this trophy to his bride; for if he did otherwise he would be
repulsed by all, and would not be able to marry. Among the uncivilised,
morality is purely utilitarian; it encourages acts of utility to the
clan, to the tribe (hospitality, protection of children, respect for
common property, etc.), it reprobates those which are not advantageous
(support of the old people, compassion for slaves, etc.).

_Right and Justice._--At the origin of societies morals and the action
of justice are indistinguishable, public opinion constitutes “common
law,” often respected even by the legislations of the civilised. I
cannot undertake to speak here of morals based on religious ideas, nor
of ethnical jurisprudence.[295] Let it suffice to give some examples
of customs which bring into prominence some of the ideas of right and
justice of uncivilised peoples.

_Taboo_ is one of the customs which show in the clearest way the
power of public opinion in primitive societies. This custom, common
in Australia, Melanesia, and especially in Polynesia, may be briefly
defined as an interdiction, by the authority of the council of old
men, chiefs, priests, etc., to in any way use a certain object or
living thing. Thus, young Australians are forbidden to eat the flesh
of the emu before reaching the age when they undergo “initiation” (see
p. 241); taboo in this case has a utilitarian purpose, as also in
Polynesia, where chickens, bananas, and yams are tabooed when there
is a scarcity. Sometimes taboo is only to be observed by women or
children, etc. Whoever infringes this law runs the risk of punishment
by death.

Another example of judicial and social custom is the _vendetta_. At
the beginnings of socialisation, in groups organised in clans, every
offensive act had to be personally “avenged” by the victim. The
vengeance assumes then the form of a _judicial combat_ (prototype of
European _duel_). In the case of murder, it is the near relatives
who take upon themselves the duty of avenging it, but as the search
for the true culprit is sometimes difficult, the whole clan is held
responsible for the act committed by one of its members, and it becomes
lawful to kill any one belonging to this clan to avenge the murder.
The law of retaliation also implies that the misdeed should be avenged
in nearly the same form in which it was committed. Gradually, however,
vengeance passes into the hands of the representatives of society
(judges, magistrates), and the penal code is established.

_Ordeals_ represent one of the most widespread methods of judicial
procedure of non-civilised peoples. Most frequently the carrying out
of these trials is entrusted to magicians believed to have the faculty
of discovering the guilty person. Needless to say that the presents
offered by interested parties had a considerable influence on the
decision of these umpires.[296]

The _taking of an oath_ is the last remnant of this mode of procedure;
it is a moral test which, among many peoples, is associated with the
obligation of swallowing certain special beverages (the rust of a sword
in wine in Malaysia, blood among the Chinese, etc.).

_Secret Societies--Extra-legal Judges._--In every social organisation
which is imperfect or powerless to give satisfaction to the just
claims of its members, secret societies are formed which undertake the
redressing of wrongs and the re-establishment of justice. Such, for
example, are the societies of the “Duk-Duk” of New Britain, usually
formed of a confidant of the chief of the tribe, and of young men
who have entered the “club” on payment of a somewhat large sum. Each
Duk-Duk is on occasion a justiciary; clad in his particular dress and
wearing a horrible mask, he runs howling through the village, and all
those who are not in the secret run away terrified. He goes to the
hut of the native against whom a complaint had been lodged or who is
suspected of a crime, and inflicts punishment which may vary from a
simple fine to death. No one dare resist him, for sooner or later a
violent end would be the fate of him who had raised his hand against
the Duk-Duk. The members of this secret society, who recognise each
other by certain signs, meet together in places to which the profane
are forbidden to approach under pain of death. They give themselves
up in these places to songs, dances, and copious feasting, in which
human flesh often forms the chief dish. They are also sorcerers and
healers.[297]

Similar societies exist among the Yoruba Negroes of Guinea, and the
traces of like institutions are found in Europe, as, for example, the
famous “Oat-field procedure” (_Haberfeld treiben_), an ancient custom
which is kept up in the region of upper Bavaria situated between
the Inn and the Isar. It is a sort of trial by a secret tribunal of
misdemeanours which are not reached by the ordinary penal law. The
court of Munich had in 1896 to deal with one of these procedures, which
have now become very rare.[298]

_Rules of Politeness._--Departments of social life which depend on
mutual sympathy or the feeling of solidarity are not numerous. We
must include in this category associations formed for the chase or
for agricultural work like harvest, assistance in the reconstruction
of a house destroyed by fire, etc. This kind of labour in common is
chiefly known in societies in which the commune is the basis of social
life, among Southern Slavs and Russians. The custom of “exchanging
blood,” or drinking in the same cup, widely spread among these
Slavs, as among the Malays, the Indonesians, and the Negroes, is
also one of the expressions of sincere mutual sympathy, while _rules
of politeness_ are the manifestations, frequently hypocritical, of
feelings of sociability. They vary infinitely. Thus _salutations_
present a great diversity, but the origin of them all is the desire
to show inferiority to the person saluted, and to express sympathy and
devotion. The expression of inferiority is a posture which puts you
lower than the person saluted. This posture varies from prostration
to the ground (Negroes, Cambodians) to simple inclination of the head
(Europeans), passing through a series of intermediate forms: touching
the ground with the forehead (Chinese), simple genuflexion, and the
“curtsey” of our mothers. As to manifestations of sympathy, they are
almost always expressed by an embrace or kiss. In the case of the
most humble submission, the kiss is given to the soil trodden by
the feet of the person saluted, while in that of friendship between
equals it is bestowed on the cheek or lips; intermediate forms are
not wanting here either, and the various habits of kissing the foot,
the garments, the hand, etc., are universally known. To these two
principal manifestations of politeness several others may be added.
A person meeting a friend or even a casual acquaintance uncovers the
whole or a part of the body, the breast (certain Negroes), the arm or
head (Europeans); each rubs the other with oil or with earth, nose is
brought into contact with nose, and each “sniffs” the other’s health
(Lapps, Eskimo, Malays, Polynesians);[299] each shakes the other’s
hands, places the hand on the forehead (Hindus) or on the breast
(Mussulmans), or draws out the tongue while scratching at the same time
the ear (Thibetans, etc.).[300]

_International Life of Peoples._--The relations of ethnical groups one
with another may be of three sorts--hostile, neutral, or sympathetic.
The relations of the last category are only just indicated among
civilised peoples in the form of international festivals, exhibitions,
and congresses; international scientific, charitable, and professional
gatherings, etc. Inter-gatherings are non-existent, or reduced to a
few feasts and rejoicings among the uncivilised and half-civilised; on
the other hand, hostile relations (or war) exist among all peoples,
from the most savage to the most refined. Neutral relations (commerce)
are but little developed among the uncivilised, and only begin really
to assume any importance among the half-civilised; they attain a high
degree of development among the civilised.

_War_ is made on various pretexts among the uncivilised, who have
no special armies, each member having to fight in conjunction with
the other members of his clan, tribe, or people, as the case may be,
either to procure for himself provisions, slaves, wives, or cattle,
or to avenge defeat, murder, or robbery on the individuals of a
“foreign,” and consequently hostile (_Hostis_ of the Romans) clan,
tribe, or people. The conflicts are not very deadly at this stage of
civilisation; frequently the hostilities are reduced to mutual insults,
to manœuvres in which efforts are made to frighten the enemy by
cries, by warlike dances, by disguises and masks of horrible aspect.
Sometimes also the fate of the battle is decided by single combat
between two chiefs or two braves selected from each of the adverse
camps. Ambushes, traps, and surprises are more common than pitched
battles.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 73.--Chipped flint dagger of the Californian
Indians, with otter-skin wrapping for grip.

(_From O. Mason._)]

On the whole, war in primitive societies is only a species of
_man-hunt_. Thus the offensive weapons are nearly always the same for
hunting and war. It is only among the half-civilised that, with more or
less permanent armies, weapons specially designed for war make their
appearance, as well as works of a defensive character--fortresses,
palisades, protective moats, and caltrops.

I can give here but a very brief description of offensive and defensive
weapons.[301]

_Offensive weapons_ may be divided into two categories--weapons held
firmly in the hand and missile weapons; each of these categories
comprises striking, cutting, and piercing weapons.

Among the _weapons held firmly in the hand_, the _striking_ or _blunt_
ones play an important part among the uncivilised, for these are
derived directly from the staff, pre-eminently the weapon of primitive
peoples. The most common is the _club_, only just distinguished from a
staff by its terminal swelling in Australia; it takes the most varied
forms in Oceania, where almost every island or group of islands has its
particular forms of club. The sharp-ended clubs of the New Hebrides
are the connecting-link with _pointed weapons_, of which the spear,
the lance, the assagai, the fork, are the best known forms. The point
of these weapons is sometimes of flint (as among Melanesians of the
Admiralty Islands), sometimes of bone, wood, shark’s teeth (natives of
the Gilbert or Kingsmill Islands), sometimes of bronze (prehistoric
Europe, China), of iron (Negroes), steel (Europeans). _Cutting
weapons_, with the exception of the axe, the form of which varies
infinitely (Figs. 66, 74, 114, 158), are generally piercing weapons
as well. The simplest is the knife, whether it be of flint (Fig. 56),
bronze, or iron (Fig. 146); from it is derived the sabre; and the flint
poignard or dagger, which gradually became transformed into the steel
sword.[302]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 74.--Axe of the Banyai (Matabeleland), employed
in hunting elephants; special hafting, partly by means of bands.

(_After Wood._)]

_Missile Weapons._--The readiest missile weapon to throw at the quarry
or the enemy is the weapon carried in the hand; this is what must have
happened many times to primitive man in the excitement of the combat or
chase.

But to throw a staff, a stone, or any weapon whatever so adroitly as
to wound an animal or a man was a difficult thing to do. It became
necessary to increase the force of the propulsion, which could be done
only in two ways: either by giving a special form to the projectile, or
by discharging it by means of a special apparatus constructed for the
purpose.

The first of these methods did not produce very brilliant results.
The Zandeh peoples and their congeners of Central Africa considerably
modified the knife to make use of it as a weapon to throw with the
hand (_trumbache_); the Franks had the missile battle-axe called
“francisque,” and the Romans javelins of all sorts. But the use of
these weapons was very restricted in all times. Clubs are still used
as missile-weapons either by reducing their size (the kerri-kerri of
the Bantu Negroes) or by changing their form (the boomerang of the
Australians). The boomerang (Fig. 75) is a wooden blade, the form of
which varies from a very gentle curve to that of a square; its surface
is always slightly curved. Thrown into the air, certain kinds of
boomerang have a secondary movement of gyration and return to the foot
of the thrower, as a hoop returns to the child when he throws it before
him, having given it first a rotatory motion. Similar weapons (_singa_)
exist among the Khonds of Orissa (India); they existed also in ancient
Egypt, and have served perhaps as models for the “trumbaches” of the
Zandeh of the present day. Let us add to the boomerang the “bolas”
of the Patagonians (which must not be confounded with the _lasso_)
and the balls of bone united by little cords which the Eskimo use for
killing birds, and we shall have exhausted the list of weapons thrown
directly by the hand, which, moreover, are not very effective. The true
improvements in missile-weapons have only been attained by the second
solution of the problem--that is to say, by increasing the power of
propulsion by means of special apparatus.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 75.--Missile arms of the Australians: _a_, _b_,
boomerangs; _c_, transverse section of a boomerang; _f_, _Lil-lil_, a
kind of boomerang, with geographical map representing the environs of
Broken River; _d_, the same seen sideways.

(_After Br. Smyth._)]

The contrivances for hurling missiles may be divided into three
categories, according to the three forces which set them in motion:
direct application of the muscular force of man, elasticity of certain
solid bodies, and lastly, the pressure of gases. Of the first of these
forces but little use is made. The _amentum_ of classic antiquity had
only a restricted use. The throwing-stick,[303] or stick provided with
a notch which serves to increase the force of the impulse given by
the arm to a javelin, is only used in some very circumscribed regions
of the globe, especially on the borders of the Pacific Ocean, in
Australia, where it bears the name of _Woomera_, in Melanesia (Fig.
76), in the north-west of America, among the Eskimo and Chukchis.
It was also known in pre-Columban times in Mexico and Peru, whence,
perhaps, it passed into Brazil. Another similar weapon, _the sling_,
in former times much used by Semitic peoples, and still surviving as
a common toy of our children, is scarcely used as a weapon of any
importance, except by some Polynesian or American tribes (Hupa Indians,
Araucans, Fuegians).

Missile weapons which make use of the pressure of gases are very little
known among uncivilised peoples. We can only mention the blow-tube,
the _Sarbacan_, or more correctly speaking the _Zarabatana_, of the
South American Indians, and its homologue the _Sumpitan_ of the Malays,
in common use among the Indonesians of the Asiatic Archipelago and
Indo-China.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 76.--Throwing-stick of the Papuans of German New
Guinea, and the manner of using it in order to hurl a javelin; below,
longitudinal section of a throwing-stick.

(_Partly after Von Luschan._)]

This weapon is known in Europe from the circumstance of a child’s
toy bearing the first of these names. It is a long tube from which
a little arrow is expelled by the breath, resembling in size and
appearance a knitting-needle, and provided at its unpointed end with a
ball of elderpith or tow, which serves as wadding. The range of this
arm is from 75 to 100 feet. The sumpitan may be considered as a weapon
indirectly set in motion by muscular force, for the arrow is expelled
from it as the result of contractions of the thoracic muscles, but
it is better to regard it as the prototype of the fire-arm, as the
arrow may be discharged by utilising the expansion of gas, and thus
transformed into a fire-arm. As to true fire-arms, known to the Chinese
and peoples of antiquity, they have only made real headway in Europe,
and that from the fifteenth century.

But if the missile weapons in the two categories which I have just
enumerated are little known to uncivilised peoples (setting aside,
of course, the fire-arms imported by civilised man), those of the
third category, in which advantage is taken of the muscular force of
an elastic body (the bow), is universally employed by them, as it
was formerly in Europe. The most perfected arm of this kind was the
complicated cross-bow of our ancestors and the Chinese.

_The Bow and Arrow._[304]--The origin of the bow is unknown; certain
authors consider that a flexible twig arranged as a snare would
give the first idea of it. This may be so, for among the Maoris of
New Zealand there used to be a hand-weapon which bore a striking
resemblance to this snare: a whip with a flexible handle, by means
of which an arrow held in the hand was shot off.[305] Among several
Eurasian peoples there is a toy which reproduces this weapon as a
survival; among the Votiaks it even bears the name of _n’el_, which
means arrow in several Finnish languages.[306] However that may be, we
may divide the infinite variety of bows into two groups: the _plain_
bow--that is to say, the bow formed of a single piece of wood, and the
_composite_ bow, made of various materials--wood, horn, ivory, sinews,
leather, etc., glued solidly together.

The least complicated type of the composite bow is that of the eastern
Eskimo, of wood and horn, or of wood and bone, the weapon being
strengthened by a cord of sinews applied along the “back” or the _outer
side_ (opposed to the “belly,” _inner side_, which is nearest the
archer when he bends the bow).[307]

Among simple bows we must mention that of the Melanesians, having a
groove sometimes on the outer, sometimes on the inner side; that of the
Monbuttus, provided with a “grip”; lastly, that of the Andamanese, in
the form of an #S#, resembling in its general appearance on the
one hand certain bows of the Eskimo, and on the other, those of certain
Bantu Negroes of Eastern Africa (according to Foa).[308]

Arrows cut wholly from one piece of wood are rare. Most of them are
composed of three distinct parts fitted together: head, shaft, and
feather. The head is of hard wood (sometimes hardened in the fire) or
of human bone among the Melanesians; of chipped stone among certain
American Indians and our quaternary ancestors; of bone, wood, and
iron among various Siberian peoples; of iron among most of the other
peoples. The form of the head varies infinitely; but the varieties
turn around two types: sagittal (as a classic or conventional arrow)
and lanceolate (as a laurel leaf). There are likewise arrow-heads with
transverse or hollowed edges in the form of the fruit of the maple
(Turks and Tunguses of Siberia, Negroes of the Congo). Lastly, there
are arrows of which the head has nothing pointed about it, for it is
shaped like a ball, an olive or cone upside down, etc. These arrows are
used by several Siberian peoples (Ostiaks, Tunguses), by Negroes of the
Congo, Indians of Western Brazil, etc., as a blunt weapon for killing
animals whose fur, being valuable, might be spoilt by the blood flowing
from a wound. The Buriats of old used whistling arrows, probably to
frighten their enemies, etc. The feather is wanting in several forms
of Melanesian arrows very complicated as regards the head, in certain
African arrows, etc. Among the Monbuttus it consists of the hair of
animals; everywhere else, however, of birds’ feathers.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 77.--Different methods of arrow release. Top,
primitive release. Middle, Mongolian release. Bottom, Mediterranean
release.

(_After E. Morse._)]

The mode of shooting the arrow and bending the bow vary too with
different countries. The Veddahs draw the cord lying on the back,
holding the bow between the feet; the Andamanese and the Eskimo hold
the bow vertically, the Omahas and the Siouans, horizontally, etc. To
bend the immense Mongolian or Scythian bow it was necessary to hold
it by the knees, etc. Morse[309] distinguishes five special methods
of releasing the arrow. The most primitive (_primary release_) is
that which is naturally adopted by children of every race when they
attempt for the first time to draw the bow (Fig. 77, top): the arrow
and the cord are held between the stretched-out thumb and the second
joint of the bent forefinger (Ainus, Chippewas, Assyrians, etc.). The
second method is only a variant of the first, and is widespread like
the first, especially among the North American Indians. Both give but
a moderate propelling power to the arrow. The third method consists
in holding the arrow between the thumb and the second joint of the
scarcely bent forefinger, whilst the first joint of this finger draws
the string, with the help of the third finger. In this method of
release it is necessary to hold the bow horizontally (Omahas, Siamese,
the natives of the greater Andaman Island, the Egyptians and the Greeks
of antiquity). The fourth, so-called Mediterranean, method (Fig. 77,
bottom) consists in drawing the string by the first joints of all the
fingers except the thumb and the little finger, the arrow being nipped
between the fore and middle fingers and placed on the left of the bow;
this is the method practised by European archers of all ages, as well
as that of the Hindus, Arabs, Eskimo, and Veddahs. Lastly, the fifth
method, known as the Mongolian method (Fig. 77, middle), is quite
different from the others. The string in this case is drawn by the bent
thumb, kept in this position by the forefinger; the arrow, taken in the
hollow at the base of these two fingers, is placed on the right of the
bow. This method has been practised from the most remote antiquity by
Asiatic peoples: Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Persians,
and was likewise practised by the ancient Scythians; in order that the
hand may be protected from the recoil of the string, it is necessary to
wear a special kind of ring, either of bone, horn, ivory, or metal, on
the thumb, or a peculiar three-fingered glove.

_Defensive Weapons._--Originally, in their simplest forms, they would
not differ appreciably from offensive weapons such as tree-branches, or
clubs, perhaps a little broader and flatter than those used for attack.
The inhabitants of Drummond Island (Gilbert or Kingsmill archipelago,
Micronesia), as well as the natives of the Samoan Islands, can ward
off hostile arrows in a marvellous way with only cudgels and clubs;
several other peoples (Hawaiians, Tahitians) are acquainted neither
with buckler nor cuirasse, and defend themselves with clubs, their
native weapons. The Dinkas of the upper White Nile, the Mundas, their
neighbours on the south, as well as the Baghirmis of the Central Sudan,
can turn aside the arrows of their enemies by means of sticks, either
straight or bent like a bow, and somewhat thicker in the middle.

The different forms of shield are only derivatives from the primitive
weapon, the club. The evolution must have been effected in various
ways, according to local conditions. We may, however, distinguish two
principal lines, two types, of evolution to which all the others can
be referred. The first is only the development in breadth and the
flattening out of the club; this is the origin of most of the long
shields. The second is characterised by the presence of a piece of
wood, skin, etc., applied to the club around the place where it is held
by the hand; this hand-guard was the origin of the round shields and
some of the long ones.

The most striking example of the first type is furnished by the
shields of the Australians. Certain of them (the _Tamarangs_) are only
clubs a little flattened out and enlarged in the middle; others (the
_Mulabakas_) are very narrow little boards rounded towards both ends
with a hilt formed by the slit made in the hinder side, which is a
little bulging or ridge-like (Fig. 78); others take the form of boards
somewhat broad, oval, and sometimes ridge-like. Shields of a similar
kind, with the ridge a little enlarged at both ends, are used by the
Alfurus of the Southern Moluccas (Fig. 79, _b_). The characteristic
shield of the Dyaks and other Indonesians (including those of lower
Burma, see Frontispiece) is also derived from a type analogous to the
_Mulabaka_. It is a ridge-like wooden board, sometimes adorned with
human hair (Fig. 79, _f_).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 78.--Australian shield in wood; three sides
shown.]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 79.--Indonesian shields--_b_, of the Alfurus of
the Moluccas (wood and inlayings); _f_, of the Dyaks (painted wood,
tufts of human hair).]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 80.--Shield of Zulu-Kafirs, in ox skin, with
medial club.]

The second mode of development of the shield is marked by the placing
on the club some sort of wooden, metal, or skin guard. The clubs or
primitive shields of the Monudus are surrounded in the middle by a
band of buffalo skin, under which the hand is passed to hold them. Let
us suppose that some day this annular band, becoming half-detached,
formed in front of the hand a bulwark, the somewhat large surface of
which protected it more effectually than the primitive ring, and we
understand the origin of shields formed of bits of animal skin fixed
on a club, at first very small, like those of the Hottentots, then
becoming enormous, like those of the Zulus (Fig. 80). Similar, but
quadrangular bucklers are found among the Shulis of the upper White
Nile, the Fans of the Ogowé, etc. Among other equestrian and nomadic
peoples the frequent changes of place that were rendered necessary
decided the rounded, lighter form of the leather shield, the club of
which has disappeared, the hand-grip being made of a thong. Such are
the shields of the Bejas, the Abyssinians, the Somalis, and also those
of the North American Indians.

In countries where cattle are scarce, shields similar to those of the
Zulus are made with rattan twigs or reeds, or palm-leaves artistically
plaited; such are the large shields of the Niam-Niams, of certain Dyak
and Naga tribes (Frontispiece), etc. These shields are not very strong,
but there is this to be said for them, that the arrows striking them
instead of rebounding, pierce them, and remain fixed, to the benefit of
the owner of the defensive weapon.

The space which we have given to the description of shields hardly
permits us to dwell longer on _protective armour_, breast-plates, coats
of mail, helmets, vantbraces, greaves,[310] etc. It may, however, be
said that there exist peculiar kinds of armour among certain peoples
and in certain regions of the world: the dress of the natives of the
Kingsmill Islands, woven from cocoa-nut fibres, which affords an
admirable protection against their wood-handled weapons with sharks’
teeth fixed in their edges; breast-plates of buffalo skin, in use
among the Indians of America; the padded breast-plates of the Baghirmi
warriors and Chinese soldiers, ancient Japanese and ancient Mexicans.
Among the latter, armour consisting of little boards of lacquered wood
was further affixed to the breast-plate, similar kinds being found all
around the shores of the North Pacific, among the Eskimo, the Chukchi,
the Koriaks (little ivory or bone plates), and among the Tlinkit
Indians of the north-west of America (wooden plates sewn on stuffs),
etc.[311]

But it would require a volume to describe all the inventions which
have resulted from the hostile relations of peoples. Let us pass on
to a more peaceful subject, to _neutral relations_, which are more
profitable to men.

_Commerce_ is almost unknown among uncivilised hunters. It could only
develop in societies already numerous, inhabiting various territories,
their products differing to such an extent that they might be exchanged
with advantage. The progress of industry, with the division of labour
and the specialisation which it involves, also had something to do with
it. Thus, in Guiana, each tribe has its special industry and visits
even a hostile tribe to effect exchanges.[312] This is the primitive
form of commerce, originating probably in the custom of exchanging
presents.

Primitive commerce is not infrequently conducted in such a way that
the treating parties do not see each other. According to Humboldt,
at the beginning of this century the modern Mexicans traded with
savage tribes, wandering on their northern frontier, in this way.
The barterers did not see each other; the goods were fastened to
posts devoted to this use and then left. The purchaser came for them,
replacing them by objects having an equal value. It is thus that the
Sakai still traffic with the Malays, the Veddahs with the Singhalese.
The Veddahs even order things in this silent way; they deposit, for
example, side by side with the goods which they offer, cut leaves
representing the form of the spear-head which they desire to acquire
from the Singhalese blacksmiths.

Commerce, indispensable to societies at all complex, developed
everywhere as soon as man emerged from savagery, and it has been a
powerful agent in the diffusion of ideas, and often even an agent of
civilisation. It has profoundly modified societies in which it has
developed, opening out before them new horizons and making them learn
foreign tongues and the manners of other societies.

It was a step towards broader solidarity, but at the same time
it opened the door to the spirit of lucre, to monopoly of wealth,
to mercantile egoism, to greed of gain. This explains why in most
primitive societies merchants were but little esteemed.[313]

_Money._--In the primitive forms of commerce exchanges were made
directly; object was bartered for object, as we see it still done
to-day sporadically in many countries. But soon the need for values
was felt--standards which would render exchanges more rapid, easy, and
equitable. For this purpose objects coveted by the greatest number of
persons were chosen. These objects were either ornaments (on which
primitive commerce especially depends) or things which everybody
wanted. It is thus that jewels, objects of adornment (feathers, pearls,
shells, etc.), stuffs, furs (Siberian peoples, Alaska), salt (Laos),
cattle (Africa, “Pecunia” of the Romans), slaves (Africa, New Guinea),
became the first current money of primitive commerce. Later, certain
objects were chosen which by their rarity are of great value. It is
thus that the Pelew islanders treasure up as current money (Andou)
a certain number of obsidian or porcelain beads (Fig. 81, 1 and 8)
and terra-cotta prisms, imported no one knows when and how into the
country, which have a very great value; a certain tribe possesses _one_
single clay prism (called _Baran_) and regards it as a public treasure,
etc. In the island of Yap, in the neighbourhood of the Pelews, the
place of money is taken by blocks of aragonite, a rock which, being
unknown on the island, has to be sought for in the Pelews. The greater
the block the greater its value. Fifty pound bank-notes are replaced
here by enormous mill-stones, so heavy that two men can hardly carry
them; they serve rather to flatter the vanity of the rich people of
the country, who exhibit them before their huts, than to facilitate
exchanges.[314] It is clear from this example that the rarity of a
substance is not sufficient to make it into good money. The second
condition is that it may be easily handled, and though small in bulk,
may represent a high value, either real or fiduciary. Such are the
teeth of the Wapiti deer (_Cervus canadensis_), which the Shoshone
Indians and the Bannocks of Idaho and Montana[315] still make use of
in their transactions. Such, again, is the skin-money of the ancient
Carthaginians and Scandinavians,[316] the cocoa-seed money of the
ancient Mexicans, the use of which is kept up to the present day; the
animal skull-money of the Mishmee, etc.[317]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 81.--Money of uncivilised peoples: 1, 8, pearls
(Pelew Islands); 2, iron plates (Ubangi); 3, rings of copper (Central
Africa); 4, 5, cowries; 6, string of cowries; 7, “wampum” (N. Am.
Indians); 9, money pick-axe (Negroes of the Upper Nile). Figs. 1, 4, 5,
and 8 are two-thirds, the others one-eighth of actual size.]

Let us give a glance at eatables employed as money: rice-grains by
the ancient Coreans and the modern natives of the Philippines; grains
of salt in Abyssinia and at Laos; “cakes of tea,” which serve as the
monetary unit in Mongolia. Let us also make but a passing reference
to the pieces of stuff of a fixed length, which have a current value
in China, Thibet, Mongolia, Africa, etc., and come to the subject of
shells. Several species are employed as money: the _Dentalum entalis_
by the Indians of the north-west of America, the _Venus mercenaria_,
transformed into beads (wampum) by the Indians of the Atlantic coast of
the United States (Fig. 81, 7), etc. But of all shells, the cowry is
the best known. Two species are specially utilised as money, _Monetaria
(cyprea) moneta_, _L._ (Fig. 81, 4, 5, 6), and _Monetaria annulus_,
_L._ The first-mentioned seems to be most commonly used in Asia, the
second in Africa.[318] Both are known all over the Indian Ocean, but
they are gathered in great quantities only at two points, the Maldive
Islands (to the west of Ceylon) and the Sooloo Islands (between the
Philippines and Borneo). On the Asiatic continent the use of them was
widespread, especially in Siam and in Laos. Twenty years ago 100 to 150
of these shells were worth a halfpenny. In Bengal, in the middle of
last century, 2,400 to 2,560 cowries were worth a rupee, 100 a penny.

The true zone in which the cowry circulates is, however, tropical
Africa; the fact is explained by its rarity, for the shell not being
known in the Atlantic, it is only by commercial relations that it
could have been propagated from east to west across the continent,
from Zanzibar to the Senegal, and these commercial relations must
have existed for a long period, for Cadamosto and other Portuguese
travellers of the fifteenth century mention the use of the cowry
as money among the “Moors” of the Senegal. The rate of exchange of
the cowry is much higher in Africa than in Asia, which shows that
this shell is an imported object. It was probably by the Arabs that
the cowry was introduced to the east coast of Africa. Later on the
Europeans also got hold of this trade.[319]

The cowry is still current to-day along all the west coast of Africa
as far as the Cuanza River in Angola; farther south, as far as
Walfisch Bay, another kind of “shell-money” is found, chaplets formed
of fragments of a great land shell, the _Achatina monetaria_, strung
on cord; they are principally made in the interior of the country of
Benguela, in the district of “Selles,” and are despatched along the
whole coast, and as far as London. These chaplets, about eighteen
inches long, were worth fifteen years ago from fivepence to one
shilling and threepence.[320]

But it is to metals especially that we may trace the origin of true
money. Iron or bronze plates of fixed size or weight served as money in
Assyria, among the Mycenians, and the inhabitants of Great Britain at
the time of Julius Cæsar. Metal plates of varying form are in general
use in Africa as money, as for example the “loggos” of the Bongos and
other negroes of the Upper Nile (Fig. 81, 9), the spear-heads of the
Jurs, the iron plates of the peoples of the basin of the Ubangi (Fig.
81, 2), the X-shaped bronze objects made in Lunda, which are current
all over the Congo. Thirty years ago, in Cambodia, iron money, in the
form of thin rings, from five and a half to six inches long, and
weighing about seven ounces, was used.

A general fact to be noted in regard to primitive money is that it may
be transformed without much trouble into an object of use (lance-iron,
shovel, hoe, arrow-head, sword). In China the first bronze money had
the form of a knife, the handle of which terminated in a ring; in time
the blade became shorter and shorter, and at last disappeared, leaving
only the ring, which was transformed into that Chinese money, pierced
with a square hole, called “sapec,” or “cash.” Brass or copper wire,
of which pieces are cut up (Fig. 81, 3), represents money in Central
Africa. Silver bars, pieces of which are cut according to need, are
also current money in China, as they were in Russia in the fifteenth
century, as well as skins.

The question of _transport_ and _means of communication_ is closely
allied to that of commerce. There is little to say about trade-routes,
which most frequently are tracks made by chance in savage countries,
and sometimes horrible neck-breaking roads in half-civilised countries.
The means of transport are very varied, and may furnish matter for an
interesting monograph, as O. Mason has shown.[321] The simplest mode of
transport is that on men’s backs, with or without the aid of special
apparatus, like the _ski_ and snow-shoes in cold countries (Figs. 115
and 116). To be noted apart are the attachments for climbing trees,
used from Spain to New Caledonia, passing through Africa and India
(Fig. 82). We come next to the utilisation of animals, the ass, horse,
mule, camel, ox, zebra, dog, etc., which at first carried the loads on
their backs, and were afterwards employed as draught animals.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 82.--Method of tree-climbing in India.

(_After B. Hurst._)]

_Primitive Vehicles._--Most uncivilised peoples are unacquainted with
any form of vehicle. This is so among the Australians, Melanesians, and
most of the natives of Africa and America. But there are also a number
of populations pretty well advanced in civilisation whom their special
circumstances do not permit the use of chariots or other vehicles on
wheels; such are the Eskimo and other Hyperboreans, the Polynesians,
etc. The sledges of the former, the canoes of the latter, fitly take
the place of the carriage. Nomadic peoples have a kind of aversion to
every sort of vehicle; they prefer to carry things on the backs of
camel, ass, or horse. The earliest vehicle must have been something
of the same description as that seen among the Prairie Indians of the
present day--two tree branches attached to the sides of a horse, that
is to say, inclined shafts, the ends of which drag on the ground; on
them is laden the luggage, which is used by these Indians as a seat.
Let us suppose that one day this primitive vehicle happens to break,
but incompletely, so that one portion of the branch drags horizontally
on the ground, and we shall understand the advantage which men must
have taken of this mishap. He must have understood at once that
traction is made easier by joining at an obtuse angle one pair of
horizontal branches to another serving as shafts. From this point to
placing pieces of wood transversely on horizontal branches there is
only a step, and the sledge, as we see it still among the Finns and
Russian peasants, was invented. Primitive as is this vehicle, it is
admirably adapted to primitive roads, and still remains to-day the sole
means of locomotion, winter as well as summer, in the forest regions
of northern Russia, where no wheeled carriage would be able to pass,
the pathways being scarcely visible across the dense virgin forest,
when the ground is covered with a thick bed of moss and grass. It is
only later, and in less wooded countries, that man thought of putting
rollers under the horizontal branches of the sledge, contrivances which
afterwards became transformed into true wheels. If this genesis of the
vehicle be accepted, the appearance of sledges in funeral rites, even
at the time when wheeled carriages were already invented, is explained
quite simply as the survival of a custom the more venerated the greater
its antiquity.[322]

The two-wheeled chariot was known in Asia from the most remote
antiquity; it was used either in war (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians)
or for purposes of transport. Even at the present day in India,
Ceylon, Indo-China, the light waggon drawn by zebras or asses is much
more common than the four-wheeled cart drawn by buffaloes. In the far
East, where man is employed for draught purposes, the wheel-barrow
takes the place of the car, and the Japanese _jinrickshaw_, as well
as the Indo-Chinese _pousse-pousse_, are only adaptations of modern
carriages to this mode of transport by men. It is only to the north
of the Yang-tse-Kiang that one comes across Chinese cars with two
cogged wheels, and heavy waggons, a sort of tumbrel without springs,
with massive and sometimes solid wheels, drawn by buffaloes. It
is perhaps such vehicles that served as the type for the Russian
_tarantass_, a box fixed on long parallel shafts which rest on the
axles. It was likewise from Asia that the Greeks and Romans, and
perhaps the Egyptians, brought back the models of their elegant and
light war-chariots. As to four-wheeled waggons, the populations of
Europe must have known them at least from the bronze age, to judge
from the remains found in the lake-dwellings of Italy and the tombs of
Scandinavia. The waggons of the ancient Germanic peoples, also employed
in war, resembled those which are still met with at the present day
among the peasants of central and western Europe. The same kind of
conveyances have been transported by the Dutch Boers as far as South
Africa, and by the colonists of the Latin race even into the solitudes
of the Pampas.

_Navigation._--Transport by water has undergone more important
transformations than vehicular transport. From the air-filled leather
bottle, on which, after the manner of the ancient Assyrians, rivers
are still crossed in Turkestan and Persia,[323] to elegant sailing
yachts; from the primitive reed rafts of the Egyptians and the natives
of lake Lob-Nor (Chinese Turkestan) to the great ocean liners, there
are numberless intermediate forms. Australian canoes made from a
hollowed-out tree-trunk, Fuegian canoes made of pieces of bark joined
together by cords of seal’s sinews, the effective Eskimo “kayaks”
made with seal skins, the elegant skiffs of the Polynesians with
their outriggers or balancing beams which defy the tempests of the
ocean (Fig. 83), heavy Chinese junks, etc. We cannot enter into the
details of this subject; let us merely observe that there is a great
difference in the aptitude of various peoples for navigation. It is
not enough to live by the sea-shore to become a good sailor; take for
example the case of the Negroes who have never been able to go far
away from their coasts, and who often have not even an elementary
knowledge of navigation, while the Polynesians and the Malays make
bold and perilous voyages of several thousand miles across the Pacific
and Indian oceans; canoes of the Malay type are seen from Honolulu and
Easter Island to Ceylon and Madagascar. With the taste for navigation
and voyages migrations become more numerous, and the intellectual
horizons widen perceptibly. It is thus one of the great means of
bringing peoples into closer relationship.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 83.--Malayo-Polynesian canoe with outrigger
(seventeenth century).

(_After O. Mason._)]



CHAPTER VIII.

CLASSIFICATION OF RACES AND PEOPLES.

    Criticism of anthropological classifications--Frequent confusion
    of the _classing of races and of peoples_--The determining of
    races can be based only on _somatic characters_--For the classing
    of peoples, on the contrary, it is necessary to take into account
    _ethnic characters_ (linguistic and sociological), and above all
    _geographical distribution_--_Classification of races proposed by
    the author_--Succinct characterisation of the twenty-nine races
    which are therein mentioned--_Classification of ethnic groups_
    adopted in this work.


Exception has frequently been taken to the anthropological
classifications of different authors, from the time of F. Bernier
(1672) to our own days, in that they recognise in humanity an
excessively variable number of races, from two (Virey in 1775) up
to thirty-four (Haeckel in 1879).[324] These strictures are by no
means deserved, seeing that those who make them almost always compare
classifications dating from various times, and consequently drawn up
from facts and documents which are not comparable. In all sciences,
classifications change in proportion as the facts or objects to be
classed become better known.

Besides, if we go to the root of the matter we perceive that the
diversity in the classifications of the genus _Homo_ is often only
apparent, for most classifications confuse ethnic groups and races. If
my readers refer back to what I said in the introduction on “races”
and “ethnic groups,” they will understand all the difficulties this
causes.

In order to class peoples, nations, tribes, in a word, “ethnic
groups,” we ought to take into consideration linguistic differences,
ethnic characters, and especially, in my opinion, geographical
distribution. It is thus that I shall describe the different peoples
in the subsequent chapters, while classing them geographically. But
for a classification of “races” (using the word in the sense given to
it in the introduction), it is only necessary to take into account
physical characters. We must try to determine by the anthropological
analysis of each of the ethnic groups the races which constitute it;
then compare these races one with another, unite those which possess
most similarities in common, and separate those which exhibit most
dissimilarities.

On making these methodic groupings we arrive at a small number of
races, combinations of which, in various proportions, are met with in
the multitude of ethnic groups.

Let us take for example the Negrito race, of which the Aetas of the
Philippines, the Andamanese, and the black Sakai are the almost pure
representatives. This race is found again here and there among the
Melanesians, the Malays, the Dravidians, etc. In all these populations
the type of the Negrito race is revealed on one side by the presence
of a certain number of individuals who manifest it almost in its
primitive purity, and on the other by the existence of a great number
of individuals, whose traits likewise reproduce this type, but in a
modified form, half hidden by characters borrowed from other races.
Characteristics of various origin may thus be _amalgamated_, or merely
exist in _juxtaposition_.

Race-characters appear with a remarkable persistency, in spite of
all intermixtures, all modifications due to civilisation, change of
language, etc. What varies is the _proportion_ in which such and such a
race enters into the constitution of the ethnic group. A race may form
the preponderating portion in a given ethnic group, or it may form
a half, a quarter, or a very trifling fraction of it; the remaining
portion consisting of others. Rarely is an ethnic group composed
almost exclusively of a single race; in this case the notion of race
is confused with that of _people_. We may say, for example, that the
tribes called Bushmen, Aetas, Mincopies, Australians, are formed of
a race still almost pure; but these cases are rare. Already it is
difficult to admit that there is but one race, for example, among the
Mongols; and if we pass to the Negroes we find among them at least
three races which, while being connected one with another by a certain
number of common characteristics, present, nevertheless, appreciable
differences. Now, each of these races may be combined, in an ethnic
group, not only with a kindred race, but also with other races, and it
is easy to imagine how very numerous may be these combinations.

I have just said that the number of human _races_ is not very
considerable; however, reviewing the different classifications
proposed, in chronological order, it will be seen that this number
increases as the physical characters of the populations of the earth
become better known. Confining ourselves to the most recent and
purely somatological classifications, we find the increase to be as
follows:--In 1860, Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire admitted four principal
races or “types,” and thirteen secondary ones.[325] In 1870, Huxley
proposed five principal races or types, and fourteen secondary ones or
“modifications.”[326] Finally, in 1878, Topinard enumerated sixteen
races, and increased this number in 1885 to nineteen.[327] In mixed
classifications, based on both somatic and ethnic characters, a very
much greater number of sub-divisions is found, but the reason of that
is that “ethnic groups” are included.

Putting these aside, we see in the most complete mixed classifications
only four or five principal races, and twelve to eighteen secondary
races. Thus Haeckel and Fr. Mueller admit four principal races (called
“tribes” by Haeckel, “sub-divisions” by Mueller), and twelve secondary
races (called “species” and sub-divided into thirty-four “races” by
Haeckel, called “races” and sub-divided into numerous “peoples” by
Fr. Mueller).[328] On the other hand, De Quatrefages sub-divides his
five “trunks” into eighteen “branches,” each containing several ethnic
groups, which he distinguishes under the names of “minor branches” and
“families.”[329]

Some years ago I proposed a classification of the human races, based
solely on physical characters.[330] Taking into account all the new
data of anthropological science, I endeavoured, as do the botanists,
to form natural groups by combining the different characters (colour
of the skin, nature of the hair, stature, form of the head, of the
nose, etc.), and I thus managed to separate mankind into thirteen
races. Continuing the analysis further, I was able to give a detailed
description of the thirty sub-divisions of these races, which I called
_types_, and which it would have been better to call secondary races,
or briefly “races.” A mass of new material, and my own researches,
have compelled me since then to modify this classification. This is
how it may be summarised in the form of a table, giving to my former
“types” the title of race or sub-races, and grouping them under six
heads--

  A. /Woolly Hair, Broad Nose/.             Races and Sub-races.

  Yellow skin, steatopygous,                 _Bushmen_ (s. r.          1
  short stature, dolichocephalic               Hottentots and Bushmen)

       { Reddish-brown, very short           _Negrito_ (s. r.          2
       {   stature, sub-brachycephalic         Negrillo and Negrito)
  Dark {   or sub-dolichocephalic
  skin { Black, stature tall,               _Negro_ (s. r.             3
       {   dolichocephalic                    Nigritian and Bantu)
       { Brownish-black, medium             _Melanesian_ (s. r.        4
       {   stature, dolichocephalic           Papuan and Melanesian)

  B. /Curly or Wavy Hair/.

       { Reddish-brown, narrow nose,        _Ethiopian_                5
       {   tall stature,
       {   dolichocephalic
  Dark { Chocolate-brown, broad nose,       _Australian_               6
  skin {   medium stature,
       {   dolichocephalic
       { Brownish-black, broad or           _Dravidian_ (s. r.         7
       {   narrow nose, short stature,        Platyrhine and
       {   dolichocephalic                    Leptorhine)

  Skin of a tawny white, nose narrow,       _Assyroid_                 8
    hooked, with thick top,
    brachycephalic

  C. /Wavy Brown or Black Hair, Dark Eyes/.

  Clear brown skin, black hair,             _Indo-Afghan_              9
    narrow, straight or convex nose,
    tall stature, dolichocephalic

        {           { Aquiline nose,        _Arab_ or _Semite_        10
        {           {   prominent
        {           {   occiput,
        {           {   dolichocephalic,
        { Tall      {   elliptical form
  Tawny { stature,  {   of face
  white { stature,  { Straight coarse       _Berber_ (4 sub-races)    11
  skin, { stature,  {   nose,
  black { elongated {   dolichocephalic,
  hair  { face      {   square face
        {           { Straight fine        _Littoral European_        12
        {           {   nose,
        {           {   mesocephalic,
        {           {   oval face
        { Short stature,                    _Ibero-insular_           13
        {   dolichocephalic

        { Short stature, round              _Western European_        14
  Dull  {   face strongly
  white {   brachycephalic
  skin, { Tall stature,                     _Adriatic_                15
  brown {   brachycephalic,
  hair  {   elongated face


  /D. Fair, Wavy or Straight Hair, Light Eyes/.

          { Somewhat wavy, reddish;         _Northern European_       16
  Reddish {    tall stature,
  white   {   dolichocephalic
  skin,   { Somewhat straight,              _Eastern European_        17
  fair    {   flaxen-haired,
  hair    {   short stature,
          {   sub-brachycephalic

  /E. Straight or Wavy Hair, Dark, Black Eyes/.

  Light brown skin, very hairy              _Ainu_                    18
    body, broad and concave nose,
    dolichocephalic

         { Prominent nose, sometimes        _Polynesian_              19
         {   convex, tall stature,
         {   elliptical form of face,
         {   brachy- or meso-cephalic
  Yellow { Short stature, flattened,        _Indonesian_              20
  skin,  {   sometimesconcave nose,
  smooth {   projecting cheek-bones,
  body   {   lozenge-shapedface,
         {   dolichocephalic
         { Short stature, prominent         _South American_ (s. r.   21
         {   straight or concave nose,        Palæo-Am. & S. Amer.)
         {   meso- or dolichocephalic

  /F. Straight Hair/.

         { Straight { Tall stature,         _North American_ (s. r.   22
         {     or   {   mesocephalic          Atlantic and Pacific)
  Warm   { aquiline { Short stature,        _Central American_        23
  yellow {   nose   {   brachycephalic
  skin   { Straight nose, tall stature,     _Patagonian_              24
         {   brachycephalic,
         {   square face

  Brownish-yellow skin, short               _Eskimo_                  25
    stature, round flattened
    face, dolichocephalic

             { Turned-up nose, short        _Lapp_                    26
             {   stature,
             {   brachycephalic
             { Straight or concave          _Ugrian_ (s. r. Ugrian    27
  Yellowish- {   nose, short stature,         and Yeniseian)
  white      {   meso- or dolichocephalic,
  skin       {   projecting cheek-bones
             { Straight nose, medium        _Turkish_ or              28
             {   stature strongly             _Turco-Tatar_
             {   brachycephalic

  Pale yellow skin, projecting              _Mongol_ (s. r.           29
   cheek-bones, Mongoloid eye,              Northern and Southern)
   slightly brachycephalic

My table contains the enumeration of the principal somatic characters
for each race. Arranged dichotomically for convenience of research,
it does not represent the exact grouping of the races according to
their true affinities. It would be vain to attempt to exhibit these
affinities in the lineal arrangement of a table; each race, in fact,
manifests some points of resemblance, not only with its neighbours in
the upper or lower part of the table, but also with others which are
remote from it, in view of the technical necessities of construction of
such a table. In order to exhibit the affinities in question, it would
be necessary to arrange the groups according to the three dimensions
of space, or at least on a surface where we can avail ourselves of two
dimensions. In the ensuing table (p. 289) are included twenty-nine
races, combined into seventeen groups, arranged in such a way that
races having greatest affinities one with another are brought near
together. Seven of these groups only are composed of more than one
race. They may be called as follows (see the table):--XIII., American
group; XII., Oceanian; II., Negroid; VIII., North African; XVI.,
Eurasian; X., Melanochroid; IX., Xanthochroid. This table shows us
clearly that the Bushman race, for example, has affinities with the
Negritoes (short stature) and the Negroes (nature of the hair, form of
nose); that the Dravidian race is connected both with the Indonesian
and the Australian; that the place of the Turkish race is, by its
natural affinities, between the Ugrians and the Mongols; that the
Eskimo have Mongoloid and American features; that the Assyroids are
closely related to the Adriatics and the Indo-Afghans; that the latter,
by the dark colour of their skin, recall the Ethiopians, and the Arabs
by the shape of the face, etc. Here are, moreover, some details of
the twenty-nine races (marked by their numbers of order) of the first
table, and of the seventeen groups of the second (marked in Roman
figures).

I. 1. The _Bushman_ race is found in a relative state of purity among
the people called Bushmen (Fig. 24), and less pure among the Hottentots
(Fig. 143). The presence of the Bushman type may be detected among a
great number of Negro peoples to the south of the equator (for example,
among the Bechuana and Kiokos, etc.).

II. The _Negroid_ group comprises three races: Negrito, Negro, and
Melanesian.

2. The _Negrito_ race may be split up into two sub-races: _a_, the
_Negrilloes_ of Africa, of which the pure representatives are the
Akkas, the Batuas, and other sub-dolichocephalic pigmies; and _b_,
the _Negritoes_ of Asia (Andamanese, Fig. 124, black Sakai, Fig. 123,
Aetas, etc.), mesocephalic or sub-brachycephalic, of a little taller
stature than the Negrilloes. The presence of Negrito elements has been
noticed among different Bantu negroes (for example, among the Adumas).
As to the influence of the Negrito type on that of the Malays, the
Jakuns, certain Indonesians, etc., it is perfectly well recognised.

3. The _Negroes_ may likewise be sub-divided into two sub-races: _a_,
the _Nigritians_, of the Sudan (Fig. 140) and of Guinea (Fig. 9),
more prognathous (more “negroid,” if we may thus express it) than
_b_, the _Bantus_ of sub-equatorial and southern Africa (Figs. 47,
141, and 142). The Negro element is strongly represented in the mixed
populations of Africa (certain Berbers and Ethiopians, islanders of
Madagascar). The majority of the Negroes of America belong to the
Negritic sub-race.

4. The _Melanesian_ race differs from the Negro race especially in
having less woolly hair with broader spirals (see p. 39), and the skin
a lighter colour. It comprises two variations or sub-races: one with
elongated ovoid face, hooked nose, especially prevalent in New Guinea
(_Papuan sub-race_, Figs. 53 and 152), and the other with squarer
and heavier face, which occupies the rest of Melanesia (_Melanesian
sub-race_ properly so called, Fig. 153).[331] The first of these
sub-races enters into the composition of several mixed tribes of
Celebes, Gilolo, Flores (Figs. 146 to 148), Timur, and other islands of
the Asiatic Archipelago situated farther to the east.

III. 5. The _Ethiopian_ race forms by itself the third group. It is
preserved fairly pure among certain Bejas (Fig. 138) and the Gallas,
but is modified by the admixture of Arab blood among the Somalis,
Abyssinians, etc., and by Negro blood among the Zandehs (Niam-Niams,
etc.), and especially among the Fulbé or Peuls, though among the latter
fine Ethiopian types, almost pure, are still met with (Fig. 139).

/Grouping of the Human Races According To Their Affinities/.

                 XIII.                           XI.
  =Pata-    North American.          XII.       Ainu.        =IV.=
  gonian.=  Central American.     Polynesian.            =Australian.=
            South American.       Indonesian.     V.           =II.=
                                            Dravidian.     =Melanesian.=
                 XIV.              XVII.                      =Negrito.=
               Eskimo.          Mongolian.                      =Negro.=
                                                          I.
                                           VI.         Bushmen.
                                        Assyroid.
         XV.             XVI.
      Lapponic.        Ugrian.  =Turkish.=      VII.
                                             Indo-Afghan.  =III.=
                                                         =Ethiopian.=
            IX.                  X.                           VIII.
     Eastern European.    Western European.   Adriatic.       Arab.
     Northern European.     Ibero-Insular.     Littoral.      Berber.

IV. 6. The _Australian_ race (Figs. 14, 15, 149, and 150) is remarkable
for its unity and its isolation on the Australian continent, and even
the _Tasmanians_ (see Chapter XII.), the nearest neighbours to the
Australians, at the present day extinct, had a different type.

V. 7. The _Dravidian_ race, which it would have been better to call
_South-Indian_, is prevalent among the peoples of Southern India
speaking Dravidian tongues, and also among the Kols and other peoples
of India; it presents two varieties or sub-races, according to
Schmidt:[332] _a_, _leptorhinean_, thin nose, very elongated head
(Nairs, etc.); _b_, _platyrhinean_, with very broad nose and a somewhat
shorter head (Dravidians properly so called, Figs. 8, 126, and 127).
The Veddahs (Figs. 5, 6, and 133) come much nearer to the Dravidian
type, which moreover penetrates also among the populations of India,
even into the middle valley of the Ganges.

VI. 8. The _Assyroid_ race, so named because it is represented in a
very clear manner on the Assyrian monuments, is not found pure in any
population, but it counts a sufficient number of representatives to
give a character to entire populations, such as the Hadjemi-Persians
(Fig. 22), the Ayssores, certain Kurdish tribes, and some Armenians
and Jews. The characteristic Jewish nose of caricature, in the form of
the figure _6_, is an Assyroid nose; it is almost always associated
with united eyebrows and thick lower lip. The Todas (Fig. 130) partly
belong, perhaps, to this type.

VII. 9. The _Indo-Afghan_ race (see Chapter X.) has its typical
representatives among the Afghans, the Rajputs, and in the caste of the
Brahmins, but it has undergone numerous alterations as a consequence
of crosses with Assyroid, Dravidian, Mongol, Turkish, Arab, and other
elements (Figs. 125 and 134).

VIII. The _North African_ group is composed, 10, of the Arab or Semite
race, represented by typical individuals among the Arabs and certain
Jews (Fig. 21), the features of which are often found in most of the
populations of Syria, Mesopotamia, Beloochistan (Fig. 134), Egypt, and
the Caucasus; 11, of the _Berber_ race (Fig. 136), which admits four
varieties or “types,” according to Collignon (see Chapter XI.).

IX. The _Melanochroid_ group comprises the four dark-complexioned races
of Europe (12 to 15), _Littoral_, _Ibero-insular_, _Western_ (Fig. 98),
and _Adriatic_.

X. The _Xanthochroid_ group contains the two fair races of Europe
(16 and 17), _Northern_ (Figs. 88 to 90) and _Eastern_. (For further
details respecting groups IX. and X. see Chapter IX.)

XI. 18. The _Ainu_ race is preserved fairly pure among the people of
this name (Figs. 49 and 117); it forms one of the constituent elements
of the population of Northern Japan (see Chapter X.).

XII. The _Oceanian_ group is formed of two races, the relations of
which are somewhat vague. 19. The _Polynesian_ race (Figs. 154 to 156),
found more or less pure from the Hawaiian Islands to New Zealand,
undergoes changes in the west of Polynesia owing to intermixture with
the Melanesians (Fiji, New Guinea). It furnishes perhaps a more hirsute
sub-race in Micronesia. 20. The _Indonesian_ race is represented by
the Dyaks, the Battas, and other populations of the Malay Archipelago
(Nias, Kubus), or of Indo-China (Nicobariese, Nagas, Fig. 17 and
Frontispiece). It is modified by intermixture with Negrito elements
(White Sakai of the Malay peninsula), Hindus (Javanese, Fig. 145),
Mongoloids (Malays, Khamtis, Fig. 22), or Papuans (Natives of Flores,
Figs. 146 to 148).

XIII. The American group comprises the four races numbered in my
table 21 to 24, which will be dealt with in the chapter devoted to
America. Let me merely say that the type of _Central Americans_,
brachycephalic, short, with straight or aquiline nose (Figs. 163 and
164), is frequently met with on the Pacific slope of the two Americas,
as well as on several points of the Atlantic slope of South America. In
the former of these two regions the population is principally formed of
a blending of this type with the _North American_ race; in the latter,
with the _South American_ race (Fig. 171).

Two sub-races may be distinguished in the North American race: _a_,
_Atlantic_, mesocephalic, of very tall stature, good representatives
of which, for example, are the Siouans (Figs. 158 and 159); and _b_,
the _Pacific_, of which the Tlinkit Indians may give an approximate
idea, differing from the former by shorter stature, more rounded head,
and better developed pilous system. Further, in the _South American_
race we most probably admit two sub-races: _a_, the _dolichocephalic_
race, with hair often wavy, or even frizzy (Figs. 48, 165, 172, and
175),[333] which is perhaps derived from the oldest inhabitants of the
continent, and which I called _Palæo-American_ type in my first attempt
at a classification of the human races (1889), and another (_b_),
which would be the present type of South American _mesocephalic_ race
with straight hair (Figs. 167 to 170). The tall _Patagonian_ race,
brachycephalic, of deep brown colour, has its representatives among the
Patagonians and among certain peoples of Chaco and the Pampas.[334]

XIV. 25. The _Eskimo_ race (Fig. 157) has kept fairly pure on the
east coast of Greenland, as well as in the north of Canada; but it is
modified by intermixtures with the North American race in Labrador,
in Alaska, on the west coast of Greenland (where there is, further,
intermixture with the Northern European race), and with the Mongolic
races (Chukchi, Aleuts, etc.) on the shores of Behring’s Sea.

XV. 26. The _Lapp_ race is fairly pure among some tribes of
Scandinavian Lapps; elsewhere it is blended with the northern and
eastern races (Scandinavians, Finns, Russians).

XVI. The two races which compose the _Eurasian_ group (so named because
its representatives inhabit Europe as well as Asia) have only a few
common characters (yellowish-white skin, modified Mongolian features,
etc.). 27. The _Ugrian_ race predominates among the eastern Finns
(Ostiaks, Permiaks, Cheremiss, Fig. 106), and perhaps as a variety
among the Yeniseians. It is found again interblended with the Samoyeds,
and perhaps with the Yakuts. 28. The _Turkish_ race, which I would
willingly call _Turanian_, if this term were not too much abused,
enters into the composition of the peoples called Turco-Tatars, who
speak Turkish idioms. The type, fairly pure, is common among the
Kirghiz and the Tatars of Astrakhan (Figs. 107, 108), but in other
ethnic groups it is weakened by intermixture with such races as the
Mongolo-Tunguse (Yakuts), Ugrian (Shuvashes), Assyroid (Turkomans,
Osmanli Turks, etc.).

XVII. The _Mongol_ race admits two varieties or sub-races: _Tunguse_
or _Northern Mongolian_, with oval or round faces and prominent
cheek-bones, spread over Manchuria, Corea, Northern China, Mongolia
(Figs. 20, 115, 116, and 118); and _Southern Mongolian_, with
lozenge-shaped or square faces and cheek-bones laterally enlarged,
which may be observed especially in Southern China (Fig. 119) and in
Indo-China (Fig. 121).

We have now sketched out the classing of _races_, that is to say of the
somatological units. It remains for us to deal with the “ethnic groups”
or sociological units.

In these the grouping must rest on linguistic, sociological, and
especially geographical affinities, for sociological difference, are
very often the product of differences in the immediate environment.

I have already spoken of the classing of languages (p. 127) and social
states (p. 124). In subordinating them to considerations of habitat, I
shall give the table of mixed classification, geographico-linguistic,
which I have adopted in the descriptive part of this work. But first, a
few words on the relations of the different classifications of ethnic
groups one with another.

The purely linguistic grouping does not correspond with the
geographical grouping of peoples: thus in the Balkan peninsula, which
forms a unit from the geographical point of view, we find at least four
to six different linguistic families; in the British Isles, two or
three, etc. Neither does this grouping coincide with the somatological
grouping: thus, the Aderbaijani of the Caucasus and Persia, who speak a
Turkish language, have the same physical type as the Hadjemi-Persians,
who speak an Iranian tongue; the Negroes of North America speak
English; several Indians of Mexico and South America speak Spanish
as their mother-tongue; different Ugrian tribes (Zyrians, Votiaks,
Permiaks) make use of Russian, etc. In European countries cases of
changes of language in any given population are known to every one. The
limits of the Breton language in France, of the Irish in Ireland in the
sixteenth century, were at least 60 miles to the east of their present
frontier. The limits of Flemish in France, of Lithuanian in Prussia,
have perceptibly receded to the east during the last hundred years; it
is the same with so many other linguistic limits in Europe, the only
continent where accurate data on this subject exist.

But similar, though isolated facts may be adduced from other parts of
the world. Thus in India the Irulas, who differ physically from the
Tamils, yet speak their language; many of the Kol, Dravidian, and other
tribes at the present time speak Hindustani instead of their primitive
tongues. According to the last census,[335] out of 2,897,591 Gonds,
only 1,379,580, less than half, speak the language of their fathers.

However, in certain regions where there is little intermixture due to
conquest, in South America for example, language may give valuable
indications for the classification of ethnic groups. As to “states
of civilisation,” it is very difficult to make clear sub-divisions,
seeing that frequently one and the same people may be at the same
time shepherds and fishers (Chukchi), hunters and tillers of the soil
(Tlinkits), hunters, shepherds, and tillers of the soil (Tunguses),
etc. Certain characters of civilisation, especially of material
culture, are of clearly defined extent, and form what Bastian calls
“ethnographic provinces.” I have spoken of them in connection with the
geographical distribution of plate-armour, the throwing-stick, pile
dwellings, etc. But similarity of manners and customs, and identity
of objects in common use, do not yet give us the right to infer an
affinity of race or language, and still less a common origin. At the
very most, they may indicate frequent communication, whether pacific
or not, between two peoples and “adoption” of customs and material
culture. Sometimes even two distinct peoples, having never communicated
with each other, may happen to produce almost identical objects and
adopt almost similar manners and customs, as I have previously shown.

Having said this much I shall proceed to give the classification of the
“ethnic groups” adopted in this work.

I adopt in the first place the best known geographical division, into
five parts, of the world (including Malaysia or the Asiatic Archipelago
with Oceania).[336] I afterwards divide each part of the world into
great linguistic or geographical regions, each comprising several
populations or groups of populations, according to the following
arrangement:--

I. /Europe/.--We may distinguish here two linguistic groups:
Aryan and Anaryan, and a geographical group, that of the Caucasians.

The _Aryans_ are sub-divided into six groups: the Latins or Romans
(examples: Spaniards, French, etc.), the Germans or Teutons
(Germans, English, etc.), the Slavs (Russians, Poles, etc.), the
Helleno-Illyrians (Greeks and Albanians), the Celts (Bretons, Gaels,
etc.), and the Letto-Lithuanians (Letts and Lithuanians). The
_Anaryans_ are represented in Europe by the Basques (whose language
is not classified), and by peoples of Finno-Ugrian languages (Lapps,
Western Finns, Hungarians, and Eastern Finns; the latter partly in
Asia). The _Caucasians_ are the native peoples of the Caucasus; they
form four groups: Lesgian, Georgian or Kartvel, Cherkess, and Ossets.
The language of the last is Iranian; the idioms of the three others
form a group apart, not classified.

II. /Asia/.--We include in this continent six great geographical
regions. _Northern Asia_ comprises three groups of populations:
_Yenisians_ (Samoyeds, Toubas, etc.), the _Palæo-asiatics_ (Chukchis,
Giliaks, Ainus), and the _Tunguses_ (Manchu, Orochons, etc.). _Central
Asia_ likewise contains three groups of populations: _Turkish_
(Yakuts, Kirghiz, Osmanlis, etc.), _Mongol_ (Buriats, Kalmuks, etc.),
and _Thibetan_ (Lepchas, Bods, etc.). _Eastern Asia_ is occupied by
three “nations”: _Japanese_, _Coreans_, and _Chinese_. _Indo-China_,
or the Transgangetic peninsula, includes five ethnic divisions: the
_Aborigines_ (Negritoes, Tsiam, Mois, Mossos, Naga), the _Cambodians_,
the _Burmese_, the _Annamese_, and the _Thaï_ (Shans, Kakhyens,
Siamese, Miao-tse, etc.). The Cisgangetic peninsula, or India, includes
four linguistic divisions: the _Dravidians_ (Tamils, Khonds, etc.),
the _Kols_ (Santals, etc.), the _Indo-Aryans_ (Hindus, Kafirs, etc.),
and _the peoples whose languages are not classified_ (_Veddahs_,
_Singhalese_, _Nairs_, etc.). _Anterior Asia_ is divided between two
great linguistic groups: _Eranian_ or _Iranian_ (Persians, Afghans,
Kurds, etc.) and _Semite_ (Syrians and Arabs, the latter partly in
Africa), and further comprises some other peoples _not classified_
(Brahuis, Takhtajis), or _cosmopolites_ (Gypsies and Jews).

III. /Africa/.--In this continent there are three great
divisions: one linguistic in the north, the Semito-Hamites; and two
ethnic or even somatological ones in the south, the Negroes and the
Bushmen-Hottentots. The peoples speaking _Semitic_ or _Hamitic_
languages may be united into three groups: the _Arabo-Berbers_
(Touaregs, Fellahs, etc.), the _Ethiopians_ (Gallas, Bejas,
Abyssinians), and the _Fulah-Zandehs_ (Fulahs, Niam-Niams, Masai,
etc.). The _Bushmen-Hottentots_ form an ethno-somatological group
quite apart. As to the _Negroes_, they may be divided as follows:--the
_Negrilloes_ or Pygmies (Akkas, Batuas, etc.), the _Nigritians_ or
_Negroes properly so called_ (Dinkas, Hausas, Wolofs, Krus, Tshis,
etc.), and the _Bantus_ (Dwalas, Batekes, Balubas, Swaheli, Kafirs,
Bechuanas, etc.). The populations of the _Island of Madagascar_ also
form a _linguistic and geographical_ group apart.

IV. /Oceania/.--Four ethnic regions are here well defined:
Malaysia, Australia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. Malaysia (to which,
strictly speaking, should be joined a portion of the populations of
Madagascar, Indo-China, and the Sino-Japanese islands) comprises
four great groups of populations: the _Negritoes_ (Aeta, etc.), the
_Indonesians_ (Battas, Tagals, etc.), and mixed peoples like the
Javanese, the Bugis, the Malays, etc. _Australia_ is peopled, over
and above the white or yellow colonists, by only one race-people, the
_Australians_; the _Tasmanians_ who lived near them no longer exist.
_Melanesia_ is peopled by Papuans (of New Guinea), and by _Melanesians
properly so called_ (of New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, etc.). Lastly,
_Polynesia_ comprises the _Polynesians properly so called_ (Samoans,
Tahitians), and the _Micronesians_ (natives of the Carolines, the
Marshall Islands, etc.).

V. /America/.--For _North America_ we may adopt three
ethno-geographical groups: the _Eskimo_, with the Aleuts; the _American
Indians_ (Athapascans, Yumas, Tlinkits, etc.); and the _Indians
of Mexico and of Central America_ (Aztecs, Pimas, Miztecs, Mayas,
Isthmians, Ulvas, etc.).

_South America_ has four geographical groupings: the _Andeans_
(Chibchas, Quechua-Aymara, etc.); the _Amazonians_ (Caribs, Arawak,
Pano, Miranha, etc.); the Indians of _East Brazil_, and of the _central
region_ (Tupi-Guarani, Ges or Botocudo-Kayapo, etc.); and, finally,
the _Patagonians_, tribes of Chaco, of the Pampas, etc., with the
_Fuegians_.

It is likewise well, as regards the New World, to take into account
the imported Negroes, and the descendants of colonists: Anglo-Saxon in
the north, Hispano-Lusitanians in the south. These settlers form the
nucleus of the different civilised nations of the two Americas, around
which are grouped other elements from Europe or originating on the spot
(Half-breeds of various degrees, Quadroons, Creoles, etc.).



CHAPTER IX.

RACES AND PEOPLES OF EUROPE.

    Problem of European ethnogeny--I. /Ancient inhabitants of
    Europe/--_Prehistoric races_--Quaternary period--Glacial and
    interglacial periods--Quaternary skulls--Spy and Chancelade races
    or types--Races of the neolithic period--Races of the age of
    metals--_Aryan question_--Position of the problem--_Migration_ of
    European peoples in the _historic period_--II. /European races
    of the present day/--Characteristics of the six principal
    races and the four secondary races--III. /Present peoples of
    Europe/--/A/. _Aryan peoples_: Latins, Germans, Slavs,
    Letto-Lithuanians, Celts, Illyro-Hellenes--/B/. _Anaryan
    peoples_: Basques, Finns, etc.--/C/. _Caucasian peoples_:
    Lesgians, Georgians, etc.


Of all parts of the world Europe presents the most favourable
conditions for the interblending of peoples. Easy of access, a mere
peninsula of Asia, from which the Ural mountains and straits a
few miles wide hardly separate it, Europe has a totally different
configuration from the continental colossus, heavy and vague in
outline, to which it is attached. Indented by numberless gulfs, bays,
and creeks, provided with several secondary peninsulas, crossed by
rivers having no cataracts, and for the most part navigable, it offers
every facility for communication and change of place to ethnic groups.
Thus from the dawn of history, and even from prehistoric times, a
perpetual eddying has taken place there, a coming and going of peoples
in search of fortune and better settlements.

These migrations, combined with innumerable wars and active commerce,
have produced such a blending of races, such successive changes in the
manners and customs and languages spoken, that it is very difficult
to separate from this chaos the elements of European ethnogeny, and
that in spite of the great number of historical and linguistic works
published on the subject. We may, however, thanks to the progress
in prehistoric, anthropological, and ethnographical studies, obtain
a glimpse of the main outlines of this ethnogeny, in which history
and linguistics give us often but vague, and in any case very slight
information.

The better to understand the distribution of races at the present
day, we must cast a glance at those which are extinct, going back to
geological times removed from us by several hundreds or even thousands
of centuries.


I.--ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF EUROPE.

_Geological Times._--The portions of Europe emerging towards the end of
the tertiary period of the geological history of our globe have been
inhabited by man, probably from this very time, and assuredly from the
quaternary period which succeeded it--the predecessor of the present
geological period. The existence of _tertiary man_ in Europe has not,
however, been directly proved. The finds of artificially chipped flints
in the miocene and pliocene beds in France (at Thenay, Puy-Courny, and
Saint-Prest), in England (the uplands of Kent, Cromer), and in Portugal
(Otta, near Lisbon); the discovery made in Italy (Monte Aperto) of
bones with rude carvings on them, asserted to be the work of pliocene
man, and so many other interesting facts, are now called in question
by leading men of science, and have few supporters at the present
day.[337] In every case in these finds we have to deal only with
objects supposed to be worked by man, or by some hypothetical being,
for no remains of human bones have been found up to the present time in
the tertiary beds of Europe.[338]

It is only in quaternary beds that the presence of human bones has
been ascertained beyond question. The _quaternary age_ in Europe is
characterised, as we know, by the succession of “glacial periods,” each
of which comprises a greater or less extension of glaciers, followed by
their withdrawal (“interglacial periods”), with accompanying changes of
climate. The well-known geologist Geikie[339] claims, from the end of
the pliocene age to proto-historic times, the existence in Europe of
six glacial periods; but most other geologists (Penck, Boule) reduce
this number to two or three, considering the movements of the glaciers
of some of Geikie’s periods as purely local phenomena, having exercised
no influence on the continent as a whole.

At the beginning of quaternary times the climate of Europe was not
the same as that of the present day; hot and moist, it was favourable
to the growth of a sub-tropical flora. Dense forests gave shelter
to animals which no longer exist in our latitudes--the _Elephas
meridionalis_, a survival of the pliocene age, the _Rhinoceros
Etruscus_, etc.

But soon, from causes still imperfectly known, ice began to accumulate
around _certain elevated points of Northern Europe_; a veritable “mer
de glace” covered all Scandinavia, almost the whole of Great Britain,
the emerged lands which were between these two countries, as well
as the north of Germany and half of Russia.[340] This is the _first
glacial period_, or the period of the _great spread of glaciers_ (Map
1). Such an accumulation of ice, combined with a change of climate,
which had become cold and moist, was not very favourable to the
peopling of the country. Besides, if we consider that all the great
mountain chains, the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Caucasian range, with
their advanced peaks, were covered entirely with ice, and that the
Aralo-Caspian depression was filled with water as far as the vicinity
of Kazan on the north (Map 1), we shall easily understand that the
habitable space thus available for man at this period in Europe was
very restricted.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 84.--Chellean flint implement, Saint-Acheul
(Somme); half natural size.

(_After G. and A. de Mortillet._)]

France with Belgium, the south of England, the three southern
peninsulas (Iberian, Appenine, and Balkan), the south of Germany,
Austria-Hungary, the plains of Southern Russia as far as the Volga,
and the basin of the Kama, communicating on the south of the Ural by a
narrow isthmus with the Siberian steppes--these were the only countries
which quaternary man could occupy. These conditions only changed at the
time that the glaciers began to withdraw (_first interglacial period_).
The climate became milder again, and the Arctic flora gave place to the
flora of the forests of the Temperate Zone. It is to this period that
the most undoubtedly ancient vestiges of mankind in Europe are to be
attributed.

[Illustration: /Map/ 1.--Europe in the first glacial period. Light
grey, glaciers; medium grey, sea; dark grey, land; white points,
floating ice.

(_After De Geer._)]

The men of that period have handed down to us implements of a very
rude type: fragments of flint of pointed form, the sinuous edges of
which are scarcely trimmed by the removal of some flakes.[341] These
implements are called “knuckle-dusters” (G. de Mortillet), or “Chellean
axes” (Fig. 84), from the Chelles bed in the valley of the Seine; but
such implements are found _in sitû_ in numerous places--in France
(especially in the valley of the Somme), in England (valleys of the
Ouse and the Thames), in Spain, Portugal, Austria, Belgium, etc.[342]

The first interglacial period, characterised, as we have just seen,
by a mild and moist climate, was followed by a new glacier invasion
(_second glacial period_). This time the sea of ice did not extend as
far as in the first period: it covered Ireland, Scotland, the north of
England (as far as Yorkshire), Scandinavia, Finland, and stopped in
Germany and Russia at a line passing nearly through the present site of
Hamburg, Berlin, Warsaw, Vilna, Novgorod, Lake Onega, Archangel.

To this period succeeded, after the withdrawal of the glaciers, a
period called “post-glacial” (or _second interglacial period_),
characterised at first by a continental climate, dry, with a very cold
winter, and a short but hot summer, and by flora of the Tundras and
steppes. At the end of this epoch, the climate becoming milder, there
appeared the flora of the meadows and forests, which has remained
to the present day.[343] The harsh climate of the beginning of
this period could only be favourable to the preservation and growth
of thick-furred animals: the mammoth or elephant with curved tusks
(_Elephas primigenius_), the rhinoceros with divided nostrils (_R.
tichorinus_), the reindeer (_Cervus tarandus_), the saiga, the lemming,
etc.

The man who inhabited Europe during the two overflows of the glaciers
and the two interglacial periods is known to us chiefly by the stone
implements which are found in the strata of these periods, along with
the bones of animals which are now extinct or which have migrated into
other regions. It must not be inferred from this that palæolithic man
used no other but stone tools or weapons. The finds of objects made
out of bone, horn, stag’s horn, shell, and wood belonging to these
periods are there to bear witness to the contrary. Only these finds
are much more rare, on account of the ease with which bone, horn, and
especially wood, decompose after a more or less prolonged stay in the
ground. Basing their conclusions on the variety of the forms of the
stone implements and partly on the frequent occurrence of bone objects,
palæethnologists have divided the two interglacial periods which form
their _stone age_ or _palæolithic period_ into two or three periods,
according to country. It would have been better, in my opinion, to have
replaced in the present instance the word “period” by the term “state
of civilisation,” for these periods are far from being synchronous
throughout the whole of Europe; the Vogules and the Samoyeds were in
the “stone age” hardly a century ago.

Nevertheless, for certain defined regions, we may consider it settled
that the first so-called _Chellean_ “period,” characterised by the
“knuckle-duster,” belongs, as we have seen (p. 302), to the first
interglacial period, and that the others coincide with the second
(Boule). In a general way, we may distinguish in the latter a more
ancient period, characterised by the abundance of mammoth bones and by
smaller and more varied implements than the Chellean tool; and a more
recent period characterised by the presence of the reindeer in Central
and Western Europe, by the frequent occurrence of bone tools, and by
the appearance of the graphic arts, at least in certain regions.

The first of these “periods” is known as the _Mousterian_; it is
well represented in France, Belgium, southern Germany, Bohemia, and
England.[344]

Instead of a single flint implement, the “knuckle-duster,” which was
used variously in the Chellean period, with or without a handle, as an
axe, hammer, and dagger, a variety of implements make their appearance
in the Mousterian period, and, among others, tools needed in the
manufacture of garments, blades to open and skin animals, scrapers to
make their hides supple, sharp-edged awls for cutting the skin and when
necessary making cords or straps from it, for piercing it and making
button-holes.[345] On the other hand, the use of the bow does not seem
to have been known, for in the Mousterian deposits there have not
been found any arrow-heads either in flint or bone. These arrow-heads
appear only in the next period, generally called the _reindeer age_;
in France styled, according to the classification of G. de Mortillet,
the _Magdalenian period_.[346] The man of this period was still in
the hunting stage, but had more perfect hunting weapons than in the
Mousterian period; he was also occasionally a fisher, and probably
reared the reindeer. But his especial characteristic in certain
regions, as in the south-west of France, is that he was a consummate
artist. He has left us admirable carvings (Fig. 85, B), and engravings
on bone most expressive in design (Fig. 85, A).[347]

After the second glacial period, the era of great overflows and
withdrawals of the glaciers came to a definite close for Central
Europe; but it continued in the north, in Scotland, and especially
around the Baltic, even as it is still prolonged to our own day in
Greenland and Iceland.

According to Geikie and De Geer, the glaciers advanced and withdrew
thrice again in Scandinavia and Scotland after continental Europe
was almost entirely rid of them (Geikie’s fourth to sixth glacial
periods).[348]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 85.--Quaternary art (Magdalenian period):
B, dagger of reindeer horn with sculptured haft, Laugerie-Haute
(Dordogne); A, “Baton of command” with carving (La Madeleine, Dord.);
two-thirds natural size.

(_After G. and A. de Mortillet._)]

A slow sinking of the land, which submerged beneath the ocean all the
countries to the north and north-east of Europe, marks the end of
the quaternary period, and the beginning of the present era in the
geological sense of the word. This era is characterised, from the
archæological point of view, by the substitution for the “earlier stone
age” (_palæolithic period_) of another “age,” or, better, of another
stage of civilisation, that of the _later stone age_ (_neolithic_).

However, this “age” did not come in abruptly, after a lapse of time,
the _hiatus_ of ancient palæethnologists, during which man retired, it
was supposed, from Central Europe and emigrated towards the north after
the reindeer.[349] There must have been a transitional or _mesolithic_
period.[350] Nor was neolithic civilisation established everywhere
at the same time. Thus the Scandinavian peninsula, from which the
glaciers have not yet altogether withdrawn, was in course of formation
during this period.[351] The “neolithic folk,” settling at first in
Denmark, then in Gothland, have left us in the kitchen-middens (kitchen
refuse, accumulations of shells) certain chipped stone implements, a
sort of hatchet of a special form, contemporaneous with the neolithic
tools of the rest of Europe.

These tools are associated in the geological beds and prehistoric
stations with other objects which denote among the Europeans of this
period a fairly advanced civilisation: knowledge of agriculture,
pottery, the weaving of stuffs, the rearing of cattle.

The “neolithic people” constructed pile-dwellings near lakesides,
in Switzerland, France, Italy, Ireland; they buried their dead under
dolmens, and raised other megalithic monuments (upright stones, the
rows at Carnac, etc.), of which the meaning has not yet been cleared up.

As may have been seen from this brief account, it is almost perfectly
well known what were the stages of civilisation of the Europeans in
the quaternary and neolithic periods. It is different with regard to
the physical type of these Europeans. In fact, of interglacial man,
contemporary of the _Elephas antiquus_, the maker of those flint
implements exhumed from the lowest beds of the oldest quaternary
alluvia, we have no remains, except perhaps two molar teeth, found by
Nehring in the Taubach station (near Weimar), and some other disputed
fragments (Neanderthal, Brux, and Tilbury skulls). This statement,
made for the first time by Boule in 1888, is now admitted by many
palæethnologists.[352] As far as man contemporary with the mammoth
(_Elephas primigenius_) and the reindeer is concerned, we possess a
certain number of skulls and bones from the river drifts and caves.
But a doubt exists as to the beds in which many of these specimens
were found, and consequently as to their date. Eliminating all those
of unknown or uncertain age, we have at the most, for the whole of
Europe, but a dozen skulls or fragments of skulls and a score of other
bones genuinely quaternary.[353] Evidently that is insufficient for the
forming of an opinion on the physical type of quaternary Europeans.
However, one significant fact is elicited from an examination of this
small series, and it is this: that all the skulls composing it are
very long, very dolichocephalic. The exceptions put forward, like
the skulls of upper Grenelle (Seine), Furfooz (Belgium), La Truchère
(Saône-et-Loire), Valle do Areciro (Portugal), do not conflict with
this assertion; there are reasons for believing that certain of these
skulls belong to the neolithic period, and that others date from
the mesolithic period, or, at the very outside, from the end of the
quaternary period. These then, even admitting the authenticity of their
date, would only be isolated precursors of the neolithic brachycephals
with whom we shall deal further on.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 86.--Spy skull, first quaternary race.

(_After Fraipont and Jacques._)]

Let us return to our palæolithic dolichocephals. These appear to
belong to two distinct types, the so-called Neanderthal or Spy type,
referred to the Mousterian period, very well represented by the skulls
and bones found at Spy, near Namur in Belgium; then the type of the
Magdalenian period, represented by the skulls exhumed at Laugerie-Basse
and Chancelade (Dordogne). The first of these types is characterised by
marked dolichocephaly (ceph. ind. from 70 to 75.3), by the exceedingly
low and retreating forehead, by the prominent brow ridges (Fig. 86),
and probably by a low stature (about 1 m. 59). Several pithecoid
characters are observable on the skull and bones of this type, the
presence of which has been noted, from England (skull from Bury St.
Edmunds, in Suffolk), Belgium (Spy skull, La Naulette jaw), and perhaps
the Rhenish province (Neanderthal skull), to the Pyrenees (jaw found
at Malarnau, Ariège), Bohemia, Moravia (Predmost and Podbaba skulls),
and Italy (Olmo skull). Like all the other prehistoric races, that
of Neanderthal or Spy has not entirely disappeared; Neanderthaloid
skulls are found, few in number it is true, in several prehistoric
or historic burial-places (at Furfooz in Belgium, in the dolmens
of France, England, Ireland, etc.). Scattered here and there, some
rare individuals may still be observed in the populations of the
present day showing the characters of this race, according to the
statements of Roujoux, Quatrefages, Virchow, Kollmann, and other
anthropologists.[354] The second so-called Laugerie-Chancelade race
(Hervé) is represented at the present day by only three or four skulls
and some other bones found at Laugerie-Basse, Chancelade (Dordogne),
and Sordes (Landes). It is characterised by a dolichocephaly almost
equal to that of the preceding race, but it differs from it in the
high and broad forehead, the capacious skull, the absence of the brow
ridges, the high orbits, and especially the face with projecting
cheek-bones, high and broad at the same time (Fig. 87). Its stature
is rather low. This is the type to which approximates the race of
the _Baumes-Chaudes_ of Hervé or the true race of _Cro-Magnon_,
which appeared quite at the end of the Magdalenian, if not at the
transitional or mesolithic period. The latter race differs from the
former in its very pronounced dolichocephaly (ceph. ind. from 63
to 74.8), its lower face and orbits, its very lofty stature (from
1 m. 71 to 1 m. 80), and many other characters.[355] We see then,
at the beginning of the neolithic period, the second quaternary
dolichocephalic race still existing slightly modified, but we also see
the earliest brachycephals appearing along with it.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 87.--Chancelade skull, second quaternary race.

(_After Testut._)]

Several hundred skulls, found in neolithic burial-places in France,
Switzerland, Austria, and Germany, exhibit an intermixture of
brachycephals and dolichocephals. According to the more or less
frequent occurrence of the former in relation to the latter in each
burial, we may, with Hervé,[356] trace the route followed by these
brachycephals of Central Europe, from the plains of Hungary, by
the valley of the Danube, into Belgium and Switzerland; from these
last-named countries they flung themselves on the dolichocephalic
populations of France and modified the primitive type, especially in
the plains of the north-east and in the Alpine region.

But if the “neolithic” people of France and Central Europe belonged
to at least two distinct races, the same has not been the case with
the other countries of our continent. In the British Isles we find
ourselves, on the contrary, as regards this period, in presence of a
remarkable homogeneity of type; it is without exception dolichocephalic
(cephal. ind. from 65 to 75 for the men), with elongated faces, such
as are found in the long-barrows. Did they come from the Continent in
neolithic times, or are they the descendants of the palæolithic men of
Great Britain, the physical type of which is unknown to us? This is a
question which still awaits solution. In Russia also, we only meet
with dolichocephals during the later stone age (certain “Kourganes”
and the neolithic station of Lake Ladoga).[357] In Spain, in Portugal,
in Sweden, dolichocephalic skulls are found in conjunction with some
brachycephalic ones, the latter somewhat rare however.[358]

It is impossible for us to enter into details while treating of the
period which followed the neolithic, that is to say the “age” of metals
(copper, bronze, and iron). The metal which first took the place of
stone was probably copper. In fact, the copper weapons are hammered or
cast after the pattern of the stone axes and daggers, and in certain
stations in Spain have been found ornaments in bronze (precious metal
rarely) by the side of tools and arms in copper (ordinary metal). The
existence of a “copper age” is, however, admitted to-day by almost
all authorities, who regard it as an experimental period; it supplies
one of the arguments in favour of the theory that the bronze industry
did not come from the East (from the shores of the Euxine, Egypt,
Mesopotamia, India, or Indo-China, according to different authors), as
was thought until recent times, but sprang up locally in Europe itself.

The complete absence of oriental objects, for instance Assyrian
cylinders or Egyptian sculptured scarabæi in the finds of the bronze
age in Europe, is an argument in favour of the new theory, maintained
chiefly by Salomon Reinach in France and Much in Austria. The
Scandinavian authors, Sophus Müller and Montelius, admit the local
development of the industry in metallic objects, but with materials
supplied by the merchants of the Archipelago and Cyprus. The great
trade-route for amber, and perhaps tin, between Denmark and the
Archipelago is well known at the present day; it passes through
the valley of the Elbe, the Moldau, and the Danube. The commercial
relations between the north and south explain the similarities which
archæologists find between Scandinavian bronze objects and those of
the Ægean district (Schliemann’s excavations at Mycenæ, Troy, Tiryns,
etc.).[359]

It is generally admitted that the ancient bronze age corresponds with
the “Ægean civilisation” which flourished among the peoples inhabiting,
between the thirtieth and twentieth centuries /B.C./, Switzerland,
the north of Italy, the basin of the Danube, the Balkan peninsula, a
part of Anatolia, and, lastly, Cyprus. It gave rise (between 1700 and
1100 /B.C./) to the “Mycenian” civilisation, of which the favourite
ornamental design is the spiral.[360]

In Sweden the bronze age began later, in the seventeenth or eighteenth
century /B.C./, but it continued longer there than in Southern
Europe.

So also, according to Montelius, the introduction of iron dates only
from the fifth or third century /B.C./ in Sweden, while Italy
was acquainted with this metal as far back as the twelfth century
/B.C./ The civilisation of the “iron age” distributed over
two periods, according to the excavations made in the stations of
Hallstatt (Austria) and La Tène (Switzerland), must have been imported
from Central Europe into Greece through Illyria. This importation
corresponds perhaps with the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnesus. The
so-called “Hallstattian” period lasted in Central Europe, France,
and Northern Italy from the tenth or ninth to the sixth century
/B.C./ The Hallstattian civilisation flourished chiefly in
Carinthia, Southern Germany, Switzerland, Bohemia, Silesia, Bosnia,
the south-east of France, and Southern Italy (the pre-Etruscan iron
age of Montelius). The period which followed, called the second or
iron age, or the La Tène period,[361] was prolonged until the first
century /B.C./ in France, Bohemia, and England. In Scandinavian
countries the _first iron age_ lasted till the sixth century, and the
_second iron age_ till the tenth century /A.D./

The physical type of the inhabitants of Europe during the bronze age
varies according to country. In England they were sub-brachycephals
(ceph. ind. 81), of whom the remains found in the “round barrows”
have been described by Thurnam and Beddoe. In Sweden and Denmark they
were dolichocephals or mesocephals, tall and fair-haired, as far as
one can gather from the remains of hair found in the burial-places
(Montelius and S. Hansen). In the valley of the Rhine and Southern
Germany they were typical dolichocephals, above the medium stature
(type of the “Reihengräber” or row-graves, established by Holder and
studied by Ranke, Lehmann-Nietsche, and others). In Switzerland, in the
pile-dwellings, the neolithic brachycephals, of whom we have spoken,
were succeeded in the bronze age by dolichocephals similar to those of
Germany. During the Hallstattian period of the “iron age,” we notice
the persistence of the dolichocephalic and tall type in the row-graves
of the Rhine and Mein valleys; while during the following period of the
same age (that of La Tène or the Marnian), we find in the forms of the
skulls exhumed from the burial-places a diversity almost as great as
that which is seen in the populations of the present day.

The ages of bronze and iron, as we have seen, overlapped, in certain
regions, the historic period, the period of the Phœnician voyages,
the development of Egypt, the origin of Greek civilisation; and yet
it is very difficult to say to what peoples known to history must be
attributed the characteristic civilisations of each of the periods
of the age of metals, and what were the languages spoken by these
peoples. Most historians believed until quite recently that the
Euscarians, and perhaps the Ligurians or Lygians of Western Europe,
as well as the Iberians, the Pelasgian Tursans or Turses[362] of the
three southern peninsulas of our continent, were the “autochthones,”
or rather the oldest European peoples known to history. These would
then be the probable descendants of the palæolithic Europeans, the
races of Neanderthal, Spy, and Chancelade. Further, according to the
philologists and historians, these peoples spoke _non-Aryan_ languages,
and at a certain period, which D’Arbois de Jubainville[363] places
vaguely at twenty or twenty-five centuries /B.C./, Europe was
invaded by the _Aryans_, coming from Asia, who imposed their languages
on the autochthones. The Basque language of the present day, derived
from the Euscarian, is the only dialect surviving this transformation.
The central point for the ethnographic history of Europe is, according
to the philologists, the arrival of the Aryans.

But who were these Aryans? Nobody quite knows. It is no part of my
plan to write the history of the Aryan controversy.[364] It is enough
to say that men of acknowledged authority in science (Pott, Grimm,
Max Müller) have maintained for a long time, without any solid proof,
the existence not only of a primitive Aryan language, which gave
birth to the dialects of nearly every people of Europe, but also of
an “Aryan race,” supposed to have sprung up “somewhere” in Asia, one
part migrating towards India and Persia, while the remainder made
its way by slow stages to Europe. Generations of scientific men have
accepted this hypothesis, which, after all, had no other foundation
than such aphorisms as “ex oriente lux” put forward by Pott, or “the
irresistible impulse towards the west” invented by Grimm. It must,
however, be mentioned that objections against this hypothesis by
recognised authorities were raised as soon as it was promulgated; they
came from philologists like Latham (1855), ethnographers like d’Omalius
d’Halloy, anthropologists like Broca (1864); but it was only about
1880 that a somewhat lively reaction took place against the current
ideas, and it originated in the camp of the philologists themselves.
De Saussure, Sayce, and others, returning to the ideas expressed long
before by Benfey, rightly observed that the assumed close relationship
between Sanscrit and Zend and the primitive Aryan language rests solely
on the fact of the archaic forms of these two dialects being preserved
to the present time in written monuments, while the Aryan languages of
Europe do not possess documents so ancient. They said further, that
the European languages of the present day, such as Lithuanian, for
example, are much nearer the primitive Aryan forms than the Asiatic
dialects, Hindu for example. As to the Asiatic origin of the Aryans, a
somewhat rude blow was struck at this second hypothesis by Poesche and
Penka, who, taking up the ideas of Linné and d’Omalius d’Halloy on the
exclusive existence in Europe of fair-haired populations, identified
these populations, without any proof, it is true, with the Aryans.[365]
In reality, the hypothesis of the fair-haired “Aryan race,” tall and
dolichocephalic (Fig. 88), indigenous to Europe, does not rest on a
firmer foundation than that of the “Aryan race” coming from Asia.

Anthropology is powerless to say if the ancient owners of the
dolichocephalic skulls in Southern Europe spoke an Aryan language
or not. Moreover, the works of modern philologists, with Oscar
Schrader[366] at their head, show that we can no longer speak to-day
of an “Aryan race,” but solely of a _family of Aryan languages_, and
perhaps of a primitive _Aryan civilisation_ which had preceded the
separation of the different Aryan dialects from their common stock.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 88.--Islander of Lewis (Hebrides), Northern Race.

(_Phot. Beddoe._)]

This civilisation, as reconstituted by O. Schrader, differs much
from that which Pictet had sketched out in his essay on “Linguistic
Palæontology.” This was something analogous to the neolithic
civilisation; metals were unknown in it (with the exception, perhaps,
of copper), but agriculture and the breeding of cattle had already
reached a fair stage of development. However, there is nothing to prove
that peoples speaking non-Aryan languages had not been in possession
of the same civilisation, which with them would be developed in an
independent manner. Hence we see the uselessness of looking for a
centre from which this Aryan culture might have proceeded. The only
question which we may still ask ourselves is, what was the point
from which diffusion of the Aryan _languages_ in Europe began. This
point no one at the present time seeks any longer in Asia. It is in
Europe, and what we have to do is to define it (S. Reinach). Latham
and d’Omalius d’Halloy located the habitat of the primitive Aryans in
the south or south-east of Russia. Penka had placed it in Scandinavia.
Other learned authorities have selected intermediate points between
these extremes.[367]

On the whole, the Aryan question to-day has no longer the importance
which was formerly given to it. All that we can legitimately suppose
is that, in the period touching the neolithic age, the inhabitants of
Europe were _Aryanised_ from the point of view of language, without
any notable change in the constitution of their physical type, or,
probably, of their civilisation.

_Migrations of European Peoples during the Historic Period._--It
would require volumes to relate even succinctly all the movements and
dislocations of European peoples. We can only recall here the more
salient facts.

The confirmation afforded by history respecting European populations
does not go farther back than the eighth or ninth century /B.C./
for the Mediterranean district, and than the second or third century
/B.C./ for the rest of Europe. But proto-historic archæology
makes us acquainted with a movement of peoples between the tenth and
the eleventh century /B.C./ The Dorians and the inhabitants
of Thessaly penetrated at this date into Greece and forced a portion
of the inhabitants of this country (the Achæans, the Eolians) to seek
refuge on the nearest coast of Asia Minor. About the same period the
Tyrrhenians or Turses (a small section of the Pelasgians) moved into
Central Italy, taking with them the Mycenian civilisation, somewhat
debased, and founding there the Etruscan “nation.” This nation drove
back the _Ombro-Latins_ or _Italiotes_, who, in their turn, expelled
the _Sicules_ (a branch of the _Ligurians_, according to D’Arbois de
Jubainville) in Sicily.

The _Venetes_ and the _Illyrians_ made their appearance at nearly the
same period on the coasts of the Adriatic, and the _Thracians_ in
present Bosnia.

Central Europe was occupied, probably from this period, by Celtic
populations who, from their primitive country between the upper
Danube and the Rhine, spread into the valley of the Po (bronze age of
the “terramare,” sites or foundations of prehistoric huts), in the
middle valley of the Danube (Hallstatt), and later (seventh century
/B.C./?) into the north of Gaul, whence they reached the
British Isles (“ancient Celts” of the English archæologists, “Gaelic
Celts” of the philologists).[368] It was also about the tenth century
/B.C./ that the Scythians, established in Southern Russia some
time before, spread themselves towards the mid-Danube.

About the fifth century /B.C./ there evidently occurred
another movement of peoples. The _Trans-Alpine Celts_ or _Galatians_
invaded, under the name of _Celto-Belgæ_, Jutland, Northern Germany,
the Low Countries, England (the “new Celts” or Britons of English
authors). They also spread over a large part of Gaul, and into Spain
(_Celtiberians_), and then in 392 /B.C./,[369] they penetrated
into Italy, where they found their kinsmen, who had been settled there
for three centuries, and were under the subjugation of the Etruscans;
these they overturned, and only halted after having taken Rome (390).
A little later (about 300), other waves of Celts, the Galatians,
occupied the valley of the Danube, whence they chased the Illyrians
and the Thracians. The more audacious of them continued their course
across Thrace and penetrated into Asia Minor, where they established
themselves in the country, since known as Galatia (279).

During this period (from the fifth to the third century), which may be
called Celtic, by analogy with that which followed, styled the Roman
period, history mentions the _Germans_ as a people similar to the
Celts, and dwelling to the north-east of the latter.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 89.--Norwegian of South Osterdalen. Ceph. ind.,
70.2. Northern race.

(_After Arbo._)]

The Roman conquest of transalpine Europe, effected in the first
centuries /B.C./ and /A.D./, imposed the language of Latium on the
majority of Celts, Iberians, and Italo-Celts, and maintained the
populations within almost the same bounds during three centuries.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 90.--Same subject as Fig. 89, seen in profile.]

The period extending from the second to the sixth century of the
Christian era comprises the great historic epoch of the “migrations
of peoples.” In this period we see the _Slavs_ spreading in all
directions: towards the Baltic, beyond the Elbe, into the basin of
the Danube and beyond, into the Balkan peninsula; this movement
determined that of the _Germans_, who invaded the south-east of England
(Angles, Saxons, Jutes), Belgium, the north-east of France (Franks),
Switzerland, and Alsace (Alemanni), the south of Germany (Bavarians),
and spread even beyond the Alps (Longobards). The Celts in their turn
pushed the Iberians farther and farther into the south-west of France
and Spain, while the Italo-Celts absorbed little by little the rest of
the Etruscans and Ligurians. Towards the end of this period a final
wave of invasion, that of the Huns (fifth century), the Avars (sixth),
and other allied tribes, once more threw Europe into a state of
perturbation; they spread out into the plains of Champagne, then drew
back, severed the Slavs into two groups (northern and southern), and
subsided in the plains of Hungary, already partly occupied for several
centuries by the Dacians. Almost at the same time the Bulgarians
removed from the banks of the Volga to both sides of the Danube. After
the sixth century other ethnic movements, less general, but not less
important, occurred in every part of Europe. In the eighth or ninth
century the invasion of the Varecks (Scandinavians or Letts?) took
place in the north-west of Russia. In the ninth century the Hungarians,
pushed by the tribes of the Pechenecks and the Polovtsis who invaded
the south of Russia, crossed the Carpathians and settled in the valley
of the Tissa. From the ninth or tenth century, the Normans or Northmen
(Danes, Scandinavians) established themselves in the north and east
of the British Isles as well as the north of France, a part of which
still bears their name. Almost at the same time (tenth to eleventh
century) the Arabs made themselves masters of the Iberian peninsula, of
Southern Italy and Sicily; they maintained their position to the south
of the Guadalquivir until the fifteenth century. In the twelfth century
the Germans drove back the western Slavs to the banks of the Vistula,
which led to the expansion of the eastern Slavs towards the north-east
at the expense of the Finnish tribes. In the thirteenth century came
the Mongols, or rather the Turco-Mongolian hordes; they occupied the
whole of Russia (as far as Novgorod in the north), and penetrated into
Europe as far as Liegnitz in Silesia. They soon withdrew from Western
Europe, but remained until the fifteenth century in the east of Russia,
and even until the eighteenth century in the Crimea and the steppes
of southern Russia. Finally, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
witnessed the invasion of the Osmanli Turks into the Balkan peninsula,
Hungary, and even into lower Austria, as well as the migrations of
the Little Russians into the upper basin of the Dnieper. About the
sixteenth century began the definite movement of the Little Russians
towards the steppes of Southern Russia, and the slow but sure march of
the Great Russians beyond the Volga, the Ural mountains, and farther,
into Siberia--a movement which continues in our own time. We can only
mention other migrations or colonisations of a more limited range, that
of the Illyrians and Albanians into Southern Italy, that of the Germans
in Hungary and Russia, etc., as well as the arrival of non-European
peoples, _Gypsies_ and _Jews_, who are scattered at the present day
among all the nations of our continent.


II.--EUROPEAN RACES OF THE PRESENT DAY.

Setting out from the fact that the peoples or nations of Europe,
like those of the rest of the earth for the matter of that, are
formed of the intermixture in varying proportions of different
races or varieties (see the _Introduction_), I have endeavoured, by
grouping the exact characters, carefully abstracted from many million
individuals, relating to stature, form of head, pigmentation, and other
somatic particulars, to determine the constituent elements of these
intermixtures. I have thus succeeded in distinguishing the existence
of six principal and of four secondary races, the combinations of
which, in various proportions, constitute the different “European
peoples” properly so called, distinct from the peoples of other races,
Lapp, Ugrian, Turkish, Mongolian, etc., which are likewise met with in
Europe.[370]

Here, in short, are the characters and geographical distribution of
those races which, in order to avoid every interpretation drawn from
linguistic, historical, or nationalist considerations, I describe
according to their principal physical characters, or for the sake of
brevity, according to the geographical names of the regions in which
these races are best represented or least crossed.

We have in Europe, to begin with, two _fair-haired races_, one
dolichocephalic, of very tall stature (Northern race), and another,
sub-brachycephalic, comparatively short (Eastern race). Then _four
dark-haired_ races: two of short stature, one of which (Ibero-insular)
is dolichocephalic, the other (Cevenole or Western) brachycephalic; and
two of high stature, of which one is sub-dolichocephalic (Littoral),
the other brachycephalic (Adriatic). Among the four secondary races two
have a relation to the fair-haired race, while the two others may be
considered as intermediate between the fair and dark-haired races (see
Map 2). I now give a few details respecting these races.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 91.--Young Sussex farmer. Dolichocephalic, fair.
Northern race.

(_After Beddoe._)]

[Illustration: /Map/ 2.--Approximate distribution of the races of
Europe.]

1. _Fair, dolichocephalic race of very high stature_, which may be
called the _Northern Race_, because its representatives are grouped
together almost exclusively in the north of Europe. Principal
characters: very lofty stature (1 m. 73 on an average);[371] fair,
sometimes reddish, wavy hair; light eyes, for the most part blue;
elongated, dolichocephalic head (cephalic index on the living subject
from 76 to 79); ruddy white skin, elongated face, prominent straight
nose. The race of this type, pure or slightly modified, of whose
principal traits Figs. 88 to 92 give a fairly good representation,
is found in Sweden, Denmark, Norway (with the exception of the west
coast); in the north of Scotland; on the east coast and in the north
of England, in Ireland (with the exception of the north-west), in the
northern Faroe Isles, in Holland (north of the Rhine); in the Frisian
countries, in Oldenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg; lastly, in
the Baltic provinces of Russia, and among the Tavasts of Finland. It
is the _Cymric race_ of Broca, the _Germanic_ race (_the race of the
row-graves_) of German authors, or, in fine, the _Homo Europeus_ of
Lapouge.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 92.--Englishwoman of Plymouth (Devon). Mixed
Northern and North-western races (?).

(_Phot. Beddoe._)]

To this race is related a secondary race, _fair_, _mesocephalic_, _of
tall stature_, called _Sub-northern_, with angular face, turned-up
nose, straight hair; it is found more especially in Northern Germany,
among the Letto-Lithuanians, in Finland, and on the west coast of
Norway (in part Figs. 89 and 90).

2. _Fair_, _sub-brachycephalic_, _short race_, or _Eastern race_, so
styled because its representatives are almost exclusively grouped
together in the east of Europe. Principal characters: stature somewhat
short (1 m. 63 or 1 m. 64 on an average), moderately rounded head
(cephalic index, 82 to 83 on the living subject), straight, light
yellow or flaxen hair, square-cut face, nose frequently turned up, blue
or grey eyes. The representatives of this race are the White Russians,
the Polieshchooki of the Pinsk marshes, and certain Lithuanians.
Blended with others this type is frequent among the Vielkorousses or
Great Russians of Northern and Central Russia, as well as in Finland
and Eastern Prussia (Figs. 104 and 105, modified type).

With this race we have to connect a secondary race, _fair_,
_mesocephalic_, _of very short stature_ (_Vistulian_ race), the
characters of which are frequently met with among the Poles, the
Kashoobs, and probably in Saxony and Silesia.

3. _Dark_, _dolichocephalic_, _short race_, called _Ibero-insular_,
because it is chiefly found in the Iberian peninsula and the islands
of the western Mediterranean. It is found, however, somewhat softened,
in France (in Angoumois, Limousin, and Perigord) and in Italy (to
the south of the Rome-Ascoli line). Principal characters: very short
stature (1 m. 61 to 1 m. 62 on an average), very elongated head
(cephalic index averaging 73 to 76 on the living subject), black, often
curled, hair, very dark eyes, tawny skin, straight or turned-up nose,
etc. It forms, partly, the “_Mediterranean race_” of Sergi,[372] or
the _Homo meridionalis_ of certain authors (Ripley, Lapouge). Figures
99 and 100 represent traits of this race, but modified by intermixtures.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 93.--Fisher people of Island of Aran (Ireland).
North-western race (?).

(_Phot. Haddon._)]

4. _Dark_, _very brachycephalic_, _short race_, named the _Western_ or
_Cevenole race_, because of the localisation of its most characteristic
type in the extreme west of Europe, in the Cévennes, on the central
table-land of France, and also in the western Alps. But it is met
with, a little modified, in Brittany (with the exception of Morbihan),
in Poitou, Quercy, the middle valley of the Po, in Umbria, in part
of Tuscany, in Transylvania, and probably the middle of Hungary.
Blended with other races, it is found again at a number of points in
Europe, from the basin of the middle Loire to that of the Dnieper,
passing through Piedmont, Central and Eastern Switzerland, Carinthia,
Moravia, Galicia, and Podolia. In Southern Italy it is blended
with the Ibero-insular race. It is the _Celtic_ or _Rhetian_ race,
the _Celto-Slav_, _Ligurian_, or _Celto-Ligurian_ race of some
anthropologists, the _Homo Alpinus_ of others. It is characterised by
a very rounded skull (average ceph. ind. on the living subject from 85
to 87); by shortness of stature (1 m. 63 or 1 m. 64 on an average); by
brown or black hair, light or dark brown eyes, rounded face, thick-set
figure (Fig. 98, perceptibly softened type of this race).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 94.--Young woman of Arles. Mixed Littoral race
(?).

(_Phot. lent by School of Anthropology, Paris._)]

5. _Dark_, _mesocephalic_, _tall race_, _Littoral_ or
_Atlanto-Mediterranean race_, so styled because it is found in a pure
or mixed state along the shores of the Mediterranean from Gibraltar to
the mouth of the Tiber, and on several points of the Atlantic coast,
from the straits of Gibraltar to the mouth of the Guadalquivir, on the
Bay of Biscay, in the lower valley of the Loire, etc. It is not met
with anywhere at a greater distance than 120 or 150 miles from the sea.
This Littoral race is still little studied; it is distinguished by its
moderate dolichocephaly or mesocephaly (ceph. ind. on living subject
79 to 80), by its stature above the average (1 m. 66), and very deep
colouring of the hair and eyes. It corresponds pretty well with the
“_Mediterranean race_” of Houzé,[373] and with the Cro-Magnon race of
certain authors.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 95.--Pure type of Highlander (clan Chattan); grey
eyes, hair dark brown.

(_Phot. Beddoe._)]

It is probably with this Littoral race that we must connect
a _secondary_ so-called _North-Western race_, _tall_,
_sub-dolichocephalic_, with _chestnut hair_, often almost brown. It is
found chiefly in the north-west of Ireland (Fig. 93), in Wales (Fig.
19), and the east of Belgium.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 96.--The same, seen in profile.]

6. _Dark_, _brachycephalic_, _tall race_, called _Adriatic_ or
_Dinaric_, because its purest representatives are met with along the
coast of the Northern Adriatic and especially in Bosnia, Dalmatia, and
Croatia. They are also found in Rumania, Venetia, among the Slovenes,
the Ladinos of the Tyrol, the Romansch of Switzerland, as well as in
the populations of the tract of country which extends south to north
from Lyons to Liège, at first between the Loire and the Saône, then on
to the table-land of Langres, in the upper valleys of the Saône and the
Moselle, and into the Ardennes. In all these parts the Adriatic race
appears with its essential characters: lofty stature (1 m. 68 to 1 m.
72 on an average), extreme brachycephaly (ceph. ind. 85-86), brown or
black wavy hair; dark eyes, straight eyebrows; elongated face, delicate
straight or aquiline nose; slightly tawny skin. The same characters,
somewhat softened, are met with among the populations of the lower
valley of the Po, of the north-west of Bohemia, in Roman Switzerland,
in Alsace, in the middle basin of the Loire, among the Polish and
Ruthenian mountaineers of the Carpathians, and lastly among the
Malorousses or Little Russians, and probably among the Albanians and
the inhabitants of Servia.

We may connect with this principal race a _secondary race_, _not quite
so tall_ (medium stature 1 m. 66) and less brachycephalic (average
ceph. ind. from 82 to 85), but having lighter hair and eyes. This race,
which we might call Sub-Adriatic, springing probably from the blending
of the principal race with the tall, fair mesocephals (secondary
Sub-northern race), is found in Perche, Champagne, Alsace-Lorraine,
the Vosges, Franche-comté, Luxemburg, Zealand (Holland), the Rhenish
provinces, Bavaria, the south-east of Bohemia, German Austria, the
central district of the Tyrol, and a part of Lombardy and Venetia. It
partly corresponds with the _Lorraine Race_ of Collignon.[374]


III.--PRESENT PEOPLES OF EUROPE.

Linguistic study being older than anthropological study, the
classing of the best known peoples in Europe is that which is based
on difference of language. Nearly every one knows that the ethnic
groups of our continent are as a consequence distributed into “Aryan”
and an-Aryan peoples. The former are divided (1) into three great
linguistic families, _Latin or Roman_ in the south-west of Europe,
_Teutonic_ in the centre and north, _Slav_ in the south-east and east;
and (2) into three smaller ones: _Celtic_ in the extreme north-west
of the continent, _Helleno-Illyrian_ in the extreme south-east,
and _Letto-Lithuanian_ in the centre. As to the non-Aryan group,
it comprises the _Basques_, the _Finno-Ugrians_, the _Turks_, the
_Mongols_, the _Semites_, and the _Caucasian_ peoples.

These groups are heterogeneous enough in physical type and
civilisation. What, for example, have the two _Latin_ peoples, the
Portuguese and Romans, in common? or the two _Slav_ peoples, like the
Kashoobs, fair, short, thick-set, peaceful cultivators of the plain,
and the Montenegrins, dark, tall, slender, warlike shepherds of the
mountain? What more striking contrast can we imagine than that between
a Norwegian, tall and fair, a bold sailor, whose flag floats in every
port of the world, and a Tyrolese of the north, dark and short, a
sedentary cultivator of the soil, whose horizon is bounded by the
summits of his mountains? However, both these are included in the
“Germanic” group.

Nevertheless, and only to bring out better the differences between
linguistic divisions and those of ethnography and ethnology, I shall
rapidly pass in review the “peoples” of Europe, according to the
linguistic grouping as outlined above.


A. ETHNIC “ARYAN” GROUPS.

I. _Latin or Roman Peoples_, that is to say speaking languages derived
from the Latin. The majority of philologists divide them into seven
distinct groups, viz., French of the north, Languedocian-Catalan,
Spanish, Portuguese-Galego, Italian, Romansch-Ladino, and Rumanian.

1. _The French group of the north_, or the Langue d’oil, comprises the
populations (Fig. 98) on the north of the line which, starting from
the Gironde, passes by Angoulême, Montmorillon, Montlucon, Lyons, and
the crests of the Jura, to terminate in the neighbourhood of Berne in
Switzerland.[375] Among the numerous dialects recognisable in it, we
must make special mention of _Wallon_, spoken in the southern part of
the department of the north in France, and in the southern half of
Belgium,[376] in the commune of Malmedy in Prussia, and in several
places in the grand duchy of Luxemburg. Northern French is likewise
spoken in the west part of Lorraine and lower Alsace annexed to
Germany, as well as in several places in upper Alsace.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 97.--Anglian type, common in north and north-east
of England.

(_After Beddoe._)]

2. _The Languedocian-Catalan group_, or the _Langue d’oc_, situated
south of the line referred to above, comprises four great dialectal
divisions which make a distinction between the _Gascons_ (south of the
Garonne) (Figs. 99 and 100) and the _Languedocians_ and _Provençals_
(Fig. 94), while admitting the mixed so-called _Rhodanian_ group (basin
of the upper Rhone, Roman Switzerland, Savoy, and the French valleys
of Piedmont)[377] and the _Catalan_ group (Roussillon in France,
Catalonia and Valencia in Spain, the Balearic Islands, and a point on
the west coast of Sardinia).

3rd and 4th. The _Spanish_ group comprises the peoples of _Castillian_
language, that is to say, the whole population of Spain, with the
exception of the Catalans and the inhabitants of Galicia; the latter
speak _Galego_, an idiom allied to Portuguese, and form with the
population of Portugal our fourth linguistic group, _Galego-Portuguese_.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 98.--Frenchman of Ouroux (Morvan). Mixed western
race.

(_Phot. School of Anthropology, Paris._)]

5. The _Italian group_ comprises the _Italians_[378] of the peninsula,
of Sicily, Sardinia, and the inhabitants of Corsica, of southern Tyrol
(south of Botzen), of the Swiss canton of Tessin, and of the coast
of Istria and Dalmatia. The Italian dialect enters also into the
constitution of the _Maltese_ jargon, derived for the most part from
the Arabic.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 99.--Dolichocephalic Frenchmen of Dordogne.
Ibero-insular race (?).

(_Phot. Collignon._)]

6. The _Romansch-Ladino_ or _Rheto-Roman_ group is formed by the
_Romansches_ of the southern part of the canton of Grisons (German
Switzerland) and by the Ladinos of the south-east of Tyrol (Groedner
Thal, etc.). These are probably the remnants of the old Alpine
population, having adopted the language of the Roman legionaries of the
time of the conquest. They are, moreover, in process of extinction as
a linguistic unit; their language gives place to Italian in the Tyrol,
to German in Switzerland. It is the same with the Friulans who are
related to this group, and who inhabit the basin of the Tagliamento in
Venetia.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 100.--The same subjects as in Fig. 99, seen in
profile.]

7. The _Rumanian group_ comprises the _Rumanians_ who are found, beyond
Moldo-Wallachia, again in Transylvania (Austria), the south-east of
Hungary, the north-east of Servia, Bessarabia, and in the lower valley
of the Dniester (south-west of Russia). To the Rumanians are related
the _Aromunes_ or _Kutzo-Vlakhs_, or _Zinzars_ of Epirus and Macedonia,
speaking a dialect allied to Rumanian, but modified by contact with
Turks, Greeks, and Albanians.[379]

There is no unity of type in any of these seven Latin linguistic
families. Among the Languedocian-Catalans we distinguish the presence
of at least three races: Western or Cevenole, which prevails on the
central table-lands of France, Littoral or Atlanto-Mediterranean,
predominant in Provence and Catalonia; Ibero-insular, which we find
in Angoumois as in Catalonia (see p. 329, and Map 2). In the same way
we may perceive in the Italian group the existence of representatives
of almost all the European races (except the Northern); we have only
to recall the striking contrast between the Venetian, tall, chestnut
coloured, brachycephalic, and the inhabitant of Southern Italy, short,
dark, and dolichocephalic. It is among the Portuguese, perhaps, that
we find the greatest unity of type; the majority of them belong to the
Ibero-insular race, except in the north of the country, where we find
intermixtures with the Western race, as among the Galicians of Spain.

II. The _Germanic or Teutonic peoples_ are usually divided into three
great linguistic groups: Anglo-Frisian, Scandinavian, and German.

1. The languages of the _Anglo-Frisian_ group, derived probably from
the ancient Gothic, are spoken by the _Frisians_ of the north of
Holland and the extreme north-west of Germany, by the inhabitants
of England (Figs. 91, 92, 97, and 101), and a considerable part of
Scotland (Figs. 88, 95, and 96), Ireland (Fig. 93), and Wales (Fig.
19), where English encroaches more and more on the domain of the
ancient Celtic languages.

The English language, which comprises many dialects,[380] is, in the
main, the Anglo-Saxon dialect, a branch of low German imported into the
island in the fifth century and modified in the eleventh century by the
language of gallicised Normans.

2. The _Scandinavian_ group comprises the _Swedes_, _Norwegians_
(Figs. 89 and 90), and _Danes_, the two last speaking almost the same
language. The Swedish language is also found in Finland (especially on
the coast), as Danish is in Schleswig. The _Icelanders_, descended for
the most part from Danish colonists, speak a special dialect, which
approaches most nearly to the old Norse.

3. The _German_ or _Teutonic_ group. The Germans of the north
(Saxons, Hanoverians, etc.) speak low German (_platt-Deutsch_,
_nieder-Deutsch_). One of the dialects of this idiom is transformed
into the _Flemish_ or _Dutch_ tongue, employed by the Netherlanders, as
well as the Flemings of the north of Belgium,[381] and several cantons
of the department of the north in France. The southern Germans (the
_Alemanni_ of German Switzerland, of Alsace and Baden; the _Swabians_
of this last province, Wurtemberg, and of Bavaria; the _Bavarians_ of
eastern Bavaria and of Austria) speak high German (_hoch-Deutsch_). The
inhabitants of middle Germany (Thuringians, Franconians, etc.) speak
middle German (_mittel-Deutsch_). This is also the language of the
_Prussians_, a people formed in part from the Slavo-Lithuanian elements
germanised but a few centuries ago. The boundary-line between low and
high German passes, from the Flemish zone in France and Belgium,
almost by Dusseldorf, Cassel, Dessau, and curving round Berlin in the
north reaches the confluence of the Oder and of the Warta, following
the course of this last.[382] There exist further in Europe several
German colonies: in upper Italy (Sette-Communi, etc.), in Bohemia, in
Hungary, and in the south and south-east of Russia. The German tongue
is much spoken in the Baltic provinces of Russia, as well as in Poland
and Austria-Hungary.[383]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 101.--Englishman (Gloucestershire), Saxon type.

(_After Beddoe._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 102.--Russian carpenter, 47 years old, district
of Pokrovsk (gov. Vladimir).

(_Phot. Bogdanoff, Coll. Museum of Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

From the somatological point of view, the Germanic group is no
more homogeneous than the “Latin.” Let us take, for example, the
Anglo-Frisians. We find among them at least three races in manifold
combinations. The Northern race (see p. 328, and Map 2) is prevalent
in the Frisian countries of Germany and Holland, as well as in that
part of England situated north of the line from Manchester to Hull,
and on the east coast, south of this line (Figs. 88, 91, and 97).
The secondary North-west race preponderates in the centre of England
(counties of Oxford, Hertford, and Gloucester, Fig. 101, etc.), while
the influence of the secondary Sub-northern race is especially felt
in the counties of Leicester and Nottingham, and on the south coast,
with the exception of Cornwall and Devon, where the Northern and
North-western races are counter-balanced (Fig. 92). In Scotland the
Northern type is often disguised by the dark colouring of the hair
(Figs. 95 and 96). The Scandinavian group is fairly homogeneous,
especially formed as it is of the Northern race (Figs. 88 to 90). But
in the German group diversities reappear, and we find in it elements of
almost all the races of Europe except the Littoral and Ibero-insular
ones.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 103.--Same subject as Fig. 102, seen in profile.

(_Phot. Bogdanoff, Coll. Museum of Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

III. The _Slav peoples_ may be divided into three great linguistic
groups--eastern, western, and southern.[384] The eastern group
comprises the _Great Russians_ or _Vielkorousses_ (Figs. 102 to 105),
the _Little Russians_ or _Malorousses_, otherwise called _Ukrainians_
or _Ruthenians_, and the _Bielorousses_ or _White Russians_. The latter
inhabit the upper basins of the Dnieper, the Dwina, and the Vistula as
far as the river Pripet (a tributary of the Dnieper), which separates
them from the Little Russians. As to the boundary between these and
the Great Russians, it follows an undulating line from the town of
Souraj towards the Don, then a little to the north of the province of
Kharkov, and thence to the south as far as the shores of the Sea of
Azov. The Little Russians of eastern Galicia and Bukovina are known by
the collective name of _Ruthenians_, or the local names of _Gorales_
(mountaineers), _Huzules_, _Boïki_, _Tukholtsi_, etc. The colonisers
of eastern and northern Russia have been Great Russians; the Little
Russians have founded colonies in the south-east of Russia.

The _western_ Slav _group_ is composed of _Poles_ of Russian Poland,
western Galicia, Posen, and eastern Prussia (_Mazours_, _Kashoobs_),
whose language is somewhat common in Lithuania; of _Wends_ or
_Lujichanes_ or _Sorobes_, of the kingdom of Saxony and the Prussian
province of Saxony (several thousands are in process of being
germanised), of _Czechs_ or _Bohemians_ of Bohemia, and of a part of
Moravia, of _Slovaks_, of Moravia and Hungary.

As to the _southern group_, it comprises the _Slovenes_ or _Slovintsi_
of Carniola and the interior of Istria (Austria-Hungary), and the
_Serbo-Croats_, known by the name of _Khorvates_ in Hungary, of
_Serbs_ in Servia, of _Morlaks_, _Uskoks_, etc., in Dalmatia, of
_Herzogovinians_, _Bosnians_, _Montenegrins_, or _Tsrnagortsi_ in other
parts of the Balkan peninsula. The Servian tongue is also spoken in
a portion of Macedonia. The Slav colonies which still existed some
centuries ago in Greece and Thessaly must have been formed largely of
Serbo-Croats. We must, lastly, include in this group the _Bulgarians_,
a people of Turco-Finnish origin, slavonised for at least ten
centuries; their habitat is in Bulgaria, Rumelia, a part of Macedonia,
and several localities of Turkey. There exist several Bulgarian
colonies in Russia (Crimea, northern shore of the Sea of Azov).

No greater homogeneity is shown by the Slav group than by the two great
preceding ones, from the point of view of corporeal structure, and it
is useless to look for a “Slav type.” Among the Slav peoples there is
an interblending, as far as is known at present, of three principal and
three secondary races, without taking into account the Turco-Ugrian
elements. The traits of the secondary Vistulian race appear especially
among the Poles of Prussia and Russia; the Eastern race is most
marked in the White Russians, but is also met with among the Great
Russians, the Mazours, and the Wends; the Adriatic race characterises
the Serbo-Croats, as well as certain Czechs and Ruthenians; the
sub-Adriatic race is well represented by a section of the Czechs, while
numerous elements of the Western race are met with among the Slovaks,
the Little Russians, and certain Great Russians.

Joined to the three great linguistic groups of Aryan peoples which
we have just characterised are three others, less considerable but
not less interesting, their manner of speech perhaps being nearer
to the primitive Aryan tongue. These are the Letto-Lithuanian,
Helleno-Illyrian, and Celtic groups.

The peoples of the _first group_ are the _Letts_ of Livonia and Kurland
(Russia), and the _Lithuanians_ peopling the provinces of Vilna,
Grodno, the north of Russian Poland, as well as western Prussia, where
they are germanised for the most part.

The majority of the Letts belong to the Northern or Sub-northern race,
while the Lithuanians exhibit elements of the Sub-northern and Eastern
race.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 104.--Russian woman of the district of Veréïa
(gov. Moscow), 20 years old, Eastern race (?).

(_Phot. Bogdanoff, Coll. Museum of Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

Among the peoples of the Helleno-Illyrian group the _Greeks_ are
distributed outside the political frontiers of the kingdom of Greece,
in Epirus, and on the coast of Macedonia and the Propontis. Greek
colonies are found in the rest of Turkey, in southern Russia, and in
the south-east of Italy (province of Lecce, Terra d’Otranto). The
_Albanians_ or _Skiptars_ form a people whose linguistic affinities are
little known. Two sub-divisions are recognised, formed of very distinct
elements from the physical point of view: the _Gegs_ and the _Mirdites_
on the north, the _Tosks_ on the south. Albanian colonies are found in
Greece, in the south of Italy (Basilicata, Calabria, and Sicily), and
Corsica (in _Cardevole_).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 105.--Same subject as Fig. 104, seen in profile.

(_Phot. Bogdanoff, Coll. Mus. of Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

The physical types are very diversified among the Greeks, and still
require to be studied. The Albanians of the north appear to be
connected with the Adriatic or sub-Adriatic race, but nothing is known
about the southern Albanians. The Albanian colonists in Italy and
Corsica have the same physical traits as the surrounding population.

_The peoples speaking Celtic languages_ are divided into two sections
according to dialect: the Gaelic section comprises the Celts of the
north-west of Scotland, the west of Ireland, and the Isle of Man.
The second or Cymric section is composed of the inhabitants of Wales
(_Welsh_ language) and of Brittany (_Bas Breton_). The Cornish
language, spoken two centuries ago in Cornwall, is now a dead language.
The other Celtic dialects are also destined to disappear owing to
the spread of such highly developed and widely known languages as
English and French. There is no “Celtic” type or race. The Gaels of
Scotland, as well as the Irish of Munster, appear to be connected with
the Northern race; the Irish of Connaught present two or three types,
variants of the secondary North-western race, which is predominant
among the Welsh, and which is found again modified in Cornwall and in
Devon (Fig. 92), by side, perhaps, of the remnants of Neolithic types;
and lastly, the Low Bretons belong to the Western race, more or less
intermixed, like the French of the central table-land.[385]


B. AN-ARYAN PEOPLES.

As we have already said, peoples speaking Aryan tongues are not the
only ones to inhabit Europe. We find in it the representatives of other
linguistic families: Basque, Finno-Ugrian, Turkish, Mongolian, Semitic,
etc.

The _Basques_ inhabit the extreme south-west corner of France (in the
department of the Basses Pyrenées) and the adjoining part of Spain,
provinces of Guipuzcoa and Biscay (as far as Bilbao on the west),
and the north of the provinces of Navarre and Alava. The affinities
of their agglutinous language have not yet been clearly determined.
As to their physical type, it is also quite peculiar. Its chief
characteristics, according to Collignon, are its mesocephaly “with a
peculiar swelling in the parietal regions,” conical torso, elongated
and pointed face, etc. In the main this type approaches most nearly to
the Littoral race, and is met with, in a pure state, especially among
the French Basques.[386]

_Peoples speaking the Finno-Ugrian dialects._--_The Magyars_ or
_Hungarians_[387] occupy in a compact mass, four millions and a half
in number, the plain of Hungary. They represent 43 per cent. of the
population of this State. There may still be distinguished among
them traces of the ancient divisions into various tribes (_Haiduks_,
_Yazigs_, _Kumans_, etc.). The eastern portion of Transylvania is
also inhabited by a division of the Magyars, the _Szeklers_, who
differ by their mesocephalic skull from the other Hungarians, who are
brachycephalic for the most part. The _Western Finns_ are divided
into Finns properly so called or Suomi, Baltic Finns, and Karelians.
The Suomi (in the singular Suomalaiset) occupy Finland, with the
exception of certain points on the coast, taken by the Swedes; they are
sub-divided into several small sections, according to their dialects:
_Savolaks_, _Tavasts_, _Kvénes_ or _Kvanes_. The latter inhabit the
north of Sweden. The _Baltic Finns_, formerly very numerous, are
reduced to two peoples, the _Esthonians_ or _Esths_ of the Russian
provinces of Esthonia and Livonia, with the adjacent islands (Ösel,
Dago, etc.); and the _Livonians_, quartered to the number of 2000
at the extremity of the north coast of Kurland; they have entirely
disappeared from Livonia, from which they derive their name. The
_Karelians_ are scattered in groups, more or less important, over
the south-east of Finland, in the Russian province (“government”) of
Olonetsk, and in the north-west of the province of Archangel. Isolated
groups of this population found on the plateau of Valdai and almost
in the heart of Russia (in the north of the province of Tver) are
indications of the ancient expansion of the western Finns towards the
east. We must connect with the Karelians the _Veps_ (to the south
of Lake Onega) and the _Chukhontsi_, Finns of the province of St.
Petersburg, descendants of the ancient Ingrians and Chudes whose name
recurs often in Russian chronicles and legends.[388]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 106.--Cheremiss of Ural Mountains.

(_Phot. Sommier._)]

The 42nd degree of longitude east of Greenwich seems to mark the
boundary between the western Finns and the following group, that of
the _eastern Finns_ or _Ugrians_. These are tribes dispersed in the
north-east of Russia, for the most part mixed with the Russians, and
Russianised in language, religion, and customs. We may distinguish
among them three principal divisions. The northern division comprises
the _Zyrians_, reduced to some thousand families, buried in the midst
of the Russian population, in the eastern part of the provinces of
Archangel and Vologda (between the 60th degree of latitude north and
the polar circle). The middle division is composed of two neighbouring
peoples, _Votiaks_ and _Permiaks_, dwelling among the Russians, in
more or less considerable islets in the space comprised between the
Vetluga and the Kama, tributaries of the Volga. More to the south,
in the middle basin of the Volga, as far as about the 50th degree of
north latitude, we find the southern group of the Ugrians composed
of _Cheremiss_ (Fig. 106) on the left bank of the upper Volga and of
_Mordva_ or _Mordvinians_ on both banks of the middle Volga in numerous
islets between the 42nd and 54th degree east longitude.[389]

We may class among the Finns, for linguistic reasons, three peoples
differing from each other as much as they are distinguished from the
groups I have just mentioned. These are the Lapps, the Samoyeds, and
the Ostiaks. The Lapps occupy the most northern region of Sweden and
Norway (_Scandinavian Lapps_), as well as the north of Finland and the
Kola peninsula in the north of Russia (_Russian Lapps or Lopari_). They
appear to have been formerly spread much more to the south of their
present habitat. They are the shortest in stature of all Europeans, and
almost the most brachycephalic (see Appendices I. and II.). One portion
only of the _Samoyeds_ inhabits Europe, on the east of the river Mezen
and to the north of the polar circle; the rest wander about Siberia
between the Arctic Ocean and the lower Obi. Their neighbours on the
south, the _Ostiaks_, extend from the middle Obi to the Ural mountains,
over which they pass to occupy several points in Europe. The Ostiaks of
both slopes of the Urals bear also the name of _Vogules_ or _Manz_.[390]

As regards physical type there is a great difference between the
western and the eastern Finns. The former are the offspring of the
union of the Northern or Sub-northern race with the Eastern race,
somewhat tall, mesocephalic, and light-complexioned, while the
latter belong for the most part to a special Ugrian race, short,
dolichocephalic, dark, with slightly Mongoloid face.

For the other Eurasian peoples (_Turks_, _Armenians_, _Gypsies_,
_Jews_, etc.), see the following chapter.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 107.--Kundrof Tatar (Turkoman) of Astrakhan, with
cap.

(_Phot. Sommier._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 108.--The same in profile, with skull-cap, which
is never removed, worn under the cap.

(_Phot. Sommier._)]


C. CAUCASIAN PEOPLES.[391]

All who have seen the
ethnographical maps of the Caucasus must have been struck by the motley
appearance which they present; fifty various tribes may in fact be
counted in this isthmus, the area of which is less than that of Spain.
I shall speak here only of the _Caucasians properly so called_--that
is to say, of the peoples who dwell only in the Caucasus, putting on
one side all others (Iranians, Europeans, Turks, Mongols, Semites,
etc.) who have overflowed into this country from the adjacent regions.

The _Caucasians_ are sub-divided into four linguistic or ethnic groups:
the Cherkess (on the north-west of the Caucasian range), the Lesgian
Chechen (on the north-east of the range), the Kartvels or Georgians
(on the south-west of the range), and the Ossets (in the centre of the
range on both slopes). The last, by their language, are the nearest
to the Iranians and the Armenians, but the three other groups form a
perfect linguistic unit. The dialects which they speak preserve the
impress of a common origin and form a family apart which has nothing in
common with any other.

The _Cherkess_ or _Circassians_, until the middle of this century,
inhabited all the western part of Ciscaucasia; but, since the conquest
of their country by the Russians, they have emigrated _en masse_ into
the Ottoman empire. At the present day there are only a few remnants
of them in the Caucasus. Principal tribes, _Abkhazians_, _Adighé_ or
_Cherkess_ (Circassians) properly so called, _Kabards of the plain_,
_Abadzeh_, _Chapsugh_, etc.

The _Chechen-Lesgians_ are divided, as the name implies, into two
groups: the Chechen (with the _Ingushes_, the _Kists_, etc.) of the
upper basin of the Terek, who have long been considered as a population
apart (Figs. 110 and 111), and the _Lesgians_ of Daghestan. These
last are sub-divided into five great sections, according to their
dialects: (1) The _Avars-Andi_, with the _Dido_, whose language
tends to preponderate owing to the historic part played by the tribe
of the Avars, to which belonged the famous Shamil, the hero of the
Caucasus, whose memory still lives. (2) The _Dargha_ in the centre of
_Daghestan_, the best known tribe of which is that of the Kubachi,
living in little houses piled one above the other on the sides of the
mountains. (3) The _Kurines_ of the Samur basin, with the _Tsakhurs_
(Tabassaurans, etc.). (4) The _Laks_ or _Kazi-Kumyks_, with which are
connected lesser known tribes, like the _Agul_, the _Budukh_, and the
_Khinalugh_, whose language is distinct from all the other dialects
of Daghestan. (5) The _Udes_, an ancient Christian tribe converted to
Islamism, of which there remain but 750 individuals still acquainted
with their mother-tongue (district of Nukha, province of Elisabetpol).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 109.--Georgian Imer of Kutais.

(_Phot. from Coll. of Author._)]

The _Kartvels_, _Karthli_ or _Georgians_, who alone of the Caucasians
possess a special mode of writing, and a literature, are divided
into three linguistic sections: (1) _Gruzin_, which comprises the
_Georgians properly so called_ of the plains of the province of Tiflis,
_Georgians of the mountains_ (_Khevsurs_, _Pshavs_, and _Toushs_,
21,300 in all), and the _Imers_ (Fig. 109) with the _Gurians_. (2) The
_Mingrelian_ section of people living more to the west, composed of
the _Mingrelians_ of the Kutais country and the _Lazes_ of the Batum
circle. (3) The _Swan_ section, comprising the tribe of _Swanet_ or
Swanetians, driven back into the unhealthy regions of the province of
Kutais, where the race degenerates; cretins and those afflicted with
goitre form a third part of the population.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 110.--Chechen of Daghestan.

(_Phot. Chantre._)]

The _Ossets_, while speaking a language which (in the _Digorian_
dialect) is nearly allied to Iranian, have nevertheless much in common
with the other Caucasians, from whom they are distinguished perhaps by
the frequent occurrence of fair hair (10 per cent.) and light eyes (29
per cent.); more frequent than among all the other Caucasian peoples,
the Imers, the Lesgi-Dido, and the Chechen excepted. But figures are
still too inadequate in regard to the number of subjects with dark hair
and eyes (51 and 53 per cent.) to enable us to affirm, as all authors
from Am. Marcellinus to our own days have done, that the Ossets are a
people of fair race. They are above the average in stature (1 m. 68),
and sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 82.6).

As to the somatic characters of the other Caucasians, we know little
of those of the Cherkess (sub-brachycephalic, of medium height), but
we are better informed in regard to the Lesgians and the Kartvel.
The contrast between the two groups is striking. The Lesgians are
very brachycephalic (see Appendix II.), especially the tribes of the
east; their stature is fairly high. To these characters are united
others which, in their totality, produce the most singular effect;
the prominent nose, straight or curved, recalls the Semites, while
the projecting cheek-bones, broad face, and angles of the lower jaw
directed outward, suggest the Mongols; lastly, the whole aspect becomes
still more odd, owing to the light-grey or greenish eyes, and fair or
chestnut hair, so common among the Lesgians (Figs. 110 and 111).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 111.--Same as Fig. 110, seen in profile.

(_Phot. Chantre._)]

Quite different are the characters of the Kartvel. In the first place,
they form a less homogeneous group; we must distinguish in it between
the eastern and the western Georgians. The former (Gruzins) are true
brachycephals, though in a lesser degree than the Lesgians, while
the latter (Mingrelians, Imers) are distinguished from all the other
Caucasians by the elongated form of the head (see Appendix II.). The
stature varies in harmony with the cranial forms; the Kartvel tribes
with rounded heads have the shortest stature, and the dolichocephalic
tribes the highest; light hair is less common in the two groups than
among the Lesgians, but we find among the Georgians in general a great
number of subjects in whom the iris has a particular yellow colour, a
grey or greenish yellow. The Gruzins have a rather rounded face and
broad nose, while the Imers have an elongated visage, thin nose, tight
lips, pointed chin (Fig. 109); their physiognomy reminds one of a
goat’s head, according to Pantiukhof, who considers the Imers to be the
purest representatives of the primitive Kartvels.[392]



CHAPTER X.

RACES AND PEOPLES OF ASIA.

    /Ancient Inhabitants of Asia/.--Prehistoric
    times--_Pithecanthropus erectus_ (Dub.)--Ages of stone and
    metals.--/Present Inhabitants of Asia/.--Races of Asia--I.
    _Peoples of Northern Asia_--Yeniseian, Palæasiatic and Tunguse
    groups.--II. _Peoples of Central Asia_--Turkish, Mongolian, and
    Thibetan groups--Peoples of the south-west of Thibet and of
    South China (Lolo, Miao-tsé, Lu-tsé, etc.).--III. _Peoples of
    Eastern Asia_--Chinese, Coreans, and Japanese.--IV. _Peoples of
    Indo-China_--Aborigines, Mois, Kuis, Siam, Naga, etc.--More recent
    mixed populations: Annamese, Cambodians, Thai, etc.--V. _Peoples
    of India_--Castes--Dravidians and Kolarians--Indo-Aryans and
    unclassified populations--VI. _Peoples of Anterior Asia_--Iranians
    and Semites.


ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF ASIA.

_Prehistoric Times._--It is a common practice to call Asia, or at
least certain regions of Asia, “the cradle of mankind,” the “officina
gentium.” The migrations and invasions of the Asiatic peoples into
Europe, which took place from the most remote times, gave birth,
naturally enough, to this idea among the western peoples (p. 317 _et
seq._). However, no serious data authorise us to say that the first
man was born rather in Asia than Europe. Nowhere do we find there any
traces of tertiary man.[393] Eugène Dubois discovered, it is true,
quite close to the Asiatic continent in the very uppermost tertiary
beds (upper pliocene) of the Island of Java, the bones of a being which
he considers as intermediate between man and the anthropoid apes, and
which he has called _Pithecanthropus erectus_ (Figs. 112 and 113). But
Java belongs to-day as much to the Oceanian world as to Asia, and the
Pithecanthropus is not altogether a man, either according to his
discoverer or many other authorities. Some regard this being simply as
a gigantic gibbon, while others (myself among the number) hold that he
is a being more closely related to man than to the anthropoid apes,
or even a man of a race inferior to all existing ones. If this last
hypothesis be correct we must admit the existence of tertiary man in
Asia, since it is highly probable that even at the end of the tertiary
period the islands of Sumatra and Java were connected with the great
continent by the Malay peninsula.[394]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 112.--Skull of the _Pithecanthropus erectus_,
Dub. The calvaria (_a_) and the teeth (_b_, _c_) _are designed
by P. Moutet after the casts_ and photographs of E. Dubois. The
reconstruction of the rest is made _after Dubois and Manouvrier_.]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 113.--Calvaria of _Pithecanthropus_, seen from
above.

(_Phot. Dubois._)]

As to quaternary man, if no bones have yet been found, tools absolutely
similar to those of Europe have been noted almost everywhere in Asia;
in Siberia, around Lake Baikal (Tchersky and Poliakof), and near to
Tomsk in the loess, beside a dismembered and calcined skeleton of a
mammoth, the remains of a pantagruelic repast of quaternary Siberians
(Kuznétzof); in Japan, in the ancient province of Jenchiou, now Osaka,
the Ivate and Miaghi province, northern Nippon (S. Fuse), western
Nippon (Vidal) in the country of Rikuzen, now in the province of
Etzigo or Teshigo (Inuzuka); then in anterior Asia, in the grottos
at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb, near Beirut (Lortet); at Hannauch
to the east of Tyre (Lortet and Pelagaud), in Galilee (Cazalis of
Fondouce and Moretain), in Phœnicia (Zumoffen), etc.[395] In India,
attention has been drawn to several palæolithic stations in the midst
of the ancient alluvia of the rivers Nerbadda, Krishna, and Godaveri
(Wynn); in certain places there quartzite implements were associated
with the bones of extinct animals (_Equus nomadicus_, _Hippopotamus
palæindicus_) or animals which have since emigrated into other regions
(_Bos palæindicus_, etc.). Single tools have been found in the beds of
laterite near Madras, in Scinde, at Banda, in the central provinces
(Rivett-Carnac), in the south-east of Bengal.[396]

Monuments and objects of the _polished stone_ and _bronze_ periods,
often confounded in Asia, have been found almost everywhere. They
are connected with peoples who presented at that remote date great
differences in their civilisation and probably in their physical type.
The excavations of Schliemann at Hissarlik (Asia Minor) have brought
to light a civilisation which appears to correspond with the end of
the stone age and the beginning of the bronze epoch (2,500 years
/B.C./?). Prehistoric objects in polished stone and bronze have
been found at other points of Asia Minor (A. Martin), in Lycaonia
(Spiegelthal), in the Sinai peninsula (Bauermann and Richard), on the
shores of Lake Issik-koul (Russian Turkestan). Southern Siberia, the
Kirghiz steppes, north and north-western Mongolia are covered with
stone circles (_Kereksur_), barrows, tumuli, menhirs (_Kishachilo_)
of every form, with burial-places in which are found objects in wood,
bone, bronze, copper, iron (Radloff, Potanin, Klementz). The skulls
which have been taken from some of these burial-places, in the upper
valley of the Yenisei, are dolichocephalic; the plaster mortuary
masks found in the same region by Adrianof present a type somewhat
European.[397]

It must not be forgotten that many of these monuments date from the
historic epoch and belong, as proved by the runiform inscriptions of
Mongolia discovered by Yadrintsef and deciphered by Thomson, to the
seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era.[398]

The kitchen-middens of Omori, near Tokio, and of several other
localities in Japan examined by Morse, Milne, and Tsuboi, afford
evidence of the existence in this country of a fairly civilised race
which was acquainted with pottery, but employed only bone and partly
polished stone implements. The excavations of ancient underground
dwellings in the islands of Yezo (Morse, Tsuboi) and Saghalien
(Poliakoff) lead us to believe that this race extended much farther to
the north. It is possible that it was related to the men whose polished
flint implements have been found in Siberia in the valley of the
Tunka, in that of the Patcha, one of the tributaries of the river Amur
(Uvarof), and in the shell-heaps of the Pacific coast near Vladivostok
(Margaritof).[399] Polished stone hatchets have been found in the
north-east of China in the vicinity of tumuli resembling the American
“mounds” (Williamson); others have been picked up in the Yunnan
(Sladen), and in Burma (Theobald); Moura, Jammes, and Morel exhumed
in Cambodia, between Lake Tonlé-Sap and the Mekong, side by side with
objects of bronze, several polished stone implements of a peculiar type
(Fig. 114), a kind of square-tongued axe (shouldered celt), which has
since been found again in several other places in Indo-China as far as
the upper Laos (Lefèvre-Pontalis) and Burma.[400] In the district of
Somron-Sen (Cambodia), previously explored by Jammes, as well as in the
neighbourhood of Saigon, Corre discovered similar implements close to
shell-heaps containing, besides pottery and stone tools, human bones,
but no skulls.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 114.--Polished stone axe found in Cambodia.
Prehistoric type peculiar to Indo-China.]

Lastly, in India, the “cromlechs,” “mounds,” and finds of stone objects
similar to those which are found in Europe, may be counted in hundreds.
It is certain that the stone “circles” of the central provinces and the
“Kouroumbarings” of Southern India date from a period anterior to the
Aryan immigration. As in Europe, so in Asia the age of metals borders
very closely on the historic period of which the Chinese annals have
preserved for us a record. The monuments of Chaldea, Assyria, Asia
Minor, India, and Cambodia, also reveal ethnographical facts of great
interest (see, for instance, note 2, p. 419).


PRESENT INHABITANTS AND RACES OF ASIA.

It is impossible in the present state of our knowledge to draw up
a complete table of the _migrations_ which have taken place on the
Asiatic continent in _historic_ times. I shall mention those in
connection with some peoples whose history is partially known (Chinese,
Turks, Mongols, Thai).

So also, in the present state of anthropological knowledge, we can
only discern in the midst of the numerous Asiatic populations, in a
quite general way, the elements furnished by the following eleven
races:--Five races peculiar to Asia (_Dravidian_, _Assyroid_,
_Indo-Afghan_, _Ainu_, _Mongolian_), and six races which are also met
with in other parts of the world: _Negrito_, _Indonesian_, _Arab_,
_Ugrian_, _Turkish_, and _Eskimo_ (leaving out of account the Assyroid
and Indo-Afghan races, which are found again among the Jews and
the European Gypsies). I have already given (p. 285 _et seq._) the
principal characters of these races; it only remains to say a few words
as to their geographical distribution in Asia.

The _Eskimo_ race is quartered in the north-east of the continent;
that of the _Ainus_ in Saghalien, Yezo, and perhaps in northern Japan;
while the _Ugrian_ race is represented by its _Yeniseian_ variant.
The _Mongolian_ race (with its two secondary races, _northern_ and
_southern_) is found almost all over Asia. The _Turkish_ race is
limited more particularly to the inland regions of Central Asia. The
_Indonesians_ are numerous in Indo-China, and in the islands from Japan
to the Asiatic Archipelago, while the _Dravidians_ and _Indo-Afghans_
abound in India. The latter are also met with in anterior Asia, side
by side with the _Assyroids_ and _Arabs_. Some representatives of the
_Negrito_ race inhabit the Malay peninsula and the Andaman Islands;
the elements of this race are also found among the inhabitants of
Indo-China and perhaps India.

As to existing populations of the Asiatic continent, I shall rapidly
pass them in review, grouping them, according to geographical region,
under six heads: peoples of Northern Asia; of Central Asia; of Eastern
Asia; of Indo-China; of India; and lastly, of Anterior or Western Asia.

I. /Northern Asia/, consisting almost exclusively of Siberia,
a cold country covered with dense virgin forests (_taïga_) or marshy,
frozen plains (_tundra_), harbours, in addition to Russian or Chinese
colonists, only a few somewhat wretched tribes, mainly hunters, but
depending partly on fishing and hoe-culture.

We may group them thus:--(1) tribes of Western Siberia, having some
affinities with the Samoyeds and the eastern Finns, which I shall call
_Yeniseians_ or _Tubas_; (2) peoples of the extreme north-east of the
Asiatic continent, whom Schrenck[401] describes as _Palæasiatics_; (3)
the Tunguses of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.

1. _Yeniseians_ or _Tubas_.--Besides the _Samoyeds of Asia_, who differ
from their kinsfolk in Europe only by their more Mongoloid features,
the _Yeniseians_ comprise two distinct groups of populations. In the
first place the so-called _Ostiaks of the Yenisei_, on the right
bank of this river (between Yeniseisk and Touroukhansk), probable
descendants of the _Kien-Kouen_ and the _Ting-ling_ of the Chinese
annals. It is a tribe in process of extinction, whose language differs
from the Samoyed tongue and the Finnish dialects properly so called
(Castren). Then come the tribes who formerly formed the Tuba nation,
mentioned until the seventh century /A.D./ by the name of
_Tupo_ by the Chinese annalists; they inhabited the basin of the upper
Yenisei, the Altai region, and north-western Mongolia, and bore the
local names of _Matores_, _Arines_, _Kottes_, _Assan_, _Tuba_, etc.

These peoples have disappeared as linguistic units,[402] but their
physical type, some of their characteristic manners, as well as a
few words of their language, are preserved among certain populations
speaking a Turkish dialect. The Russians call these populations
“Tatars”; they might more suitably be called by the name of
_Altaians_. This ethnic group, whose physical type has been altered by
intermixtures with peoples of Turkish or Mongolian race, comprises the
“_Tatars_” of _Abakan_, that is to say, _Katchines_, _Koibals_ (eight
hundred individuals), _Sagai_, and _Kizils_; the “_Tatars_” of _Altai_
and those of _Chulim_, among whom must be noted the “Tatars of the
black forests” (_Chernievyié Tatary_ in Russian), called “Tubas” by
their neighbours. The latter are mesocephalic, of medium height; they
have abandoned little by little the hunting state, and become primitive
cultivators of the soil; they break up the ground with the hoe, which
was used by them until not very long ago to dig up edible roots, and
they cut their corn with hunting-knives.[403] The Soiots or Soyons of
North-western Mongolia, who call themselves _Tubas_, are probably the
descendants of the ancient Uigurs (Turkish nation) commingled with
aboriginal Yeniseians of this country and partly Mongolised about the
seventeenth century.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 115.--Tunguse hunter (Siberia) with ski and staff.

(_Phot. Shimkiévich._)]

2. The _Palæasiatic_ group should comprise, according to Schrenck, all
the ancient peoples of Asia driven back at the present day towards the
north-eastern extremity of the Continent. The more important of these
peoples are the following:--The _Chuchi_ (or _Chukchi_), numbering
about 8000, are the most typical representatives of the group; they
inhabit the north-east of Siberia, and the occupation of some is the
breeding of reindeer, and fishing of others; however, the distinction
between the nomadic and fishing Chukchi is both of an economic and
ethnic order.[404] The _Koriaks_ dwell to the south of the Chukchi, as
far as Kamtchatka; they bear a close resemblance to them and speak the
same language. The _Eskimo of Asia, Namuollo_, or _Yu-Ite_ formerly
occupied the coast of the Chukchi country, as shown by their ancient
habitations excavated by Wrangel and Nordenskiold. At the present day
they are not found except in isolated camps on the coast and in the
islands of the Behring Sea. They differ but very little from the Eskimo
of Alaska; their ornaments, however, recall rather those of the Aleuts.
The _Kamtchadals_ of the centre and west of Kamtchatka differ from the
peoples just mentioned. They number 4,250 at the present day, and are
becoming Russianised very rapidly. They have completely given up their
language, which has no relation to any linguistic family now known,
and they speak a very corrupt form of Russian. Nominally orthodox
Christians, they are at bottom animists, and the anthropomorphic
element, often under obscene forms, occupies a large place in their
myths and legends. They are fishers and hunters.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 116.--Same subject as Fig. 115, full face.

(_Phot. Shimkiévich._)]

The _Yukaghirs_ are the last remnants of a somewhat powerful people
who formerly occupied all that part of Siberia situated to the east
of the Lena, and who were composed of several tribes: _Omoks_,
_Anauls_, _Cheliags_, etc.[405] It was believed until the last few
years that even the Yukaghirs had disappeared, but quite recently
Iokhelson[406] ascertained that there are at least 700 individuals,
and that their language, which has no affinities with any of the
Uralo-Altaic dialects, is spoken by a certain number of Tunguse-Lamuts
(see p. 373), their neighbours. On the other hand, the Yukaghirs of
Verkhoiansk, have adopted the Lamut dialect, and those of the banks
of the Iana the Yakut tongue. By several peculiar manners and customs
(classificatory system of relationship, pictography, etc.) they
approach very closely certain North American Indians. Physically they
resemble the Tunguse-Lamuts, though more brachycephalic and somewhat
less dark-haired as a rule.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 117.--Ainu of Yezo (Japan) with crown of shavings.

(_Phot. lent by Collignon._)]

The Ainus (Figs. 49 and 117), who are classed among the Palæasiatics,
inhabit the north and east parts of the island of Yezo, the south of
Saghalien, and the three most southern islands of the Kuriles. They
form a group by themselves, different from all the other peoples of
Asia. Their elongated heads (ceph. index on the liv. sub. 77.8), their
prominent supraciliary ridges, the development of the pilous system,
the form of the nose, give to them some resemblance to the Russians,
the Todas, and the Australians; but other characters (coloration of
the skin, prominent cheek-bones, short stature, frequent occurrence
of the _os japonicum_, etc.) distinguish them from these peoples
and afford grounds for classing them as a separate race (see Chap.
VIII.). According to Japanese historians, the Ainus or _Asuma Yebissu_
occupied the whole of Nippon from the seventh century /B.C./
until the second century of the Christian era. In the seventh century
/A.D./ they still occupied all that portion of this island
situated to the north of the 38th degree of north latitude, and even
in the ninth century the chronicles speak of the incursions of these
“barbarians.” Thus the Ainu element enters very largely into the
composition of one of the types of the Japanese people, not only at
Yezo but in the north of Nippon (province of Aomori), where several
Ainu words still survive in current speech. In the Kurile islands the
Ainus are intermixed with the Kamtchadals and the Aleuts introduced by
the Russo-American Company about the middle of the present century.

It is calculated that there are about 18,500 Ainus (of whom 1,300 are
in the island of Saghalien) at the present time; their number at Yezo
has remained stationary for several years. The dress of the Ainus is a
sort of greatcoat with broad sleeves, fastened with a girdle so that
the right lappel covers the left lappel as among Turkish peoples, and
contrary to the way it is done among the Chinese and Mongols. The chief
occupation of the Ainus is hunting and fishing; they engage but little
in agriculture. Their religion is pure animism; the word _Kamui_, which
means spirit (like the _Kami_ of the Japanese Shintoists), also serves
to indicate everything incomprehensible, in the same way as the word
“shif,” the literal meaning of which is “animal” (may this be a word
corresponding to totem?).

The Ainus, like most Asiatic peoples, such as the Giliaks, Tunguses,
etc., have a special veneration for the bear; they organise festivals
in its honour, during which a bear is killed, after having received the
homage of many _inaou_ (staffs decorated with shavings).

The Ainu language is agglutinative, and has no analogy with any known
language.[407]

The Giliaks, who inhabit the north of Saghalien, and the mainland to
the north of the mouth of the Amur, suggest by their traits sometimes
the Ainus, sometimes the Tunguses, but they are brachycephalic. They
are a people of fishers, living on the banks of rivers and the sea, in
the winter in huts half buried in the ground, in the summer in little
houses on piles. The Giliaks are readily disposed to trade, and are
distinguished by their taste for ornaments. Their number hardly exceeds
5000 individuals.[408]

The _Tunguses_, while speaking a particular language, exhibit the
Mongol type, softened by intermixtures with the primitive inhabitants
(Palæasiatics?) of their territory, which extends from the Arctic
Ocean to the 40th degree of north latitude, and from the Yenisei to
the Pacific Ocean. Their number can hardly exceed 50,000 individuals
over this immense stretch of country. They are divided into _southern_
and _northern_ Tunguses and _maritime_ Tunguses or _Lamuts_. The river
Amur forms the approximate boundary between the first two sections of
Tunguses. The _Lamuts_ occupy the shores of the sea of Okhotsk, the
north-west of Kamtchatka, and extend more to the west to the river
Iana. The _Northern Tunguses_ are split up into several tribes, of
which the following are the principal, going from east to west:--The
_Olchas_ or _Mangoon_, at the mouth of the Amur; their congeners the
_Oroks_, in the north of the island of Saghalien; the _Orochons_, of a
very pure Tunguse type; the _Manegres_ (Fig. 43), and the “Olennyié”
_Tunguses_, or the _Tunguses with reindeer_ (Figs. 115 and 116).
As to the _southern Tunguses_, they comprise the _Goldes_ of the
lower Amur and Ussuri, of a very pure type, and having a fairly well
developed ornamental art; the _Oroches_ of the coast; and lastly the
_Solon-Daurs_, very much intermixed with the Mongols, of which colonies
exist in the Kuldja.

The _Manchus_, reduced to a small number, belong by their dialect as
well as by their physical type to the Tunguse group. They are being
absorbed more and more by the Chinese, and hardly form a tenth part of
the population of the country which bears their name (Pozdniéef). It is
probable that the _Niu-chi_ or _Yu-chi_ of Shan-alin and Sien-pi on the
northern border of Corea, mentioned in the Chinese annals, were Tunguse
tribes.

The type which predominates among the Tunguses represents the secondary
race called North Mongolian and characterised by mesocephaly or a
slight sub-dolichocephaly, and by a rather elongated face. The stature
varies; the Orochons are of average stature and the Manchus very tall,
etc.[409]

II. /Peoples of Central Asia/.--The immense central Asiatic
region, whose waters have no outlet towards the sea, is formed
principally of denuded table-lands (Thibet) or of plains, sometimes
grassy, sometimes desert (Mongolia, Turkestan). It is inhabited for the
most part by populations which may be grouped from the linguistic point
of view under three heads, Turks, Mongols, Thibetans.[410]

The peoples speaking the different _Turkish_ dialects who are called
_Turco-Tatars_ or _Turanians_ are scattered over an immense area
comprising half of Asia and a large portion of Eastern Europe, from
the Arctic Ocean (Yakuts) to Kuen-lun (Polus) and Ispahan (Turkomans
of Persia), from the banks of the Kolima and the Hoang-ho (Yegurs)
to Central Russia (Tatars of Kasimov) and Macedonia (Osmanli Turks).
All these peoples may be gathered together into three great groups:
eastern, central, and western.[411]

The _eastern group_ comprises the Yakuts, who have preserved in its
purity the ancient Turco-Uigurian language, but who in type, manners,
and customs show the influence of contiguity with the Palæasiatics;
then the various tribes of non-Yeniseian “Tatars” (see p. 366) of
Siberia, like the Altaians (called _Kalmuks of Altai_, although they
have nothing in common with the true Kalmuks), nomads who have recently
adopted settled habits, like the _Teleuts_ (or _Kara-Kalmuks_),
likewise nomads, or the _Tatars of Siberia_, divided, according to
their habitat, into _Tatars of the Baraba steppes_, _Tatars of Irtish_,
of _Tobol_, etc.[412]

To this group must be added the _Taranchi_ and other “Turks” of East
Turkestan, as well as the Polus of the northern slope of the Kuen-lun,
more or less mingled with Indo-Afghan elements; the _Yegurs_ of the
province of Kan-su in China, etc.[413]

The _central group_ comprises, in the first place, the _Kirghiz-Kazak_
of the plains between the Irtish and the Caspian, with the
_Kara-Kirghiz_ of the Tian-chan mountains, typical nomads who under
a Mussulman veneer have preserved many ancient Turkish animist
customs;[414] then the _Uzbegs_ and _Sartes_, villagers or citizens,
more or less mingled with Iranian elements, of Russian Turkestan; and
finally the _Tatars of the Volga_, or _of European Russia_. Among
these last, the so-called _Kazan Tatars_, descendants of the Kipchaks,
must be specially mentioned. Arriving on the banks of the Volga in the
thirteenth century, they intermingled there with the Bulgarians. They
differ from the _Astrakhan Tatars_ (Figs. 107 and 108), descendants of
the Turco-Mongols of the Gold horde, mixed with the Khazars, as well
as from the Nogai of the Crimea,[415] representatives of whom we find
also in the Caucasus, near Astrakhan, and in Lithuania, where, while
remaining Mussulmans, they have adopted the language and the garb of
Poles. With this group we must connect the _Bashkir-Mesthcheriaks_, a
tribe intermixed with Turkish, Mongol, and Ugrian elements; and their
congeners the _Shuvashes_, as well as the _Kumyks_, the _Karachai_, the
_Kabards_, or _Tatars of the Caucasus mountains_, distinct from the
true _Kabards_.

The _western group_ is composed of _Turkomans_ of Persia (_Khojars_,
_Afshars_) and Russian (_Turkmen_) or Afghan Turkestan (_Jemshids_,
etc.), of _Aderbaijani_, Turkish-speaking Iranians of the Caucasus and
Persia, and lastly the _Osmanli Turks_. Included under this name are
subjects of the Sultan speaking the Turkish language and professing
Islamism. We must distinguish among them the settled Osmanli, much
intermixed, and the nomadic tribes (_Turkomans_, _Yuruks_, etc.), who
exhibit several characteristics of the Turkish race.

The _Turkish race_, so far as can be gathered from recent
anthropological works, is preserved in a comparatively pure state among
the Turks of the central group, but in the eastern group it has been
profoundly modified in consequence of intermixtures with the Mongolian,
Tunguse, and Ugrian races; as also in the western group, in which
we have to take into account elements of the Assyroid, Indo-Afghan,
and Arab races, and certain European races (Adriatic chiefly). The
Turkish race may be thus described: Stature, above the average (1
m. 67-1 m. 68); head, hyper-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv.
sub., 85 to 87), elongated oval face, non-Mongoloid eyes, but often
with the external fold of eyelid (p. 78); the pilous system moderately
developed; broad cheek-bones, thick lips; straight, somewhat prominent
nose; tendency to obesity.[416]

The Turks are essentially nomadic, and when they change their mode of
life it is rather towards the chase, commerce, or trade that their
efforts are directed; the true cultivators of the soil (Taranchi,
Sartes, Osmanli, Volga Tatars) are Turks already powerfully affected
by intermixtures. The Turkish tent is the most highly finished of
transportable habitations (p. 164-166). Meat and milk products form
the staple foods, as they do among all nomads. With the exception
of the Christian Chuvashes and the Shaman Yakuts, all the Turks
are Mussulmans; but often they are only nominally such, at bottom
remaining Shamans. The veneer of Islamism becomes thinner and thinner
among the Turkish peoples as we go from west to east. The Osmanlis, the
most fanatical of all the Turks, are the most mixed as regards type,
language, manners, and customs. It is perhaps to this mixed origin that
they owe the relative stability of the state which they have founded,
for no nomadic Turkish tribe has been able to create a political
organism of long duration, and the vast empires of the Hiungnu, the
Uigurs, the Kipchaks, have had only an ephemeral existence.

2. The _Mongols_[417] form an ethnic group more homogeneous as regards
manners and customs and physical type than the Turks. Their name is
chiefly known on account of the great empire founded by Genghis Khan,
but it must be observed that the nomadic hordes united into a single
body, and led to victory by this conqueror, were only very partially
composed of Mongols, other nomadic peoples, and especially Turks,
formed more than half of them. Hence the practice among Europeans,
as among the Chinese,--a practice which is kept up to the present
time,--of giving the name of one of the Turkish tribes, Ta-ta or Tatar,
transformed into _Tartar_, to the Mongols, and extending it to many of
the Mongoloid peoples, like the Tunguses for example.

Three principal divisions are recognised in this group: Western Mongols
or Kalmuks, the Eastern Mongols, and the Buriats.[418] The _Western
Mongols_, who style themselves _Eleuts_, and whom the neighbouring
peoples call _Kalmuks_, are scattered, owing to wars and migrations,
over the immense tract lying between Siberia and Lassa, from the banks
of the Hoang-ho to those of the Manich (a tributary of the Don). The
more compact groups are found in European Russia (Kalmuks of Astrakhan,
Figs. 20 and 44, and the Caucasus); in Dzungaria (the _Torgoots_)
and north-western Mongolia, between Altai and Thian-Shan; lastly, in
Alashan and farther to the west in the Chinese province of Kuku-Nor and
northern Thibet. They number about a million.

The _Eastern Mongols_ occupy almost the whole of the region known by
the name of Mongolia properly so called. In the south of this country
they are broken up into a multitude of tribes (_Tumets_, _Shakars_ or
_Tsakhar_, etc.); while in the north they form a single nation, that of
the _Khalkhas_, which has still preserved, in spite of its submission
to China, some traces of its ancient political organisation. The
Khalkhas number about 200,000, and the southern Mongols 500,000.

The _Buriats_ form a population sprung from the Khalkhas, intermixed at
several points with various Siberian elements, Tunguse, Yakut, Russian;
they occupy the steppes and forests of the province of Irkutsk, but
their central seat is Transbaikal, whence they spread out even into
Mongolia, into the valleys of the Orkhon and the Argun. They number
about 250,000.

The type of the _Mongolian race_ is very strongly marked among most of
the Kalmuks and Khalkhas; it is less distinct among the Buriats, etc.
It may thus be described: Nearly average stature (1 m. 63-64); head,
sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 83); black straight
hair, pilous system little developed; the skin of a pale-yellow or
brownish hue, prominent cheek-bones, thin straight flattened nose,
Mongoloid eyes (p. 77), etc.

With the exception of some Buriat tribes the Mongols are typical
nomadic shepherds. Their live-stock, camels, sheep, and horses supply
them not only with food, the raw material for the manufacture of tents
and garments, but also means of transport and fuel (camel excrement or
dried dung). Unlike the nomadic Turks, who are fond of fighting, the
Mongols of the present day are gentle and peaceable folk. Can this be
the effect of the influence of Lama-Buddhism, which they all profess
except a few small Buriat tribes, who have remained Shamans? We are
inclined to believe this when we consider the important part which this
religion plays in the daily life of the Mongols.

3. _Thibetans._[419]--We may include under this name the non-Mongolian
populations of Thibet and the surrounding countries, known by the
name of _Bod_, or _Thibetans properly so called_ in southern Thibet,
by the name of _Tanguts_ in the Chinese province of Kuku-Nor, of
_Si-fan_ in western Sechuen, by that of _Ladaki_ and _Champa_ in
eastern Cashmere (province of Leh), of _Gurong_, _Limbu_, _Mangar_ and
_Murmi_ in Nepal, of _Lepchas_ or _Rongs_ in Sikkin, of _Bhutani_ in
Bhotan, etc. The _Abors_, _Mishmee_, etc., of the Himalayan country who
dominate Assam are also included among the Thibetans, but they approach
the Indonesians in type. It is the same with the _Garro_ and their
neighbours on the east, the _Khasia_ or _Djainthia_, whose language,
however, differs from the Thibetan.[420]

Most Thibetans are cultivators of the soil or shepherds, pillagers in
case of need, and fervent votaries of numerous Lamaite-Buddhist sects,
of which that of the Geluk-pa (yellow caps) represents the ruling
church. Its chief, the Dalai-Lama, residing at Lassa, is at the same
time the sovereign of Thibet.

From the somatological point of view the Thibetans exhibit certain
sufficiently marked variations. The Bothia are below the average
stature (1 m. 62 or 1 m. 63); the Lepchas are short (1 m. 57); and
the Thibetans of Nepal vary as regards average stature from 1 m. 59
(Mangars) to 1 m. 67 (Murmis). The head is mesocephalic (ceph. ind.
80.7 on the liv. sub.), but sub-dolichocephalic or sub-brachycephalic
forms are frequently met with. As a general rule, side by side with the
Mongoloid type may be seen among the Thibetans, singly or united, the
traits of another type, a somewhat slender figure, thin, prominent,
often aquiline nose, straight eyes with undrooping eyelids, long and
sometimes wavy hair, reminding one, in short, of the Gypsy type.[421]
This type, moreover, is found beyond Thibet. The _Lo-lo_ or _Nésus_,
as they call themselves, of western Sechuen and the north-east of
Yunnan, with whom we must connect the _Kolo_ or _Golyk_ of the country
of Amdo (east of Thibet), perhaps represent it in its purest form, if
the portrait of them drawn by Thorel is correct. With slight figure,
brownish complexion, they have a straight profile, oval face, high
forehead, straight and arched nose, thick beard even on the sides of
the face and always frizzy or wavy hair.[422] Their language, however,
fixed by a hieroglyphic mode of writing, appears to belong to the
Burmese family.[423] The Lo-lo not under Chinese rule are of a gay
disposition; they love dancing and singing. Woman is held among them in
great respect; there are some tribes even whose chiefs belong to the
weaker sex.

We must connect with the Lo-lo a multitude of other tribes, less
pure in type: the various _Miao-tsé_, mountaineers of the southern
part of the province of Hunnan, of Kwei-chow, of the northern part
of the Kwang-si, the north-west district of Kwang-tung, more or less
intermixed with the Chinese; the _Lissus_ of the Lu-tse-Kiang (Upper
Salwen) and the Lantsan-Kiang (Upper Mekong), near to the new boundary
of China and British India; the _Mosso_ or _Nashis_ of the district
of Li-Kiang to the east of the Lissus, related to the latter and
having an iconomatic writing; lastly, the _Lu-tse_ or _Kew-tse_, who
call themselves _Melams_ or _Anoogs_, to the west of the Lissus and
separated by an inhabited tract from the _Mishmee_, the _Sarong_ and
other Thibeto-Indonesian tribes. The language of the Lu-tse differs
from that of any of the neighbouring peoples, and their physical type
places them between the Lissus and the Indonesians, such as the Naga
for example; they are short (1 m. 56 according to Roux), but strong and
vigorous; their hair is frizzy.[424] The _Mu-tse_ mentioned by Terrien
de Lacouperie, the _Lawa_ or _Does_ described by Holt Hallet, the
_Muzours_ of T. de Lacouperie or the _Musos_ of Archer, the _Kas-Khuis_
of Garnier, scattered between the Mekong and the Salwen from the
twentieth to the twenty-fifth degree of north latitude, are probably
akin to the Lo-lo and the Mossos.[425]

III. /Populations of Eastern Asia/.--The far east of Asia is
inhabited by three nations of mixed origin: Chinese, Coreans, Japanese.

1. The _Chinese_ form by themselves alone more than the third, if not
the half of the population of Asia. They occupy in a solid mass the
whole of China properly so called, and stretch in isolated groups far
beyond the political limits of the “eighteen provinces.” Manchuria,
Southern Mongolia, Dzungaria, a portion of Eastern Turkestan and Thibet
have been invaded by Chinese colonists; and outside of the Empire it is
estimated there are not less than three millions of “Celestials” who
have emigrated to Indo-China, Malaysia, the two Americas, and even to
the islands of the Pacific Ocean and Africa.

The Chinese people have sprung from manifold intermixtures, and indeed
there are several types to discover in this nation, the anthropological
study of which is scarcely more than outlined; as it is, however,
according to historical data we may presume that five or six various
elements enter into its composition.

We know from the books of Shu-King that the primitive country of the
Chinese was the north of the present province of Kan-su. Thence the
agricultural colonists moved (about the year 2200 /B.C./,
according to a doubtful chronology) into the fertile valley of the
Houng-ho and its tributary the Wei or Hwei. Little by little, the
Chinese colonists spread along other valleys, but it took them
centuries to conquer the aboriginal tribes (the _Djoong_, the _Man_,
the _Pa_, the _Miao-tse_). Again in the seventh century /B.C./
(when exact chronology commences) the territory occupied by the Chinese
scarcely extended beyond the valley of the lower Yang-tsi on the
south and that of the Pei-ho on the north, and comprised within these
limits several aboriginal tribes like the _Hoai_, of the valley of
the same name, or the _Lai_ of the Shantung peninsula, who maintained
their independence. However that may be, the Chinese succeeded, little
by little, in driving back the first occupiers of the soil into the
mountains of the west and south, where they are still found under the
names of _Man-tse_, _Miao-tse_, _I-gen_, _Mans_, _Thos_, etc.[426]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 118.--Educated Chinaman of Manchu origin,
interpreter to Embassy, twenty-one years old, height 1 m. 75.

(_Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris._)]

While this work of driving back was carried on in the south, the
Turkish tribes, the Tunguses, the Mongols, the Manchus, invaded in
turn the north of the country. Thence resulted a marked difference
between the northern and the southern Chinese, while the Chinese of
the central parts have perhaps best preserved the original type (Fig.
119). The Chinese of the south belong very largely to the southern
Mongolian race (p. 293); they are short, sub-brachycephalic, except in
Kwang-si, where mesocephaly predominates, in consequence, probably,
of intermixtures with the aborigines of Indonesian race (H. Girard);
while the Chinese of the north are on the contrary almost tall of
stature; the head is sub-brachycephalic with a tendency towards
mesocephaly in the north, towards brachycephaly in the south (Fig.
118). The skin is lighter among the former than among the latter, the
face more elongated, etc. One of the peculiarities of the Chinese skull
is the retreating forehead, and the contraction at the level of the
temples.[427]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 119.--Leao-yu-chow, Chinese woman, born at
Foo-chow, eighteen years old, height 1 m. 52.

(_Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris._)]

The multiplicity of dialects is equally great. The Chinese of the
various provinces would have long since ceased to understand one
another had they not possessed as a medium of communication the
common signs of the written language (p. 141), which the mandarins
read in their own dialects and languages not only in China but also
in Corea, in Japan, and Indo-China. We distinguish the _Mandarin_, or
_northern, dialect_ (with which we connect the Hakka speech employed
in Kwang-tung) and that of the _south_, then the dialects of Fu-Kian,
of Che-Kiang, etc. The peculiarities of the Chinese character--filial
love, attachment to the soil, aptitude for agriculture and commerce,
peaceful disposition, love of routine, respect for letters, observance
of form, etc.--are sufficiently known.[428] Most of them are the
corollaries of ancestor-worship, of the very rigorous patriarchal
régime and the constitution of the commune (p. 248), the basis of the
whole social fabric of the Chinese Empire, which, let it be said by
the way, exhibits less organic cohesion than is generally supposed.
The frequent co-existence of belief in three religions, Taoism,
Confucianism, and Buddhism or Foism, in one and the same individual
is one of the remarkable facts of Chinese sociology. Another fact,
not less interesting, is the administrative and political mechanism
inspired theoretically by very wise and moral ideas, but leading in
practice to peculation and carelessness on the part of public officials
of which we find it difficult to form any idea in Europe.

2. The _Coreans_, who by their civilisation are connected with China,
have in all probability sprung from the intermixture of Tunguse,
Indonesian, and Japanese elements. The men are of tall stature,[429]
strong, with sub-brachycephalic head (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub.
82.3, according to Elissiéef, Koganei, and Bogdanof). The women are
more puny, and are not conspicuous for beauty; they have a yellowish
complexion, small eyes, prominent brow, and very small feet, but not
deformed like those of the Chinese (p. 175). The Corean values only
one physical charm in woman, and that is her abundant head of hair and
eyebrows, “fine as a thread” (Mme. Koïke). Besides, woman is of no
account in Corean society; she is an instrument of pleasure or work;
she is kept strictly apart from men, rarely leaves the house, and must
veil her face.

The Corean language belongs to the Uralo-Altaic family, and is closely
related to the Southern Tunguse dialects. Its mode of writing, called
_wen-mun_, differs from the Chinese, and appears either to have been
invented or derived from the Sanscrit by the Buddhist monks (M.
Courant).

The Coreans have no state religion. Buddhism, introduced towards the
close of the fourth century, has not taken root among them, and is
more and more in danger of extinction. Most Coreans live in a sort of
irreligion tempered with some animistic practices: sacrifices to the
spirits of the forests and mountains, etc. The Corean civilisation
was borrowed entire from China of the fifth or sixth century. The
associative tendency, and regard for form and ceremony, are perhaps
stronger in Corea than in China. Further, enslavement for debt, crime,
etc., exists as a regular thing in the country.[430]

3. The _Japanese_ exhibit, like so many other peoples, a certain
diversity in their physical type; the variations fluctuate between two
principal forms. The _fine_ type (Figs. 16 and 120), which may chiefly
be observed in the upper classes of society, is characterised by a
tall, slim figure; a relative dolichocephaly, elongated face, straight
eyes in the men, more or less oblique and Mongoloid in the women, thin,
convex or straight nose, etc. The _coarse_ type, common to the mass of
the people, is marked by the following characters: a thick-set body,
rounded skull, broad face with prominent cheek-bones, slightly oblique
eyes, flattish nose, wide mouth (Bälz).[431] These two types may have
been the result of crossings between Mongol sub-races (northern and
southern) and Indonesian or even Polynesian elements. The influence of
the Ainu blood is shown only in Northern Nippon.[432]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 120.--Young Japanese women taking tea; _fine_
type.

(_Phot. lent by Collignon._)]

In a general way the Japanese are of short stature (1 m. 59 for men, 1
m. 47 for women), rather robust and well proportioned. The colour of
the skin varies from pale yellow, almost white, to brownish yellow.
The Japanese have no colour in their cheeks, even when their skin is
almost white; at birth there is an accumulation of pigments on the
median line of the belly and pigmental spots (see p. 51). The pilous
system is scantily developed, except in cases where an admixture of
Ainu blood may be suspected. The head is mesaticephalic as a rule
(ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 78.2), with a tendency to brachycephaly in
the gross type, to dolichocephaly in the fine type. The skull, which
is capacious, exhibits two peculiarities: the _os japonicum_ (p. 68)
and the particular conformation of the upper jaw, which is very low and
broad, without the canine fossa. With regard to Japanese writing, see
p. 141.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 121.--Tong King artisan of Son-tai, twenty-three
years old.

(_Phot. Pr. Rd. Bonaparte._)]

The most striking traits of the Japanese character are politeness
and aptness in concealing the emotions; it must not be inferred from
this that their nature is bad; on the contrary, they are honest,
hard-working, cheerful, kind, and courageous (Mohnike, Mechnikof).[433]
European civilisation and the reforms introduced into Japan since 1868
have appreciably modified the manners and customs, but the essential
traits of the national character remain unaltered, as they were
previously unmodified by the introduction of the Chinese civilisation.
The ancient chivalrous spirit of the aristocracy, holding trade in
contempt, still survives at the present day, and partly explains the
ardour with which persons of this class have flung themselves into
political life, since Japan obtained a parliamentary administration
(1889). The Japanese have two religions, _Shintoism_, or the national
worship of the _Kami_ (native divinities), and Buddhism; but they are
fundamentally very sceptical on the subject of religion.[434]

The _islanders_ of the _Liu-Kiu_ or _Loo-choo_ archipelago resemble
the Japanese (Chamberlain), but they have a thicker beard and a darker
complexion (Bälz); they are of short stature (1 m. 58, according to Dr.
Furukawa), and Wirth has even noted among them a tribe of pigmies 1 m.
30 in height in the island of Okinava.

As to the _natives of Formosa_, the Chinese, who have colonised half of
the island, divide them into _Pepo-hoan_ (“mellowed” or tamed savages)
and _Sek-kuan_ or _Che-hoan_ (raw or uncivilised savages). The former
are met with almost everywhere, but chiefly in the north and west of
the island, the latter have been driven back into the mountains of the
interior and to the south coast. The Che-hoan are split up into several
tribes (_Atayal_, _Vonum_ in the north, _Pai-wan_, _Sarisen_, _Butan_
in the south, _Amia_ on the east coast, etc.), and remind us of the
Indonesians by their type as well as by several customs (skull-hunting,
tattooing, ear-ornaments, house in common or “Palankan”). Some of these
“savages” are acquainted with agriculture, others live by the product
of the chase. The languages of all these Formosans belong to the Malay
family, especially approximating to the Tagal.[435]

IV. /Populations of Indo-China/.--We must distinguish in the
transgangetic peninsula the probable _Aborigines_ and the peoples
sprung from the interminglings of these aborigines with the invaders
coming from the adjoining countries, and whose migrations are at least
partly known to history. These mixed populations are the _Annamese_,
the _Thais_, the _Khmers_ or _Cambodians_, the _Burmese_, and the
_Malays_.

(1) _The Aborigines._--The numerous populations scattered almost all
over Indo-China having a right to this name may be mustered into eight
groups, of which I proceed to give a short account.

_a. The Mois._--We designate by this name the numerous so-called
“savage tribes” dispersed over the table-lands and mountains between
the Mekong and the Annamese coast, from the frontiers of Yun-nan
to Cochin-China (district of Baria). In spite of the various names
given to the Mois by the adjoining nations (they are called _Mois_ in
Annam, _Peu-nongs_ in Cambodia, _Khas_ in Laos, etc.), and of the
multitude of tribes into which they are divided (the _Mo_, the _Sas_,
the _Bruns_, the _Bolovens_, the _Lové_, the _Bannars_, the _Rdé_, the
_Laté_, the _Thioma_, the _Trao_, etc.), the Mois exhibit a remarkable
uniformity in physical type and manners (Neïs). They are as a rule
short (1 m. 57), and dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 77);
their skin is tan-like white in colour, reddish; their hair is more
or less wavy, they have straight eyes, etc. In short, they differ as
much from the Annamese as the Thai, and in all probability belong for
the most part to the Indonesian race. Hunters or primitive husbandmen
(the crop is gathered by picking with the hand the rice from the stalk;
the cooking of the rice is effected in bamboos, which roast on the
fire, etc.), they go almost naked and use only primitive arms, spears,
poisoned arrows, etc. They are of fairly peaceful habits.[436]

_b. The Kuis._--This name distinguishes two ethnic groups of
Indo-China: one in the south-east of Siam and the north-west of
Cambodia, the other in the country of Kieng-Tung or Xieng-Tong (Shan
States, under British protection). The former appear to be aborigines
like the Mois; the latter are simply a branch of the _Lo-lo_ or
_Mosso_ (see p. 381). The Kuis of Cambodia are in stature under the
average (1 m. 63), sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 82),
and have a darker skin than the Laotians (Harmand). Nearly all of them
can speak Cambodian and are forgetting their mother-tongue; they have
the reputation of being skilful smiths.[437]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 122.--Khamti of Lower Burma, Assam frontier.

(_Coll. Ind. Mus., London._)]

_c._ The _Mons_ or _Talaing_ are the remnants of a population which
formerly occupied the whole of lower Burma, and have been driven back
into the unhealthy region of the deltas of the Irrawaddy, Sittong, and
Salwen rivers; their territory has mostly been taken by a population
sprung from the intermingling of the Mons with the Burmese.

The three groups of tribes which we have just enumerated speak
monosyllabic dialects correlated as regards their vocabularies, at
least so far as the words indicating numbers, the parts of the body,
trades, etc., are concerned. These dialects further present analogies
with the Khmer (p. 398) and Khasia languages (p. 380).[438]

_d._ The _Tziam_ or _Chiam_, on the other hand, are closely allied to
the Malaysian linguistic family. Their language, fixed by writing of
Indian origin, reminds us of the dialects of the Philippines. About
130,000 in number, they inhabit the province of Binh-Tuan and several
other points of Southern Annam, as well as Cochin-China (province
of Baria, etc.) and Cambodia. They represent all that remains of a
once powerful people, the founders of the empire of _Champa_, which
extended over the whole of Annam, as it now is, and the southern part
of Tong King. A section of the Tziam are Mussulmans, but the majority
are animist. The physical type is handsome; nose almost aquiline, eyes
without the Mongoloid fold, wavy or frizzy hair, dark skin. Contrary to
what exists among other peoples of Indo-China, among the Tziams it is
the woman who asks the hand in marriage.[439]

_e._ The _Karens_, who inhabit the upper valley of the Me Ping and the
mountainous districts of Arakan, Pegu, and Tenasserim, the country
between the Sittong and the Salwen (_red Karens_), probably came into
Burma at a later date than the Mons; they maintain that they came
thither from Yunnan about the fifth century of the present era. In
stature they are under the average (1 m. 64, according to Mason), and
they exhibit traits intermediate between those of the Malays and
the Thai (see below). Numbering about a million, they are speedily
becoming civilised while striving at the same time to preserve their
independence.[440]

The _Khyens_ or _Chin_ of the mountains of Arakan and the _Tung-tu_
of Tenasserim are Karens crossed with Burmese and Shans (p. 401).
The _Lemets_, the _Does_, and the _Khmus_ of Fr. Garnier (_Kamu_ and
_Kamet_ of MacLeod) who inhabit the east of Luang-Prabang (French
Laos), and perhaps the _Lavas_ or _Does_ of H. Hallet, mountaineers of
West Siam, are related to the Karens or Khyens.

_f._ The _Nagas_ of Manipur and the mountains extending to the north
(Patkoi, Barai) of this country are Indonesians more or less pure both
in physical type (Frontispiece and Fig. 17) and manners and customs.
They may be sub-divided into _Angami_, _Kanpui_, etc., wearing the
petticoat or apron, of the west; into _Lhota_, _Ho_, etc., wearing the
plaid, of the centre; and into _Nangta_, or naked, of the east. Various
ethnic peculiarities, skull-hunting and multicoloured hair or feather
ornaments, long shields (Frontispiece), breast-plates, method of
weaving, and houses in common (_Morong_), connect them with the Dyaks
and other Indonesians. Tattooing prevails only among the tribes with a
monarchical organisation (Klemm). The _Lushai_, who live at the south
of Manipur, are Nagas mixed with Kyens and Burmese of Arakan. They may
be sub-divided into several tribes: the _Kuki_, subject to the English,
very short (medium height 1 m. 57); the _Lushai_ properly so called,
partly in subjection (41,600 in Assam), somewhat slender (1 m. 63),
with brown skin, flat nose, prominent cheek-bones, husbandmen;[441] the
_Saks_, _Kamis_, and _Shendons_ or _Shaws_. West of the Lushai dwell
the _Tippera_ and the _Mrows_, tribes of short stature (1 m. 59), still
more pronouncedly intermingled with the Burmese.[442]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 123.--Black Sakai of Gunong-Inas (Perak, Malay
Peninsula).

(_Phot. Lapicque._)]

_g._ The _Selungs_ are also regarded as Indonesians; numbering but a
thousand in all, they live in their canoes in the _Mergui_ archipelago,
wandering from island to island like veritable gypsies of the sea,
after the manner of the _Orang-Sletar_ of the Straits of Singapore, now
quite disappeared. In the same category we may also place the natives
of the _Nicobar_ islands, though among the latter we must distinguish
(1) the _Nicobarese_ of the small islands and the coasts of Great
Nicobar who have intermixed with the Malays, and (2) the _Shom-Pen_
of the interior of the latter island, savages of a somewhat pure
Indonesian type.[443]

_h._ We must also include in this long list of the aboriginal peoples
of Indo-China the _Negritoes_,[444] belonging to a distinct race,
chiefly characterised by short stature, black skin, and frizzy or
woolly hair (see p. 288). As genuine representatives of this race, only
three tribes are known: the _Aeta_, who inhabit the Philippine islands
(p. 483); the _Sakai_ of the interior of the Malay peninsula; and the
_Minkopis_ of the Andaman islands.

The _Minkopis_ or _Andamanese_ (Fig. 124), of very short stature (1 m.
49), sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 82.6 average on the skull and on
the liv. sub.), are in the lowest scale of civilisation. They live in
“chongs”--small roofs on four stakes (p. 160), go naked, and procure
the strict necessaries of life by hunting, making use of a peculiar
kind of bow (p. 263). In number they scarcely exceed five thousand (E.
Reclus).

_i._ The pure _Sakai_, _Semangs_ or _Menik_ (as for example those of
Gunong-Inas, Fig. 123) are the same height as the Minkopis (1 m. 49),
but their head is less round and their face more angular than those
of the latter; they live likewise by hunting and by the gathering of
honey, camphor, india-rubber, and other products of tropical forests,
which they exchange with the Malays for tools, arms, etc. Several
populations of the Malay peninsula, particularly the _Mintra_, the
_Jakhuns_ of Jokol, are Sakai-Malay half-breeds, as is shown by the
light colour of their skin, their stature, higher than that of the
Sakai, but still very short (1 m. 54), their frizzy hair, etc.

2. Let us pass on to the _mixed populations_ of Indo-China, springing
from the probable cross-breeds of the autochthones and the invaders.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 124.--Negrito chief of Middle Andaman, height 1
m. 49; cephalic ind. 83.4.

(_Phot. Lapicque._)]

The _Cambodians_ or _Khmers_ have the first place by seniority. At
the present day they inhabit Cambodia, the adjoining parts of Siam,
and the south of Cochin-China, but they formerly extended much
farther. Two centuries ago, before the arrival of the Annamese, they
occupied the whole of Cochin-China, while to-day they are found in
any considerable number only in the unhealthy and marshy regions of
the Rach-gia, Soktrang, and Tra-Vinh districts, where their number
equals or exceeds that of the Annamese. It may be conjectured that the
Khmers have sprung from the intermixing of the Malays and Kuis, with
an infusion of Hindu blood at least in the higher classes of society.
The Cambodians are taller (1 m. 65) than the Annamese and the Thai, but
almost as brachycephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 83.6); their
eyes are rarely oblique, their hair is often wavy, etc. This population
has preserved much of its primitive savagery in spite of the influence
of several successive civilisations, of which remain the splendid
monuments of Angkor-Vat, Angkor-Tom, etc.[445]

The population which chronologically succeeds the Cambodians is that of
the _Annamese_ (Fig. 121), the inhabitants of the delta in Tong King,
of the coast in Annam, and most of Cochin-China. Some Annamese colonies
are also found in Cambodia, in Laos, and among the Mois. The Annamese
people, fifteen to seventeen millions strong at the present time, is
the outcome of numerous interminglings. Of western origin, according
to its traditions, that is to say akin to the Thai peoples, it came
at an early period into the country which it now occupies. It found
already installed there the Mois, the Khmers, and the Malays, which it
succeeded in assimilating or pushing back into the mountains and the
unhealthy regions; but it has had to support in its turn the continual
immigrations of the Chinese who brought their civilisation to it. In
spite of these complex interminglings the Annamese type is very uniform
(Harmand). The men are short in stature (1 m. 58), with slender limbs,
brachycephalic head (ceph. ind. 82.8), of angular visage with prominent
cheek-bones, and Mongoloid eyes.

The Annamese of Tong King are a little taller (1 m. 59) and darker than
those of Cochin-China and Annam (height 1 m. 57); they have also a
broader and flatter nose, the result perhaps of intermixture with the
Thos mountaineers (p. 401) who live near them.[446] The social life of
the Annamese is modelled on that of the Chinese; the village community
and the patriarchal family form the base of it, in the same way as
ancestor-worship is the religious foundation. Annamese Buddhism is
only a colourless copy of Chinese Foism and has no great hold of the
people. Very docile, the Annamese are intelligent, cheerful, and well
gifted, without being exempt from certain defects of character, common
to all Asiatics of the far East, such as dissimulation, hypocrisy, and
perfidy.

The _Burmese_ or _Mramma_ made a descent on Indo-China perhaps at
the same time as the Annamese, from their original country, which is
supposed to be the mountains of the south-east of Thibet. To-day they
occupy Upper Burma, Pegu, and Arakan. In the last-mentioned country
they bear the name of _Mag_ or _Arakanese_, and differ a little from
the true Burmese of Upper Burma, who are the purest representatives of
the Burmese people. Like the Annamese, they have attained a certain
degree of civilisation, mainly due to the influence of India. We find
existing among them monogamy, the order of castes, and Buddhism of the
south but slightly altered. The Mag are mesocephalic (ceph. ind. 81.8)
and of short stature (1 m. 61).[447]

_The Thai._--The numerous peoples speaking different Thai dialects
were the last arrivals in Indo-China. Their migrations may be followed
from the first century /B.C./, when the _Pa-y_ tribes came from
Sechuen into Western Yunnan to found there the kingdom of Luh-Tchao.
Another kingdom, that of Muang-ling, was founded more to the south-west
in Upper Burma, etc. The recent researches of Terrien de Lacouperie,
Colquhoun, Baber, Hosie, Labarth, Billet, H. Hollet, Bourne, Deblenne,
and of so many others besides, enable us to show the relations which
existed between these various Thai peoples and to assign the limits
with sufficient exactitude to their habitat, which extends from
Kwei-chow to Cambodia, between the 14th and the 26th degrees of N.
latitude.[448]

Four principal Thai peoples may be distinguished in this territory: the
_Thos-Muong_ in the north-east (Tong King and China), the _Shans_ in
the north-west (Upper Burma), the _Laotians_ in the south-east (French
Laos), and the _Siamese_ in the south-west (Siam).

We put together, under the name of _Thos-Muong_, all the natives of
Upper Tong King and the Tong King hinterland (except the mountain
summits occupied by the _Mans_, allied probably to the Lo-lo), as well
as the primitive inhabitants of Kwang-si, Southern Kwei-chow, and
Eastern Yunnan, now driven back to the mountains. The Thos inhabiting
Tong King to the east of the Red River (basin of the Claire River),
are sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 82.5), of lofty stature (1 m.
67),[449] having elongated face, straight non-Mongoloid eyes, and
brownish complexion. They partly recall the Indonesians, and partly
the still mysterious race to which the Lo-lo belong (p. 381). They are
husbandmen, living in houses on piles, and wearing a very picturesque
costume different from that of their ancient masters the Annamese.
The _Muongs_ of Tong King to the west of the Red River (basin of the
Black River), the _Pueun_ and the _Pu-Thai_ of Annamese Laos resemble
them both in type and in language, which is a Thai dialect very much
altered by Chinese and Annamese. The _Tu-jen_, the _Pe-miao_, the
_Pa-i_, forming two-thirds of the population of Kwang-si, and found in
the south of Kwei-chow and the north-west of Kwang-tung, as well as the
_Pe-jen_ or _Minkia_ of Yunnan, are Thos slightly crossed with Chinese
blood in the same way as the _Nongs_ of Tong King, the neighbours
of the Thos. Most of these peoples have a special kind of writing,
recalling that of the _Laotians_. The latter, as well as the _Shans_,
differ somewhat from the Thos in regard to type, in which we may
discern interminglings with the Indonesians, Malays, Mois, and Burmese.
Among the Shans we must distinguish the _Khamti_ (Fig. 122), a very
pure race, and the _Sing-po_ with the _Kackyen_ or _Katchin_, somewhat
intermixed with the Burmese, both of them races of mountaineers of the
northern parts of Upper Burma, between the Lu-Kiang (upper Salwen)
and the Lohit-Brahmaputra. The upper valley of the latter river is
inhabited by the _Assamese_ or _Ahoms_, cross-breeds between the Shans
and Hindus, speaking a particular dialect of the Hindi language. The
_Laotians_ are sub-brachycephalic (83.6) and of short stature (1 m.
59); those of the north tattoo their bodies like the Shans. They are
husbandmen, shepherds, and hunters.[450]

It is perhaps among the _Siamese_ that the primitive Thai type has been
most changed by intermixture with the Khmers, Kuis, Hindus, and Malays.
In stature above the average (1 m. 61), very brachycephalic (ceph.
ind. 85.5) with olive complexion, they have prominent cheek-bones,
lozenge-shaped face, and short flattish nose. They are fervent votaries
of southern Buddhism, and are the most civilised of the Thai. They have
succeeded in preserving their relative independence and forming a state
in which several reforms of European character have been attempted in
recent times.

V. /The Population of India/ represents about a third of the
inhabitants of Asia (287,223,431 inhabitants according to the census of
1891). It is sub-divided into a hundred tribes or distinct peoples, but
this multiplicity of ethnic groups is rather apparent than real, and
they may easily be incorporated into a small number of somatic races or
linguistic families; these groups frequently represent castes alone.

_Caste_ is indeed an institution peculiar to India. Of ancient
origin, this institution has developed very considerably, assuming
the most varied forms. Springing from a Hindu or Brahman source, it
penetrated little by little the other ethnic and religious groups of
the peninsula, and one might say that it is the basis of the social
organisation for four-fifths of the population of India, despite of
the fact that its power is declining at the present day beneath the
strong hand of British rule. About 2000 castes may be enumerated at the
present day, but year by year new ones are being called into existence
as a certain number disappear.[451]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 125.--Gurkha of the Kus or Khas tribe, Nepal;
mixed Indo-Thibetan type.

(_Coll. Ind. Mus., London._)]

The names of these castes are derived either from hereditary
occupations (tanners, husbandmen, etc.); from a geographical source
(Pathani, etc.), or a genealogical one--from a supposed common
ancestor; or, especially among the Dravidians, from objects or animals
singled out as _totems_ (p. 247). The essential characteristics of all
castes, persisting amid every change of form, are endogamy within
themselves and the regulation forbidding them to come into contact one
with another and partake of food together (Sénart). Endogamy within the
limits of the caste implies, as a corollary, exogamy among the sections
of the caste. The typical form of these sections is the “gotra,” an
eponymous group reputed to be descended from a common ancestor, usually
from a _rishi_, a priest or legendary saint.

Outside of this endogamic rule marriage is forbidden in all castes
between relatives to the sixth degree on the paternal side and to
the fourth degree on the maternal side. Caste has no religious
character; men of different creeds may belong to it. It is ruled by
a chief and a council (_panchâyet_), and has not limits as rigid as
is commonly supposed; the way is smoothed by compromises and liberal
interpretations of rules for rich and clever people to pass from a
lower to a higher caste.

In this way or some other a man may rise from one caste to another: in
Mirzapur many Ghonds and Korvars have become Rajputs, etc. (Crooke).
Employment is by no means the criterion of caste, as is very often
supposed. “Those who have seen Brahmans,” says Sénart, “girdled with
the sacred cord, offer water to travellers in the railway stations of
India, who have seen them drilling among the sepoys of the Anglo-Indian
army, are prepared for surprises of this kind.”[452] And in conclusion
the castes do not always agree with ethnic and somatic divisions.[453]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 126.--Group of Paniyan men and children of
Malabar.

(_Phot. Thurston._)]

Side by side with caste another characteristic institution of the
Cisgangetic Aryan or Aryanised peoples must be noted; it is the
village (_grama_) with common proprietorship of the soil and family
communities, on which I cannot dilate for want of space (see p. 247).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 127.--Young Irula girl.

(_Phot. Thurston._)]

India was the cradle of two great religions which have become
international, Brahmanism and Buddhism. This fact deserves to be
borne in mind on account of the impress left on these two religions
by the national Hindu character. The foundation of both is formed of
those characteristically Hindu beliefs,--the ideas of metempsychosis,
final deliverance, and the doctrine of the moral world, which form
a contrast with the Semitic religions. Brahmanism is professed by
about three-fourths (72 per cent.) of the inhabitants of India, while
Buddhism and its derivative Jainism only number, apart from the island
of Ceylon, three per cent. of the total population of the peninsula.
The most widespread religion after Brahmanism is Islamism (20 per cent.
of the whole population of India).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 128.--Santal of the Bhagalpur hills.

(_Coll. India Museum, London._)]

From the somatological point of view it may be affirmed to-day, after
the excellent works of Risley, Crooke, Thurston, Sarasin, Schmidt,
Jagor, Mantegazza, etc., that the variety of types found in the
country is due to the crossing of two indigenous races, Indo-Afghan
and Melano-Indian or Dravidian, with the admixture here and there of
foreign elements: Turkish and Mongol in the north, Indonesian in the
east, Arab and Assyroid in the west, and perhaps the Negritoid element
in the centre. The Indo-Afghan race, of high stature, with light brown
or tanned complexion, long face, wavy or straight hair, prominent
and thin nose, dolichocephalic head, predominates in the north-west
of India; the Melano-Indian or Dravidian race, also dolichocephalic
but of short stature, with dark brown or black complexion, wavy or
frizzy hair, is chiefly found in the south. In it two sub-races may
be distinguished: a _platyrhinian_ one, with broad flat nose, rounded
face, found in the mountainous regions of Western Bengal, Oudh and
Orissa, also at several points of Rajputana and Gujarat, then in
Southern India, and in the central provinces to the south of the rivers
Narbada and Mahanadi. The other sub-race, _leptorhinian_, with narrow
prominent nose, and elongated face may be noted in some particular
groups, especially among the Nairs, the Telugus, and the Tamils.[454]

1. _Melano-Indians or Dravidians._--This group, at once somatological
and linguistic, includes two sub-divisions, based on differences of
language: the division of Kolarians, and that of Dravidians properly so
called.

_a._ _Kolarians._[455]--The numerous tribes speaking the languages
of the Kol family and belonging to the platyrhinian variety of the
Melano-Indian race, more or less modified by interminglings, occupy
the mountainous regions of Bengal and the provinces of the north-west.
Certain of these tribes, of the purest type, like the _Juang_ or
_Patua_ of Keunjhar and Dhenkanal (Orissa), are distinguished by very
short stature (1 m. 57), zygomatic arches projecting outwards, and
flat face, as well as by certain ethnic characters; they go nearly
naked, live on the products of the chase and the fruits and roots
gathered; they also practise a little primitive cultivation by burning
the forests, etc. The _Kharia_ of Lohardaga (Chota Nagpur), who
resemble the Juang in type, language, and tattooings (three lines above
the nose, etc.), are partly civilised; some cultivate the ground with
a plough, have a rudimentary social constitution, etc. The other Kols
are, for the most part, still further advanced. Such are the _Santals_
or _Sonthals_ (Fig. 128) of Western Bengal, of Northern Orissa, and of
Bhagalpur, who call themselves “Hor”; the _Munda_ or _Horo-hu_ of Chota
Nagpur; the _Ho_ or _Lurka-Kols_ of the district of Singbhum (Bengal);
lastly, the _Bhumij_ of Western Bengal, all probably sections of one
and the same people, formerly much more numerous.[456] The Kols of the
north-west provinces (height 1 m. 64; ceph. ind. 73.2, according to
Risley and Crooke) are closely allied to the groups which I have just
mentioned. The _Savaras_ or _Saoras_, scattered over Orissa, Chota
Nagpur, Western Bengal, and as far as the province of Madras, speak
a language which Cunningham, Cust, and Fr. Müller consider Kolarian,
while, according to Dalton, it belongs to the Dravidian family
properly so called. Physically, they resemble the Malé Dravidians, and
exhibit the tolerably pure type of the platyrhinian sub-race of the
Melano-Indians.[457] The same doubt exists in regard to the linguistic
affinities of the _Bhils_ of Central India and the north-west provinces.

_b._ _Dravidians properly so called._--They may be divided into two
groups, those of the north and those of the south.

_Dravidians of the North._--These are in the first place the _Malé_
(plural _Maler_) or _Asal Paharia_ of the Rajmahal hills (Bengal),
probably one of the sections of the Savara people (see above);[458] the
_Oraons_ (523,000 in 1891), several tribes of which are also found in
the north-west of Chota Nagpur; lastly, the _Gonds_ (three millions)
of the Mahadeo mountains and part of the central provinces situated
farther south, between the rivers Indravati and Seleru, tributaries
of the Godavari. To the east of the Gonds dwell the _Khands_ and the
_Khonds_ (600,000), who have spread into Orissa.

All these tribes have scarcely got beyond the stage of hunters or
primitive husbandmen, who set their forests on fire in order to sow
among the ashes. In this respect the _Korwa_ of Sarguja, of Jashpur
(Bengal), and Mirzapur (north-west province) resemble them, if they are
not even more uncivilised. They are unacquainted with clothes of any
kind, obtain fire by sawing one piece of wood with another, and have
an animistic religion much less developed than that of the Gonds or
Oraons.[459]

_Dravidians of the South._--To the south of the Godavari dwell five
black, half-civilised peoples, having a particular form of writing,
professing Brahmanism, and showing an intermingling of two varieties
of the Melano-Indian race. Side by side with them, and among them, are
found a number of small tribes more or less uncivilised and animistic,
having somatic types of considerable variety.

The five half-civilised Dravidian peoples are the _Telingas_ or
_Telugus_ of the Coromandel coast, of Nizam and Jarpur (some twenty
millions); the _Kanaras_ of the Mysore table-land (about ten millions);
the _Malayalim_ of the Malabar coast (nearly six millions); the _Tulus_
of Mangalore (350,000); lastly, the _Tamils_, occupying the rest of
Southern India and the north of Ceylon (about fifteen millions).

As to the uncivilised tribes, some occupy the Anamalli hills (the
_Kader_, the _Madavars_), others inhabit Travancore (_Pulaya_,
_Paligars_, _Tir_, _Shanar_, etc.). Also to be noted are the
_Choligha_, at the foot of the Mysore hills, the _Paniyans_ (Fig.
126) of Vaïnad or Vinad (Malabar coast), very short (1 m. 57),
dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 74), and very platyrhine
(nas. ind. 95.1); lastly, the very interesting _tribes_ of the _Nilgiri
hills_; the _Irulas_ (Fig. 127) and, above these, the _Kurumbas_ (Fig.
8), on the southern and northern slopes; the _Badagas_, the _Kotas_,
and the _Todas_ on the plateau crowning these heights.[460]

The _Kurumbas_ and the _Irulas_ (58,503 in 1891) are of short stature
(1 m. 58 and 1 m. 60), dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub.
75.8), and platyrhine (nas. ind. 87 and 85). They are the half-savage
tribes of the jungles.

As to the tribes of the plateau, they are distinguished according
to their occupation and type. The _Badagas_ (29,613 in 1891) are
husbandmen, the _Kotas_ (1,201) are artisans, and the _Todas_ (Figs.
7, 129, and 130) shepherds. The two former approximate to the other
Dravidians in type; they are of average height (1 m. 64 and 1 m. 63),
hyper-dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 71.7 and 74.1),
and mesorhine (nas. ind. 75.6). But the Todas present a particular
type: high stature (1 m. 70), associated with dolichocephaly (ceph.
ind. on the liv. sub. 73.1) and mesorhiny (nas. ind. 74.9), somewhat
light tint of skin, and the pilous system very developed (Figs. 129
and 130). In short, they appear to belong to the Indo-Afghan race,
with perhaps an admixture of the Assyroid race. Besides, a number of
customs and manners (group marriage, aversion to milk, rude polytheism,
etc.) differentiate them from the other populations of India. They are
a very small tribe, which, however, increases from year to year (693
individuals in 1871, 736 in 1891).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 129.--An old Toda man of Nilgiri hills.

(_Phot. Thurston._)]

2. The _Aryans of India_ form the greatest portion of the population to
the north of the Nerbada and Mahanadi; they speak different dialects
of the neo-Hindu language (ancient Bracha language, branch of the
_Prakrit_ or corrupt vulgar Sanscrit). The following are the principal
dialects: the _Hindi_, _Bengali_, _Punjabi_, _Kashmiri_, _Guzrati_,
and _Sindi_. We distinguish several ethnic groups by these dialects,
or the generic names designating aggregations of castes: _Brahmans_,
_Rajputs_ (10-1/2 millions), _Jats_ and _Gujars_ (9 millions
altogether), _Katis_ (42,000); or by their religion, as the _Sikhs_,
renowned for their warlike disposition, and recognising, at least
theoretically, no castes.[461]

The root-stock of all these populations is formed by the Indo-Afghan
race. This race we find again in almost a pure state among the Sikhs
(stature 1 m. 71, ceph. ind. in the liv. sub. 72.7, nas. ind. on the
liv. sub. 68.8), and a little weakened among the Punjabi (height, 1
m. 68, ceph. ind. 74.9, nas. ind. 70.2). Among the Hindus of Behar,
of the north-west provinces and Oudh, among the Mahratis between the
river Tapti and Goa, the type is still more changed in consequence of
interminglings with the Dravidians; the stature becomes shorter (1 m.
63 and 1 m. 64), the head rounder (ceph. ind. 75.7), the nose broader
(nas. ind. 80.5 and 74), the complexion darker, etc.[462] With the
Indo-Aryans are grouped, according to their type and language, the
Kafirs or Siahposh of Kafiristan, and the _Dardi_ or _Dardu_, occupying
the countries situated more to the east, between the Pamirs on the
north, Kashmir on the south, Kafiristan to the west, and Baltistan to
the east--that is to say, Chitral, Dardistan (Yassin, Hunza, Nagar),
Gilghit, Chilas, Kohistan. The Dardis are divided into four castes or
tribes (Biddulph); that of the _Chins_, forming the majority of the
people, is distinguished by its short stature and its dark complexion,
and recalls the Hindus of the north-west provinces (Ujfalvy); while
another tribe, called _Yeshkhun_, speaks a language which, according to
Biddulph, has affinities with the Turkish languages, and, according to
Leitner, is a non-Aryan agglutinative language presenting analogies
with Dravidian dialects. The Yeshkhuns inhabit Dardistan. Biddulph
affirms that one may often encounter among them individuals with light
and especially red hair. The forty-four Yeshkhuns and Chins measured
by Ujfalvy were below the average height (1 m. 61), dolichocephalic
(ceph. ind. 75.8), with black wavy hair, fine shaped nose, and rather
dark skin; while nineteen “_Turki-Dardi_” of Hunza-Nagar and Yassin
measured by Risley and Capus give a stature above the average (1 m.
69), and the cephalic index almost mesocephalic (77). They are thus
closely allied to the _Chitrali_ (stature 1 m. 67, ceph. ind. 76.9 from
six subjects only, measured by Risley).[463] Most of the Dardu tribes
are endogamous; polygamy is general. In certain tribes there are to be
found survivals of polyandry and of the matriarchate.[464]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 130.--Group of Todas of Nilgiri Hills.

(_Phot. lent by Deyrolle._)]

The _Baltis_, neighbours of the Dardus on the east, speaking a Thibetan
dialect, and the _Pakhpuluk_ of the other side of the Kara-Korum (upper
valley of the Karakash), speaking a Turkish tongue (Forsyth), are a
mixture of Indo-Aryan and Turkish races. On the other hand, in the
Himalayan region, the _Nepalese_ (the _Kulu-Lahuli_ and _Paharias_ on
the west, the _Khas_, the _Mangars_ and other _Gurkhas_, Fig. 125,
on the east), speaking a neo-Hindu language, have sprung from the
intermingling of Indo-Afghan and Mongolic races (by the Thibetans).
There are in India other peoples among whom linguistic or somatological
affinities with the Indo-Aryans are found. Such are the _Nairs_ of
Malabar, a conglomerate of various castes and tribes, well known
by their marriage customs (p. 232), many of these tribes forming
a contrast with the Dravidians by their fine type, their light
complexion, their thin and prominent nose.[465]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 131.--Singhalese of Candy, Ceylon, twenty-seven
years old; ceph. ind. 72.4.

(_Phot. Delisle._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 132.--Same subject as Fig. 131, seen in profile.

(_Phot. Delisle._)]

The _Singhalese_ (Figs. 131 and 132) of the south of Ceylon speak a
fundamentally Aryan language. They have certain traits in common with
the Indo-Afghans and the Assyroids, but their type has been affected by
the neighbourhood of a small mysterious tribe, that of the _Veddahs_
(Figs. 5, 6, and 133), driven back into the mountains of the south-west
of Ceylon. This is the remnant of a very primitive population whose
physical type approximates nearest to the platyrhine variety of the
Dravidian race, at the same time presenting certain peculiarities. The
Veddahs are monogamous; they live in caves or under shelters of boughs
(p. 160), hiding themselves even from the Singhalese.[466]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 133.--Tutti, Veddah woman of the village of
Kolonggala, Ceylon; twenty-eight years old, height 1 m. 39.

(_Phot. Brothers Sarasin._)]

VI. /Peoples of Anterior Asia/.--The multitude of peoples,
tribes, castes, colonies, and religious brotherhoods of Iran, Arabia,
Syria, and Asia Minor, this crossing-place of ethnic migrations, are
chiefly composed in various degrees of the three races--Indo-Afghan,
Assyroid, and Arab, with the addition of some other foreign races,
Turkish, Negro, Adriatic, Mongolic, etc.

From the linguistic point of view, this multitude may perhaps be
reduced to two great groups: the Eranians or Iranians and the Semites,
if we exclude some peoples whose linguistic affinities have not yet
been established.

1. The _Iranians_ or _Eranians_ occupy the Iranian plateau and the
adjoining regions, especially to the east. They speak different
languages of the Eranian branch of the Aryan linguistic family. In
physical composition the main characters are supplied by the Assyroid
race (Fig. 22) with admixture of Turkish elements in Persia and Turkey,
Indo-Afghan elements in Afghanistan, and Arab and Negroid elements in
the south of Persia and Baluchistan.

Among Iranian peoples the first place, as regards number and the part
played in history, belongs to the _Persians_. They may be divided
into three geographical groups. If within the approximate limits of
Persia of the present day a line be drawn running from Astrabad to
Yezd and thence towards Kerman, we shall have on the east the habitat
of the _Tajiks_, on the west that of the _Hajemis_ (between Teheran
and Ispahan[467]), and that of the _Parsis_ or _Pharsis_ (between
Ispahan and the Persian Gulf). The _Tajiks_, moreover, spread beyond
the frontiers of Persia into Western Afghanistan, the north-west
of Baluchistan, Afghan Turkestan and Russian Turkestan, as far as
the Pamirs (_Galcha_), and perhaps even beyond. In fact, the _Polu_
and other “Turanians” of the northern slope of the Kuen Lun, while
speaking a Turkish language, bear a physical resemblance to the Tajiks
(Prjevalsky). Like the _Sartes_, settled inhabitants of Russian
Turkestan, and the _Tats_ of the south-west shore of the Caspian, and
the _Aderbaijani_ of the Caucasus, they are Persians more or less
crossed with Turks, whose language they speak.

The _Tajiks_ are brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 84.9), above the average
height (1 m. 69), and show traces of intermixture with the Turkish
race,[468] while the _Hajemis_ (Fig. 22), and in some measure the
_Parsis_, who are dolichocephalic (77.9), and of average height (1 m.
65), are of the Assyroid or Indo-Afghan type.

The _Parsis_ are not very numerous in Persia. Most of them emigrated
into India after the destruction of the empire of the Sassanides (in
634); they form there an important and very rich community (89,900
individuals in 1891), having still preserved their ancient Zoroastrian
religion. This community, if chiefly composed of bankers, has also many
men of letters. The education of women in it is specially looked after,
the first woman to obtain the diploma of Doctor in Medicine in India
being a Parsi.[469] Physically they are of the mixed Indo-Assyroid
type, the head sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 82, according to Ujfalvy).

After the Persians come the Pathan Afghans[470] or _Pashtu_. They
form the agricultural population of Afghanistan, and are divided into
_Duranis_ (in the west and south of the country), _Ghilzis_ (in the
east), and into several other less important tribes: the _Swatis_, the
_Khostis_, the _Waziris_, the _Kakars_, etc. The Afghans of India and
the Indo-Afghan frontier are divided into several tribes, of which the
principal ones are the _Afridis_ near the Khyber pass and the Yusafzais
near Peshawar.[471]

The _Baluchis_ or _Biloch_ of Baluchistan and Western India speak
an Eranian dialect akin to Persian; physically they belong to the
Indo-Afghan race, but mixed with the Arabs on the south and the Jats
and the Hindus on the east, with the Turks on the north and the
Negroes on the south-west. The _Mekrani_ of the coast of Baluchistan
and partly of Persia are a mixture of Indo-Afghan, Assyroid, and Negro
races (Fig. 134). The _Rinds_ (“Braves”) of the same coast of Mekran,
who claim to be pure Baluchis, are only Arabs of the Kahtan tribe.[472]
The nomadic _Brahuis_ of Eastern Baluchistan, especially those of
the environs of Kelat, resemble the Iranians. It is said that their
language has some affinities with the Dravidian dialect. In reality,
the ethnic place of this population, predominant in Baluchistan, is yet
to be determined.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 134.--Natives of Mekran (Baluchistan): on the
right, Afghan type; on the left, the same with Negro intermixture.

(_Phot. Lapicque._)]

With the Iranian group it is customary to connect, especially from
linguistic considerations, the Kurds, the Armenians, and the Ossets
(p. 356). The first-mentioned people, influenced here and there by
interminglings with the Turks, physically resemble the Hajemis:
sub-dolichocephalic head, 78.5 when it is not deformed (p. 176),
height above the average (1 m. 68), aquiline nose, etc. They occupy
in a more or less compact mass the border-lands between Persia and
Asia Minor; but they are found in isolated groups from the Turkmenian
steppes (to the north of Persia) to the centre of Asia Minor (to the
north-west of Lake Túz-gól). As to the _Armenians_ or _Hai_, they are
found in a compact body only around Lake Van and Mount Ararat, the
rest being scattered over all the towns of the south-west of Asia,
the Caucasus, the south of Russia, and even Galicia and Transylvania.
It is a very mixed and heterogeneous ethnic group as regards physical
type. The stature varies from 1 m. 63 to 1 m. 69 according to different
localities, but the cephalic index is nearly uniformly brachycephalic
(85 to 87). The predominant features are however formed by the
Indo-Afghan, Assyroid, and perhaps Turkish and Adriatic races. Their
language differs appreciably from the other Eranian tongues.[473]

2. The _Semite_ linguistic group is represented by Arabs, Syrians, and
Jews.

The _Arabs_ occupy, besides Arabia, a portion of Mesopotamia, the
shores of the Red Sea, the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf, and
the north of Africa. The pure type, characterised by dolichocephaly
(ceph. ind. 70), prominence of the occiput, elongated face, aquiline
nose, slim body, etc., is still preserved in the south of Arabia
among the _Ariba Arabs_, among the mountaineers of Hadramaout and
Yemen (country of the ancient _Himyarites_ or _Sabeans_), and among
the _Bedouins_, descendants of the _Ismaelites_ of the interior of
Central and Northern Arabia; but the tribes which have drawn nearer the
coast or the valleys of Mesopotamia show signs of interminglings with
populations of a predominant Assyroid or Turkish type, without taking
into account, as at Haza and on the coast of Yemen, the Negro and
Ethiopic influence. Typical nomads, having in the religion founded by
Mahomet a national bond of union, the Arabs make their influence widely
felt over the world. Traces of the Arab type are met with not only over
the whole of Northern Africa (see p. 432), but also in Asia Minor, the
Caucasus, Western Persia, in India; while numerous traces of the Arab
language[474] and civilisation are found in Europe (Malta, Spain), in
China, Central Asia, and in the Asiatic Archipelago. The _Melkits_ and
the _Wahabits_ are two religious sects of Arabs.

The people of Syria and Palestine, known by the name of Syrians in the
towns, of _Kufar_ in the country, is the product of the interminglings
of Arabs with descendants of Phœnicians and with Jews. It also forms
the basis of numerous ethnic groups connected solely by religion,
and of constituent elements often very heterogeneous: such are the
_Maronites_ of Western Lebanon, the _Nestorians_, the _Druzes_ of
Hermon and Djebel Hauran (Kurdish elements), among whom woman occupies
a higher position than among other Asiatics; the _Metouali_ (Shiah
sect) of Tyre; the _Nazareans_ or _Ansarieh_, who perhaps represent,
along with the _Takhtaji_ (Gypsy elements), the _Kizilbashes_ and the
_Yezides_ or _Yezdi_ (Kurdish elements) of Mesopotamia, the remains of
the primitive population of Asia Minor, akin, according to Luschan, to
the Armenians.[475]

The _Jews_ are not very numerous (250,000) in Asia, and are found
scattered in small groups throughout the world. Even in the country
which was formerly a Jewish State, Palestine, they scarcely exceed
75,000 in number at the present day. They are found in compact groups
only in the neighbourhood of Damascus, at Jerusalem, and at the foot of
the mountain-chain of Safed.

It is well known that to-day the Jews are scattered over the whole
earth. Their total number is estimated at eight millions, of which
the half is in Russia and Rumania, a third in Germany and Austria,
and a sixth in the rest of the world, even as far as Australia. The
great majority of Jews are unacquainted with _Hebrew_, which is a dead
language; they speak, according to the country they inhabit, particular
kinds of jargon, the most common of which is the Judeo-German.
Physically the Jews present two different types, one of which
approximates to the Arab race (Fig. 21), the other to the Assyroid.
Sometimes these types are modified by the addition of elements of the
populations in the midst of which they dwell;[476] but, even in these
cases, many traits, such as the convex nose, vivacity of eye, frequency
of erythrism (p. 50), frizzy hair, thick under lip, inferiority of
the thoracic perimeter, etc., show a remarkable persistence. The Arab
type is common among the Spanish Jews who practise the Sefardi rite,
among the native Jews of the Caucasus, very brachycephalic however
(85.5 ceph. ind., according to Erckert and Chantre),[477] and among
those of Palestine, while the Assyroid type dominates among the Jews
of Asia Minor, Bosnia, and Germany. These last, like the Jews of Slav
countries, practise the Askenazi rite. The Jews of Bosnia, called
Spaniols, coming from Spain by Constantinople, are under average height
(1 m. 63) and mesocephalic (ceph. ind. 80.1, Gluck); those of Galicia,
Western Russia, and Russian Poland are shorter (1 m. 61 and 62) and
sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 82); those of England are of the same
stature (1 m. 62), but mesocephalic (ceph. ind. 80).[478]

Along with the Jews we must put another people, also dispersed over
nearly the whole earth, and of Asiatic origin, probably from India, to
judge by the affinities of its language with the Hindu dialects--the
_Gypsies_. They are found in India (_Banjars_, _Nats_, etc.), Persia
and Russian Turkestan (_Luli_, _Mazang_, _Kara-Luli_, etc.), in Asia
Minor (where are also found their congeners, the _Yuruks_); then
in Syria (_Chingane_), in Egypt (_Phagari_, _Nuri_, etc.), and all
over Europe, with the exception, it is said, of Sweden and Norway;
they are found in considerable numbers in Rumania (200,000), Turkey,
Hungary, and the south-west of Russia. In all they number nearly a
million. The pure so-called “Black Gypsies” are of the Indo-Afghan race
(stature 1 m. 72, ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. 76.8), but very often
they have intermingled with the populations in the midst of which they
dwell.[479]



CHAPTER XI.

RACES AND PEOPLES OF AFRICA.

    /Ancient Inhabitants of Africa/--Succession of races on the “dark
    continent”--/Present Inhabitants of Africa/--/I/. _Arabo-Berber
    or Semito-Hamite Group_: Populations of Mediterranean Africa
    and Egypt--/II/. _Ethiopian or Kushito-Hamite Group_: Bejas,
    Gallas, Abyssinians, etc.--/III/. _Fulah-Zandeh Group_: The
    Zandeh, Masai, Niam-Niam populations of the Ubangi-Shari, etc.,
    Fulbé or Fulahs--/IV/. _Nigritian Group_: Nilotic Negroes or
    Negroes of eastern Sudan--Negroes of central Sudan--Negroes of
    western Sudan and the Senegal--Negroes of the coast or Guinean
    Negroes, Kru, Agni, Tshi, Vei, Yoruba, etc.--/V/. _Negrillo
    Group_: Differences of the Pygmies and the Bushmen--/VI/. _Bantu
    Group_: Western Bantus of French, German, Portuguese, and Belgian
    equatorial Africa--Eastern Bantus of German, English, and
    Portuguese equatorial Africa--Southern Bantus: Zulus, etc.--/VII/.
    _Hottentot-Bushman Group_: The Namans and the Sans--/VIII/.
    _Populations of Madagascar_: Hovas, Malagasi, Sakalavas.


The term “Black Continent” is often applied to Africa, but it must
not therefore be supposed that it is peopled solely by Negroes.
Without taking into account the white Arabo-Berbers and the yellow
Bushmen-Hottentots, which have long been known, it may now be shown,
after a half-century of discovery, that the population of Africa
presents a very much greater variety of types and races than was
formerly imagined.


ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF AFRICA.

We are only just beginning to know something about prehistoric Africa.
Egypt, that classic land of the oldest historic monuments of the earth,
has yielded in late years, thanks to the excavations of Flinders
Petrie, D’Amelineau, and above all, of De Morgan, a large quantity of
wrought stone objects, similar in character to those of Europe, and if
certain objections may still be raised in regard to the palæolithic
period of Egypt, which is not dated by a fauna, we can scarcely deny
the existence of the _neolithic_ period in this country, the period
which preceded or was contemporaneous with the earliest dynasties of
which monuments have yet been discovered.[480]

Hatchets, knives, and scrapers of very rude palæolithic and neolithic
types have been discovered in Cape Colony (W. Gooch, J. Sanderson);
flint arrow-heads and implements of the Chellean type in the country of
the Somalis, in the Congo Free State;[481] ironstone arrow-heads in the
country of the Monbuttus (Emin Pacha). Numerous stone implements and
weapons of various palæolithic types, much finer than the preceding, as
well as neolithic hatchets, have been found in Algeria (at Tlemcen), in
South Algeria (at El-Golea, etc.), and as far as Timbuctoo (Weisgerber,
Lenz, Collignon, etc.). Lastly, Tunis presents a progressive series
of palæolithic implements absolutely similar to those of Europe in
several stations (at Gafsa and, in a general way, west from the Gulf of
Gabes).[482] But all these finds are very isolated and too far removed
one from another to enable us to infer from them the existence of one
and the same primitive industry over the whole continent.[483] Numerous
facts on the contrary, particularly the absence of stone implements
among the most primitive of the existing tribes of Africa (with the
exception of the perforated round stone with which the digging-stick
is weighted, as well as the stone pestles met with among some Negro
tribes), and the rarity of superstitions associated with stone
implements, lead us to suppose that the stone age only existed on the
dark continent in a sporadic state and in virtue of local and isolated
civilisations. Further, the absence of bronze implements, outside of
Egypt, leads us to suppose that the majority of the peoples of Africa,
with the exception of the inhabitants of Egypt and the Mediterranean
coast, passed from the age of bone and wood to that of iron almost
without transition.

Several palæethnologists go so far as to think that the iron industry
was imported into Europe from Africa. At all events skilful smiths
(Fig. 135) are found in the centre of Africa among Negro tribes
somewhat backward in other respects.

Historic data are lacking in regard to most of the peoples of Africa,
especially for remote periods, except in Egypt. However, combining the
various historic facts known to us with the recent data of philology
and those, still more recent, of anthropology, we may assume with
sufficient probability the following superposition of races and peoples
in Africa.

The primitive substratum of the population is formed of Negroes, very
tall and very black, in the north; of Negrilloes, brown-skinned dwarfs,
in the centre; of Bushmen, short, yellow, and steatopygous, in the
south. On this substratum was deposited at a distant but indefinite
period the so-called Hamitic element of European or Asiatic origin, the
supposed continuators of the Cro-Magnon race.[484] This element has
been preserved in a comparatively pure state among the Berbers, and
perhaps has been transformed by interminglings with the Negroes, into
a new race, analogous to the Ethiopian, with which we must probably
connect the ancient Egyptians. The Berbers drove back the Negroes
towards the south, while the Ethiopians, a little later, filtered
through the Negroid mass from east to west. This infiltration continues
at the present day.

A new wave of migration followed that of the Hamites. These were the
southern Semites or Himyarites who crossed from the other side of the
Red Sea. Probably as far back as the Egyptian neolithic period they
began the slow but sure process of modifying the Berbers, Ethiopians,
and Negroes of the north-east of Africa.

The Negro populations driven back towards the south were obliged
to intermingle with the Negrillo pygmies, the Ethiopians, and
Hottentot-Bushmen, and gave birth to the Negro tribes composing
to-day the great linguistic family called _Bantu_. Bantu migrations,
at first from the north to the south, then in the opposite direction
and towards the west, have been authenticated.[485] As a consequence
of the interminglings due to these migrations, the Negrilloes and
the Hottentots have been absorbed to a great extent by the Bantus,
and the rare representatives of these races, still existing in a
state of relative purity, are to-day driven back into the most
unhealthy and inhospitable regions of Central and Southern Africa.
The last important invasion of alien peoples into Africa was that of
the Northern Semites or Arabs. It was, rather, a series of invasions,
ranging from the first century /B.C./ to the fifteenth century,
when the climax was reached. The Arab tribes have profoundly modified
certain Berber and Ethiopian populations from the somatic point of
view as well as the ethnic. Moreover, the Arab influence under the
form of Islamism continues to the present time its onward march over
the dark continent, making from the north-east to the south-west. The
Guinea coast, the basin of the Congo, and Southern Africa alone have
as yet remained untouched by this influence. Let us note in conclusion
the Malay-Indonesian migration towards Madagascar, and the European
colonisation begun in the seventeenth century.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 135.--Arts and crafts among the Kafirs. To the
left, pottery making (coiling method); to the right, smiths and a
breaker of iron ore; in the middle, woman playing a harp.

(_Drawing by P. Moutet, partly after Wood._)]


EXISTING POPULATIONS OF AFRICA.

Putting on one side the Madagascar islanders and the European and
other colonists,[486] the thousands of peoples and tribes of the
“dark continent” may be grouped, going from north to south, into six
great geographical, linguistic, and, in part, anthropological units:
1st, the Arabo-Berbers or Semito-Hamites; 2nd, the Ethiopians or
Kushito-Hamites; 3rd, the Fulah-Zandeh; 4th, the Negrilloes or Pygmies;
5th, the Nigritians or Sudanese-Guinea Negroes; 6th, the Bantus; 7th,
the Hottentot-Bushmen.[487]

I. The _Arabo-Berber_ or _Semito-Hamitic_ group occupies the north of
Africa as far as about the 15th degree of lat. N., and is composed, as
its name indicates, of peoples having as a base the Arab and Berber
races. Under the name of _Berbers_ are included populations varying
very much in type and manners and customs, speaking either Arabic
(Semitic language) or Berberese (Hamitic language). Three-fourths
of the “Arabs” of Northern Africa are only Berbers speaking Arabic,
and are the more “Arabised” in regard to manners and customs as they
are nearer to Asia. The nomads of the Libyan desert and Tripoli have
preserved fairly well the Berber type, but they have become Arabs in
language and usages. In Tunis and Algeria the Arab influence is still
very much felt in the south; in Morocco it is very trifling. From the
social point of view, the contrast is great between the settled Berber
and the nomadic Arab. To give but one example, the democratic _régime_
of the former, based on private property, bears no resemblance whatever
to the autocratic _régime_ of the latter, founded on collective
property. But all the Berbers are not of settled habits (example: the
Tuaregs), and several tribes have adopted the Arab mode of life.[488]

Physically, the Algero-Tunisian Berber also differs from the Arab.
His height is scarcely above the average (1 m. 67), while the Arab
is distinguished by his lofty stature. The Berber head is, generally
speaking, not so long as the Arab, although both are dolichocephalic.
The face is a regular oval in the Arab, almost quadrangular in the
pure Berber. The nose is aquiline in the former, straight or concave
in the latter, and moreover, the Berbers have a sort of transverse
depression on the brow, above the glabella, which is not seen in the
Arabs; on the other hand, they have not so prominent an occiput as the
latter. This characterisation is quite general; in reality, among the
Arabs, and especially among the Berbers, there is a very great variety
of type. According to Collignon,[489] four Berber sub-races or types
must be recognised. (1) The _Djerba_ sub-race, characterised by short
stature, globular head (ceph. ind. on the living sub. 78 to 81.7), is
well represented in the populations of the south-east and the east
Tunisian coast, as well as by certain _Kabyles_, by the _Mzabs_,[490]
and the _Shawias_ of the Aures. (2) The _Elles type_, dolichocephalic,
with broad face, occupies the centre of Tunis and the east of Kabylia.
(3) The _dolichocephalic Berber sub-race_, with narrow face and stature
above the average, forms the present type in Algeria-Tunisia. (4) The
_Jerid_ or _Oasis type_ (Fig. 136), of somewhat lofty stature and dark
complexion, is well represented around the Tunisian “Shotts.”

[Illustration: /Fig./ 136.--Tunisian Berber, Oasis type. Ceph. ind. 70.

(_After Collignon._)]

Among the nomadic Berbers we must mention separately the _Tuaregs_ or
_Imoshagh_, as they call themselves,[491] with their manifold divisions
(_Azjars_, _Haggars_, etc.) spread over the western Sahara. Very
characteristic of their costume is the black veil which covers the head
leaving only the eyes free, the stone rings on the arms forming also
a very national ornament. They employ certain characters in writing
peculiar to themselves. In the _Maghrebi_, who roam over the plateaus
situated to the west of the Nile, the Arab strain is very strongly
marked.[492] On the other side of the great African river, towards the
Red Sea, the Berbers have entirely disappeared and the population is
formed of Arabs more or less unmixed. The Bedouins of Egypt (237,000
in 1894) are Berber-Arabs divided into numerous tribes (_Aulad-Ali_,
_Gavazi_, _Eleikat_, etc.).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 137.--Trarza-Moor of the Senegal.

(_Phot. Collignon._)]

The nomadic or settled _Moors_ (Fig. 137) of the western Sahara,
extending from Morocco to the Senegal (the _Trarza_, the _Brakna_,
etc.), speak Arabic and “Zenagha,” which is a Berber dialect. These
are Berbers more or less crossed with Negro blood. It must further
be observed that the name of Moors is very wrongly applied to the
Mussulman inhabitants of the towns of Algeria and Tunis and to the
_Riffians_ of Morocco.[493]

The _Fellaheen_, Mussulmans (635,600 in 1894) of the lower valley of
the Nile (as far as the first cataract), mixed descendants of the
ancient Egyptians, must be included among the Arabo-Berbers because
they have abandoned the speech of their ancestors, adopting that of the
Arabs, but many of them have preserved intact the type of the primitive
Egyptians, fundamentally Ethiopian, so well represented on various
monuments in the valley of the Nile.[494] The ancient Egyptian language
is preserved, however, under the form of the _Coptic_ dialect which,
until quite recent times, served as the liturgical language to the
Christian section of the inhabitants of Lower Egypt, known by the name
of _Copts_ (500,000 in 1894; cephalic index 76, according to Chantre).

We must likewise add to the Arabo-Berber group the _Barabra_ (in the
singular _Berberi_) inhabiting to the number of about 180,000 the part
of the Nile valley situated between the first and the fourth cataract.
It is a people sprung from the intermingling of Ethiopians, Egyptian
Fellaheen, and Arabs (ceph. ind. 76). One of the most commercial tribes
of this ethnic group is that of the _Danagla_ inhabiting the country of
Dongola.

II. The _Ethiopians_ or _Kushito-Hamites_, who are sometimes called
_Nuba_ or _Nubians_,[495] inhabit the north-east of Africa, from the
25th degree lat. N. to the 4th degree lat. S. They occupy almost all
the coast land of the Red Sea, and that of the Indian Ocean from the
Gulf of Aden to Port Durnford or Wubashi. Their territory is bounded
on the west by the Nile, the Bahr-el-Azrek, the western edge of the
Abyssinian plateau, Lake Rudolf and Mount Kenia.[496]

In the northern part of this territory dwell the _Bejas_ or _Nubians_,
the different tribes of which, _Bejas_ or _Bisharin_, _Hamrans_ (Fig.
138), _Hadendowas_, _Hallengas_, etc., are stationed one after another
between the Red Sea and the Nile, from the first cataract to the
Abyssinian plateau. Certain Beja tribes, like the _Ababdeh_ (19,500),
to the north in Upper Egypt, partly of settled habits, the _Beni-Amer_
to the east, the _Jalin_ to the west, are in a large measure Arabised,
but still speak a Hamitic language, while side by side with them dwell
Semitised Ethiopian tribes, speaking only Arabic like the _Habab_ and
the _Hassanieh_ of the Bayuda steppe or the _Abu-Rof_ and _Shukrieh_
of the lower basin of the Blue Nile.[497] It is in the same category
of Semitised Ethiopians, but speaking the _Amharinga_ and _Tigrenga_
dialects, etc., which have sprung from a different Semitic language,
_Ghéez_, that we must place the inhabitants of the north and east of
Abyssinia, as well as the natives of Kaffa and the east of Shoa, who
have sprung from the intermingling of the _Gallas_ (see below) with the
Arabs.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 138.--Hamran Beja of Daghil tribe; height,
1 m. 79, 25 years old. Hair arrangement characteristic of Ethiopians.

(_Author’s coll._)]

The _Amharinga_ language is spoken in Amhara and Godjam; the _Tigrenga_
farther to the north, in Tigre; the _Curagheh_, derived from the
ancient Amharinga, to the west of Lake Zuwai and to the south of
Shoa, and the sources of the Hawash. The term “Abyssinian” has only a
political signification, like that of “Austrian” for example; it is a
corruption of the word “Habeshi” (“mixed”), which the Arabs formerly
gave in derision to the inhabitants of the Abyssinian plateau united
together into a Christian state. The substratum of the population
of the Abyssinian plateau is formed by the _Agaw_, Ethiopian in
type, Hamitic in language, but the Abyssinians of the higher classes
are strongly Semitised. The national religion of the Abyssinians is
monophysite Christianity, closely allied to the Coptic religion, but
impregnated with Mussulman, Judaic, and indigenous animist elements.

To the south of the Abyssinian plateau, from the neighbourhood of Lake
Tsana to the extreme limits of the extension of the Ethiopian peoples
to the south and west is the territory of the _Gallas_ or _Oroma_,
representing the purest Ethiopian type. To the east of the Gallas, from
about the 42nd degree long. east of Greenwich, dwell the _Somalis_,
probably only Gallas more or less intermingled with the Arabs, who
for several centuries have overrun the country. They occupy the whole
of the seaboard from Cape Jibuti (at the southern extremity of Obok)
to the mouth of the Jeb, or Jubba, and the plain of Aji-Fiddah, which
extends below the equator, but in the interior of their country,
especially in the north, numerous Galla tribes are found.

To the north of the Gallas, between Abyssinia and the coast (from
Cape Jibuti to Hamfila Bay), are the _Afar_ (in the plural _Afara_)
or _Danakil_ (_Dankali_ is in the singular), who form the bulk of
the population of the French colony of Obok-Tajura. Physically they
resemble the Somalis, but they are less Arabised. To the north of
the Danakil there is a population akin, it is said, to the Agaw, or
aborigines of Abyssinia, and known by the name of _Saho_ or _Shaho_.
It occupies the southern part of the country of Massowah, the northern
being taken by the Ethiopian tribes known by the collective name of
Massowans.[498]

From the somatological point of view, the Ethiopians are characterised
by a rather high stature (1 m. 67 on the average), a brownish or
chocolate-coloured complexion with a reddish tinge, by an elongated
head (average ceph. ind., 75.7 to 78.1 on the living subject,
according to Chantre), frizzy hair, intermediate between the curly
hair of the Arabs and the woolly hair of the Negroes, and lastly by
the face elongated to a perfect oval, and the prominent, straight or
convex, very narrow nose.[499] Thin and slender, the Ethiopians have
fine ankles and wrists, long and very sinewy limbs (especially the
fore-arm), broad shoulders, and conical-shaped trunk like the ancient
statues of Egypt. In short, they are good representatives of the
Ethiopian race.

III. _Fulah-Zandeh Group._--Under this term we include the whole series
of populations resulting from the intermingling of the Ethiopians and
the Nigritians (or Sudanese Negroes), and extending from east to west
across the whole of Africa, over a belt of 5 to 6 degrees in width.
This belt passes through the following regions, starting from the
east: The country of the Masai (between Lake Rudolf and the 6th degree
of latitude S.); the region comprised between the upper valleys of
the right-hand tributaries of the Bahr-el-Arab on the one hand and
the basin of the Ubangi-Welle on the other; Darfur, Dar-Runga, Wadai,
Baghirmi, and Bornu; Dar Banda and the upper basin of the Shari; a good
part of the basin of the Niger-Benue and the whole of the basin of the
Senegal. This territorial zone may be divided from the ethnographical
point of view into two distinct portions by the line of the watershed
between the basins of the Nile and Congo on the one hand and the
basins of the Chad, Niger, and Senegal on the other. To the east of
this line dwell, in compact groups, the Zandeh or Niam-Niam, Masai,
and other populations who have sprung from the intermingling of the
Ethiopians with the Negroes of the eastern Sudan (Nilotic Negroes), and
in some rarer cases with the Negrilloes and Bantus. To the west, on the
contrary, we find, scattered over an immense tract, isolated groups of
one population only, that of the _Fulahs_ or _Peuls_, sprung from the
crossings of Ethiopians with the Negroes of the central and western
Sudan, and further impregnated with a strain of Arabo-Berber blood.

In the eastern group, which I propose to call provisionally the Zandeh
group, we find the _Masai_ and the _Wakuafi_ peoples of an Ethiopian
type modified by intermingling with the Nilotic Negroes of the north,
with the Bantus and perhaps with the Bushmen of the south, to judge by
the photographs published by Luschan. The Masai speak a Nilotic-Negro
language. On the north-east they touch the habitat of the Gallas, and
are surrounded on every other side by Bantu tribes, except on the
north-west, where, between Lake Rudolf and the upper Bahr-el-Jebel,
exist populations still imperfectly known, the _Latukas_, the _Turkan_,
the _Lurems_, who are probably half-breeds in various degrees of
Ethiopians and Nilotic Negroes,[500] as are the _Drugu_ and the
_Lendu_ of the region of the sources of the Ituri, the _Loggos_ and
the _Momvus_ or _Mombuttus_ (who must not be confounded with the
_Mangbattus_) of the upper valley of the Kibali.[501]

To the west of these tribes, in the basin of the Ubangi-Welle, we find
a compact group of several peoples who, under various names, have
however a certain family likeness in their physical type, manners and
customs, and language. These are, in the first place, the _Niam-Niam_
or _Zandeh_, who with their congeners the _Banja_ dwell to the north
of the Welle. They extend beyond the ridge which divides this river
from the White Nile, in the upper valleys of the Sere, the Jubé, and
other tributaries of the great river. We also find a few isolated
Zandeh groups to the south of the Welle, but the greater part of the
country watered by the left tributaries of this waterway is the domain
of the _Ababuas_, the _Abarmbos_, and the _Mangbattus_ or _Monbuttus_,
remarkable for their light skin, as well as the lighter shade of their
hair compared with that of the other Zandehs (fair hair in five per
cent.). The Niam-Niam extend to the eastward to the country of the
Makaraka (tribes of _Bombeh_, _Idio_, etc.), where they intermingle
with the _Mundus_ and the _Babukurs_. On the north-west the Zandeh
are in contact with tribes still little known, like the _Krej_ (basin
of the upper Bahr-el-Arab), the _Bandas_, and the _N’Sakkaras_, who,
however, seem to be closely related.[502]

The Niam-Niam and the Mangbattus, who may be taken as types of
Zandeh populations, suggest physically the Ethiopians; however,
strains of Nilotic-Negro blood are manifest among them. They have a
civilisation well characterised by several traits in their material
life: anthropophagy (see p. 147), garments of bast (p. 183), ornaments
worn in the nostrils and in the lips perforated for the purpose,
spiral-shaped bracelets, weapons of a particular kind (pp. 259 and
269), partly borrowed from the Egyptians, as were perhaps their harp,
bolster, and so many other objects. They are cultivators using the hoe
(p. 192), fetichists partly converted to Islamism and forming little
despotic states.[503]

The populations encountered by the travellers Crampel, Dybowski, and
Maistre westward of the countries peopled by the Zandeh, between
the Ubangi and the Grinbingi (one of the principal branches of the
Shari), must also be connected with the Zandeh group. These are, going
from south to north, the _Bandziri_, the _Ndris_, the _Togbo_, the
_Languassi_, the _Dakoa_, the _Ngapu_, the _Wia-Wia_, the _Mandjo_, the
_Awaka_, and the _Akunga_. The physical type of these tribes suggests
that of the Niam-Niam, except the stature, which is higher, (1 m.
73, according to Maistre). The language common to all these peoples,
_Ndris_, differs from the Bantu dialects spoken on the Congo, and
appears to approximate to the Zandeh language. As to their material
culture and civilisation, these are almost the same as among the Zandeh
tribes.[504]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 139.--Yoro Combo, fairly pure Fulah of Kayor
(Futa-Jallon); height, 1 m. 72; ceph. ind., 68.3; nas. ind., 81.2.

(_Phot. Collignon._)]

The _western group_ of the great Fulah-Zandeh division, of which I
have spoken above, is formed of a population more homogeneous in
type and language than the Zandeh, but dispersed in isolated groups
in the midst of the Negroes. These are the _Fulbés_ or _Fulahs_[505]
speaking the Fulah tongue, their true name being _Pul-bé_ (in the
singular _Pul-o_, which means “red” or “light-brown” in the Fulah
tongue). The Mandingans call them _Fulbé_, the Hausas _Fellani_, the
Kanuri _Fellata_. It is a mixed population, the substratum of which is
Ethiopian but with a predominance either of Arab and Berber, or Negro
elements.[506]

The favourite occupations of the Fulahs, stock-breeding and war, lead
them away on more or less distant migratory journeys and expeditions;
thus it happens that they are found dispersed among the Nigritian
populations over a large tract of country comprised between the lower
Senegal and 10° latitude N. on the one part, and from Darfur to the
hinterland of the Cameroons on the other part. A fact to be noted in
regard to their geographical distribution is that they have not yet
reached any point on the coast of the Atlantic. They are especially
numerous in the valleys of the Senegal and the Niger-Benue, as well as
in Futa-Jallon and Darfur. The latter country is probably the primitive
country of the Fulahs, whence they set out towards the west and the
south; their migrations from the Senegal towards the east are of recent
date and continue to the present day.

IV. _The Nigritians._--We include under this name all the Negro
populations who do not speak the Bantu dialects; these populations
exhibit as a rule the classic traits of the Negro: lofty stature (from
1 m. 70 among the Mandingans to 1 m. 73 among the Furs and the Wolofs,
according to Collignon, Deniker, Felkin, Verneau, etc.), very marked
dolichocephaly (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub. reaching from 73.8 among
the Toucouleurs to 76.9 among the Ashantis, according to the same
authors), black skin, woolly hair in a continuous mat, large and flat
nose (nas. ind. varying from 96.3 among the Negroes of Tunis to 107.5
among the Ashantis), forehead bulging on the median line and often
retreating, thick lips projecting outward, frequent prognathism. The
territory of the various peoples composing the Nigritian group may
be defined as follows: on the north, a wavy line which at first,
going from the mouth of the Senegal to the great bend of the Niger,
then deviates little from the fourteenth parallel going to the
Bahr-el-Ghazal and the Nile; on the south, the coast of the Gulf of
Guinea to the Cameroons, then the mountain ranges of Adamawa and the
seventh degree of latitude N., to the countries occupied by the peoples
of the Fulah-Zandeh group, and farther to the east to the basin of the
upper Nile. The latter constitutes the eastern limit, while to the west
this limit is clearly indicated by the Atlantic Ocean.[507]

Among the Nigritians we also class the _Tibus_ or _Tedas_ of the
country of Tibesti, which extends in the midst of the Sahara between
the encampments of the Tuareg on the west and the Libyan desert on the
east. But it is a population already much mixed with Berber and Arab
elements.[508]

The Nigritian group maybe divided into four great sections: _a_,
the Nigritians of the Eastern Sudan (Anglo-Egyptian) or Nilotic
Negroes; _b_, those of the Central Sudan (French), that is to say the
Hausa-Wadai group, with the Tibu already mentioned; _c_, the Nigritians
of the Western Sudan (French) and the Senegal; lastly, _d_, the
Nigritians of the coast or _Negroes of Guinea_.

_a._ The _Nigritians of the Eastern Sudan_ or _Nilotic Negroes_ speak
various dialects having a certain relationship, and brought together
under the name of “Nilotic” languages. These populations are Negroes in
every acceptation of the word, except the not uncommon instances where
they are intermingled with the Ethiopians (chiefly in the east) or
with the Arabo-Berbers (principally in the north). Thus the _Nuba_ and
the _Funje of Fazokl_ are connected by several facial characteristics
to the Ethiopians; they have besides even adopted a Hamitic dialect,
just as the Negroes of Kordofan, intermixed with the Arabs, have
exchanged their language for the Semitic mode of speech. The Negroes
of Darfur (the _Furs_ or _Furava_ and the _Dajo_), of high stature,
and very black (Nachtigal), are much purer; they speak a Nilotic-Negro
dialect. In the west of the country they are mixed with the Fulahs,
and Arab tribes surround them on all sides. The predominant race is
descended from pure Arabs established first in Tunis, who achieved
the conquest of Darfur only in the nineteenth century.[509] To the
south-east of Darfur, separated from this country by the encampments
of the _Bahr-el-Huer_ or _Bagarra_, Arabised Nilotes, dwell other
Nilotics of a well-marked negro type. These are, first, the _Nuers_
of the right bank, and the _Shilluks_ (about a million) of the left
bank of the Bahr-el-Ghazal from Mechra-et-Reg to Fashoda; then the
_Dinka_, _Denka_, or _Jangha_ (about a million) of the low country
watered by the right-hand tributaries of the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and by the
Bahr-el-Jebel or Upper Nile. All these tribes are shepherds, sometimes
also fishers or husbandmen.

The upper valleys of the right-hand tributaries of the Bahr-el-Ghazal
are occupied by the _Bongo_ Negroes, divided into several tribes:
_Moru_, _Mittu_, _Bongo_ (said to be steatopygous). Slightly blent
with the Ethiopians, they have an almost red skin, of the colour of
the soil of their country, impregnated with ore. They are accomplished
smiths and good agriculturists. Between the Bongo of the west, the
Dinkas of the north, and the Niloto-Ethiopian tribes like the _Latuka_
of the east, there are established in the country traversed by the
Bahr-el-Jebel the Nilotic Negroes called _Bari_. As to the upper
basin of the Bahr-el-Jebel, it is occupied by the _Madi_ (not to be
confounded with the _A-Madi_ of the Welle), the _Shueli_ or _Shuli_
(whose speech connects them with the Shilluks), and the _Luri_, who
are, like the Dinka and Shilluks, true representatives of the Negro
race. Very tall and slim, they resemble, with their long limbs, the
wading birds of the marshes whose approaches they inhabit; for the
most part their head is elongated and compressed, the forehead
retreating, their skin is black, and they are blubber-lipped; the face
is the prognathous face of the Negroes, such as, in accordance with
convention, they used generally to be represented. They are settled
cattle-breeders and tillers of the soil.[510]

_b._ The _Nigritians of Central Sudan_ present almost the same type as
the Nilotes. Such, for instance, are the Negroes of Wadai (the Tama,
the Massalits) and of Baghirmi (the Barmaghé), or at least those among
them who have remained free from intermixture, either with the Fulahs
or the Arabs. As much cannot be said of the nomadic Tibu or Teda of
Tibesti (p. 444), nor of their neighbours the Kanem, to the north of
Lake Chad, and the Kanuri of Bornu and of the north of Adamawa, who
closely resemble them, but who are tillers of the soil. The great
nation of the Hausas prevails in the region situated between the Benue,
Bornu, the middle course of the Niger, and Sahara (Sokoto, etc.); it
extends even farther, into Adamawa. Their language has become the
language of commerce in those parts of the country limited by the bend
of the Niger, into which Fulah has not yet penetrated; it extends
also into Bornu and Adamawa to the east, and into the country of the
Mossi and the Kong to the west. The Hausa nation comprises a large
number of peoples and tribes, with a greater or lesser Arab and Fulah
intermixture, among whom also should probably be classed the Sara and
their near relatives the Tumok between the Shari and the Logone. The
Sara are distinguished by tall stature (average 1 m. 77, according to
Maistre), very dark colour, and globular head (average cephalic index
on the living subject, 82).[511]

_c. The Nigritians of Western Sudan and of Senegal._--This group,
going from east to west, comprises: 1st, various mixed tribes, dwelling
between the Niger and the basin of the upper Black Volta; 2nd, the
Mandé or Mandingan peoples; 3rd, the Toucouleur; and, 4th, the Wolofs.

1st. The peoples living between the Hausa on the east and the
Mandingans on the west are still little known, and seem to be much
mixed. Quite to the north, in the bend of the Niger, below Timbuctoo,
are found the Songhai or Sonrhays, who speak a language apart, and in
the north are mixed with the Ruma “Moors,” emigrants from Morocco,
and in the south with the Fulahs. To the south of their territory
live the Tombo, partly speaking Mandé, and the Mossi, whose language
also has affinities with Mandé. To the north of Wagadugu, the Mossi,
interblent with the Fulahs, speak their language, while south of this
town, they are of purer type and have a knowledge of the Hausa dialect.
To the east of the Mossi, in the region of the sources of the White
Volta, live the Gurma; while the upper basin of this river, as well
as that of the Red Volta, is occupied by the Gurunga who previously
formed the Grussi (or Gurunssi?)[512] state. Farther to the south, in
the territory made neutral by a treaty between Germany and England,
are found the Dagomba, the Mampursi, and their congeners the Gonja;
these last, whose centre is at Salaga, have exchanged their primitive
language for “Guang,” which appears to be a dialect of the Ashanti
tongue (Binger). In commercial relations they employ also the Hausa and
sometimes the Mandé and Fulah languages, just as do the Dagomba and the
Gurunga. The _Bariba_, natives of Borgu, the hinterland of Dahomey,
have affinities with peoples we have just enumerated.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 140.--Bonna M’Bané, Mandingan-Sossé; height, 1 m.
74; ceph. ind., 74.7; nasal index, 102.

(_Phot. Collignon._)]

2nd. The Mandé, Mandingan,[513] or better Mandénké (the word _nké_
signifying “people” in the Mandé language) form a compact linguistic
group whose domain extends from the Senegal and Upper Niger to that
portion of the West African coast comprised between Saint Louis and
Monrovia. The domain of the Mandé language extends much farther to the
east than the territory of the Mandénké peoples properly so called; it
encircles Timbuctoo, the countries of the Gurma and the Diumma, where
it competes with the dialect of the Fulahs, and encroaches even on the
domain of the Dogomba and the Gonja (to the north of Salaga), where the
Hausa speech prevails. The Mandénké properly so called includes a large
number of tribes, which may be divided into two great clans: the Bamma
or Bambara, whose “tenné” or totem is the crocodile, and the Malinké
(hippopotamus totem). The Mandénké are Mussulmans, except the clan
Bamma or Bambara of the basin of the upper Niger, which has remained
fetichist. Related to the Mandénké, according to their dialects, are
the _Soninké_ of the interior and many other populations of the coast
of Senegal. The Soninké or Sarakolés[514] inhabit the right bank of
the Senegal, above Matam and the margins of the Niger, and below the
Bamako as far as the vicinity of Timbuctoo; they are crossed with the
Torodo, Bambaras, and Fulahs. As to the populations of the coasts, the
following, proceeding from north to south, are the chief.[515] First,
the Diola,[516] between Casamanze and the Gambia, who have remained
fetichist. They are tall (1 m. 70) and dolichocephalic (cephalic index,
74.5 according to Collignon and Deniker). The principal tribe, that of
the Felups, has imposed its dialect on all the others. To the south of
the Diola are the Balantes and the Bagnoris, a bellicose and turbulent
people; the Papels, one of the tribes of which, the Mandjacks, is the
most in harmony with its masters, the Portuguese; the Bujagos of the
Bissagos islands; the Biafares, the Nalus, the Landumans, fetichists
of Rio Nunez, having affinities with the Hausa; finally, the Baga
of the Compong delta, half-savage fishers, fetichist like the two
preceding, but of much fairer skin and more pacific.[517] To the south
of the Pongo river are met the Sussus or Sossé (Fig. 140), driven
from Futa-Jallon by the Fulahs. Their language is spoken fluently in
French Guinea, and even among the Nalus and Landumans. To the south of
Mellacory, in Sierra Leone, the Timni take the place of the Sussus;
then come the Vei or Way, who extend as far as Monrovia; alone among
Negroes, they appear to possess a special mode of writing. All the
Mandé peoples bear a strong likeness to each other in physical type
(high stature, 1 m. 70, dolichocephalic, colour black, etc.), and the
different tribes are only to be distinguished by tattooings and other
signs of an ethnographic kind, and by their dialects.[518]

3rd. The Toucouleur or Torodo, regarded by some as Fulahs intermixed
with Wolofs (see below), inhabit the left bank of the Senegal, from
Dagana to Medine. They are to be found also in the Segu Sikoro country
and in the basin of the upper Niger, in the midst of the Soninké and
Fulah shepherds, to whom these agricultural populations are subject.
The Toucouleur are tall (1 m. 73), and very dolichocephalic (ceph. ind.
on living subject, 73.8).

4th. The Yolofs, Wolofs, or Jolofs of Lower Senegal, with their
congeners the Leybu and the Serers of Lower Gambia, are perhaps the
most black of all Negroes; these are distinguished by tall stature (1
m. 73, according to Collignon, Deniker, and Verneau), and by moderate
dolichocephaly (index on the living sub., 75.2). Their language is very
widespread in Senegal and Guinea, for they are good merchants as well
as tillers of the soil.[519]

_d._ The Littoral Nigritians or Guineans occupy all the coast of
Guinea from Monrovia to the Cameroons, and exhibit a great uniformity
of physical type. Less tall, in general, than the Senegalese and the
western Sudanese, the head is more elongated and the complexion fairer.
Notwithstanding this uniformity, they are divided into several tribes,
which, according to their linguistic affinities, may be grouped into
five great sections.

1. First, the tribes speaking the various dialects of the Kru
language--that is to say, Kru properly so called or Krumen, Bassa in
Liberia, and Grebo in French Guinea (to the east of Cape Palmas).

The Kru are less tall (1 m. 69), less dark, but more hairy than the
Senegalese; the head barely dolichocephalic (75.1 ceph. index on living
subject).[520] Of all Negroes these are the best factory workers, the
best man-of-war’s men and ordinary seamen. They are obedient, faithful,
and courageous; they enter readily into engagements, and make a fair
bargain. They retain in their hands a good part of the trade of their
country.[521]

2. To the east of the Grebo, between San Pedro and Apollonia, live
people speaking different dialects of the Agni language. These are the
Assinians or Okin (stature, 1 m. 75), the Agni of Krinjabo or Sanwy
(Fig. 9), the Apollonians or Zemma, the handsomest of the Negroes, who
formerly furnished to Brazil its thousands of slaves; finally, the
Pai-pi-bri, between San Pedro and Lahu, whom Admiral Fleuriot de Langle
took for a white race. These Negroes are really of a bronzed tint, much
fairer than, for example, the Okin. Other somatic traits (projecting
nose, lips not thrust out, etc.), as well as ethnic traits (bark
clothing, etc.), together with the recent arrival in the country of the
Pai-pi-bri, have led it to be thought that they have a kinship with
the Zandeh peoples.[522] Their neighbours to the east, the Jack-Jack
or Jacks, live opposite Dabu, on a narrow tongue of land separating
the lagoon from the sea; they call themselves Awekwom, and speak, like
their Ebrié and Attié neighbours, a dialect of the Tshi language. They
are excellent traders, nearly all knowing English.

3. But the Awekwom and their congeners form only a linguistic parish
in the Agni country. The true domain of the populations speaking
the languages of the Tshi or Ochi family begins only on the east
of Apollonia. In the interior are encountered the Ashanti and Ton
shepherds and tillers--that is to say in the ancient kingdom of Ashanti
(now an English possession),--and the Fanti traders on the coast, in
the region of Elmina.[523]

The Accredians of the coast, between the town of Accra and the mouth of
the Volta, formed a mixed population whose language is not yet classed.

4. The Volta provides the approximate limit between the Tshi tongues
and the Evé or Ewe dialects. The bulk of the people speaking Ewe occupy
the German colony of Togo and the west of the French colony of Dahomey.
In this group are distinguished six dialectic families: The Anlo or
Anglo of the coast between the Volta and Togo, whose dialect is the
best known; the Krépis, mountaineers of the Akposso, to the north of
the preceding, who speak the Anfueh language; the Ana, of Atakpamé; the
Fon or Fawins, better known as Dahomese, to the east of the Anlo and
Krépis, who speak the Jeji or Jege dialect; the Ewe properly so called,
or Henhué, to the north of the preceding, especially around the town of
Wida (Glé-ewé, “land of the Ewes”); lastly, the Mahi or Maki, entirely
to the north, speaking the purest Ewe dialect, and coming, as they say,
from the banks of the Niger.[524]

_e._ The River Wami separates in the east the Ewes from the peoples
speaking the Yoruba tongues, and who are, from west to east: the Egba
or Ikba of the Abeokuta country, the Nago of Porto Novo, the Ikelu
and the Jebu of Lagos. The Yoruba originally occupied all the region
comprised between the Slave Coast and to about the ninth latitude N.;
but they have been driven back towards the coast and into the east by
the Ewe peoples, who, towards the beginning of the eighteenth century,
invaded the present country of the Dahomese, and later (in 1772), the
Togo and the ancient kingdoms of Porto Novo and Wida (formerly Juida).
In this last the Jege or Fon (of Ewe stock) have imposed their dominion
on the Nagos (of Yoruba stock). Most of the Nagos have been reduced
to slavery; they, together with the Mina, emigrants from Ashanti,
formed, while the slave-trade flourished, the bulk of the black cargoes
consigned to Brazil.[525]

The Ewes and the Yorubas are shorter in stature (1 m. 64 and 1 m.
65) than Nigritians in general, and are often brachycephalic or
mesocephalic. These two characters, combined with the comparatively
fair colour of the skin, observed by all travellers, and the great
development of the pilous system, are, I consider, sufficiently
indicative of the presence in these people of Negrillo elements, of
which I shall presently speak.[526]

The Protectorate of the Niger coast and the delta of this river are
occupied by populations related to the Yorubas, but much intermixed.
The Benin, in the interior, whose kingdom, where human sacrifices were
much in vogue, has lately been destroyed by the English; then on the
coast the active-trading Jakris tribe, the Bonky and the Calabaris,
who formerly furnished so many slaves; finally, the Idzo or Ijos, of
the delta of the Niger, divided into several tribes--Brass, Patani,
etc., good ship-builders, but very turbulent,--who have attacked time
after time the settlements of the Niger Company.[527] In the interior
of the territory of this Company are found the Igbera, mountaineers,
forming several independent little states (about a million and a half
individuals) between Adimpa on the lower Niger and Sakun on the middle
Niger, as well as on the Benue, and sub-divided into “Sima” of the
towns and “Panda” of the forests. Their neighbours the Igara, speaking
Yoruba, occupy the left bank of the Niger and lower Benue, where they
are more or less subdued, while in the interior they remain wild
hunters. In the Cameroons, the Bantu, like the Dualas and the Bakokos,
have driven into hinterland the Bobondi, Buyala, and other Nigritian
tribes.

V. _The Negrilloes._[528]--The pigmy black populations are dispersed
over a large zone extending from three degrees north and south of
the equator, across the entire African continent, from Uganda to the
Gabun. The Akkas or Tiky-Tiky of the upper Nile and of the country
of the Niam-Niam, the Afiffi of the country of the Momfu (between
Kibali and Ituri), the Wambutti of the Ituri, the Watwa or Batua
living to the south of the great curve of the Congo and the valleys of
its tributaries on the right, the Chuapa-Bussera and the Lomami, the
O-Bongo (plural Ba-Bongo), the Akua, the Achango of the French Congo,
the Boyaeli and Bayago of the Cameroons, the Ba-Bengaye of Sanga, are
the principal rings of this chain of dwarf peoples stretched between
the region of the great lakes and the Atlantic ocean. But Negrilloes
have also been noted outside these limits. Without stopping to consider
the evidence of the traveller Mollien (1818), who speaks of dwarfs in
the Tenda-Maië country, near the sources of the Niger, where modern
explorers have never met with anything of the kind, we may, however,
bring together a certain amount of serious testimony to the existence
of dwarfs in the basin of the upper Kasai, as well as more to the
east, as far as Lake Tanganyika, and lastly to the north of the
Lakes Stefanie and Rudolf (English East Africa), near the borders of
Kaffa, 7° latitude north, where pigmies have been described by older
travellers under the name of Dogbo, and where, in 1896, they were
indeed discovered by D. Smith. They call themselves Dumes, are about
1 m. 50 (4 ft. 11 in.) in height, and resemble other pigmy tribes.
According to Schlichter, other tribes of short stature live more to
the north, in Kaffa and Shoa: the Bonno, the Aro, and the Mala; these
last two are probably the same tribes as those spoken of by the old
explorers, D’Abadie and L. des Avranches, under the name of Areya and
Maléa.

According to Stuhlmann, the populations of the upper basin of the Ituri
are a blend of Pigmies with Bantus (the Vambuba, the Vallessi), or with
Nilotes (the Momfu).

Several authors confound in one group of Pigmies the Negrilloes and
the Bushmen. Nothing, however, justifies their unification. The colour
of the skin in Bushmen is a fawn yellow, while in Negrilloes it is
that of a chocolate tablet or of coffee slightly roasted; the hair of
the former is black and tufted, while the hair of the latter is like
extended fleece and often of a more or less light brown. The face
of the Bushman is lozenge-shaped, the cheeks are prominent, and the
eyes are often narrowed and oblique, which traits are not met with
at all in Pigmies. Steatopygy (see p. 40-41), a special trait of the
Bushman race, has not been noted among Negrilloes, except in individual
cases among the women, and to a less degree than among Bushmen, as,
for example, is proved by the two portraits of Akka women published
by Stuhlmann. At the same time the profile of the sub-nasal space,
always convex in the Akkas according to Stuhlmann, is often to be
observed among Bushmen. Thus, therefore, a slight degree of steatopygy
in individual cases and the profile of the sub-nasal space would be
the sole characters connecting the two races. In support of this
connection, shortness of stature has also been adduced.

At first sight this last appears feasible, but rigorous measurements
on a sufficient number of subjects are still lacking. In the various
series of Bushmen the figures vary from 1 m. 37 to 1 m. 57, and in
those of Negrilloes from 1 m. 36 to 1 m. 51. These figures, however,
are based on only from 3 to 6 individuals, except in three cases: a
series of 50 Bushmen of Kalahari, measured by Schinz, which gives the
average height as 1 m. 57--that is to say, the same as the Japanese
or Annamese; another series of 30 Akkas (by Emin Pasha) giving an
average height of 1 m. 36; and a third series of 98 Watwas (by Wolff)
giving an average of 1 m. 42.[529] On comparing these three large
series, the only ones deserving attention, a difference of 0 m. 18 (7
inches) in height in favour of Bushmen is shown. As to the cranial
form, it varies also. Notwithstanding the paucity of documents, it may
be said that the Negrilloes are, in general, sub-dolichocephalic or
mesocephalic (average index of 9 living subjects, 79.7); while Bushmen
are undoubtedly dolichocephalic (average index of 11 living men,
75.8). Let me add in conclusion that the Negrilloes are covered with a
fairly thick down over the entire body (Emin Pasha, Yunker, Stanley,
Stuhlmann), and that nothing analogous has been noted in Bushmen.

The Negrilloes live in the midst of other peoples (Bantus, Nilotes,
etc.), either as isolated individuals (for the most part slaves) or
in little groups (up to about 800 individuals), hidden in the deepest
thickets. These little hunters have established a sort of _modus
vivendi_ with the agricultural populations surrounding them: they
exchange with them the produce of their chase, or of their gathering,
for foods and objects in metal; they also pay for the protection of
their powerful neighbours by doing service, for the benefit of the
latter, as clearers of the forest, where it is a critical matter to
meet them on account of their arrows, poisoned with the juice of a
certain _Aroidea_, or with certain putrid animal matters derived
especially from the ant. The bow and arrows which they use are the same
as those of their protectors, only proportioned to their stature.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 141.--Catrai, Ganguela-Bantu; height, 1 m. 73;
ceph. ind., 75.8; nasal index, 107.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

VI. The _Bantu group_ comprises the numerous peoples of Central and
Southern Africa whose dialects form the Bantu linguistic family,
without having any analogy with the Nigritian languages. They have all
an agglutinative structure, and are especially characterised by the
exclusive use of prefixes. Each principal prefix indicates an entire
category of objects or ideas; such a prefix is _M’_, _Um_, or _Umon_
(according to dialect), denoting the singular; _Ba_, _Wa_, or _Va_,
denoting the plural. Thus the root _Ntu_ (man) united to the prefix
_Umon_ means “a man” (_Umon-Ntu_) and with the prefix _Ba_ “men”
(_Ba-Ntu_). It is superfluous to say that physically the Bantus present
a great variety of types. This is due especially to intermixture
with the Negrilloes and Ethiopians to the north, and with the
Bushmen-Hottentots to the south. Nevertheless, there may be discerned
a probably primitive type, which, while being fundamentally Negro, yet
is distinguishable from the Nigritian type. In this type the stature
is generally not so high, the head less elongated, and prognathism also
less; the median convexity of the brow often disappears, and the nose
is more prominent and narrower.

We may divide the Bantus, according to their ethnographic and
linguistic characters, into three large sections: western, eastern, and
southern.

1. The territory occupied by the _Western Group_[530] covers almost
exactly the south-east of the Cameroons, French Congo, Angola, and
Belgian Congo, except those parts of these states situated to the
north of the Congo. The Dwala (28,000 individuals, stature 1 m. 69;
ceph. ind. 76.2, according to Zintgraff) and the Bakunda of the
Cameroons, relatively civilised, are found up to the point of junction
of the Bantu and Nigritian peoples, where the African coast changes
its westerly direction and becomes nearly north by south. Like their
neighbours of the south, the Mungos or Minihé of the north-west, and
the Balongs, who live in large phalansteries, they are intermixed with
Nigritian elements. East of the Dwala are found the Basas and the
Bakoris; these last are notable for their spirit of solidarity, for the
practice of the taboo and worship of ancestors. From the somatic point
of view, a great difference is to be observed among them in the stature
of men and women. Like the _Dwala_, they use the drum language (see
p. 134). The _M’Fan_ or _Fang_, called _Pahuins_[531] by the Negroes
of the Gabun, occupy the country situated between the 3rd degree of
N. latitude and the Ogowe, and its right tributary the Ivindo. But it
is probable that their habitat extends farther to the east, for the
_Botu_, whom Mizon had met with in the basin of the Sanga, appeared to
be of the same race. The Fans touch the sea-board of the Atlantic only
at a few points. With the _Gabunese_ (_Benga_, _Kumbé_, etc.) and the
_M’Pongwes_ of the coast (whose language, which is very rich, has been
adopted by other tribes), they form almost the whole of the population
of French Congo to the north of the Ogowe. It is supposed that the
Fans, certain traits and manners and customs of whom recall the Zandeh,
have immigrated quite recently, perhaps at the end of the last century,
into their present region, coming from Upper Ubangi, where the Zandeh
tribes live (see p. 441).

In the valley itself of Low Ogowe are found the _Baloa_ or _Galois_,
and, farther to the south, between the Muni and Sette Camma, the
_Bakalai_ or _Bahélé_ (about 100,000 according to Wilson), former
nomads, who have become carriers and merchants. Ascending the Ogowe
are met successively the _Apingi_, the _Okanda_, the _Aduma_, the
_Okota_, etc. All these tribes speak the same language as the islanders
of Corisco, and are for the most part very tall and dolichocephalic
(average stature of the Okandas 1 m. 70, and ceph. ind. on the living
sub., 74.2, according to Deniker and Laloy). But there are met with
also among them tribes like the Aduma, who on the contrary are short (1
m. 59) and sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 80.8, according to the same
authorities), which indicates intermixtures with the Negrillo race,
represented in the vicinity by the Obongos or Ashangos to the east (Du
Chaillu), and by the Akoas to the west (Touchard and Dybowski). The
Adumas, who are slave merchants (Guiral), are good boatmen. To the
south of Bakel, in the basins of the coast rivers, Rembo, Nyanga, etc.,
are found the _Balumbo_, the _Bavili_, on the coast, and the _Ashira_
in the interior. The basin of the lower Kuilu or Niari is occupied
partly by _Mayombé_ and the _Loango_ (height 1 m. 65, ceph. ind. 77.5),
mixed tribes, who are dispersed equally over the coast from the river
Nyanga to the north to Landana to the south.

As to the upper basin of the Niari, it is inhabited by the _Bakuni_
or _Bakunghé_ to the north, and by the _Bakamba_ (height 1 m. 69,
according to Maistre) to the south. These populations resemble the
Loangos and somewhat also the _Kacongo_ (height 1 m. 65, ceph. ind.
75.6, according to Zintgraff). Farther to the south are the _Basundo_,
savages with, it is said, red hair, and the _Babembé_ (height 1 m. 72,
according to Maistre) and the _Babuendi_, recognisable by the tattoo
of a crocodile on the breast, who people the right bank of the Congo
from the mouth to Brazzaville. Among their neighbours the _Bacongo_ or
_Bafyot_, who thickly populate the opposite bank, the influence of the
old Portuguese Christians is still to be recognised in many spots by
processions with the crucifix, but the supreme god has become feminine,
having relation both to the Virgin Mary and to the “Earthmother of
All.”[532] This goddess, called Nzambi, is the principal personage of
a trinity, the other members of which are a son, and a third spirit,
Deisos. The Bacongo have also as an institution popular guardians of
justice (p. 253), whom they call _pagasarios_. Above Brazzaville,
on the right bank of the Congo, as far as Bolobo, are met various
_Bateke_ tribes, distinguished by their short stature (1 m. 64), marked
dolichocephaly (73.6, according to Mense), powerful trunk, and tattoo
marks of several rows of parallel strokes on the cheeks. They extend
to the west as far as 10° long. E, and occupy to the north all the
basin of the upper Alima. The _Batekes_, who, with their neighbours the
_Baboma_ and the anthropophagous _Ballali_, were the first to submit to
French dominion, are travellers and, though practising anthropophagy,
a temperate people. The _Ashikuya_ of the region of the sources of the
Nkheni, neighbours of the _Batekes_, are celebrated as the best weavers
of the Congo. The lower valley of the Alima, as well as the right bank
of the Congo as far as the mouth of the Ubangi and even above, are
occupied by the _Bangi_, _Bubangis_, or _Bapfuru_ (height, 1 m. 73,
according to Maistre), differing from other tribes by their mode of
head-dress and their tattoo: a large swelling of flesh on each temple
and on the middle of the brow. Their number is estimated at about a
million.[533] North of the Bangis, between the Congo and the Ubangi,
live their congeners the _Baloi_ and the _Bonjos_, veritable athletes
and proved to be cannibals (Dybowski). The river M’Poko, which enters
the Congo opposite the town of Bangi, marks to the north the limit of
the Bonjos, as of the Bantus generally of this part of Africa. Their
immediate neighbours to the north, the Bandziris, are more like the
Zandeh than the Bantus.

To the south of the Congo the various Bantu tribes are still little
known.[534] On the coast, between the mouth of the Congo and
the Kunene, the collective name of Angolese is given to various
much-intermingled tribes: _Mushikongo_ (1 m. 66, ceph. ind. 72.5),
_Kiamba_, _Kissama_, _Mondombé_ (plural, _Bandombé_; 1 m. 67, ceph.
ind. 76.8), _Bakissé_ (1.66, 75.5), etc. The mountainous region
situated more to the east--that is to say, Bangala, the basin of
the Kulu, the left tributaries of the Kasai (ancient kingdom of
Muata-Yamvo), the region of the source of the Zambesi--is inhabited
by populations who have preserved the Bantu type in purer form. These
are, starting from the south, the _Ganguela_, occupying the table-land
bordered on the east by the upper valley of the Kwando, on the south by
the right tributaries of the Zambesi, and on the west by the Mubungo
tributary of Lake Ngami; they are excellent smiths, supplying articles
in iron to their neighbours, who are the _Amboella_, the _Kimbandé_,
and the _Kioko_ or _Akioko_. These last, scarcely thirty-five years
ago, taking up a position to the east of the Ganguelas, have to-day
advanced to the 10th degree of S. latitude, into the western part of
Muata-Yamvo. But the basis of the population of this ancient kingdom
is constituted by the _Lunda_ tribes, whose territory extends from
the Kwango (affluent of the Kasai) to lakes Bangweolo and Moero.
They occupy the basin of the Kasai (_Kalunda_), the swampy plains to
the east of the upper Zambesi (the _Balunda_, the _Lobalé_), and are
distinguished by their peaceable habits and hospitality. Their women
enjoy a certain freedom.

The _Baluba_, who form an important nation, occupy the territory
between the Kasai, the chain of the Mitumba mountains and the 6th
degree of S. latitude. They appear to have many analogies with the
Lunda. Of tall stature (1 m. 70), their head is more globular and
complexion less dark than with most Negroes (ceph. ind. 79, according
to Wolff). The original country of these tribes is the upper basin
of the Congo. Many of the Baluba are mixed with the _Bashilange_
aborigines who dwell between the middle valley of the Kasai and that
of its right affluent, the Lulua, and form a separate population,
relatively civilised, who emigrate as far as the Congo, where they
become engaged as carriers. These are a lively people; the head is
slightly elongated (stature, 1 m. 68, cephalic index 76.9, according
to Maistre). About 1870 they underwent a politico-religious revolution
and introduced the hemp or “Riamba” cult, in accordance with which all
the smokers of Riamba declare themselves friends, the duty of mutual
hospitality is acknowledged, the sale of girls interdicted, etc. Crimes
are punished by excessive administrations of the drug, which in the end
stupefy the criminal (Pogge, Wolff). Their neighbours to the north,
the Bakuba of the great bend of the Sankuru, who speak a different
language, are more sedentary and busy themselves in trade and the
cultivation of their fields, with the assistance of Negrilloes who live
among them. The Basongo, their neighbours to the north, are redoubtable
man-eaters.

All these populations, who, as we have seen, are characterised
by stature above the average and by moderate dolichocephaly, are
distinguished also by fairer complexion than their neighbours the
Bantus of the Congo (Maistre, Serpa Pinto, Deniker and Laloy). The
region they hold has frequently (from the sixteenth to the eighteenth
century) been invaded by the “Djaga,” armed bands in the service of
certain families of the Balunda people. The invaders intermingled
with the aboriginal race, which is probably allied to the Bushmen and
Hottentots; at least, there are till now to be met with in the country
individuals of very pure Bushman type, above all among the Kiokos.

The populations to be found between the great bend of the Congo and
the 5th degree of south latitude, known collectively as the Mongo or
Balolo, and Bayombe, seem to possess traits intermediate between the
Lunda and the natives of French Congo. They are degenerate tribes.
Such cannot be said of the Bayanzi of the right bank of the Congo,
between Bolobo and Lake Tumba, nor of the Banga, between the Congo and
the Ubangi, who are very alert, active, and intelligent. Their mode
of head-dress, in which the hair is plaited into horns, is entirely
characteristic.

Most of the western Bantu of French Congo and Congo Free State wear
ornaments in the lips, file or pull out the incisor teeth, tattoo, and
build small square dwellings.[535]

_b._ The group of _Eastern Bantus_ includes numerous tribes often
having an intermixture of Ethiopian blood, and ranging from the region
of the sources of the Nile to 15° S. latitude, between the east coast
of Africa and the great lakes. German ethnographers distinguish among
them the _ancient_ and _modern_ Bantus, according to their immigration
from the south or north (see p. 429). On the coast, between Cape
Delgado and Port Durnford, the Bantus are interblent with the Arabs
and form a compound population speaking the Kiswahili language.[536]
This Bantu dialect has, owing to the simplicity of its structure,
become the _lingua franca_ of almost the entire region occupied by the
eastern Bantus. To the west of the Swahili live, in Unyamwesi and the
surrounding countries, the Usambara and the Unyamwesi, belonging to the
“ancient Bantus,” and having, like them, migratory tendencies towards
the north.

As to the _Bantus of the Lake Region_, the tribes of which are
dispersed between the south of Unyoro and Lake Tanganyika, they are not
more free from intermixture. But they speak the dialect derived from
that primitive Bantu language, “Kirundi,” or “Kikonjo,” which to-day is
preserved in its original purity only in a narrow tract of some fifty
kilometres, extending from the foot of Mount Ruwenzori to the northern
extremity of Lake Tanganyika. Mixed with Nilotes in Unyoro, with Wahuma
Hamites elsewhere, the language of these “ancient Bantus” was adopted
by their conquerors. The most southern tribe of this group is that of
the Makua, who extend to 16° S. latitude. The tribes who people Uganda
(to the north-west of Lake Victoria Nyanza) have probably sprung from
the same stock, but speak a different language.

The peoples speaking Bantu to be met with south of Kilima Njaro, on the
Iramba table-land, the Wakamba, Wataita, Wakaguru, and Wagogo, are
Hamito-Bantus who have adopted the manners and customs of the Masai.
These “Bantus of recent immigration” have come from the north-east,
from the country of the Gallas, where their remaining fellows are
still to be found under the name of Wapokompo in the upper valley of
the Tsana, and Watakosho, speaking Galla, near Lake Rudolf. Among the
eastern Bantus are provisionally classed the Wavira, who perforate the
lips like the western Bantus; the Wahuma, who are of Ethiopian type;
and the other tribes who dwell between the middle Congo and the lakes,
from the equator to 5° lat. S., who are also called Waregga (People of
the Forest). These are cannibals who have come from the south-west;
their language differs from that of their neighbours, the Manyuema,
who are of Ethiopian type. The tribes living to the south of the Ituri
valley, the Wambuba, the Wallessi, etc., appear to be a hybrid of
Negrilloes and Bantus.

The group of _Southern Bantus_[537] is composed of Kafir-Zulus to the
east, of Bechuana to the centre, and of Herrero to the west. The Zulus
(Fig. 47), of which the most southern tribe or “Ama,” the Amaxosa or
Kafirs (Fig. 135), live in the eastern part of Cape Colony, and have
of recent times advanced towards the north, far from the country of
their origin, up to the region of Usagara. Among the chief Zulu tribes
should be noted the Banyai, the Bakalaka, the Baronga, the Swazi (Fig.
142), and the Tonga, between Delagoa Bay and the Transvaal; the “Ama”
Mpondo of Pondo, the “Ama” Tembu of Kafirland; the Makong, neighbours
of the Shinia (Foa) on the banks of the middle Zambesi, etc. Except
these Kafirs, who have a special language, all the other Zulus speak
the Takesa tongue.

The Bechuana, separated from the Zulus by the chain of the Drakensberg
Mountains, are infused more or less with Hottentot blood; they are
divided into _Eastern Bechuana_ or _Basuto_, among whom Bantu traits
predominate, and the _Western Bechuana_ or _Bakalahari_, who show
a more marked intermixture of Hottentot elements. To the north of
the Bechuanas, in the upper basin of the Zambesi, live the Barotsé,
a people related to the Zulus, of which one tribe is known as the
Mashona. Finally, two other Bantu tribes extend to the south of the
Kunene, surrounding the table-land inhabited by the Hill Damaras or
Haw-Koîn (see below); these are the Ovambo or Ovampo, tillers of the
soil (over 100,000), to the north between 16.30° and 20° lat. S., and
the Ova-Herrero or Damara shepherds, of a fine Bantu type, to the west
and south.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 142.--Swazi-Bantu woman and girl.

(_Coll. Anthr. Inst. Great Britain._)]

Physically the Zulus are of high stature (1 m. 72, according to
Fritsch) and dolichocephalic (average ceph. ind. of 86 skulls 73.2,
according to Fritsch, Hamy, and Shrubsall). They have these traits
in common with the Nigritians,[538] but they are not so dark as the
latter, and are less prognathous. The face also is square and the nose
prominent, although somewhat coarse.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 143.--N’Kon-yui, Bushman of the region of Lake
Ngami; 40 years old; height, 1 m. 44; ceph. ind., 77.2; nas. ind., 97.5.

(_Phot. Coll. Anthr. Soc., Paris._)]

VII. The Bushmen-Hottentots[539] probably occupied formerly the whole
of South Africa from the 15th degree of south latitude to the Cape of
Good Hope. Hardly pressed for three centuries by Bantus in the east and
north, and for a century by Europeans in the south, they are reduced
to-day to a few thousands of families, wandering or sedentary, in the
uncultivated country of Namaqualand, in the desert of Kalahari, and
in some points of the hinterland of the Cape. To the north of 18° S.
latitude are found only a few islets of Hottentots, and towards the
south they are no longer met with in compact groups within sixty miles
from the coast. To the east, their habitat is limited at about 23°
longitude E. of Greenwich. And further, we must gather within these
limits the territory between the Herrero country and 18° S. lat. of the
Hill Damaras or Haw-Koin, who, although speaking a Hottentot dialect,
possess a quite special physical type; they are notably much darker
than the Hottentots, and recall rather the Negroes of Guinea. They are
miserable savages who live by hunting and plunder.

In addition to the Hill Damaras there are to be noted in the group of
which we are treating: 1st, the Naman, called Hottentots by Europeans
(modification of the Dutch word “hüttentüt,” meaning of little
sense, stupid), inhabiting the west of the territory we have just
defined (Fig. 24); 2nd, the San (“Sab” in the masculine singular),
called “Bosjesmen” or “Bushmen” by Europeans, in the east of this
territory (Fig. 143). It should be remarked, however, that the word
Bosjesman (in Dutch, “man of the bush”) is often applied to Hottentot
populations, or to Hottentot-Bushmen like, for instance, the mixed
breeds of Namaqualand who speak a Hottentot dialect. In certain works
the name Koi-Koin is applied to the whole group before us. This is
incorrect, for the Koi-Koin, or better, the Hau-Khoin, are no other
than a Hottentot tribe, just as are the Nama, Gorana, and others (about
20,000).

There are numerous likenesses between the San and the Naman, who are
both representatives of the Bushman race[540] (see pp. 287 and 455),
but there are also numerous differences. The Hottentot language is of
the same stock as that of the Bushmen; and both are characterised
by the presence of certain articulations known as “clicks.” But the
Hottentot dialects, which closely resemble each other, possess four
palato-dental clicks, while the Bushmen dialects, differing much from
each other, have besides these four clicks another guttural click, as
well as a certain articulation which is not effected by inhalation
as are the clicks proper, but by rapid and repeated expirations made
between the two half-opened rows of teeth.

The two peoples differ equally in manners and customs. Let it suffice
to recall that the Bushmen live in the woods and are nomadic hunters,
who do not practise circumcision, but whose custom it is to cut the
finger-joints in sign of mourning. (See pp. 181, 204, 211, and 228
for other particulars.) The Hottentots, on the contrary, are nomadic
shepherds; they live in the steppes, practise circumcision, and are
unacquainted with the custom of ablation of the phalanges. Besides,
they have lost all ethnic individuality; they dress in the European
fashion, speak Dutch or English, and live like the white colonists.
Children born of marriages between Hottentots and Europeans are called
“Bastards,” a title which in Africa is not regarded as discreditable.

VIII. The population of the island of Madagascar[541] may be divided
into three great groups: the Hovas in the middle, the Malagasies of
the east coast, and the Sakalavas of the rest of the island. There is
further to be noted the Arab infusion, especially on the north-east and
south-east coast.

The Hovas, or better, Huves, who occupy the high table-land of
Imerina (from which comes their true name, “Anta-Imerina”[542]) are
Indonesians more or less intermixed with Malay stock; their skin
is olive-yellow, their hair straight or slightly wavy, their eyes
sometimes narrow; their stature is short, their head globular, the
nose prominent and somewhat sharp (Fig. 144).[543] They preserve many
manners and customs Indonesian in character--their square houses on
piles, sarong, instruments of music, _fadi_ or _taboo_ for diet,
infanticide, polygamy, canoe with balance-pole, cylindrical forge
bellows, form of sepulture, etc. A half-civilised people, they are
tillers of the soil, shepherds, and traders. The Sakalavas, on the
contrary, are almost pure Bantu Negroes, black, dolichocephalic, of
high stature, with frizzy hair and flat noses. They have preserved
some features of Negro life (palavers, fetichism, etc.), but are
adopting more and more the mode of life of the Hovas or the Malagasies.
These last present traits intermediate between the two groups; of
chocolate-brown complexion, with frizzy hair, of medium height, they
have other features so modified as to recall sometimes the Hovas,
sometimes the Sakalavas.

The Hovas arrived in Madagascar only seven or eight centuries ago
(Grandidier), and succeeded in subjugating the Sakalavas and the mixed
populations. Up to the period of the French occupation (1896) they were
masters of the island, with the exception of the west coast and some
points in the south. They have imposed their language on the subjugated
populations, and all the peoples of the island, notwithstanding their
diversity of origin, of type, and of manners and customs, speak
Malagasy, which is a dialect of the Maleo-Polynesian linguistic family
with some intermixture of Bantu elements.

It is supposed that before the advent of the Hovas other Malay and
Indonesian incursions took place in the island, though nothing
certain is known in regard to this; that the arrival of the Negroes
was due to their own action is problematical, notwithstanding the
relative nearness (250 miles) of the coast of Mozambique, the notorious
incapacity of the Negroes as navigators being taken into account. It
is possible that the Negroes were introduced into the island entirely
by the Maleo-Indonesians, who have always been good seamen. The Arab
invasions date back hardly five or six centuries.

The constitution of Hova society up till recently was divided into
nobles (_Andriana_), freemen (_Hovas_), and slaves (_Andevo_). The
abolition of Royalty and slavery, after the French occupation, have to
a certain extent modified this hierarchy. For thirty years converts to
Protestantism, at bottom the Hovas are very indifferent in religious
matters, but cling to their ancient animistic beliefs. To the Hovas
should be joined the Betsileo, who live to the south of the Imerina
table-land; they are not of such pure race as the Hovas, while they are
less intermixed than are the Malagasies.

Among these last must first be distinguished the populations of the
coast: the Betsimasaraka and the Antambahoaka to the north of the 20th
degree of S. latitude; the Antaimoro, the Antaifasina, the Antaisaka,
and the Antanosi to the south of this latitude; then the population of
the interior: the Antsihanaka to the north of Imerina, the Bezanozano
in the centre of the island, the Antanala or Tanala, and the Bara and
Antaisara to the south.

The Betsimasaraka are dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. 76.3, according to
Collignon and Deniker), and of stature below the average (1 m. 64).
The Antambahoaka and the Antaimoro claim an Arab origin, but they
hardly differ from the other Malagasies; they are rather backward
in culture and emigrate from their country readily, but with the
idea of returning. The Antaifasina (who number about 200,000) have
close affinities with the Antaisaka, their warlike neighbours on the
coast, in closer proximity to Vangaindrano; both have many customs of
Arab-Mussulman origin, and are connected, according to all probability,
with the Bara tribe. This last lives inland, to the south of Betsileo,
side by side with the Antaisara, said to be true savages, but among
whom are nevertheless observed signs of Arab blood (Scott Eliott). The
Antanosi are grouped round Fort Dauphin, but some of this tribe has
emigrated to the interior, extending as far as the neighbourhood of the
west coast, where it has assimilated the customs of the Bara people.
As a race the Antanosi are less negroid than the other Malagasies, and
recall rather the Betsimasaraka. They have curly or almost smooth hair
(Catat), and complexion of light chestnut. They are a peaceable and
intelligent people, of cleaner habits than the other Malagasies. Like
most of the tribes of the south of Madagascar, even the Sakalavas (as,
for example, the Antavandroi), they wear garments of matting plaited
with straw, except on the coast, where European fabrics have now
replaced the native garments.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 144.--Hova of Tananarivo; 21 years old; height, 1
m. 62; ceph. ind., 79.3.

(_Phot. Collignon._)]

The Sakalava tribes are numerous. The best known are the Menabe,
Milaka, Ronondra, and Mahafali. In the north of the island the
Sakalavas are mixed with the Betsimasaraka, and form the Antankar or
Antankara people, wild shepherds and tillers of the soil, recalling the
Bantus; their centre is at Diego-Suarez. In the south, blended with
the Bara, they enter into the composition of the Antandroy population
(about 20,000), almost savage, who depend largely for sustenance on the
cactus berries of their sterile country, live by cattle-raising, and
have many manners and customs borrowed from the Bara.



CHAPTER XII.

RACES AND PEOPLES OF OCEANIA.

    The Stone Age in Oceania--/I/. _Australians_: Uniformity of
    the Australian race--Language and manners and customs of the
    Australians--Extinct _Tasmanians_--/II/. _Populations of the
    Asiatic or Malay Archipelago_: Papuan and Negrito elements in the
    Archipelago--Indonesians and Malays of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
    etc.--/III/. _Melanesians_: Papuans of New Guinea--Melanesians
    properly so called of the Salomon and Admiralty Islands, New
    Hebrides, New Caledonia, etc.--/IV/. _Polynesians_: Polynesians
    properly so called of Samoa, Tahiti, and Sandwich Islands, New
    Zealand, etc.--Micronesians of the Caroline and Marianne Islands,
    etc.--Peopling of the Pacific Islands and of the Indian Ocean.


“Oceania” appears to me the term best adapted to designate
comprehensively all the insular lands scattered in the immensity of
the Pacific and Indian Oceans. These in their entirety are, from the
ethnographic point of view, divided into a continent, Australia, which
shelters a distinct race, the Australians, and into two groups of
islands. The western group, that of the Asiatic Archipelago, formed
especially of large islands, is peopled principally by Indonesians,
pure and mixed. As to the eastern group, it falls into two regions: one
region consisting of New Guinea (which, after Greenland, is the largest
island of the world), together with the neighbouring archipelagoes
peopled by the Melanesian race; and the other region formed of the
innumerable islands, islets, rocks, and atolls situated farther east,
and occupied by the Polynesian race. I shall describe separately the
populations of these four regions, but I must say a few words in
advance in regard to the _prehistoric periods of Oceania_.

With the exception of Sumatra, Java, and perhaps Borneo, still
connected with Asia at the end of the tertiary period, the rest of
Oceania formed an insular world apart, of ancient geological origin.
Except the discovery of the _Pithecanthropus_ in Java (see p. 360),
hardly any finds relating to quaternary man can be pointed to in this
part of the world. The objects in chipped or polished flint noted here
and there in Malaysia, Australia, or New Zealand, as having been found
at a certain depth of earth, have no fixed date, and, seeing that all
Oceania, except West Malaysia, was up to the end of the last century
still in the “stone age,” and remains in that age yet at several
places, it will be understood that these finds may hardly be dated back
further than some tens or hundreds of years, and have no connection
with geological periods.[544] As to the megalithic monuments,--the
ruins of “Morai” and other erections in Oceania, of which the best
known are those of Easter Island, but which exist also in the
Marquesas, Tahiti, Pitcairn, and Caroline Islands,--a precise date can
with no greater certitude be assigned to them.[545]

The long duration of the stone age in Oceania may be explained
especially by the absence of metallic deposits in Polynesia, and by the
relative difficulty of working the iron and copper ores of New Zealand
and of the rest of Oceania.[546]

The contemporary stone age, together with the affinity of the Malay,
Polynesian, and Melanesian languages (Von Gabelentz), are perhaps the
most characteristic traits of Oceanic ethnography.

1. /Australia/.--The Australians form a distinct ethnic group,
even a race apart from the rest of mankind. Notwithstanding some local
differences, they exhibit great unity, not only from the somatic point
of view, but also from the point of view of manners, customs, and
speech. Up to a certain point this unity may be explained by the fact
that the nature and surface of the soil, as well as the climate, the
fauna and flora, vary to a relatively slight degree throughout the
whole extent of the continent.[547]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 145.--Ambit, Sundanese of Java (Preanger prov.),
30 years old; height, 1 m. 67; ceph. ind., 85.7; nas. ind., 88.6.

(_Phot. Pr. Roland Bonaparte._)]

Formerly owners of the entire face of their country, the Australians
are now driven back farther and farther into poor, sterile, and
unhealthy regions. Those who remain in contact with the invading
European colonists are debased and degenerate, and disappear rapidly.
The tribes of purest type, those of the mid-region and of the north
coast, have recently been well studied by Stirling, Baldwin Spencer and
Gillen, and W. Roth.[548]

The census of 1851 included 55,000 natives in Australia; that of 1881
declared only 31,700; and that of 1891, no doubt better compiled and
including newly-discovered districts, gives a return of only 59,464
natives and cross-breeds.[549]

Between 1836 and 1881 the number of natives in Victoria fell from
5000 to 770; the tribe of the Narrinyeri in South Australia, which in
1842 was composed of 3,200 members, was by 1875 reduced to only 511
individuals. But no positive proof has been obtained of diminution in
the number of the natives of the interior, nor of those of the west and
north coasts.

Most Australians exhibit the sufficiently pure type of the _Australian
race_ as I have already described it (p. 285): dark chocolate-brown
skin, stature above the average (1 m. 67); frizzy or wavy hair, very
elongated dolichocephalic head (av. ceph. ind., 71.2 in skulls, and
74.5 on the living subject), prominent superciliary arches, nose
flat and often convex, sunken at the root, where it is very thin,
but much enlarged on the level of the nostrils, thick and sometimes
protruding lips, etc. The cranial capacity is rather low (see p. 99).
The pilous system is well developed over the whole body (Figs. 14, 15,
149, 150). Some of these characters, the dolichocephaly and crooked
nose, are common both to the Australians and the Melanesians of the
archipelagoes extending north-east of the continent; while other traits
(wavy or frizzy hair, etc.) differentiate these two races, and connect
the Australians with the Veddahs of Ceylon and with certain of the
Dravidian populations of India.

Deviations from the type just described are very slight, and have
been attributed, without, I think, much justice, to intermixtures
with Malays and Papuans on the coasts; elsewhere deviations are quite
limited.

The Australians have great powers of endurance, are temperate and
fairly agile; they climb trees readily with the aid of a rattan rope,
in the style of natives of India, of the Canacks and the Negroes (p.
275 and Fig. 81).

Most travellers agree in regard to the low intellectual development
of the Australians. However, they have sufficiently complex social
customs, an extensive folk-lore,[550] and their children have been
known, in the missionary schools, to learn to read and write more
quickly than European children; arithmetic only appearing to be
outside the limits of their intelligence. It should be remarked in
regard to all Australian dialects that they have special words only
for the figures one and two, occasionally for three and four; but most
frequently “two and one” is used for “three,” and “two and two” for
“four” (see p. 223).

The Australian languages present great resemblances to each other;
they all belong to a single family, having no affinity with any other
linguistic group. All these languages are agglutinative. The various
forms of the words are produced by the addition of suffixes, while in
the Malay and Papuan languages they are produced by means of prefixes.
Abbreviations, slovenliness of pronunciation, and neologisms are very
constant, and rapidly lead to changes in these dialects.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 146.--Natives of Livuliri (near Larantuka,
Floris). Indonesian race with intermixture in varying degrees of Papuan
blood. Height from 1 m. 55 to 1 m. 64; ceph. ind., 76.6 to 86.9.

(_Phot. and particulars, Lapicque._)]

Gesture language is fairly developed, especially as an ideographic
mode of communication between tribe and tribe. Very often a gesture
completes the phrase, even in a colloquy between two members of
the same tribe; certain of these gestures recall those of European
children, such as lightly rubbing the stomach to signify “I have had
enough” (W. Roth).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 147.--Buri, a Solorian of Adanara Island (close
to Floris); Mussulman. Height, 1 m. 64; ceph. ind., 85.1.

(_Phot. and particulars, Lapicque._)]

The Australians are typical hunters (for their weapons, see pp. 259 and
267, and Figs. 75 and 78). They know nothing of cattle-raising; their
only domestic animal, the dingo, is half wild. Fruit gathering and
the digging up of roots of wild plants are the principal occupations
of the women. Intoxicating drinks, apart from the regions penetrated
by colonists, are unknown; the custom of chewing “pituri” leaves
(_Duboisia_) as a narcotic is fairly widespread.

Most of the tribes live under such shelters as nature affords, or in
huts made of leafy branches, hemispherical or semi-ovoid in shape, and
very low (p. 161); even these they do not take the trouble to put up if
they have other means of protecting themselves from cold, such as the
woollen blankets distributed by the Colonial Governments.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 148.--Same subject as Fig. 147, seen in profile;
a striking blend of Melanesian and Indonesian traits.

(_Phot. Lapicque._)]

Sundry particulars have already been given in regard to the ornaments
of the Australians (p. 178, and Figs. 59, 149, and 150), in regard to
their marriage customs (p. 232), their system of affiliation (p. 234),
the “corroborees,” and their ceremonies of _initiation_ (p. 241), at
which time are practised the circumcision and urethral sub-incision
(_mika_ operation, p. 239) of the young people. On p. 210, _et seq._,
I have already given some details in regard to the music, poetry, and
arts of these people.

In most ethnographical works, the extinct _Tasmanian_[551] people are
described side by side with the Australian. The only reason of this
lies in the proximity of their habitat, for really the Tasmanians
recall rather the Melanesians, both in somatic traits and in mode of
life. The language of the Tasmanians, which is agglutinative with
prefixes and suffixes, presents no analogy either with Australian or
Melanesian tongues. The Tasmanians appear to have been of stature
below the average (1 m. 66); head, sub-dolichocephalic (ceph. ind.,
76 to 77); broad and prognathous face; flattened and very broad nose;
frizzy hair (which last constituted their chief difference from the
Australians).[552]

II. /Asiatic Archipelago or Malaysia/.--The population of this
part of Oceania may be separated into four great ethnic groups: Malays,
Indonesians, Negritoes, and Papuans. The first two form the basis of
most of the ethnic groups of the Archipelago, while the Negrito element
is represented only in the Malay peninsula (which from the ethnic point
of view may be associated with the Archipelago), in the Andaman Islands
(see p. 397), in the Philippines, and perhaps in Riu-Linga; and the
Papuan element in the Aru and Ke Islands, and in a lesser degree in the
South-West Islands, Ceram, Buru, Timur, Floris, and the neighbouring
islets. It has long been supposed that the interior of the Malay
Islands is occupied by negroid races akin to the Negritoes or Papuans;
but no explorer of Sumatra, Borneo, Java,[553] or Celebes has yet
encountered Negritoes there, although the centres of these islands have
repeatedly been traversed; hence there is little hope of discovering
negroid races in them. Besides, the assumed Negritoes of the Mergui
Archipelago, of Nicobar and of Engano, described by Anderson, Lapicque,
Man, Sherborn and Modigliani, have been shown to be simply Indonesians.
The existence of true Negritoes has been affirmed only in the extreme
north of the Archipelago, in the spots named above, the Andaman
Islands, etc. If there be any trace whatever of intermixture with these
races, it should not be necessary to search beyond the north parts of
Sumatra and Borneo--in other words, beyond the equator going south.

I have already given some particulars in regard to the Negritoes
of Malacca and the Andamanese (p. 397). As to the people of the
Philippines,[554] known under the name of _Aeta_ or _Aita_ (a
corruption of the Malay word “hitam,” meaning black), they occupy the
interior of Luzon Island in little groups, and are to be met with also
in the Mindoro, Panay, and Negros islands, and in the north-east part
of Mindanao. They are shorter (1 m. 47) than the Andamanese and the
Sakai, but are very like them generally. They are uncivilised hunters;
in certain districts where they are crossed with Tagals they have begun
to till the soil.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 149.--“Billy,” Queensland Australian;
height, 1 m. 51; ceph. ind., 70.4; nas. ind., 107.5.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

The Papuans (see p. 493) are still less numerous than the Negritoes
in the Asiatic Archipelago. They are to be found, more or less pure,
only in the Aru, Salawatti, and Waigiu Islands, etc. All these islands
form part of the Archipelago only from the political point of view;
they belong by their climate, their flora and fauna, to the New Guinea
and Australian world. There are also tribes which recall the Papuans in
Ceram and Buru, in the Ke and Tenimber islands; but in the remainder
of the Moluccas, and in Floris and Timur islands, only traces of
Papuan or Melanesian blood can be discovered, generally in the form
of intermixture with or modification of the Malay or Indonesian type
(see p. 491, and Figs. 46 to 48). Such at least is the conclusion to
which lead the researches of Ten Kate and Lapicque,[555] the only
anthropologists who have studied the question on the spot.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 150.--Same subject as Fig. 149, in profile.
Tattooing by cicatrisation.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

There remain the two principal groups of the population of the
Archipelago: the _Indonesians_ and _Malays_, who differ from each other
much less than till recently was supposed.

It has been said and frequently repeated, though without precise
documents to warrant the assertion, that the Indonesians resemble the
Polynesians, and the Malays the Mongols, but recent anthropological
research has proved that this is not the case.[556] The Indonesians,
which is the collective name under which, since Junghuhn, Logan, and
Hamy,[557] have been comprised the little intermixed inland populations
of the large islands (Dyaks of Borneo, Battas of Sumatra, various
“Alfurus” of Celebes and certain Moluccas, etc.), have none of the
special characters of Polynesians. They are of very short stature (1 m.
57 on the average), mesocephalic or dolichocephalic (av. ceph. ind.,
78.5 on the liv. sub.), while the Polynesians are very tall (1 m. 72 on
the average) and brachycephalic; and if the yellow colour of the skin
and the nature of the hair (straight or slightly curled) are almost the
same in the two races, the form of the nose, of the lips, of the face,
as well as various other traits, present notable differences.

On the other hand, the Indonesians singularly resemble the Malays.
Speaking generally, the Malays are somewhat taller (av. height, 1 m.
61) and brachycephalic (av. ceph. ind., 85 on the liv. sub.), but there
is a great variety of type in this group, which is much more mixed
than the Indonesian. It is even possible that the Malays (that is to
say, the Malays properly so called of Malacca and of Menangkabau in
Sumatra, as well as the Javanese, Sundanese, and the riverine “Malays”
of the other islands) are a mixed nation, sprung from the intermixture
of Indonesians with various Burmese, Negrito, Hindu, Chinese, Papuan
and other elements. In this case, the Indonesians would be of the
pure Malay type, the real Protomalays. Intermixtures of Indonesians
and Chinese are especially pronounced in Java, in the north of Borneo,
and in the Philippines of the north; while in Mindanao, in Sulu and
Palawan islands, Arab elements (_Moros_) dominate, and Hindu elements
in certain parts of Java, Sumatra, Bali, and of the south of Borneo.
As to intermixtures with Negrito blood they are, as I have already
said, specially notable in the north of the Archipelago, while Papuan
influence predominates in the south-east.

Apart from some savage tribes like the Olo-ot, the Punan of Borneo, and
the Kubus of Sumatra, all the Indonesians and Malays are tillers of the
soil, using the hoe. The plant most extensively cultivated is rice,
a foreign importation; it has replaced the indigenous plant, millet
(_Panicum italicum_), which only some backward Dyak tribes, the Alfurus
of Buru, and the natives of Timur continue to cultivate. Mention has
already been made of the use of _siri_ or _betel_ (p. 158), and of
geophagy and anthropophagy (p. 145, _et seq._) in the Archipelago. The
characteristic dress of the Indonesians and Malays is the _kaïn_, a
piece of stuff passed round the loins and between the legs; also the
“sarong,” which appears to have been imported from India--a piece of
stuff enveloping the body (Figs. 126 and 146), worn by both sexes; the
women wear besides the _javat_ or chastity belt. Among other ethnic
characters special to the Malay-Indonesians should be mentioned the
quadrangular houses on piles,[558] the use of the “sumpitan” (p. 261),
the bow being of foreign importation, either from India (in Java
and Bali) or from Melanesia (in the islands of the south-east and
south-west, in Timur, and the east of Floris); the national weapon, the
“kris,” an inlaid dagger with slightly bent handle and sheath in the
form of an axe; the large quadrangular or hexagonal shield (Fig. 79);
tattooing, practised among the Dyaks, the Igorrotes of the Philippines,
the inhabitants of Ceram, of Timur Laut, the Tenimber Islands, etc.

Among the customs of the family life should be noted the alterations of
names (the father at the birth of a son takes the name of “the father
of so-and-so”); exogamy in relation to the clan (the “saku” of the
Malays of Sumatra, the “marga” of the Battas), practised everywhere
in Malaysia except by the Dyaks and the Alfurus to the north of
Celebes; the patriarchate, existing everywhere except in the “Padangshe
Bovenlanden” (upper Padang district, Sumatra), among the Nias and
the Alfurus of Baru and Ceram; the universal custom of carrying off
the bride and the indemnity paid at once to the relatives (“halaku”
of the Dyaks, the “sompo” of the Bugis). The barbarous practice of
head-hunting, either to be assured of servitors in the other world,
or to lend importance there (see p. 251), is in vogue with the Dyaks,
the Nias, the Alfurus of Minahassa (north Celebes), the Toradja (mid
Celebes), as well as in Ceram and Timur islands.[559] Family property
exists almost throughout the Archipelago, side by side with individual
property.

The Malay languages, which form part of the Malayo-Polynesian family,
are of agglutinative structure, with prefixes and suffixes; by the
introduction of _infixes_ they have a tendency towards flexion. Many
words, however, do not change at all, and represent at the same time
noun, verb, adjective, etc. Among the dialects, Tagal is the richest
in affixes and gives to its words the finest shades; then comes the
Batta dialect, the dialect of the Alfurus of Minahassa, and lastly,
Javanese (see also p. 133). The dialect least complicated grammatically
is the Malay properly so called; it has become the _lingua franca_ and
official language of the Mussulmans throughout the Archipelago. Among
other dialects may be mentioned Mangkassarese and the “Behasa tanat” of
the Moluccas.

The Javanese make use of a special alphabet; the inhabitants of the
south of Sumatra have a hooked mode of writing, different from the
rounded writing of the Battas; finally, the Bugis and Mangkassars of
Celebes, as well as the Bisayans and Tagals of the Philippines, have
special forms of writing derived probably from the Devanagari. The
Malays employ the Arabo-Persian alphabet.

I will now add some particulars of the population of each of the large
islands of Malaysia.[560]

The interior of the island of Sumatra is inhabited by independent
populations, known in the north under the name of Battas (with whom
should probably be associated the Ala and the Gaja of the interior
of Achin), and under the name of Kubu and Lubu in the south. All
these tribes, who are primitive tillers of the soil, are famous as
man-eaters and head hunters. As to the regions contiguous to the east
and west coasts, they are inhabited (as well as in part the middle
of the island, between the Kubu and the Batta) by the so-called
Menangkabau Malays (the name of the ancient native kingdom). The
north coast is taken up by the Achinese, a mixed Arabo-Indonesian
people; while the south part of the great island is occupied by other
compound populations, the Palenbangs or Javanese of Sumatra, the
Rejangs (Malayo-Javanese), the Passumahs (Indonesians intermixed with
Javanese blood), and finally the Lampongs, cross-breeds of Passumahs
with Sundanese (see below) and the natives of the south, such as the
Orang-Abong, who have to-day almost disappeared. The islands skirting
west Sumatra are peopled with tribes resembling the Battas, like the
islanders of Nias, of Engano (p. 486, note), etc. The islands to the
east are peopled by Malays, except Riu and the middle of Biliton, which
are occupied by the Baju, a tribe perhaps of Negrito race. The island
of Bangka is occupied mostly by a branch of the Passumahs.

In Java are to be noted the Sundanese in the west, the Javanese in the
east, the former being less affected by Hindu elements. The Madurese
of Madura and Bavean islands, as well as the Balinese of Bali, are
like the Javanese. In the less accessible mountains of the province
of Bantam (west of the island) live the Baduj, and in those of the
east (province of Pasuruan) the Tenggerese. These are two fairly pure
Indonesian tribes, who have preserved their heathen customs in the
midst of the Mussulman population of Java. There are people like them
in Bali, Lombok, and Sumbawa.[561]

In Borneo, the coast is occupied by Malays, except the north-east part,
where are found Suluans (Arabised Indonesians from the Sulu Islands),
Bugis, and the Bajaus or Sea Gypsies, analogous to those of Riu and
Mergui (p. 396).

The interior of the large island is, however, the exclusive domain
of the Dyaks, the numerous tribes of which may be divided into two
great groups, the one of stationary, the other of nomadic habits. The
sedentary tribes, more or less intermixed with immigrant elements,
Chinese, Malay, and Bugi, are more or less civilised. First come the
Kayans, the Bahau, and the Segai; then the Tagans, among whom, it is
said, the practice obtains of girls being deflowered by their fathers;
and, lastly, the Dusuns or Sun Dyaks, the Baludupis, the Land Dyaks,
and the Sea Dyaks of Sarawak, etc. Second, the nomads, who are purer
than the fixed tribes, and sometimes half savage, as, for example,
the Punan and Olo-ot of the middle of the island, are still little
known.[562]

The Philippine archipelago[563] contains, besides Negritoes (p. 483),
a crowd of Indonesian tribes, which, from the linguistic and ethnic
point of view, may be grouped as follows:--Starting in the north-east
we meet first the Cagayanes or Ibangs around Lake Cagayan in the
island of Luzon, and their neighbours the Ifugaos, who are hunters of
skulls; then farther south we find the Igorrotes and their congeners;
then the Tagals; then, still farther south, in the interior, on all
the east coast of Luzon, as well as on the coast of Mindoro, are found
the savage Mangianes. At many points these peoples are intermixed with
Chinese blood. The west coast of Luzon is occupied by the Ilocanos,
who are bold colonists, and, farther south, towards Manilla, tribes
of the Zambales and Pangasinanes. The quite southern extremity of
Luzon is occupied by the Bicols, nearly related to the Tagals, whom
one finds again also scattered over the islands (Catanduanes Islands,
north Masbate Island, etc.). West Mindanao is taken up by the mixed
population (Arabo-Negrito-Indonesian) of pirates, Mussulman fanatics,
known by the name of Moros; the east of this island being inhabited
by several tribes as yet little known, such as Mandayas in the south,
Bogobos in the north, etc., and the Caragas tribe of Bisaya or Vissaya.
Most of these last people occupy the rest of the archipelago north
of Mindanao, as far as and including the south of Masbate and Samar
and Tablas islands. They are met again beside the Moros in Palawan
Island between the Philippines and Borneo. The Tagaloc language is
largely superseding other dialects in the archipelago; it has already
displaced Bicol in the north of the province of Camarine, Bisayan on
Marinduque Island, etc. Besides, Tagals emigrate to the other parts
of the archipelago and even to Marianne Islands. Most of the Tagals
are Christians; many can read and write Spanish, and not a few have
received a superior education.

Celebes Island is peopled in the north (Minahassa province) by the
Alfurus; in the south by Mangkassars and Bugis, and by various tribes
(Toraja, Gorontolo, etc.), who as yet have been little studied, in the
middle. The Moluccas are inhabited by other “Alfurus,” with a greater
strain of Papuan blood. Timur, apart from its Malay or Indonesian coast
populations, contains also tribes imbued with Papuan blood; such are
the Emabelo of the middle of the island; the Timur-Atuli of the east
coast; the Helong-Atuli in Samu Island opposite Kupang, the capital of
Timur; and lastly, the Rottinese of Rotti Island, south-west of Timur,
etc.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 151.--Young Papuan woman of the Samarai people
(Dinner Island, Moresby group, south of the south-east extremity of New
Guinea). Mixed type (Papuan-Melano-Polynesian).

(_Phot. Haddon._)]

In Floris Island, the Sikanese of the central isthmus and the east part
possess traits intermediate between Papuans and Indonesians, while the
Ata-Krowé of Koting and the Hokar mountaineers are almost pure Papuans.
The Lios to the west of the Sikanese present again a mixed type, as do
also the inhabitants of the region of Larantuka (Fig. 146), among whom
may be found all the degrees between Indonesian and almost pure Papuan.
This applies also to the Solorese of the Solor Archipelago, east of
Floris (Figs. 147 and 148).[564]

III. /Melanesia/.--The Melanesians are a well-characterised
race. However, they exhibit in somatic type differences sufficiently
marked to separate the Melanesian race into two sub-races. The one,
Papuan, with elongated face and hooked nose, is especially spread over
New Guinea; the other, or Melanesian properly so called, with broader
face, straight or concave nose, has a geographical area which covers
(from north-west to south-east) the Admiralty Islands, New Britain
(Bismarck Archipelago), Solomon, Santa-Cruz, and Banks Islands, the New
Hebrides, Loyalty Islands, and the Fiji Archipelago. Further, there are
a certain number of ethnic characters which also justify the separation
of the Papuans from the Melanesians properly so called. (See pp.
494-495.)

The Papuans[565] are found in the large island of New Guinea and the
coast islets; for the most part they present the more or less uniform
type of the Papuan sub-race (long face, convex nose, etc.), but the
Melanesian type properly so called is also to be found among them. The
frequency of individuals with a skin relatively fair, chocolate colour,
especially in the south-east of the island (British New Guinea), joined
to the frequency of wavy and straight hair, which, in the case of the
children, is sometimes chestnut or sandy at the ends and black at the
roots, has given the impression that there was a strong infusion of
Polynesian blood in the veins of the Papuans; but this idea has been
refuted by all ethnologists who have studied the populations on the
spot--Miklukho-Maclay, Finsch, Haddon. According to the last, the
evidence is in favour of some intermixture with the Melanesians, who,
in general, are fairer than the Papuans, and have often wavy hair.[566]
Some anthropologists (Miklukho-Maclay, Meyer, Hamy, Mantegazza)
have also pointed out the presence of Negritoes or Negrito-Papuan
cross-breeds in New Guinea, basing their opinion on the study of
skulls. These Negrito-Papuans appear to be localised at a single spot
on the island, at the mouth of the river Fly.[567]

It should also be said that some Polynesian customs, kava drinking,
tattoo by pricking, the possession of outrigger canoes, etc., to be
met with at certain points of New Guinea, are equally to be found in
Melanesia (New Hebrides, Fiji, etc.). Many ethnic characters may be
brought forward which are proper to the Papuans, or in which either
Indonesians or Australians resemble them--large phalanstery-houses (up
to 300 feet) on piles with roofs of the shape of a reversed boat; the
ceremony of initiation for the young of both sexes; the use of the
bull-roarer and of very elaborate masks in religious ceremonies, the
seated attitude of limbs crossed tailor-fashion, in which last they
differ from the Melanesians, who rest squatting.

The Papuans (perhaps a million in all) are divided into a great number
of tribes. In the west (Dutch) portion are the Mafors or Nofurs; the
Varopen or Vandamenes in Geelvink Bay and the islands lying within it;
the Arfaks, their neighbours of the interior; then, on the north coast,
the Amberbaki, the Karons, one of the tribes practising anthropophagy
(tolerably rare among Papuans); lastly, the Talandjang, near Humboldt
Gulf; the Onimes in the neighbourhood of McClure Gulf, and the Kovai
farther to the south. The Papuans of German New Guinea present
linguistic differences: those of Astrolabe Bay do not understand the
natives of Finsch Haven, etc. In British New Guinea the following
tribes are known: the Daudai to the west of the mouth of the Fly, the
Kiwai in the mouth of this river; the Orokolo and the Motu-Motu or
Toaripi in the Gulf of Papua; the Motu or Kerepunu (Fig. 152) of Port
Moresby;[568] the Koitapu and the Kupele more in the interior of the
country, near the Owen Stanley range; the Loyalupu and the Aroma to
the south of the foot of Moresby; finally, the Massim of the extremity
of the peninsula, the Samarai (Fig. 151) and their congeners of the
Entrecasteaux Islands and the Louisiade archipelago.[569]

The Papuans are tillers of the soil, and especially cultivate sago,
maize, and tobacco; occasionally they are hunters and fishers, and
are then very adroit in laying snares and poisoning waters; their
favourite weapons are the bow and arrow with flint heads. Excellent
boat-builders, they merely do a coasting trade, and while understanding
well how to handle a sail, rarely ever venture into the open sea.
Graphic arts are developed among them (see p. 202, and Figs. 60 to 62).
The practice of chewing betel is universal. The dress of the men is a
belt of beaten bark (Fig. 60); that of the women an apron made of dry
grasses. Funeral rites vary with the tribe: burial, exposure on trees,
embalmment. Very superstitious, living in dread of “spirits” at the
merest whispering of leaves in the forest, of a bad augury at the least
cry of a bird, the Papuans have no religion properly so called any more
than they have “chiefs”; all public matters are discussed at meetings
where, however, individual influences are always predominant. Among
their principal customs may be noted the vendetta and the headhunt.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 152.--Papuans of the Kerepunu tribe at
Tamain-Hula (New Guinea), ready to turn up the soil with their pointed
sticks.

(_Phot. Haddon._)]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 153.--Woman of the Fualu clan (east coast of New
Caledonia), of pure Melanesian race.

(_Phot. E. Robin._)]

The inhabitants of Torres Straits very much recall the Papuans; they
have nothing in common with the Australians.[570]

The Melanesians properly so called[571] are for the most part of the
variety with large square or lozenge-shaped face, with the straight or
_retroussé_ nose of the Melanesian race (Fig. 153). In general they
are taller and more dolichocephalic than the Papuans. (See Appendices
I. and II.) All tillers of the soil, cultivating especially the yam and
taro, they practise hunting and fishing only at times; the pig is their
only domestic animal. Most of the Melanesians still live in the stone
age, but the former fine axes of polished serpentine, artistically
hafted, are disappearing more and more. They also make many weapons
and tools of wood, of shells, and of human humerus bones. The favourite
weapons are the club, bow, and spear, this last being used only in war
(except in New Caledonia, where the bow is little employed).

The arrow and spear heads are most often of human bone, barbed, and
sometimes poisoned with juices of plants or microbes from the ooze of
ponds or lagunes.

The Melanesians build outrigger and twin canoes, but they do not
sail far from the coasts. Pottery in certain islands is unknown; the
dwellings are little houses on piles, except in New Caledonia, where
circular huts are met with. Communal houses (“Gamal”) exist everywhere.
Tattooing, little practised, is most often done by cicatrices. The
habit of chewing betel is general, except in New Caledonia; but kava is
almost unknown. Anthropophagy is now indulged in only on the Solomon
Islands and in some islands of New Britain and New Hebrides, although
the custom of preserving the skulls of the dead, and of hanging them
near the hut side by side with those derived from head-hunting, is
general. As in New Guinea, there exists a mob of dialects and tongues
in each of the Melanesian Islands, and even in different parts of the
same island. Melanesian women are very chaste and virtuous, and that
notwithstanding the absence of the sense of modesty, at least in New
Britain, where they go completely naked, as also do the men. The men,
in certain islands, wear only antipudic garments (see p. 170). Taboo in
Melanesia assumes a less clear form than in Polynesia, where it amounts
to simple interdiction without the intervention of mysterious forces.
As in Australia there are no “tribes” among the Melanesians (except
perhaps in New Caledonia), but in each island there exists two or more
exogamous “classes” or clans (as in Australia), and the regulations of
group marriage (p. 231) are observed as strictly in the Solomon Islands
as in Viti-Levu (the largest of the Fiji Islands). Secret societies
(Duk-Duk, etc., p. 253) flourish especially in Banks Islands, but are
met with also in the rest of Melanesia and even in the Fijis, where,
especially in the west islands, the population is already intermixed
with Polynesian elements.[572]

IV. /Polynesians/.[573]--Seeing that the Polynesians are
distributed over a number of islands, and exist under the most varied
conditions, we might expect to find a multitude of types. This is
not the case; the Polynesian race shows almost the same traits from
the Hawaii Islands to New Zealand. This fact is due to the constant
migrations from island to island, and the active trading conducted by
all the Polynesians with each other, the effect of which is to efface,
by process of intermixture, differences arising from insular isolation.

From the physical point of view the Polynesian is tall (1 m. 74,
average of 254 measurements), sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind., 82.6
according to 178 measurements on the living subject, 79 according to
328 skulls), of a fair complexion (warm yellow or brownish), with
straight or curly hair, most often straight nose, the cheek-bones
fairly projecting, the superciliary arches little marked, and,
especially among the women, something languorous in the look (Figs.
154 to 156). The Polynesian therefore differs completely from the
Melanesian, whose stature is below the average (1 m. 62 according
to 295 measurements), and who is dolichocephalic (ceph. ind., 77
according to 223 measurements on living subject); he has dark skin,
woolly or frizzy hair, concave or convex nose, and, lastly, prominent
superciliary arches, which, combined with the pigmentation of the
cornea, give a fierce and suspicious look. The Polynesian is more
subject to obesity than the Melanesian. He is more lively, more
imaginative and intelligent, but also more dissolute in his habits than
the Melanesian.

Before the advent of Europeans, the Polynesians of the upper volcanic
islands were expert tillers of the soil (as witness the ruins of
irrigation works in Tahiti, New Zealand, and elsewhere), and in
the lower coral islands lived on the produce of the cocoa-nut and
bread-fruit trees. Everywhere they were accustomed to fish. They cooked
their foods by means of heated stones (p. 153), having (except in
Micronesia, in the Tonga and Easter Islands) no knowledge of pottery;
they excelled in the art of plaiting, in the preparation of _tapa_ (p.
183), and especially in navigation. Their light canoes with outriggers
(Fig. 82), or their large twin canoes connected by a platform and
always carrying a single triangular sail of mat, furrowed the ocean
in all directions. For weapons they had short javelins, slings, and
wooden clubs, but neither bow nor shield. They made tools of shell
and polished stone, and were proficient in the art of wood-sculpture
(Fig. 71). Pictography appears to have been known only in Easter
Island (p. 140). Kava (p. 158) was their national drink; tattooing
had reached the condition of an art in New Zealand only. The custom
of taboo (p. 252) probably originated in Polynesia, where also two or
three social classes are to be met with. After the arrival of Europeans
the Polynesians, adopting the customs of the new-comers, underwent
rapid changes. For the most part Christians, especially Protestants,
they have modified their very rich old mythology by the incorporation
of Christian legends. In several islands, in Hawaii, Samoa, and New
Zealand, the Polynesians have even risen to the height of having
parliamentary institutions, in the management of which they themselves
take part. On the other hand, civilisation, in ensuring peace, has had
the effect of making the Polynesians unenterprising and lazy, and more
inclined to dissipation than they were formerly. And the population is
diminishing, owing either to imported epidemic diseases (particularly
syphilis and tuberculosis), or to cross-breeding.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 154.--Tahitian woman of Papeete, twenty-six years
old. Pure Polynesian race.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

In the Sandwich Islands, now subject to the United States, the
Hawaiians do not number more than 31,019 out of the 109,020
inhabitants registered by the last census (1896), or 28 per cent. of
the population; while in 1890 there were 34,436, constituting 38 per
cent. of the total population. The chief causes of this reduction
are phthisis and leprosy, as well as the Sino-Japanese and European
immigration. In the Marquesas Islands, belonging to France, the native
Polynesians numbered only 4,304 at the census of 1894, while in 1887
there were still 5,246; the principal cause of this diminution being
tuberculosis (Tautain). The Moriori of Chatham Island (east of New
Zealand) are reduced to fifty in number; and the Maoris of New Zealand,
so celebrated for their tattooings, their legends, and their ornamental
art, do not count more than 41,933 (census of 1891), distributed over
the northern island and over the northern part of the southern island.
They are also losing their native originality, are growing civilised,
and intermix with the Europeans.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 155.--Same subject as Fig. 154, seen in profile.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

The Samoans (35,000), and their neighbours the Tongans (25,000), who
have frequent relations with the Fijians, seem to remain stationary in
number. The native population (1,600) of Tahiti has not varied since
the establishment of the French dominion. The Hervey or Cook Islands
shelter 8000 Polynesians, the Tuamota Islands 7000, and the remaining
islands less than 2000 each.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 156.--Tahitian of Papeete; pure Polynesian race.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

The Polynesians of the western islands situated north of the equator
(Gilbert, 35,000; Marshall, 12,000; Caroline, 22,000; Marianne) are
called Micronesians. They differ slightly in type from the Polynesians;
they are more hairy, are shorter, their head is more elongated, and
they possess some ethnic characters apart: rope armour, weapons of
shark’s teeth, special money (p. 271), etc.[574]

The peopling of the innumerable islands of the Pacific and Indian
oceans by three distinct races whose languages have affinities
with Malay dialects, forms one of the most interesting problems
of ethnology. Anthropologists have largely discussed the point of
departure of these races.[575] According to common opinion it is from
the south-east of Asia, from Indo-China, that the peoples now scattered
from Madagascar to Easter Island originally set out; on the one hand
driven by the monsoons of the Indian Ocean, and on the other by the
monsoons of the Pacific, both of which, during a period of the year,
are contrary to the directions of the prevailing winds. The peopling
of Melanesia and Polynesia from west to east becomes very probable if,
as Bernard[576] has justly remarked, the distribution of lands and
islands, the disappearance of continents in proportion as we proceed
eastward, is taken into account. It is in fact evident that migrations
were effected more easily across large islands fairly near each other,
like those of the Indian Ocean or the western Pacific, even granted
contrary winds and currents, than across very small and very distant
islands like those of the western Pacific, even granted favourable
currents. If it is a question of involuntary migrations, the cyclones
and tempests which drive canoes afar amount to an inversion of normal
winds, and migrations of this kind are effected in all directions.[577]
As to voluntary migrations, they are also deliberately made in a
direction opposite to that of the prevailing winds. It was in order
to ensure their safe return that primitive peoples noted the regular
winds and currents, merely taking advantage of some chance breeze in
setting off. Legends afford little help to determine these migrations
in detail, and, apart from some historic facts, it is difficult to
state precisely the origin of the populations of each of the Oceanian
islands.



CHAPTER XIII.

RACES AND PEOPLES OF AMERICA.

    The four ethnic elements of the New World--_Origin of the
    Americans_--/Ancient Inhabitants of America/--Problem of
    palæolithic man in the United States--Palæolithic man in Mexico and
    South America--Lagoa Santa race; Sambaquis and Paraderos--Problem
    of the Mound-Builders and Cliff-Dwellers--Ancient civilisation of
    Mexico and Peru--_Present American Races_--_American languages_.

    /Peoples of North America/--I. _Eskimo_--II. _Indians of
    Canada and United States_: _a._ Arctic--Athapascan group; _b._
    Antarctic--Algonquian-Iroquois, Chata-Muskhogi, and Siouan
    groups; _c._ Pacific--Northwest Indians, Oregon-California and
    Pueblo groups--III. _Indians of Mexico and Central America_:
    _a._ Sonorian-Aztecs; _b._ Central Americans (Mayas, Isthmians,
    etc.)--Half-breeds in Mexico and the Antilles.

    /Peoples of South America/--I. _Andeans_: Chibcha, Quechua, and
    other linguistic families; the Araucans--II. _Amazonians_: Carib,
    Arawak, Miranha, and Panos families; unclassed tribes--III.
    _Indians of East Brazil and the Central Region_: Ges linguistic
    family; unclassed tribes (Puri, Karaya, Bororo, etc.); Tupi-Guarani
    family--IV. _South Argentine_: Chaco and Pampas Indians, etc.;
    Patagonians, Fuegians.


At the present day about six-sevenths of the population of the two
Americas are composed of Whites and Half-breeds of all sorts. The
remainder is made up almost equally of Negroes and natives, the
latter improperly called Indians.[578] Notwithstanding the relatively
small number of these last (about 10 millions), I shall deal almost
exclusively with them in this chapter, as they are especially
interesting from the ethnological point of view, besides having been
the best studied from this point of view. A few words will suffice
in regard to the Whites and Negroes. The white colonists and their
uncrossed descendants belong for the most part to Anglo-Saxon or
Germanic peoples in North America, and to Neo-Latin peoples in South
America. Nine-tenths of the population of the United States owe their
origin to the Anglo-Scotch, to the Irish, Germans, and Scandinavians,
the fusion of which with other European types and with half-breeds
tends to produce the _Yankee_ type, which, if not a physical, is at
least a social type. In Canada two-thirds of the white population are
Anglophones, and the rest Francophones. In Mexico, in the Antilles,
and in South America, nearly all the “white” population is made up
of Neo-Latins--in Brazil descendants of the Portuguese, in Argentine
of Italo-Spaniards, and elsewhere of Spaniards. The Latins have also
contributed to form the half-breeds of America, of which several
varieties exist. Half-breeds are especially numerous in Mexico and in
the countries where the three elements, White, Indian, and Negro come
together, as in the Antilles, in Columbia, Venezuela, and in Brazil.
I shall give some particulars of the Half-breeds in connection with
the populations of these lands (pp. 542 and 545). As to the Negroes
of America, they are the descendants of slaves imported, during more
than three centuries, almost exclusively from the West African coast,
and particularly from Guinea. (See p. 452.) The Negroes are especially
numerous in the south of the United States and in the Antilles, as
well as in the north and on the east coast of South America, as far as
Buenos Ayres.[579]

_Origin of the Americans._--To-day the existence of an _American race_,
or rather a _group of American races_ (p. 291), is generally conceded,
a group to which all the native populations of the New World belong;
but as to the origins of these races unanimity of opinion is far from
being reached. According to some authorities, the New World is a
special centre of the manifestation of species, the _Homo Americanus_
having developed on the spot; according to others, the ancestors of
the present Indians came from neighbouring countries--a few from
everywhere: from Siberia and China (by Behring’s Straits), from
Polynesia (driven by currents), from Europe (failing Atlantis, by the
table-land which in the quaternary period probably stretched between
England and Greenland). Unfortunately, almost all these hypotheses are
based on a confusion both of time and space. It may without difficulty
be conceded that occasional Chinese and Japanese junks may have been
driven towards America, although the existence of this continent
remained unknown both to China and Japan till quite recent times. We
know positively that the Northmen visited the shores of North America
long before Christopher Columbus. And there is reason to suppose that
the Polynesians, who are excellent navigators, may have ventured, urged
forward by currents, as far as the South American coast. But all these
occurrences would be too recent, and such migrations would be in fact
both too insignificant and too isolated, to account for the peopling of
a vast continent. The origins of American man are much more distant in
the past, and the migrations, if migrations there were, must have taken
place in the quaternary epoch, and probably as much from the coast of
Europe as from the coast of Asia.


ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF AMERICA.

Just as is the case with Europe, it is not certain that man existed
in America during the tertiary period,[580] but it is certain that he
appeared there during the quaternary age. This period, in the New World
as in the Old, had its glacial epochs. According to Dawson, Wright,
and Chamberlin, there were two or three great movements of invasion
and withdrawal of the American glaciers. It is not known if these
movements were synchronous with those of Europe, but it is established
that, as in Europe, the first invasion of glaciers was also the more
widespread.[581]

Chipped argilite tools, similar to the quaternary quartz tools of
sub-Pyrennean countries, have been found by Abbott in the gravels of
the Delaware, near Trenton (New Jersey), side by side with quaternary
animals (probably of the second glacial period, notably the fragment
of a jaw-bone). Other implements have been gathered on the spot by
Haynes in New Hampshire; by Dr. Metz in the gravels of Little Falls
(Minnesota), regarded by W. Upham as more recent than those of
Trenton; by Cresson at Medora (Indiana), and at Claymont (mouth of
the Delaware), in a more ancient deposit than the Trenton one; by
Wright and Volk at Trenton (in 1895); without reckoning the thousands
of finds either on the surface or in lesser-known beds, which have
been enumerated in a special memoir by Wilson. If I dwell on these
details, it is because all these finds have latterly been vigorously
attacked in the United States, since Holmes, who had studied the
ancient quarries of the Indians, pointed out the great resemblances
between the spoiled or waste argilite axes and arrowheads which he
had found in these quarries, and the supposed palæolithic implements,
particularly those of Trenton. Several authorities, such as Chamberlin,
MacGee, Brinton, have, like Holmes himself, come to the conclusion
that all the so-called palæolithic tools of America, and perhaps even
those of Europe, are only spoiled or waste tools of the same kind,
and relatively modern. This conclusion seems to overshoot the mark,
seeing that specialists like Wilson, Boule, etc., are almost unable
to distinguish undoubted quaternary tools of Europe from those of
Trenton, and that the beds of many American prehistoric tools have been
perfectly well ascertained not to have undergone any rehandling, and
have been established as quaternary by competent geologists.[582]

Outside the United States palæolithic finds in the New World are not
very numerous, and often are questionable.

Palæolithic tools of the Chellean and Mousterian type have been found
in Mexico by Franco and Pinart;[583] other quaternary tools, together
with a fragment of a human jaw-bone, have been described in the valley
of Mexico by S. Herrera.[584]

In Brazil, on the shores of Lake Lagoa-do-Sumidoro (province of Minas
Geraes), Lund exhumed human skeletons and flint objects, together
with remains of animals which, if not quaternary, at least exist no
longer in the country. Ameghino[585] also has collected in quaternary
layers of the Pampas of the Argentine Republic remains of primitive
human industries. I will only mention the numerous neolithic objects
found almost everywhere in America. Among these objects it is necessary
to give special attention to the “grooved axes” which are entirely
characteristic of the New World (Wilson).

As to prehistoric human bones, investigation reduces them to little. I
have already said that the tertiary or quaternary skull of Calaveras
(brachycephalic) is classed as doubtful. The skeleton of Pontimelo
(with dolichocephalic skull), found by Roth under the carapace of
the glyptodon, an enormous armadillo of the Pampas regions of the
Rio Arrecifes, a tributary of Rio de la Plata, also inspires but a
limited confidence in many authorities. Lastly, the skulls and bones of
Lagoa Santa, if not quaternary, at least very ancient, afford special
characters (dolichocephaly, short stature, third trochanter), on the
strength of which De Quatrefages has established a special race,[586]
whose probable descendants constitute my _Palæ-American sub-race_. (See
p. 292.)

Side by side with finds of stone objects and bones in very
ancient strata, it is necessary to note also the shell-heaps and
kitchen-middens scattered along all the coast of both Americas, from
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Louisiana to Brazil, to Patagonia and
Tierra del Fuego. In this last country the present inhabitants, who
subsist especially on molluscs, contribute to the piling up of these
heaps or to the formation of new ones. This is enough to indicate that
all the kitchen-middens are not synchronous; and if there be some
which go far back into antiquity, on the other hand there are some
which are quite modern. The “Sambaquis,” for instance, of the mouth of
the Amazon and of the province of Parana must be very ancient; some of
the skulls which have been found in them recall the Palæ-American or
Lagoa Santa race.[587] The _paraderos_, or elongated hillock graves,
discovered in the province of Entre Rios, in the valley of the Rio
Negro (Argentine Republic), by Moreno and R. Lista, enclose flint tools
(neolithic?) and numerous skulls, among which a certain number also
exhibit likenesses to those of Lagoa Santa.[588]

In North America, the _Mounds_, fortified enclosures or tumuli of the
most varied appearance, round, conical, and in the shape of animals,
have also for long attracted the attention of archæologists. But if
the discoveries and excavations made in these monuments have been
many, an exact explanation of their meaning was lacking till recent
times. The groups of mounds are scattered over an immense tract of
country, from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Rocky
Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean; but they abound particularly in the
valley of the Mississippi, along its left tributaries, in Arkansas,
Kansas, etc., as well as in the basin of the Ohio. Farther west,
towards the Rocky Mountains, as well as towards the Atlantic coast,
they become less frequent. Till recently, the construction of these
hillocks was attributed to one and the same people, called by the not
very compromising name of “Mound-Builders.” This people, tillers of the
soil and relatively civilised, must have lived from the most remote
antiquity in the region planted with these mounds, and must have been
destroyed by the nomadic and wild hordes represented by the present
Indians. Such, at least, was the prevailing hypothesis. However, an
attentive study of these mounds and the objects they covered has led
little by little the most competent authorities (Cyrus Thomas, Carr,
H. Hale, Shepherd, and the numerous members of the “Mound Exploring
Division”) to distinguish several “types” of mounds, the geographical
distribution of which would serve to indicate the settlements of
diverse tribes. E. Schmidt, in a comprehensive work, has brought
together all these investigations, and, by the light of linguistic data
furnished by Hale, Brinton and others, has been able to state precisely
who these various tribes were.[589]

It may be said at once that these investigations have by no means
confirmed the great antiquity of the mounds; on the contrary, objects
of European origin (iron swords, etc.), found in certain mounds, the
tales of the early explorers which tell us that the Indians raised
these mounds, and the traditions of the natives themselves, all force
us to the conclusion that the builders of these funereal monuments or
fortified enclosures were no other than the various Indian tribes whose
remaining descendants exist to-day in the reservations. These tribes
were tillers of the soil at the period of the discovery of America, as
indeed the tales of contemporary explorers bear witness, as do also the
traces of irrigation canals and other agricultural operations around
these mounds. But the invasion of the country by Europeans from the
seventeenth century onward, and the introduction of the horse, hitherto
unknown, brought so much confusion into the existence of these tribes,
that such of the Indians as survived the wars of extermination changed
their mode of life and became hunters or nomadic shepherds. If the
distribution of the mounds be studied, three parallel archæological
zones may be distinguished, extending from west to east, between the
Mississippi and the Atlantic Ocean, each such zone presenting great
differences in regard to the type of mound it circumscribes.[590] On
comparing this distribution with the ancient settlements of the tribes
the following result is arrived at: the mounds of the north have been
built by the Iroquois and Algonquians, except the mounds of animal
shape, which are due to Dakota-Siouan tribes; the mounds of the south
may be attributed to tribes of the Muskoki or Muskhogi family; and,
as regards the numerous monuments of the basin of the Ohio, there is
a strong presumption in favour of their having been raised by the
Shawnies and the Leni-Lenaps in the south, and by the Cherokis in the
north. The study of these mounds, in connection with historic data,
suffices to determine very satisfactorily the migrations of all these
tribes, to which I shall refer later.

West of the Rocky Mountains no more mounds are met with. Their place
is taken by other monuments, structures of stone erected among the
rocks and along the cañons. A large number of these are found in the
valley of San Juan, in that of Rio Grande do Norte, of the Colorado
Chiquito, etc. These monuments are still more modern than the mounds.
The peoples who erected these structures, the “Cliff-Dwellers,” are
still represented by the Moqui, Zuñi, and other tribes who inhabit the
high table-lands of Arizona and New Mexico.

Tribes probably related to the Cliff-Dwellers erected in Central
America those immense phalansteries in stone or adobe of several
storeys, constructed to shelter the whole clan, which the conquering
Spaniards called pueblos.[591] Adobe pueblos are still occupied by Zuñi
people, descendants of the Cliff-Dwellers.

While in North America among the Mound-Builders only rude attempts at
civilisation are found, in Central America and Mexico there flourished
up to the period of the conquest a relatively advanced civilisation.
Various peoples, whom many authors have sought to identify with the
Mound-Builders, formed more or less well-organised states in Mexico.
Such were the Mayas in the Yukatan peninsula; the Olmecs, and, later,
the Aztecs, on the high table-land. And on the west of South America
there developed a corresponding civilisation, that of the Incas of
Peru. The Incas were none other than one of the tribes of the Quechua
people, who, after having brought into subjection the Aymara aborigines
founded in Peru a sort of communist-autocratic state. To the north,
in present Columbia, lived the Chibchas, who have equally attained a
certain degree of civilisation. Lastly, to the south flourished the
civilisation of the Calchaquis.

_Existing American Races._--The natives of America, cut off from the
rest of the world probably since the end of the quaternary period,
form, as we have already seen, a group of races which may be considered
by themselves, in the same way as the Xanthochroid or Melanochroid
groups of races (see Chap. VIII.). It must be borne in mind that there
exists but a single character common to these American races, that is
the colour of the skin, the ground of which is yellow. This appears
to conflict with the current opinion that the Americans are a _red
race_, and yet it is the statement of a fact. None of the tribes of
the New World have a red-coloured skin, unless they are painted,
which often is the case. Even the reddish complexion of the skin,
similar, for example, to that of the Ethiopians, is met with only among
half-breeds. All the populations of America exhibit various shades of
yellow colouring; these shades may vary from dark-brownish yellow to
olive pale yellow.[592] By the yellow colour of the skin, as well as
the straight hair common to most, but not to all, Americans, they have
affinities with the Ugrian and Mongol races; but other characters,
such as the prominent, frequently convex nose, and the straight eyes,
separate them widely from these races.

As to the characters peculiar to the five races which I adopt
provisionally for the New World: Eskimo, North American, Central
American, South American, and Patagonian, with their sub-races, they
have been given in Chapter VIII., to which I refer the reader.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 157.--West Greenland Eskimo.

(_Phot. Sören Hansen._)]

_American Languages._--Several authors are of opinion that, as regards
America, a more satisfactory classification of the peoples may be
obtained from linguistic than from ethnic and somatological characters;
they even think that these linguistic characters afford indications as
to the _races_ of the New World.[593] But opinions are divided on this
point, as well as on the question whether all the American dialects
belong to one and the same family. Brinton affirms that there exists,
in spite of diversity of vocabulary and superficial differences of
morphology, a common bond of union among all the American languages.
This bond is to be looked for in the inner structure of the dialects,
a structure characterised especially by the development of pronominal
forms, the abundance of generic particles, the more frequent use of
ideas based on actions (verbs) than of ideas of existence (nouns), and
as a consequence the subordination of the latter to the former in the
proposition.[594] The latter feature characterises the process called
_incorporation_, all American languages being polysynthetic (see p.
131). Does the similarity of structure of the American languages
(which might further extend to other groups of agglutinative languages)
warrant the opinion that they all have sprung from a single stock?
Competent philologists like Fr. Müller and L. Adam think it does not,
and Powell,[595] attributing much more importance to similarity of
vocabulary than to similarities of grammatical form, arrives at the
conclusion that the tribes of North America do not speak languages
related to each other and springing from a single original stock;
on the contrary, they speak several languages belonging to distinct
families, which do not appear to have a common origin.

The number of languages spoken by the natives of both Americas
certainly exceeds a hundred, even without counting the secondary
dialects. Brinton estimates the number of linguistic families known in
the New World at 150 to 160; this figure is probably not far short of
the truth, for Powell admits, merely for that part of the continent
north of Mexico, 59 linguistic families, some of which comprise several
dialects.[596]


PEOPLES OF NORTH AMERICA.

The greater part of the native population of North America is composed
of tribes called _Indians_ or _Red-skins_ of the United States and
Canada. They touch on the north the Eskimo and Aleuts, and on the south
the Mexican and Central American Indians. I shall briefly review these
three great divisions, going from north to south.

I. The _Eskimo_,[597] or _Innuit_ as they call themselves (about
360,000 in number), afford the remarkable example of a people occupying
almost without a break more than 5000 miles of seaboard, from the
71st degree N. lat. (north-east of Greenland) to the mouth of the
Copper river or Atna (west of Alaska). A section of this people has
even crossed Behring’s Strait and inhabits the extreme north-east of
Asia (see p. 370). Over the whole of this extent of country nowhere
do the Eskimo wander farther than thirty miles from the coast. It is
supposed that their original home was the district around Hudson’s
Bay (Boas) or the southern part of Alaska (Rink), and that from these
regions they migrated eastward and westward, arriving in Greenland
a thousand years ago, and in Asia barely three centuries ago. Their
migrations northward led them as far as the Arctic Archipelago.[598]

Physically, the pure Eskimo--that is to say, those of the northern
coast of America, and perhaps of the eastern coast of Greenland--may
form a special race, allied with the American races, but exhibiting
some characteristics of the Ugrian race (short stature,
dolichocephaly, shape of the eyes, etc.). They are above average
stature (1 m. 62), whilst the Eskimo of Labrador and Greenland are
shorter, and those of southern Alaska a little taller (1 m. 66), in
consequence perhaps of interminglings, which would also explain their
cranial configuration (ceph. ind. on the living subject, 79 in Alaska,
against 76.8 in Greenland), which is less elongated than among the
northern tribes (average cephalic index of the skull, 70 and 72). Their
complexion is yellow, their eyes straight, and black (except among
certain Greenland half-breeds); their cheek-bones are projecting,
the nose is somewhat prominent, the face round, and the mouth rather
thick-lipped. The Eskimo language differs little from tribe to tribe.
Fishers and peaceful hunters, the Eskimo have no chiefs, and know
nothing of war; they cultivate the graphic arts, are always cheerful,
and love dancing, singing, story-telling, etc.

I have already given, however, in the preceding pages (see especially
pp. 137, 151, 160, 245, 263 _et seq._) several characteristics of
Eskimo life.[599]

The Aleuts, about 2000 in number, inhabiting the insular mountain-chain
which bears their name, speak an Eskimo dialect, but differ from the
true Eskimo in some respects, having brachycephalic heads and several
peculiarities of manners and customs. Besides, the majority of them
have adopted the habits and religion of the Russians.[600]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 158.--Gahhigué-Vatake (chief), a Dakota-Siouan
Indian with tomahawk, 38 years old.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

II. The _Indians_, improperly called _Red-skins_,[601] occupy a
territory of such vast extent that, in spite of a certain common
likeness, considerable differences are noticeable among them,
according to the countries they occupy, the climate, configuration,
and fauna of which vary in a marked degree. We can in the first place
distinguish the _Indians of the Arctic and Atlantic slopes_ of Canada
and the United States, belonging to a taller and less brachycephalic
race than that which predominates among the _Indians_ in the northern
part of the Pacific slope. In the southern part of the Pacific
slope we note the appearance of the Central American race, short
and brachycephalic, and in the Californian peninsula perhaps the
Palæ-American sub-race.[602] Each of the slopes in turn afford several
“ethnographic provinces,”[603] the boundaries of which approximately
coincide with those of the linguistic families now about to be rapidly
passed in review.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 159.--Siouan chief of Fig. 158, front face.

(_Phot. Prince Roland Bonaparte._)]

_a. The Indians of the Arctic slope_--that is to say, of the
low-lying country watered by the Mackenzie and the Yukon--belong to one
and the same linguistic family, called Athapascan.

The best known tribes are the _Kenai_ in Alaska, the _Loucheux_ on the
lower Mackenzie, the _Chippewas_, the numerous Tinné clans between
Hudson’s Bay and the Rocky Mountains, the _Takullies_ to the west of
these mountains, etc. All these _Athapascans_, of medium height (1 m.
66), and mesocephalic, are skilful hunters; they traverse the immense
forests of their country hunting fur-bearing animals in winter on their
snow shoes, in summer in their light beech-bark canoes. The Athapascan
linguistic family is not, however, confined to the wooded region of
Alaska and western Canada. Members of this tribe have migrated to a
far distant part of the Pacific slope, where they have settled in
two different districts. The Athapascans of the West, or the Hupas
who dwell in southern Oregon and northern California, differ but
little physically from the Athapascans properly so called, but they
are already Californians in ethnic character. The _Athapascans of the
south_--that is to say, the _Navajos_ or _Nodehs_ and the _Apaches_
(Fig. 161), taller (1 m. 69), more brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 84) than
their northern kinsfolk[604]--live in the open country of the Pueblo
Indians (Arizona, New Mexico), from whom, however, they differ in
regard to manners and usages. They are husbandmen relatively civilised,
fierce warriors and bold robbers, whose name has been popularised by
the novels of Gustave Aimard and Gabriel Ferry. They are more numerous
(23,500 in the United States)[605] than the Athapascans of the north
(8,500) and the Hupas (scarcely 900).[606]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 160.--Woman of Wichita tribe, Pawnee Nation,
Indian Territory, U.S.]

_b. The Indians of the Atlantic slope_ are divided into three great
linguistic families: Algonquian-Iroquoian, Muskhogean-Choctaw, and
Siouan or Dakota.

1. The _Algonquians_ and _Iroquoians_ occupy the “ethnographical
province” which bears their name and extends over the east of Canada
and the north-east of the United States, between the Mississippi and
about the 36th degree of N. latitude. This province is characterised
by a temperate climate, abundance of prairies, and broad water-ways;
it affords facilities for the chase and the gathering of wild rice
and tobacco; certain usages are common to all the tribes inhabiting
it (tattooing, colouring the body, moccasins similar to those of the
Athapascans, etc.).

The original home of the Algonquians was the region around Hudson’s
Bay, where the _Cree_ tribe, which speaks the purest Algonquian
language, still exists. Leaving this region, they spread as far as the
Atlantic, the Mississippi, and the Alleghany Mountains, driving back
the Dakotas into the prairies of the right bank of the Mississippi. The
_Abnakis_ of Lower Canada, the _Micmacs_ of Acadia and Newfoundland,
the _Leni-Lenapé_ of the Delaware, who fought so valiantly against the
European immigrants; the _Mohicans_, idealised by Cooper; the warlike
_Shawnees_, the _Ojibwas_ or _Chippewas_ (Fig. 30), who, together with
the Lenapé, are alone among the Red-skins in possessing a rudimentary
writing; the _Ottawas_, the _Black Feet_, the _Cheyennes_, and so
many other tribes besides belonged to this great Algonquian people.
It has left traces of its existence in the “mounds” as well as in a
great number of the geographical names of the region which it formerly
occupied. It is estimated that at the present day there are not more
than 95,000 Algonquians, of whom two-thirds inhabit Canada. The most
numerous tribe is that of the Chippewas (31,000), while the “last” of
the Mohicans were only 121 in the census of 1890. Among the Algonquians
ought probably to be included a tribe which became extinct in 1827,
that of the Beothucs of Newfoundland, whose affinities with other
tribes have not yet been definitely established.[607]

At the time when the Algonquians held a large part of modern Canada and
the United States, an isolated portion of their territory was peopled
with Iroquoians around Lakes Erie and Ontario, as well as on the lower
St. Lawrence. The Iroquoians, sprung from the same common stock as the
Cherokis, the ancient mound-builders of the Ohio basin, have dwindled
down to a few thousand families in the upper valley of the Tennessee
(H. Hale). They are divided into _Hurons_ (between Lakes Ontario and
Huron) and _Iroquois_ or _Iroquoians properly so called_. The latter
formerly comprised five nations: _Mohawks_, _Oneidas_, _Onondagas_,
_Senecas_, and _Cayugas_, united into a democratic confederacy by the
famous chief Hiawatha, of whom Longfellow has sung. At a later date the
_Tuscaroras_, who dwelt farther to the south-west in Virginia, were
also admitted into the confederacy.[608]

The wars in which the Iroquoians have been engaged have singularly
reduced their number; to-day there are only about 43,000, of whom 9000
are in Canada.

2. The _Muskhogean group_ comprises several tribes: _Apalachi_,
_Chata-Choctaw_, _Chicasaws_, _Creeks_ or _Muskhogis_, who formerly
dwelt between the lower Mississippi, the Atlantic, the Tennessee
River, and the Gulf of Mexico. To these we must add the _Seminoles_
who formerly occupied the Florida peninsula.[609] The habits of the
Muskhogean tribes, of which Hernando de Soto drew so vivid a picture
in 1540, were those of husbandmen somewhat advanced in civilisation;
they had a hieroglyphic writing (Brinton), but were unacquainted with
the use of metals, gold excepted. The southern portion of the United
States which these tribes occupied is a region with a sub-tropical
climate, favourable to the cultivation of the sugar-cane, maize, and
tobacco. The ancient Muskhogis wore garments of special texture,
and daubed their bodies like the Algonquians, but were unacquainted
with tattooing. At the present day they have dwindled down to 25,500
individuals. Certain tribes, like the _Yamasis_, have completely
disappeared; in 1886 there were only three _Apalachi_ women left. We
include among the Muskhogis the tribes who formerly lived in the lower
valley of the Mississippi, and whose dialects have not been classified:
the _Natchez_, idealised by Chateaubriand, a score of whom still dwell
among the Creeks and Cherokis; the _Atacapas_, reduced in number to a
dozen individuals, in the Calcasieu Pass (Louisiana), etc.

3. The _Siouans_ or _Dakotas_ (Figs. 158 and 159) occupied at the time
of the discovery of America the whole country extending to the west
of the Mississippi, between the river Arkansas on the south and the
Saskatchewan on the north, as far as the Rocky Mountains. For a long
time this was believed to be their original home; but it has been
found necessary to modify this opinion since the discovery by Hale and
Gatschet of tribes speaking a Siouan tongue with archaic forms east of
the Mississippi. These tribes are the _Tutelos_ of Virginia, of whom
but a score of individuals are left; the _Biloxis_ of Louisiana, and
the _Winnebagos_. It is now admitted that the original home of the
Siouans was the Alleghany Mountains and the surrounding country; thence
they were doubtless forced back by the Algonquians into the prairies to
the west of the Mississippi, where they became buffalo-hunters.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 161.--Christian Apache Indian.]

The principal Siouan tribes are: the _Assinaboins_ on the Saskatchewan,
the _Minnetaris_ on the Yellowstone river, the _Ponkas_ and the
_Omahas_ in Nebraska, the _Osages_ of the borders of Arkansas, the
_Hidatsas_ of Dakota, the _Crows_ of Montana, the _Siouans_ or
_Dakotas_ properly so called (Figs. 26, 158, and 159) in the upper
basin of the Missouri, etc. The total number of the Siouans is
estimated at 43,400 individuals, of whom 2,200 are in Canada.[610]

The Indians of the four groups just enumerated all resemble each
other in physical type: stature very high (from 1 m. 68 among the
Cherokis of the east, to 1 m. 75 among the Cheyennes and Crows), head
sub-dolichocephalic or mesocephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub.,
from 79.3 among the Iroquoians to 80.5 among the Cheyennes), face,
oval.[611] Near the Siouans, in the same ethnographic region of the
plains of the Great West, dwelt the _Pawnees_ or _Caddoes_, one of the
tribes of which, the _Aricaras_ or _Rikaris_ (450 individuals at the
present day), emigrated north towards the sources of the Mississippi.
As to the _Pawnees properly so called_ they were established in the
valley of the Plata, whence they were transferred in 1878 into the
Indian Territory; they numbered 820 individuals in the census of 1890.
The rest of the nation, the _Wichitas_ (Fig. 160), the _Caddoes_, etc.,
have abandoned the predatory habits of the true Pawnees and become good
husbandmen distributed over different reservations.

The _Kiowas_ form a small linguistic group by themselves. The
neighbours formerly of the Comanches and the Shoshones, these
ex-robbers are at the present day installed, to the number of 1,500, in
the Indian Territory.

The Pawnees and Kiowas are tall and mesocephalic, with a tendency
towards brachycephaly.

_c. Indians of the Pacific slope._--The coast tribes of the Pacific
might be united into a single group in spite of the great diversity
of language existing among them.[612] In fact, most of these Indians
belong to one and the same sub-division of the North American race, the
_Pacific sub-race_. They are above medium height (from 1 m. 66 among
the _Utes_ to 1 m. 69 among the _Chahaptes_), sub-brachycephalic (mean
ceph. ind. from 82.7 to 84.7, except the Utes, whose index is 79.5),
with rounded face (Tsimshians and Haidas), or elongated (Kwakiutls);
they have straight eyes and their pilous system is well developed
(Boas). It is only in the region of the Pueblos that we can detect the
admixture of the short, brachycephalic Central American race.[613]
Ethnic characters enable us to divide the Indians of the Pacific into
three groups: Indians of the north-west, Indians of Oregon-California,
and Pueblo Indians.[614]

1. _The Indians of the north-west_[615] are divided into two slightly
distinct groups by their ethnic characters. In the north, on the
indented coast of Alaska and British Columbia, as well as in the
innumerable rocky islands lying off it, dwell tribes of fishers and
hunters who form a very characteristic group by their ethnic traits,
of which the following are the principal: garments of woven wool or
of bark (before the arrival of the Whites); communal barracks, near
which are raised “totem posts,” usually of slate, ornamented with
anthropomorphic sculptures, grotesque or horrible, representing totems;
plated armour, composite bow of wood and bone, tattooing, etc. The
Pacific coast to the south of Vancouver and the Columbia drainage
area is occupied by another group of populations, which, while having
some traits in common with the former (communal barracks but without
“totem post,” cooking by means of heated stones, zoomorph masks, etc.),
exhibits a multitude of characters (garments of raw hides, cranial
deformations, absence of tattooings, plain bow, etc.) which keep them
widely separate.

The first group comprises the following tribes, beginning at Cape St.
Elias and going towards the south: the _Tlinkits_ or _Kolushes_ as far
as the 55th degree of N. lat. (6,437 individuals in 1880, according
to Petroff); the _Haidas_ or _Skittagets_ of the Queen Charlotte
Islands (2,500), skilful carvers in wood; the _Tsimshians_ of the
coast situated opposite to these islands; the _Wakashes_, sub-divided
into _Nootkas_ of Vancouver Island and _Kwakiutls_ of the adjacent
coast. The second group is composed of the remnants of the _Salishans_,
_Selish_, or Flat-heads (12,000 in Canada, 5,500 in the “reservations”
of the United States); of the _Shahapts_ or “_Nez-percés_” (300), to
the south of these; and lastly, the _Chenooks_, well known for their
cranial deformations (p. 176).

2. _The seaboard of Oregon and California_ is a succession of short,
isolated valleys, abounding in fibrous plants, fruit, and fish. These
are excellent conditions for the formation of little isolated ethnic
groups; thus it happens that the Indians of this coast are divided into
twenty-four or twenty-six distinct linguistic families.

Of these the principal, as we go from north to south, are: the _Copehs_
of the right bank of the Sacramento; the _Pujunnas_ or _Pooyoonas_ of
the left bank of the same water-way; the _Kulanapans_ to the north of
San Francisco; the _Costanos_ to the south of that town; the _Salinas_,
who formerly inhabited the valley bearing the same name, but of whom
there remain but a dozen individuals; the _Maripos_ or _Yokuts_ (145
individuals) to the east of the last-named tribe; the _Chumashes_
around the mission of Santa-Barbara, 35° N. latitude, of whom scarcely
two score individuals still speak the language of their fathers;
the _Hupas_, very primitive in their habits. Among most of these
populations are found vestiges of the ancient custom of tattooing and
the use of garments fashioned from vegetable fibres.

It is probably in this group that we must include the _Yumas_ of
the lower valley of the Colorado (Arizona) and of the Californian
peninsula, of whom the principal tribes are as follows: the _Mohaves_
(Fig. 4) and the _Yumas_ properly so called, in the valley of the
Colorado; the _Maricopas_ of the valley of the Gila; the _Soris_ or
_Seris_ in Mexico, opposite to the Californian peninsula; lastly, in
this peninsula itself the _Cochimis_ in the north and the _Periquès_,
now extinct, at the southern extremity of the peninsula; there is not,
however, any direct evidence that these last spoke a _Yuma_ tongue;
further, they burnt their dead while all the other Yumas buried
theirs. The population of lower California was very scattered (10,000
individuals in all); they gained a miserable existence from hunting
and fishing, and could not even make canoes. To-day but few are left.
To judge from the bones gathered at the extreme end of the Californian
peninsula, the Indians who dwelt there (the ancestors of the Periquès?)
were if anything of short stature; by this characteristic, as well as
by their dolichocephaly, they would appear then to be allied to the
Palæo-American sub-race.[616]

3. The name _Pueblo Indians_ is sometimes given to the populations
inhabiting the caves hollowed out of the sides of the deep cañons and
the “pueblos” of the warm and arid table-lands of Arizona, New Mexico,
and the adjacent parts of Utah, California, and Mexico.

Some of these populations, the _Moquis_ (2000) for example, belong to
the Shoshone linguistic family,[617] others perhaps to the _Pima_ stock
(see p. 535); but there are three small groups of these cliff-dwellers
whose languages present no analogy with one another nor with any other
dialect. These are the _Keres_ (3,560 individuals) and the _Tanos_
(3,200 individuals), both in the upper basin of the Rio Grande, and the
_Zuñis_, who to the number of 1,600 occupy the “pueblo” of the same
name in the west of New Mexico.

In spite of the diversity of their dialects all the cliff-dwellers
have certain physical characters in common, such as stature above the
average, brachycephaly, etc.[618] It must not be forgotten that the
cliff-dwellers are surrounded on all sides by immigrant populations of
the Athapascan stock (see p. 524).

III. _The Indians of Mexico_[619] _and Central America_ may be divided,
from the ethnographical point of view, into two great groups: the
Sonoran-Aztecs, inhabiting the north of Mexico or what is improperly
called the Anahuac plateau; and the Central Americans of Southern
Mexico and the states situated more to the south as far as the Costa
Rica republic.[620]

_a._ The _Sonoran-Aztecs_ are allied by language to the Shoshones,
and by manners and customs to the true Pueblo Indians of the United
States, while they exhibit some divergences as regards physical type.
Physically the Sonorans are allied to the North Americans of the
Atlantic slope, while the peoples of the Aztec group show a great
infusion of Central American blood.

The _Pimas_ and their congeners the _Papajos_ constitute one of the
principal tribes of the Sonorans. They dwell in pueblos or “casas
grandes,” and expend a prodigious amount of labour in drawing their
subsistence from the infertile soil of the Gila valley. However, they
are fine tall men (mean height 1 m. 71, according to Ten Kate), slim
and nimble, having the head a trifle elongated (ceph. ind. on the liv.
sub., 78.6), the nose prominent, etc. Their neighbours the _Yakis_ and
the _Mayas_, included in the _Cahita_ linguistic group, 20,000 strong,
have the same type as the Pimas. They inhabit the sterile regions
through which flow the rivers Yaki and Mayo, and have preserved their
racial purity almost intact,[621] unlike their kinsmen the _Opatas_
and the _Tarahumaras_ of Chihuahua and Sonora, in whom there is a
powerful strain of Spanish blood.[622]

Under the collective name of _Aztecs_ or _Nahua_ are comprised several
peoples and tribes who formerly occupied the Pacific slope from Rio
de Fuerte (26th degree of N. lat.) to the frontiers of Guatemala,
with the exception of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; their colonies even
extended farther into Guatemala and Salvador (example, the _Pipils_).
On the other side, on the Atlantic slope the Nahua tribes inhabited
the regions around Mexico. There they had formed, probably two or
three centuries before the arrival of the Europeans, three confederate
states: _Tezcuco_, _Tlacopan_ and _Tenochtitlan_, under whose dominion
were ranged tribes of the same origin scattered along the coast,
among the _Totonac_ people in the existing province of Vera Cruz;
one of these tribes, the _Nicaraos_ or _Niquirans_, migrated into
Nicaragua.[623]

At the present day the Aztecs, about 150,000 in number, are dispersed
over the whole Mexican coast from Sinaloa in the south to Tepic,
Jalisco, Michoacan on the west. Very peaceful, sedentary, with a veneer
of civilisation, they are nominally Catholics, though at bottom they
are animists, and full of superstition. In many of the Aztec villages
the ancient Nahua language is still spoken.[624]

Side by side with the Aztecs there exist in Mexico three other ethnic
groups which may be designated by the name of _Mexicans properly so
called_. These are:--

1st. The _Otomis_, presumably the aboriginal inhabitants of the Mexican
table-lands, now settled in the state of Guanajuato, and the basin of
the upper Moctezuma between Mexico and San Luis de Potosi. They afford
a unique example of an American people speaking an almost monosyllabic
language. They are below the average height, brachycephalic as a
general rule, with a tendency towards mesocephaly.[625]

2nd. The _Tarascos_, formerly spread over the whole of the state of
Michoacan, in Guanajuato and Queretaro,[626] have been absorbed by
the half-breed population. Lumholtz, however, states that nearly
200,000 uncrossed Tarascos are still living (1896) in the mountains
of Michoacan. They had a form of pictography peculiar to themselves,
and must have come, according to their traditions, from the northern
regions, like the Nahuatlans.

3rd. The _Totonacs_ of the province of Vera Cruz, formerly very
civilised, resemble physically their neighbours on the north-east, the
_Huaxtecs_; the latter, however, belong to the Maya linguistic group
(see below).

_b. The Central Americans._--They may be divided into three
geographical groups, the Indians of Southern Mexico, the Mayas, and the
Isthmians.

I. Among the numerous aboriginal peoples of Southern Mexico the
_Zapotecs_ of the state of Oajaca are the most numerous (about 265,000
individuals). These are the descendants of a once powerful people who
had attained to nearly the same degree of civilisation as the Aztecs.

The _Miztecs_ (Figs. 163 and 164), who occupy the eastern part of the
state of Oajaca and the adjacent regions of Guerrero, have dwindled to
a few thousand individuals. They appear to be of fairly pure Central
American race, are very short, brachycephalic, and have a dark brown
skin and projecting cheek-bones.[627]

[Illustration: Fig. 162.--Young Creole woman of Martinique.

(_Phot. Coll. Anthr. Soc. Paris._)]

In the east of Oajaca and in Chiapa, on the frontier of Guatemala, are
found the _Zoques_, the _Mixes_, and the _Chapanecs_, with whom it is
customary to connect the _Chontals_ and the _Popolucas_. But these two
vocables signify in Nahuatlan merely “stranger” and “one who speaks
badly or stammers.”[628] Among the tribes of Oajaca and Tabasco,
described under the name of Chontals, some speak a dialect peculiar to
themselves, the Tequistlatecan, allied to the Yuma language (Brinton),
while others speak the Maya dialects.[629]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 163.--Miztec Indian (Mexico), Central American
race.

(_Phot. D. Charney, Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris._)]

II. The peoples composing the _Maya group_ appear to have come in
post-quaternary times (by sea?), and in a state of civilisation already
well advanced,[630] into the Yucatan peninsula. Thence they spread into
Guatemala and the surrounding regions of Salvador and Honduras, where
at the present day they form the bulk of the population. The ancient
Maya civilisation resembled that of Mexico, the sanguinary creeds of
the latter excepted; their writing was of a perfect hieroglyphic type.
Besides the _Mayas properly so called_ of Yucatan, the principal tribes
of this group are: the _Tsendals_ or _Chontals_ of Mexico, already
mentioned above; the _Mopans_ of Northern Guatemala; the _Koïtches_
or _Quichés_ farther south, the only Indian people possessing an
aboriginal written literature; the _Pokomams_ of the district around
the town of Guatemala; the _Chortis_ on the territory where the
ruins of Copan stand; and a long way off, isolated from the rest of
their kinsmen, in the Mexican province of Tamaulipas, the _Huaxtecs_
(p. 537). In spite of linguistic differences, all the Guatemalans
or Indians of Guatemala resemble each other physically; they are
short, thick-set, with high cheek-bones, prominent and often convex
nose.[631] Some characteristic habits, as for instance geophagy, are
common to all these populations.

III. _The Isthmians._--We include under this name the native
populations of Central America, scattered between Guatemala and the
Isthmus of Panama, whose dialects do not fit into any group of American
languages.[632]

These are the _Lenkas_ of the interior of Honduras; the _Xicaks_ or
_Sihahv_ in the north of this country; the _Chontals_ of Nicaragua,
formed from the _Matagalpes_, speaking a language peculiar to
themselves; and the tribes adjoining the _Lenkas_, the _Guatusos_ or
_Huatusos_, who inhabit the forests surrounding San Juan. The latter
were formerly classed, without adequate reason, with the Nahua, and
they were represented as having dark complexions, whereas they are as
yellow as the rest of Americans. In number they scarcely exceed 600
individuals.[633]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 164.--Miztec women (Mexico).

(_Phot. D. Charney, Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris._)]

To all these peoples there must be added certain uncivilised tribes
of the _Ulva_ group (Soumoo of the English),[634] on the coast of
Mosquito, who are sometimes called Caribs, although they have nothing
in common with the true Caribs (p. 552); then the _Micas_, the
_Siquias_ of the Rio Mico, the _Subironas_ of the Rio Coco, etc., who
are all distinguished by the colour of their skin, which is darker than
that of Indians in general.

The _Moscos_ or _Mosquitos_ who inhabit the neighbourhood of the
Blewfields lagoon (Mosquito reservation) are still darker, indeed,
almost black like Negroes, without, however, exhibiting other points of
resemblance with the latter. They are short in stature, having a fine,
prominent nose, etc., and it is not difficult to distinguish those who
are the offspring of Mosquitos crossed with true Negro blood. About
6000 in number, the Mosquitos are relatively civilised, and make use
of the Latin alphabet, introduced by missionaries, for writing their
mother-tongue. In an island of the Blewfields lagoon, between the Rio
Mico and the Rio San Juan, have been found the _Rumas_, of very high
stature, but their language is as yet unknown.

_Half-breeds of North America._--In the United States and Canada the
half-breeds of Indians and Whites, as well as Mulattos, form but a
very slight portion of the population. This is not the case in Central
America and Mexico. The aboriginal populations of Central America
are reduced to a few thousand individuals; on the other hand, the
half-breeds, produced by the crossings between them and the Europeans,
form almost the whole of the population.

In Mexico the half-breeds form a little less than the half of the
population, and in a general way they increase in number as we go from
north to south and from west to east. Their nomenclature is somewhat
complicated.[635] On the other hand, Negroes and Mulattos are not very
numerous in Mexico and Central America. The Negro element exhibits a
marked predominance only in the Antilles. The population of the island
of Haiti is almost wholly Negro or Mulatto; that of the other islands
has sprung from the manifold crossings between the ancient Carib or
Arawak aborigines (see p. 552), and between Negroes and Europeans. The
children of a white man and a mulatto woman are called Quadroons in
the Antilles, but most of the half-breeds among whom European blood
predominates prefer the name of _Creoles_. The Creole type of the
Antilles is indeed very fine, especially among the women (Fig. 162),
who sometimes have a vivacious look and a bewitching smile unique of
their kind.


PEOPLES OF SOUTH AMERICA.

Accepting, with Brinton, the northern political frontier of Costa Rica
as the ethnological limit of South America, I propose to pass in review
the native populations of the continent, grouping them according to the
four great natural regions: the Cordillera of the Andes; the plains of
the Amazon and the Orinoco, with Guiana; the table-lands of eastern
and southern Brazil; lastly, the Pampas of the southern part of the
continent, with Tierra del Fuego.

This division corresponds pretty well with the distribution of races,
languages, and ethnographic provinces.[636] In fact, the substratum of
the Andean populations is formed of the Central American race, while
that of the Amazonians and Guianas is composed of the South American
race with its two sub-races, South American properly so called, and
Palæo-American; the latter predominates also in east Brazil and Tierra
del Fuego, while there are mingled with it Patagonian and other
elements in the south of Brazil and among the Pampeans.

As regards language there is the same difference. In the Andean
dialects the pronominal particles are suffixes, while in the Amazonian
dialects these particles are prefixes, but both groups allow of a
limitative form of the personal pronoun in the plural. As to the
Pampean dialects, they are without the limitative form in most cases,
and sometimes make use of prefixes, sometimes of suffixes.[637]

The ethnological differences of the three groups are manifold. This
subject will be briefly dealt with further on. For the present let us
observe that, in a general way, the Andeans are husbandmen, and have
had a highly-developed native civilisation, while the Amazonians and
the Brazilians of the east are for the most part fishers or hunters,
often in the lowest scale of civilisation. As to the Pampeans, they
are typical pastoral nomads. Before the arrival of the Europeans, the
Andeans were acquainted with the weaving of stuffs; they worked in
gold, silver, and bronze, manufactured fine pottery, had houses of
stone and fortified towns, and employed as their chief weapons clubs
and slings. The Amazonians and their congeners, on the other hand,
still go almost naked, and adorn themselves with feathers; they were
unacquainted with metals on the arrival of the Europeans, and some are
ignorant even now of the art of pottery; they dwell in shelters or
huts of branches and leaves, and their weapons are the blow-pipe and
poisoned arrows. The Pampeans, before being influenced by the Andean or
European civilisation, clothed themselves with skins, were acquainted
neither with metals nor pottery, dwelt in huts, and used the _bollas_
as their principal weapon.

Before beginning a rapid review of the South American tribes, it must
again be remarked that their nomenclature often leads to confusion.
A great number of terms are only qualifications applied by Europeans
to the most different peoples, in no way akin one to the other. Such,
for example, is the term “Bougres,” which is given in the east of
Brazil to savages in general; or that of “Jivaros,” employed in the
same sense in Peru; such also are the appellations of _Coroados_
(crowned or tonsured), of _Orejones_ (pierced ears), of _Cherentes_,
_Caribs_, etc., without taking into account those relating to the
half-breeds.[638]

I. _The Andeans._[639]--By this name we shall describe the principal
populations which are stationed in the Cordilleras, and on the high
table-lands shut in by these mountains from Costa Rica to the 45th
degree of S. latitude. Most of them belong to the Chibcha and Quechua
linguistic families; but there are also several whose linguistic
affinities have yet to be determined.

1. _Chibcha Linguistic Family._--The _Talamancas_ of Costa Rica,
sub-divided into several tribes (_Chirripos_, _Bribris_, etc.), form
the most northern tribe of this group; they dwell partly on the
Atlantic slope, partly on the Pacific. By certain ethnic characters
(feather ornaments, use of the blow-pipe) they are related to the
Amazonians.[640] Farther away the _Guaymis_ inhabit the region of
Chiriqui (Panama), where such beautifully ornamented ancient pottery
(Figs. 63 and 64) has been found in the tombs of a still mysterious
population. They are short, thick-set, and flat-faced, resembling
the Otomis of Mexico. There may be about 4000 of them, according to
Pinart; but some of their tribes had dwindled to such an extent, that
of the _Muoi_, for example, there were only three individuals in 1882.
They organise feasts among the tribes, to which invitations are sent
by means of a staff sent round (a portion of a liana-stem, having as
many knots as there are days remaining before the feast). With their
bodies daubed with red or blue, the Guaymis give themselves up during
these feasts to drinking and the game of _balza_, which consists in
throwing a sort of club at the legs of their adversaries. There are
also lesser feasts, feasts of initiation called here _urotes_.[641]
The _Chibchas_ of Columbia, whose civilisation is no whit behind that
of the _Nahuas_,[642] have been under Spanish influence since the
conquest, and to-day but a few tribes are met with who still speak
their mother-tongue or who have preserved their ancient customs.

Such are the _Chimilas_ of the Sierra-Perija; the _Tunebos_, true
cliff-dwellers, eastward of Bogota; the _Arahuacos_, dwelling to the
number of 3000 in the Sierra-Nevada of Santa Marta. The latter have
nothing in common with the true Arawaks, unless it be their name,
which, however, they repudiate as an insult; the name they give
to themselves is _Cöggaba_, that is to say, “Men.”[643] As to the
_Chibcha_ or _Muisca_ Indians of the Rio Magdalena, who were the most
civilised of all the peoples speaking the Chibcha tongue, no survivors
are to be found.

2. _The Quechua Linguistic Family_ is one of the most far-reaching of
South America. The Quechua dialects are still spoken to-day on the
coast, and along the chain of the Andes from Quito to the 30th degree
S. latitude. This is practically the extent of the ancient empire of
the _Incas_, the best known nation among the Quechua peoples. But the
influence of the Inca civilisation and the Quechua language extended
even farther, to Columbia, the borders of Ucayale, and the Bolivian
table-land on the north, to the edge of the Pampas on the south (among
the Calchaquis). For the western part of South America the Quechua
tongue was the _lengua general_, as the Tupi-Guarani tongue was the
_lingua geral_ for the east (Brazil, Paraguay, etc.). This language
is not at all superseded by Spanish; on the contrary, the Whites learn
it, and several Quechua words: _guano_, _pampa_, _condor_, _quina_,
have found their way into the languages of all civilised nations.[644]
The principal tribes are: the _Huancas_ to the north-east of Lima,
the _Lamanas_ near Trujillo, the _Incas_ in the vicinity of the Rio
Apurimac, the _Aymaras_ of the high table-lands of Bolivia (600,000
individuals, of whom two-thirds are of pure blood).

In spite of the diversity of dialects all the Quechuas and Aymaras
present a remarkable uniformity of physical type. They are of low
stature (1 m. 60 according to D’Orbigny, 1 m. 57 according to Forbes),
thick-set, and very strong. The chest is broad, the head massive and
globular, the nose aquiline, forehead retreating. This last peculiarity
should however be attributed to the custom of deforming the head,
very widespread among all the Quechuas and neighbouring peoples; this
deformation is still practised in the same way as in the days of the
Inca civilisation. It is very unlikely that the frequent occurrence of
the “Inca bone” (p. 67) in Peruvian skulls has any connection with this
deformation. The greatest part of the population of Peru is composed of
Quechuas and Aymaras, or of Quechua-Spanish half-breeds.[645]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 165.--Guaraunos chief (Mouth of the Orinoco) with
his two wives.

(_Phot. Crevaux, Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris._)]

The _Calchaquis_,[646] the ancient inhabitants of the modern
south-west provinces, Argenton, Catamarca, Rioja, Santiago, etc.,
probably also spoke a Quechua dialect. It was a very civilised
population; the only one in the South American continent which knew how
to construct buildings of freestone. Although partly borrowed from the
Peruvians, the Calchaqui civilisation has a character of its own, and
in several respects recalls that of the Pueblo Indians, particularly
the Zuñis (arrangement of their cities in a series of seven, copper
tools and weapons, etc.).

[Illustration: /Fig./ 166.--Guaraunos of the mouth of the Orinoco.

(_Phot. Crevaux, Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris._)]

The last Calchaqui tribe, the _Quilmes_, was transported in 1670 by the
Spaniards near to Buenos Ayres, where it forms the village of this name.

3. _Unclassified Tribes._--In Columbia let us note the following
tribes:--

The _Cuna_ Indians, also called _Tula Dariens_, etc., of southern
Panama. They are people of low stature (1 m. 50, according to Brinton),
thick-set, of light yellow complexion, very brachycephalic (ceph.
ind. 88.6, according to Catat), with broad faces, somewhat resembling
the Guaymis, their neighbours in the east (p. 545). It is asserted
that individuals with grey eyes and chestnut or reddish hair are not
rare among them. They are not numerous; the tribe of the _Changuina
Dorasks_, which formerly numbered 5000, had dwindled down in 1883 to
a dozen individuals, still speaking their mother-tongue; the _Sambu
Chocos_, who occupied the whole of the lower valley of the Atrato,
and extended westward to the Pacific coast, are now scarcely 600 in
number in southern Darien. They are short (1 m. 55), brachycephalic
(ceph. ind. on the liv. sub., 84.1), very broad-faced.[647] To the
eastward of the _Chibchas_ (p. 545) dwelt several families of the
_Paniquitas_ and _Paezes_, included in a distinct linguistic group, of
which the other representatives, _Colimas_ and _Manipos_, have entirely
disappeared. In central Columbia (state of Antioquia) dwell the last
remnants of the _Nutabehs_ and _Tahamis_, tribes resembling the Muisca
Indians (p. 546) in their customs and social state.

As to the Ando-Peruvian region, several ethnic groups, using special
dialects, are also found there, having no relation with the Quechuas.
Such as the small tribe of the _Puquinas_ in the neighbourhood of Lake
Titicaca, the _Yuncas_ or _Cuna-Yuncas_ (“inhabitants of the hot lands”
in the Quechua tongue), settled on the Pacific coast between the 5th
and 10th degrees of S. latitude; finally, the _Atacameños_, fishers of
the Loa valley, and the _Shangos_ or _Changos_, more to the south, in
the desert of Atacama. These two tribes are characterised by their low
stature (1 m. 60, according to D’Orbigny).

It may be as well to class with the Andeans the _Araucans_, or
_Mapu-che_ as they call themselves, whose linguistic affinities are
still obscure, but whom we must connect with the Central American
race by their physical characters; stature almost low (1 m. 61),
sub-brachycephalic (ceph. ind. on the liv. sub., 82, skull 81),
elongated face, with slightly projecting cheek-bones, straight or
convex nose, etc., the general appearance recalling the Aymaras and
the Quechuas;[648] certain ethnic characters (perfected weaving of
stuffs, irrigation, hoe-culture, metallurgy, etc.) place them in the
same category as the Andeans, and point to Peruvian influence. They
are only found, in fact, to the north of the Bio-Bio river (37°-38°
S. lat.)--that is to say, only in those places reached by the Inca
civilisation. South of this line, with the exception of the coast,
where European influence makes itself felt, the Araucans have remained
until recent times hunters or nomadic shepherds, almost uncivilised. It
is estimated that there are 40,000 Chilian Araucans. At a comparatively
recent period some Araucan tribes migrated to the eastern slope of
the Cordilleras (the Manzanieros)[649] and into the Argentine pampas,
as far as the neighbourhood of Buenos Ayres. In these parts they have
been pushed back, firstly by the European colonists, then by the
Argentine soldiers, farther and farther south, beyond the Rio Negro.
This population is a very mixed one; we find in it Patagonian, Quechua,
Chaco, and even European elements (see p. 574).

From the social point of view, all the Araucans have preserved their
ancient organisation of hordes governed by a hereditary chief. Little
is known about their religious ideas; it is understood that they hold
in the highest reverence an evil spirit called “Pilgan” by the Andean
Araucans, “Nervelu” (“bird with metal beak and claws”) by the Araucans
of the Pampas. Formerly, the Araucan warriors were buried with their
weapons, their horse was felled on the grave and consumed.[650]

Among the Andean populations we must also mention the _Yurucares_, to
the west of the Rio Mamoré, of very high stature, their skin being, it
is said, almost as white as that of Europeans.

II. _The Amazonians._--The vast plains and impenetrable forests, rich
in birds and arboreal mammalia, watered by the great tropical streams,
the Amazon and the Orinoco, are peopled by a large number of tribes who
may be grouped to-day--thanks to the recent works of philologists--into
four families. Two of these, the Carib and Arawak, or Maypure families,
comprise the tribes of the eastern part of the country;[651] the two
others, which are less important, the _Miranha_ and _Pano_ families,
are composed of the tribes of the western part of the country.

1. _The Carib Family._--It was thought until recently that the peoples
of this linguistic group had settlements only in the Guianas and the
Antilles, but recent studies have shown that they extended much farther
over the South American continent, as far as the source of the Yapura
on the west, and the 14th degree of S. latitude on the south. As the
speech of the southern Caribs is purer, less sprinkled with Arawak
words than that of their northern brethren, philologists suppose that
the original home of the Caribs in general should be found somewhere
in the centre of Brazil, to the south of the Amazon. It is from there
that they must have migrated into Guiana, whence their hordes moved
towards the Antilles probably two centuries before the arrival of
Columbus. There they found already the Arawak tribes (see p. 557), whom
they supplanted in the lesser Antilles, and against whom they directed
their maritime expeditions as far as the east coast of the island of
Haiti. These _Antillian Caribs_ have been exterminated by the European
colonists, and except in the islands in the vicinity of the Guianas,
like Trinidad, there remain to-day but 192 individuals in the island
of St. Vincent (census of 1881) and 200 individuals, of whom there are
barely a dozen unhybridised, in the island of Dominica. Most of the
Caribs of the island of St. Vincent were transported by the English in
1796 to Ruatan Island and Trujillo, on the north coast of Honduras.
Their descendants, crossed with Negro blood, numbering about 6000, live
in these places as well as in British Honduras, where they are known by
the name of “Black Caribs.”

The most southerly tribes of the Caribs are the _Bakairis_ (Fig. 172),
and the _Nahuquas_ of the upper Xingu, as well as the _Palmellas_ of
the lower Guapore, a sub-tributary of the right of the Rio Madeira.
The _Apiacas_ of the lower Tocantins, who must not be confounded
with the Tupi tribe of the same name (p. 569), form the link between
this distant branch and the bulk of the Caribs peopling Guiana. The
latter are known as _Apotos_ and _Waywai_ in Brazilian Guiana; as
_Roucouyennes_ and _Galibis_ in French Guiana; as _Kalinas_ in Dutch
Guiana (Figs. 167 and 168). The Caribs of British Guiana belong
chiefly to the _Macusi_ tribe, those of Venezuela are represented
by the _Makirifares_ in the east, and farther away to the west, by
the _Motilones_, who keep to the borders of Colombia (Ernst). The
ancient Carib tribes of Venezuela called _Chaimas_ and _Kumanas_ are
represented at the present day by the Indians of _Aguasai_ (87 miles
north of Bolivar), who speak Spanish, but who have preserved the Carib
type (Ten Kate). It is the same with the _Aborigines of Oruba Island_,
to the north-east of the Gulf of Venezuela (Pinart). Lastly, in the
upper basin of the Yapura, outside of Brazilian territory, there are
likewise known members of the Carib family, particularly the _Uitotos_
or _Carijonas_, who live side by side with the Miranhas (p. 560)
(Crevaux). To judge from some ethnographical analogies (similarity of
tattooing, etc.), the _Araras_ or _Yumas_, who wander on the right
bank of the Amazon, in the neighbourhood of the mouths of the Xingu,
Tapajos, Madeira and Purus, belong also to the Carib family, but as yet
nothing is known about their language.[652]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 167.--Kalina or Carib of Dutch Guiana.

(_Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

The physical type of the Caribs of Guiana and Venezuela differs
slightly from that of the Caribs of the upper Xingu. The former are
of low stature (1 m. 58 for men, 1 m. 45 for women), and mesocephalic
(mean ceph. ind. in the liv. sub., 81.3), while the Caribs of the
upper Xingu are below the average height and sub-dolichocephalic (1
m. 61 for men, 1 m. 52 for women; mean ceph. ind. on the liv. sub.,
79.6).[653] What is characteristic of certain Carib tribes of the south
(Bakairis, etc.) is the frequent occurrence of individuals with wavy
or frizzy hair and convex nose, in the midst of the common type having
straight hair, short and somewhat broad nose, etc. The ancient Caribs
of the Antilles were short, somewhat light-skinned, and had the custom
of deforming the head by flattening the frontal region of the skull.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 168.--Same subject as Fig. 167, in profile.

(_Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

From the ethnic point of view, the Caribs are distinguished by their
acquaintance with the hammock; a plaited (not woven) texture; and a
particular kind of cassava squeezer (p. 188); by their fondness for
painting the body; by the practice of the “couvade” (p. 240), etc. The
blow-pipe and poisoned arrows are not their “national weapons,” as has
sometimes been said; the Caribs of the south are unacquainted with
them, and, on the other hand, several non-Carib tribes of the Amazon
basin make use of them. Their favourite weapon is or was the battle-axe
of polished stone (basalt, diabase). The slight difference between the
mode of life of the Caribs of the Antilles and that of the Caribs of
the present day was due to the existence of anthropophagy, the presence
of “communal houses” (_Carbets_), and to some other characteristics
which denote their superiority over the modern Caribs from the social
point of view.[654]

2. The Arawak linguistic family, as constituted by L. Adam, at
first by the name of _Maypure_, has been called by Von den Steinen
“_Nu-Arawak_,” from the prenominal prefix “nu” for the first person,
common to all the Arawak tribes, scattered from the coast of Dutch
Guiana and British Guiana to the upper basins of the Amazon and
Orinoco. The principal tribes are: the _Aturai_ and the _Vapisiana_
of British Guiana; the _Maypures_ and the _Banivas_ of Venezuela;
the _Manaos_ and the _Aruacos_ of the Rio Negro; the _Yumanas_ and
the _Passehs_ of the left bank of the Solimães; the _Marauas_ more
to the south; the _Paumary_ and the numerous _Ipurina_ tribes of the
Purus basin; lastly the half-civilised _Moxos_ or _Mohos_ of the upper
Mamoré, and the _Canopos_ or _Antis_ of the forests of the upper
basin of the Ucayale (Peru), of average stature, brown-coloured skin,
skilful hunters.[655] The tribes of the upper Xingu are the _Vaura_
and the _Mehinacu_. Let us also note the _Parecis_ of the region of
the sources of the Tapajos, among whom we observe the influences of
the Quechua civilisation (Pandean pipes) or the Peruvian (a particular
head-dress of birds’ feathers and porcupine quills, cotton textiles,
plaited hats, etc.). In upper Paraguay, as far as the 21st degree of
S. latitude, are also found tribes speaking the Arawak tongue; the
_Quinquinaos_, the _Layanas_, etc. (This is the Moho-Mbaure group of
L. Quevedo) On the other hand, in the marshy island of Marajos, in the
middle of the estuary of the Amazon, there dwelt a few decades ago the
_Aruan_ people, who spoke an Arawak dialect, while in the north of
Venezuela, the peninsula of _Goajira_ is occupied by the _Goajires_
tribe, which also belongs to the same linguistic family. De Brette
estimates its numerical force at 30,000 individuals (1890-95).[656]

The pre-Columbian aborigines of Porto Rico, Haiti, Jamaica, and
Cuba were Arawaks, to judge from the toponymy of these islands. The
authors of the eighteenth century speak of the _Ciboneys_ in Cuba,
Bahama, and the west of Haiti, and of the “Aravagues” in the east of
this latter island and in Porto Rico. These aborigines, although in a
state of constant warfare with the Caribs, resembled them in certain
characteristic customs (cranial deformation, colouring of the body,
etc.). They were exterminated by the Whites, being reduced to 4000 in
Cuba as far back as 1554. In 1848 there remained of these tribes but a
few hybrid families in the Sierra Maestra of Cuba and the village of
Boya to the north of the town of San Domingo.[657]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 169.--Miranha Indian of Rio Yapura.

(_Phot. Crevaux, Coll. Soc. Anthr. Paris._)]

Physically the Arawaks present several types, as might have been
expected from the wide diffusion of this group. Those of the Guianas,
as well as the Ipurinas and their congeners are a little lower in
stature (1 m. 55 and 1 m. 59 according to Ten Kate and Ehrenreich) and
a little more brachycephalic (ceph. ind. 83.4) than the Caribs of the
same regions. Those of the upper Xingu, on the contrary, are a little
taller (1 m. 64) and more dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. 78.2) than their
Carib-speaking neighbours. Their face is somewhat broader and their
eyes often oblique. The difference between the tribes of the north
and those of the south is thus more pronounced among the Arawaks than
among the Caribs. The Ciboneys, to judge from the skulls found in Cuba
and Jamaica, were hyper-brachycephalic in consequence of deformations
(Haddon). The occurrence of individuals with wavy or frizzy hair is
also as frequent among the Arawaks as among the Caribs. From the
ethnographical point of view there are some differences between the
Arawaks of the north and the south. The use of the blow-pipe is
very general among the Arawak tribes of the upper Amazon and its
tributaries, but it is unknown among others. With the exception of
tribes influenced by the Quechua-Peruvian or European civilisation, the
Arawaks are unacquainted with the weaving of cotton, and are still in
the stone, and especially the wood age. Their scanty garments are made
with plaited fibres or with beaten bark; their ornaments are birds’
feathers and the teeth of mammalia.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 170.--Same subject as Fig. 169, seen full face.

(_Phot. Crevaux, Coll. Soc. Anthr. Paris._)]

3. The tribes composing the _Pano_ linguistic group, as established
by R. de la Grasserie,[658] chiefly inhabited the north-west of
eastern Peru, but they are likewise met with in the west of Brazil (the
_Karipunas_ of the banks of the Madeira), and in the north of Bolivia
(the _Pacaguara_), separated from their racial brothers by a series
of tribes speaking the Arawak dialects. The principal Pano tribes in
Peru are: the _Kassivo_, cannibals of the upper Ucayle who resemble the
Fuegians; the _Conibos_ of the same river, very low in stature;[659]
the _Panos_, of whom there remain but a few families.[660] The
_Araunos_, of the region comprised between the two principal branches
of the Madeira (Madre de Dios and Beni) speak a Pano language, but with
a considerable admixture of Quechua elements.

4. The tribes of the banks of the Iça and the Yapura have received
from their neighbours the name of _Miranhas_, which, it appears, means
“rovers.” Ehrenreich employed this name to designate various tribes
whose dialects presented a certain family likeness. Of these tribes,
which are rarely visited by the Brazilian-Portuguese merchants, the
following are the chief: the _Miranhas_ properly so called (Figs. 169
and 170), between the Iça and the lower Yapura, mentioned long ago by
Martius; the _Kœrunas_ on the left bank of the Yapura; the _Tucanos_
and the _Jupuas_ to the east of the last-named, in the vicinity of the
river Uaupes. The Miranhas have maintained their primitive condition.
Of a very warlike disposition, they use as their principal weapon
a particular kind of club, a sort of broadsword of hard wood. They
employ the _drum language_ (see p. 134). Though living on the banks
of fish-yielding rivers, they do not fish, but confine themselves to
hunting, like the ancient Quechuas, by means of nets stretched out
between trees, into which they drive, with cries and gestures, the
terrified animals (Crevaux).

In addition to the tribes forming the four families just described,
several others, _whose languages have not yet been classified_, should
be mentioned.

It is in the basin of the Orinoco that we meet with most of these
tribes who have as yet been little studied; the _Otomacs_ between
the Apure and Meta rivers, geophagous and monogamous; the _Guamos_
of the Rio Apure, reduced to a few families; the _Piaroas_, whose
sub-brachycephalic heads are often deformed; the _Chiricoas_ and the
_Guahibos_, veritable “gypsies” of South America, who are encountered
between the Meta, the Orinoco, and the Rio Branco; lastly, the
_Guaraunos_ or _Warraus_ of the coast between the mouths of the
Orinoco and the Corentin (Figs. 165 and 166), probably allied to the
_Guayqueris_ of the country around Cumana in Venezuela. The latter,
however, are sub-dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. on five liv. subjects,
78.5 according to Ten Kate), while the Guaraunos are all mesocephalic
(ceph. ind. 81.5 according to the same author). In the upper valleys
of the numerous rivers which combine to form the Amazon, there are
likewise dwelling tribes of undetermined linguistic affinities, whose
names only are known. The most important, that of the _Zaparos_ or
_Jeberos_ (about 15,000 individuals), is stationed between the Pastaza
and Napo rivers, as well as along the Maranon from the mouth of the
Zamora to that of the Morona. Farther north in the Cordilleras, in
a state of complete independence, dwell the _Jebaros_ or _Jevaros_
(_Civaros_), fierce warriors, celebrated for their skill in preparing
the heads of their vanquished enemies; these are hideous mummified and
shrivelled objects with their long hair left on them.[661] To the east
of the Jevaros are the _Maynas_, and on the Rio Javary, the _Yameos_
or _Lamas_. Farther east again, near the Rio Napo, wander the hunting
tribes, the _Tecunas_ or _Triconnas_, and the _Orejones_, so named from
their habit of inserting wooden plugs into the lobe of the ear, a
practice which, however, is also found among several other peoples.

III. _The Indians of East Brazil and the Central Region of South
America_ belong on the one side to the Ges or Ghes linguistic family
(formerly called _Tapuyas_, _Botocudos_, etc.), and on the other form
several tribes whose affinities are yet to be determined. Lastly, the
_Tupi-Guarani_ linguistic family (see p. 567) is also represented in
this region. From the ethnological point of view these three groups of
population have felt the influence of environment and habitat; we must
therefore consider separately the Indians of east Brazil and those of
the central region, and lastly the _Tupi-Guarani_ family.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 171.--Bakairi, Carib tribe of upper Xingu.

(_Phot. Ehrenreich._)]

1. _East Brazil_ is composed of plateaux formed of friable rocks
rising to the east of the Tocantins between the wooded _Sierras_.
These plateaux do not afford so many resources as the Amazon region;
thus it is that the tribes inhabiting them are more uncivilised, often
more wretched than the Amazonians. The rarity of hard rocks suitable
for the manufacture of tools causes many of them to be still in the
wood age. The greater part belong to the _Ges_ or _Ghes_ linguistic
family. This term, which comes from the syllable “ges” placed at the
end of most of the tribal names, was adopted by Martius to designate
the Botocudos and some neighbouring tribes. But of recent years Von
den Steinen and Ehrenreich have widened the meaning of this word.[662]
Henceforth it denotes a collection of tribes which, besides linguistic
character, exhibit many other common features in their habits and mode
of life (great phalansterial houses with private hearths for each
family, absence of hammocks, ignorance of navigation,[663] use of
“botocs” or ear and lip plugs, arrows barbed on one side, etc.). Among
the tribes of the Ges tongue we must distinguish those which dwell
on the right bank of the Tocantins in east Brazil and those who have
migrated to the west of this river into the centre of Southern America.
The former have retained much better their individual character, but
they have been partly decimated by the European colonists, and are not
very numerous at the present day. Of the ancient _Kamakans_, of the
_Patacho_, and so many other tribes, there remain but the memory or a
few hybrid descendants, but three tribes have yet preserved themselves
more or less intact in the midst of their forests: the _Botocudos_,
the _Kayapos_, and the _Cainguas_. The _Botocudos_ or _Aymoros_,[664]
who call themselves _Burus_, dwell between the Rio Doce and the Rio
Pardo (Minas Geraes Prov.). They are men of low stature (1 m. 59
according to Ehrenreich), dolichocephalic (mean ceph. ind. 74.1 on
the skull, according to Rey, Peixoto, etc.; 78.2 on the liv. sub.),
and their skulls recall very strongly those of the prehistoric race
of Lagoa Santa and the “Sambaquis,” while the living subjects are
closely allied to the Fuegians, as much by the size and form of the
head as by the lines of the face, the prominent supraciliary ridges,
the sunk nose narrow at the root, etc. I have given (pp. 160, 210,
etc.) several characteristics of the ethnography of the Botocudos.
The Kayapos,[665] who were believed to be an extinct race, and who,
on the contrary, are one of the most important and warlike tribes
of Brazil, are divided into three sections. The _Northern Kayapos_
occupy the middle Tocantins, and overflow on one side into the sterile
“Sertaos” of the province of Maranon, and on the other into central
Brazil, on the left bank of the lower Araguaya; the _Western Kayapos_,
who keep in the upper valley of the Xingu, have been described by
Ehrenreich and Von den Steinen under the names of _Suya_ and _Akua_
(the _Chavantes-Cherentes_ of the Brazilians). They differ from
the Botocudos in physique, being brachycephalic, tall, and very
light-skinned. As to ethnical characteristics, these are for the most
part borrowed from their Carib and Arawak neighbours. The _Southern
Kayapos_ (near the river Parana, 20° S. lat.) are merely known by name.
The _Kaingans_ or _Kame_, wrongly called _Coroados_ (see p. 545),
inhabit the mountains of the Brazilian provinces of São Paulo, S.
Catharina, and Rio Grande do Sul; they are tribes of uncivilised and
nomadic hunters.

Besides the clans of the Ges family, we must also mention in the
eastern region of Brazil the following tribes _whose languages have
not been classified_, and whose affinities with the Ges are not very
clear. The more important of these tribes are the _Puris_ or _Pouris_
and the _Kiriris_, wrongly called “Tapuyas” or “Coroados” (see p. 545).
At the beginning of the century the _Puris_ in fairly large numbers
still inhabited--together with the _Koropos_--the mountains between
Rio de Janeiro and Uro Preto. There is but a small remnant left at the
present day, consisting of a few individuals living together in the
hamlet of San Laurenço and in the “aldeamento” of Etueto, near to the
boundary line of the Minas Geraes and Spiritu Santo provinces. Formerly
the _Puris_ comprised several tribes, hunters and fishers. They plaited
their hammocks, had special ceremonies when their daughters arrived at
the age of puberty, believed in a superior spirit, “Tupan,” having the
form of a white bird, etc.

The _Kiriris_ or _Sabuyas_ of the province of Pernambuco formed, two
centuries ago, a powerful and semi-civilised nation; there are now only
600 left, living under wretched conditions in the lower valley of the
São Francisco.

2. _The central region of South America_ is formed of table-lands and
wooded chains which cover the south-east of Bolivia and the Brazilian
province of Matto Grosso (twice as big as France). Corresponding to
the diversity of the elevations and climates there is a diversity of
peoples inhabiting the country. We have already observed in this region
tribes of Carib speech (Bakairi, etc.), of Arawak (Paressi, etc.), of
Ges (western and southern Kayapos), and we may further notice tribes
of Tupi speech (the Chiquitos, etc.). But outside of these classified
peoples there are other ethnic groups occupying the table-lands of
Matto Grosso, whose affinities are not yet well known, the more
important of them being the Karayas, the Trumai, and Bororos.[666]

The _Karayas_ are divided into two sections which know nothing of each
other. It was the northern Kayapos of Ges speech who thus separated the
Karayas, driving them, on the one side, into the valley of the Xingu,
and on the other, into the valley of the Araguaya. Like the Ges, the
Karayas are unacquainted with the use of the hammock, but, unlike them,
are good boatmen and draughtsmen. It has been observed that they have
a special language for the women, which appears to be the ancient form
of the present language of the men. They are fairly tall (1 m. 69) and
dolichocephalic (ceph. ind. 73), their nose is convex, and their hair
sometimes curly.

The Trumai of the sources of the Xingu are, on the contrary, short (1
m. 59) and mesocephalic (ceph. ind. 81.1), and they have convex noses
and retreating foreheads.

The _Bororos_ (Fig. 173), scattered from the upper Paraguay to the
upper Parana, are hunters; they have great bows and arrows of bamboo
or bone. Polygamy exists among them, and there are also cases of
polyandry. They are tall (1 m. 74) and mesocephalic (ceph. ind.
81.5).[667]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 172.--Aramichau Indian (Tupi or Carib tribe of
French Guiana).

(_Coll. Mus. Nat. Hist., Paris._)]

In spite of the diversity of language and race, several of the tribes
of the central region, living side by side, have the same manners
and customs, and the same kind of existence, as a result of mutual
borrowings.[668] The best example of this is furnished by the Caribs,
Arawaks, Ges, Tupis, and Trumai of the upper Xingu. They all go naked,
the women sometimes wearing the triangular palm-leaf which plays the
part of the fig-leaf; their huts are grouped around the “house of
flutes,” or the dwelling of the young men--a Carib importation--in
which are preserved symbolic masks, which, like the pottery, are of
Arawak invention. The tools are primitive, frequently of stone.[669]
One might almost say that these tribes in ploughing imitate the
movements of burrowing animals, for in this operation they make use
of the long claws of the front paws of a great armadillo (_Dasipus
gigas_), two of them attached together. The throwing-stick and blunt
arrows are used by the Trumai, as by the Tupi tribes. They have no
domestic animals, but keep some wild animals in captivity--parrots,
lizards (to hunt insects), etc. The custom of the couvade and the
existence of witch medicine-men are common to all these tribes.

3. _The Tupi-Guarani._--In South America there exist a great number of
tribes scattered from Guiana to Paraguay, from the Brazilian coast to
the eastern slope of the Andes, who speak the different dialects of the
Tupi linguistic family.[670] They may be divided into two groups: on
one side, to the east, the tribes speaking the ancient Tupi language,
which, in imitation of Quechua, was a “lingua geral,” and on the other,
the numerous tribes to the west, speaking different dialects which have
only a vague resemblance to Tupi, according to L. Adam. At the time
of the conquest the Tupi tribes, called _Tupi-namba Tanuyo_, who were
cannibals, occupied not only the whole of the Brazilian coast from
Para to Santos, but also the valley of the Amazon as far as Manaos.
These primitive Tupis have mostly been exterminated by the Portuguese,
but their language, which has become that of the converted Indians,
has spread as far as the valley of the Rio Negro, a tributary of the
Amazon, where there have never been any Tupi tribes.

[Illustration: /Fig./ 173.--Bororo woman (unclassified tribe of Matto
Grosso).

(_Phot. Ehrenreich._)]

_The Eastern or Guarani Tupis_, formerly so numerous in the Brazilian
provinces of São Paulo and the Rio Grande do Sul, are reduced at the
present time to a few families; on the other hand, they still form the
bulk of the population of Paraguay, and the territory of Missiones
in the Argentine Republic. The Guarani of Paraguay, “tamed” in the
commanderies by the Jesuits, have intermingled their blood with that
of the Spaniards, and adopted their mode of life. However, there still
remain in the depths of the forest some tribes who have kept intact
their type and manners. Among the more interesting of these we must
note the _Cainguas_ or _Kaigguas_[671] of south-east Paraguay and
Missiones (Argentine), scattered in little groups, obeying one cacique
or chief. They are short (1 m. 60), mesocephalic (mean ceph. ind. of
12 men, 80.4), of bronzed complexion; their hair is lank or wavy,
often reddish in the children; the nose is straight, the cheek-bones
are prominent. From ten to twenty thousand Cainguas are estimated to
be in Paraguay alone. Extremely fond of dancing and music, they like
drawing as well, and possess as a rule a quick understanding. They are
husbandmen, going almost naked, obtain fire by friction, are acquainted
with weaving and pottery, have barbed and sometimes blunt-pointed
arrows.[672] Other tribes, the _Jacunda_, the _Pacajas_, the _Tacunas_,
keep to the lower valley of the Xingu. The _Mauhés_, stationed between
this latter river and the Madeira, are at the extreme limit of the
expansion towards the west of the pure Tupis. On turning again towards
the south we come across the _Apiacas_ of Tapajos (who must not be
confounded with the similarly named tribe of the Carib family), the
_Camayuras_ of the upper Xingu, the _Chiquitos_ and the _Chiriguanos_
of Bolivia, now Hispanified.

The migrations of the Tupis from the south to the north, conjectured
in D’Orbigny’s day, have now been absolutely demonstrated. Paraguay and
the east of Bolivia were the starting-points of these migrations. The
exodus of the Tupis took place at first towards the coast, then along
the seaboard to the mouth of the Para, and thence further northward
into French Guiana, where some Tupi tribes are still to be found, the
_Emerillons_ of the valley of the Saï, a left tributary of the Inini,
the _Ovampis_ of the upper Oyapoc, etc. The _Aramichaux_ (Fig. 172),
who were believed to be extinct, and who dwell between the Uaqui and
the Arua,[673] seem to be also of the Tupi stock. Another stream of
migration may be traced straight towards the north-east; it passes
through the upper basin of the Xingu, to terminate eastward of the
Tocantins (the tribe of the _Guajajaza_). An isolated Tupi group exists
far to the north-west of the territory occupied by the bulk of this
family. It consists of the _Omaguas_ and the _Cocomas_, half-civilised
tribes of the upper valley of the Maranon (Peru), to the eastward of
the Jivaros. Individuals with wavy or frizzy[674] hair are not rare
among these hybrid peoples.

The family of the _Western Tupis_, whose linguistic affinities are less
clear, comprises, provisionally, the _Mundrucus_, or _Mundurukus_, of
the middle Tapajoz, the _Yurunas_ of the lower Xingu, the _Anetö_ of
the upper course of this river, etc.

Physically, the Tupis differ but little from the Caribs; those of the
north, the Mauhés and the Mundurukus for example, studied by Barboza
Rodriguez, are 1 m. 58 and 1 m. 60 in stature, whilst the _Kamayuras_
and the _Anetö_ of the upper Xingu are taller (1 m. 62 on an average);
the cephalic index of the latter is 79 (Ehrenreich). The Guarani should
be, according to D’Orbigny, more than 1 m. 66 in height.[675] But the
anthropological study of the Tupis is still to be made.

If we consider the accounts of the different dialects of the four
great linguistic families which we have just described: Carib, Arawak,
Ges, and Tupi, we are bound to admit the following hypothesis as to
the migrations of the peoples belonging to these families. There have
been two movements, centrifugal and centripetal. From the centre of
the continent the _Tupis_ have spread radially in all directions, and
the _Caribs_ towards the north-east, reaching as far as the Antilles.
On the other hand, towards this centre converge the migrations of
the _Arawaks_ arriving from the north, perhaps from Columbia and the
Antilles, and the migrations of the _Ges_ coming from the east. Did the
centrifugal movement of the Tupis and the Caribs and the centripetal
movement of the Arawaks and the Ges take place simultaneously or in
some order of succession? We have not sufficient information as yet
to solve this problem, but the first supposition appears to be more
probable, for we still see in our own day both movements going on
simultaneously.

IV. _The Pampeans and the Fuegians._--That portion of the American
continent situated beyond the 30th degree of S. lat., between the
Andes, the Atlantic, and the Strait of Magellan, is a vast plain which
passes imperceptibly from the rich pasturage of Chaco to the monotonous
Pampas, and from the latter to the bare plateaux of Patagonia.

This plain is occupied by various tribes who have nothing in common but
the nomadic and pastoral mode of life determined by the environment
since the introduction of the horse. Of the ancient peoples who
occupied these regions as well as Uruguay at the time of the conquest,
there remain but the _débris_, or descendants hybridised to the
furthest extent possible.

The _Charruas_ and their congeners the _Minuanes_ and the _Yaros_, who
fought so valiantly during the centuries of the Spanish domination,
at first with their clubs and bows, then, becoming horsemen, with
“bolas” and the lasso, were exterminated only in 1832. The four last
representatives of the race were exhibited as curiosities in Paris in
1830. The _Charruas_ had a very dark-coloured skin and were of somewhat
high stature (1 m. 68), like their neighbours on the other side of the
Rio de la Plata, the _Chanases_, and especially the _Querandis_, whose
bands were decimated at the end of the sixteenth century, after their
last attack on Buenos Ayres.[676]

Their hybrid descendants, called _Talhuets_, were still fairly numerous
in 1860 between Buenos Ayres and Rio Negro. The _Abipones_ to the west
of the Paraguay, so well described by Dobrizhoffer,[677] were destroyed
at the end of the eighteenth century, partly through conflicts with
their congeners the _Mocovis_, of whom there are no survivors.

All these tribes probably belonged to the _Guaycuru linguistic family_,
established by L. Quevedo, whose most numerous representatives are
now the _Tobas_ of southern Choco to the north of Pilcomayo, and
the _Matacos_ who wander about between the latter river and the
Vermejo.[678] We must further add to this group the _Caduves_ or
_Caduvei_ of the Brazilian bank of the Paraguay, between 20° and 23°
S. lat., a hundred or so of unhybridised individuals, all that remain
of the ancient _Mbaya_ people, and the _Payaguas_, an ancient warlike
and plundering tribe thought to have disappeared, but of which there
remain between two and three score representatives in the immediate
neighbourhood of Assumption, peaceful basket-makers, potters, or
fishers.[679]

The _Lenguas_ of the ancient authors (a term used by them to describe
very different tribes), who lived side by side with the Tobas, and
of whom there remain but a few individuals, seem to form, with the
_Guanes_ of southern Chaco, the _Sanapanas_, the _Angaites_, and other
tribes between the Salado and the Yababeri (tributaries on the left of
the Paraguay), a separate linguistic family, which Boggiani proposes to
call _Ennema_. Their neighbours, the _Samucos_ or _Chamococos_ of the
Bolivian Chaco also constitute a special linguistic group, but their
manners and customs approximate to those of the southern Arawaks.[680]

The _Guatos_ of the marshes which extend from the Paraguay to the Sao
Laurenço also speak a special language. They are excellent boatmen,
who fish with their great bows and bone-pointed arrows. They are also
renowned as hunters of jaguars.[681]

Most of the _Guaycurus_ and their neighbours seem to be of high stature
and to have a brownish-yellow skin; but almost nothing is known either
as to the shape of their head or their other somatic characters.

To the south of the Choco, between the Rio Salado de Santa Fe and the
Rio Chubut, in the Pampas and the north of the Patagonian table-land,
the primitive population which spoke the Guaycuru language in the north
and the Patagonian language in the south, has disappeared. It has been
absorbed or modified by the invasions of the Araucans coming from the
west, and by the encroachments of the Europeans coming from the east.
The interminglings have given birth to new tribes like the _Puelches_,
sprung from the Patagonians and the Araucans (p. 551), with a strain
of Guaycuru blood, and the _Gauchos_, Guaycuru-European hybrids. The
invasion of the Europeans increasing, the Puelches and the Araucans
(_Pehuenches_, _Rankels_, _Huilitches_) have been pushed back farther
and farther to the south. After the war of extermination waged by
General Roca in 1881, the “Pampeans” migrated in a mass to the south
of the Rio Negro, where they absorbed a portion of the Patagonians,
driving away the remainder to the south of the Rio Santa Cruz.[682]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 174.--Kamanakar Kipa; young Yahgan Fuegian girl;
height, 1 m. 40; ceph. ind., 79.7.

(_Phot. Cape Horn Scient. Mission._)]

Cramped between this river and the Strait of Magellan, the
_Patagonians_ or _Tehuelches_, who call themselves by the name of
_Tsoon-ké_, are now reduced to 2000 individuals. Those dwelling far
from the coasts, as well as the _Onas_ of Tierra del Fuego (the only
Patagonian tribe that does not possess horses), have perhaps better
preserved the characteristics of the Patagonian race. They are very
tall (from 1 m. 73 to 1 m. 83 according to different authors), very
brachycephalic (average ceph. ind. on the living sub., 85), have an
elongated face, thinnish nose, eyes slightly oblique, projecting
cheek-bones.[683]

[Illustration: /Fig./ 175.--Tualanpintsis, Yahgan Fuegian
(height 1 m. 59, ceph. ind. 81.6); and his wife Ticoaeli (height 1 m.
40, ceph. ind. 80.1).

(_Phot. Cape Horn Scient. Mission._)]

The Fuegians (Figs. 48, 174, and 175) inhabit the southern and western
coasts of Tierra del Fuego, as well as the archipelagoes which lie to
the west and south of this great island. They form a population by
themselves, divided into two tribes, the _Yahgans_ to the south of
the chain running from Sarmiento to Mount Darwin, and the _Alakalufs_
to the north of this chain. I have mentioned several facts concerning
the somatic characters (pp. 89, 108, etc.) and the ethnic ones (p.
146, note 2, pp. 181, 189, 214, etc.) of the Fuegians. Let me further
add that the predominant type among them is that of the Palæo-American
sub-race. Their language is not yet classified. The Alakalufs are at
the present day reduced to 200 individuals. The Yahgans, who numbered
about a thousand individuals in 1884, no longer exist to-day as an
independent tribe. The last survivors of ravages caused by epidemics
are gathered together in the two missionary stations called Ushuaia
(Beagle Channel) and Tekenika; numbering about 90, they are dressed in
the European fashion, speak English, and are employed in the various
works at the mission.[684]



APPENDIX I.

AVERAGE HEIGHT OF MEN, 288 SERIES

(see p. 29).


    ----------+-----------------------------------------------+---------
              |                                               | Height
    Number of |                ETHNIC GROUPS.                 |in Milli-
    Subjects. |                                               |metres.
    ----------+-----------------------------------------------+---------
              |                                               |
              |   LOW STATURES (UNDER 1 M. 60, OR 63 INCHES). |
              |                                               |
              |                   _Africans_.                 |
              |                                               |
           38 | Akka Negrilloes of the country of the         |
              |   Monbuttus                                   | 1,378
           64 | Kalahari Bushmen of Angra Pequena, etc.       | 1,529
              |                                               |
              |                   _Asiatics_.                 |
              |                                               |
           42 | Aeta Negritoes of the Philippines             | 1,465
          115 | Andamanese                                    | 1,485
           28 | Black Sakais or Menings of Gunong-Inas        | 1,490
           36 | Jakuns and Mantras of Johor                   | 1,535
           25 | Ostiaks of the Yenisei (Turukhansk)           | 1,540
           33 | Pure Veddahs of Central Ceylon                | 1,554
           99 | Samoyeds (of Asia and Europe)                 | 1,555
           75 | Kurumbas of Wynaad (India)                    | 1,556
           58 | Irulas (Nilgiri plains)                       | 1,560
           33 | Malé (Nayar and Arrayan) of Southern India    | 1,564
           32 | Japanese (workmen and coolies)                | 1,570
           95 | Annamese of Cochin China                      | 1,571
           29 | Paniyans of Malabar                           | 1,574
           26 | Cherumas of Calicut                           | 1,574
          200 | Mal Paharias (Dravidians of Bengal)           | 1,577
          100 | Dravidian Bhuiyas of Chota Nagpur             | 1,577
          155 | Veddhas of Ceylon generally                   | 1,578
          300 | Trao Mois of French Indo-China                | 1,579
          210 | Ostiaks                                       | 1,581
           45 | Solorese of Flores and Solor                  | 1,582
          359 | Annamese in general                           | 1,583
          457 | Mois in general (French Indo-China)           | 1,585
        2,500 | Japanese (1,260 of them soldiers)             | 1,585
          125 | Islanders of Bavean (between Java and Borneo) | 1,587
          100 | Munda Kols of Chota Nagpur                    | 1,589
        1,100 | Japanese of the upper and middle classes      | 1,590
           76 | Annamese of Tonkin                            | 1,590
           56 | Laotians of Lower Laos                        | 1,590
           76 |Sundanese of Java                              | 1,591
           90 |Bhumij (Bils of Chota Nagpur)                  | 1,592
          100 |Chakamas (Araknese-Bengali half-breeds)        | 1,596
           29 |Timurians (of the western part of the Island)  | 1,597
              |                                               |
              |               _Americans_.                    |
              |                                               |
           28 |Caribs of the three Guianas and Venezuela      | 1,572
           26 |Eskimo of Labrador                             | 1,575
          139 |Yahgan and Alakaluf Fuegians                   | 1,577
           50 |Mauhe and Mundurucus (probably Tupis)          | 1,588
              |                                               |
              |                 _Europeans_.                  |
              |                                               |
          259 |Lapps of Scandinavia                           | 1,529
           25 |Lapps of Russian Lapland                       | 1,555
          126 |Vogules                                        | 1,591
              |                                               |
              |     STATURES BELOW THE AVERAGE (1600-1649 MM.,|
              |           OR 63-65 INCHES).                   |
              |                                               |
              |              _Asiatics_.                      |
              |                                               |
          105 |Teneggerese of Eastern Java                    | 1,604
           58 |Battas of Lake Toba (Sumatra)                  | 1,605
           27 |Rotti Islanders (south-west of Timur)          | 1,605
           30 |Siamese                                        | 1,607
          100 |Kurmis (Kols of Chota Nagpur)                  | 1,608
           90 |Maghs or Arakanese of Chittagong               | 1,608
           45 |Sumba Islanders (south of Flores)              | 1,609
           31 |Bugis of Celebes                               | 1,609
           27 |Kulu-Lahulis of Nepal                          | 1,610
           45 |Dards of Ghuraiz, Hunza and Ghilgit            | 1,611
           58 |Tipperahs of Chittagong (Lushai-Kumis)         | 1,611
           83 |Baltis                                         | 1,612
          100 |Santals                                        | 1,614
           25 |Southern Chinese Long-Chow (Kwang-si)          | 1,615
           80 |Javanese                                       | 1,616
          100 |Kharvars (Dravidians of Chota Nagpur)          | 1,617
          149 |Malays of Sumatra and Malacca                  | 1,617
          500 |Oraons of Chota Nagpur                         | 1,621
       15,582 |Southern Chinese (principally Hakkas)          | 1,622
           45 |Singhalese of Colombo and Candy                | 1,625
           80 |Kling Tamils born at Sumatra                   | 1,629
           25 |Kothas of the Nilgiris                         | 1,629
          296 |Kalmuks or Mongol Torgots of Dzungaria         | 1,629
          695 |Hindus of the province of Behar                | 1,630
           82 |Brahmans of Southern India                     | 1,631
           26 |Nicobarese                                     | 1,631
          685 |Dravidians N.W. prov. and Oudh (Chero, etc.)   | 1,634
        1,443 |Dravido-Hindu castes, N.W. prov. and Oudh      | 1,634
        1,616 |Malayalim of Southern India                    | 1,634
          142 | Hindus of various castes, N.W. prov.          | 1,635
           40 | Singhalese in general                         | 1,635
          387 | Kirghiz-Kazaks of the three Hordes            | 1,638
           25 | Uru-Kurubas of Southern India                 | 1,639
          100 | Karens of Lower Burma                         | 1,640
           92 | Derbete-Kalmuks of Astrakhan                  | 1,646
          117 | Cambodians (Khmers)                           | 1,648
           64 | Tamils of Ceylon                              | 1,649
           37 | Chukchis                                      | 1,649
          231 | Burmese                                       | 1,649
              |                                               |
              |                   _Europeans_.                |
              |                                               |
        4,220 | Jews of Russian Poland                        | 1,612
        3,313 | Chuvashes (3,076 of them conscripts)          | 1,612
          100 | Permiaks                                      | 1,618
          119 | Votiaks                                       | 1,619
        6,607 | Sardinians (soldiers)                         | 1,619
        1,200 | Magyars of West Hungaria (conscripts)         | 1,619
          247 | Jews of Kuba and Kutais (Caucasus)            | 1,621
      167,677 | Poles of Russian Poland (conscripts)          | 1,624
        6,517 | Volga Tatars (principally conscripts)         | 1,627
        1,210 | Cheremisses (1,141 of them conscripts)        | 1,627
       31,707 | Conscripts of German Switzerland              | 1,629
          500 | Corsicans                                     | 1,633
          132 | Austrian Jews of Hungary                      | 1,634
           25 | Lesgian Udes of Elizabetopol                  | 1,634
       32,024 | Sicilians (soldiers)                          | 1,635
        2,532 | Conscripts of Italian Switzerland             | 1,635
          382 | Rumanians of Hungary                          | 1,635
           61 | Jews (Spaniol) of Bosnia                      | 1,636
          961 | Bielorousses or White Russians                | 1,636
          800 | Portuguese                                    | 1,637
          292 | Hungarians (conscripts)                       | 1,637
        4,894 | Spanish Basques                               | 1,638
        1,955 | Bulgarians of Western Bulgaria                | 1,638
        2,252 | Mordvinians                                   | 1,639
          890 | Lithuanians of Russian Poland                 | 1,639
        1,355 | Ruthenes of the Plains (Galicia)              | 1,640
    1,771,948 | Russians of European Russia (conscripts)      | 1,642
          437 | Karelians of Russia (conscripts)              | 1,642
          100 | Esthonians                                    | 1,642
        2,000 | Jews of the Ukraine                           | 1,642
        4,701 | Lithuanians of Lithuania (conscripts)         | 1,643
        1,831 | Gruzin Georgians (mostly conscripts)          | 1,644
      344,371 | Italians in general (soldiers)                | 1,645
        7,396 | Spaniards                                     | 1,645
       77,579 | Magyars of Hungary (soldiers in 1868)         | 1,646
      447,172 | French in general (conscripts)                | 1,646
        9,456 | Conscripts of French Switzerland              | 1,646
        1,483 | Mingrelian Georgians                          | 1,646
       33,541 | Piedmontese (soldiers)                        | 1,649
              |                                               |
              |                   _Americans_.                |
              |                                               |
           90 | Salishans (Harrison Lake, British Columbia)   | 1,613
           30 | Salishans of the Frazer River delta           |
              |     (British Col.)                            | 1,618
           28 | Guaranis (Kamayuras and Anetos)               | 1,620
          614 | Eskimo of Greenland                           | 1,621
           73 | Zuñis of New Mexico                           | 1,623
           54 | Moquis                                        | 1,629
           85 | Eskimo of Alaska                              | 1,630
           55 | Kwakiutl Indians (British Columbia)           | 1,639
              |                                               |
              |                    _Africans_.                |
              |                                               |
           50 | Mzabites (Berbers of M’Zab, Algeria)          | 1,620
           36 | Batekes of the Congo                          | 1,641
              |                                               |
              |                   _Oceanians_.                |
              |                                               |
           31 | Aborigines of the island of New Britain       | 1,602
           67 | Papuans of German New Guinea                  | 1,608
          156 | Natives of the Solomon Islands                | 1,616
           38 | Melanesians of the archipelago of New Britain | 1,620
           40 | Australians of Southern New South Wales       | 1,630
          142 | Papuans of New Guinea in general              | 1,640
              |                                               |
              |    STATURES ABOVE THE AVERAGE (1650-1699 MM.,   |
              |                OR 65-67 INCHES).              |
              |                                               |
              |                     _Asiatics_.               |
              |                                               |
           32 | Kols (of N.W. provinces and Oudh)             | 1,650
          108 | Hajemi Persians (principally of Teheran)      | 1,651
          792 | Armenians of the province of Tiflis           |
              |     (conscripts)                              | 1,652
           40 | Badagas of the Nilgiri plains                 | 1,658
          362 | Osmanli Turks (288 of them in Asia Minor)     | 1,660
           60 | Baluchis of Baluchistan                       | 1,662
           60 | Khatris (Punjab caste)                        | 1,662
           72 | Chuhras (do.)                                 | 1,666
          979 | Brahmans and other higher castes of the N.W.  |
              |     provinces and Oudh                        | 1,666
           56 | Tamils of Southern India                      | 1,667
           54 | Sartes of Russian Turkestan                   | 1,668
           33 | Aissores of neighbourhood of Lake Urmia       |
              |  (Cauc.)                                      | 1,668
           74 | Kara Kirghiz of Russian Turkestan             | 1,668
           53 | Turkomans of the Transcaspian                 | 1,670
           54 | Chinese of the north (Che Fu and Kuldja       |
              |     provinces)                                | 1,674
           38 | Sibos (Manchu Tunguses)                       | 1,675
          120 | Uzbegs of Russian Turkestan                   | 1,683
          444 | Punjabi in general                            | 1,684
          140 | Kurds of the Caucasus                         | 1,686
           80 | Pathans (Punjab caste)                        | 1,687
          155 | Tajiks and Galchas of Russian Turkestan       | 1,692
          192 | Armenians of Transcaucasia                    | 1,694
          239 | Aderbaijanis of Persia and Transcaucasia      | 1,698
              |                                               |
              |                    _Europeans_.               |
              |                                               |
       59,761 | Rumanians of the kingdom of Rumania (soldiers)| 1,650
          226 | Abkhasians of the Caucasus                    | 1,650
           71 | Greeks of the kingdom of Greece               | 1,651
          140 | Meshtcheriaks of Perm and Orenburg            | 1,652
        2,012 | Saxons of the Halle-Mansfeld district         |
              |   (Prussia)                                   | 1,653
           61 | Gypsies of Hungary (soldiers)                 | 1,654
        1,838 | Gruzin Georgians                              | 1,654
          100 | Jews of Bukovina                              | 1,654
       84,141 | Russians of Asiatic Russia                    | 1,654
       35,416 | Belgians in general                           | 1,655
          493 | Dutch of the province of Zeeland (conscripts) | 1,655
        1,481 | Mingrelians                                   | 1,656
        2,865 | Imer Georgians                                | 1,656
        1,003 | Lithuanian Jmudins (conscripts)               | 1,656
           31 | Gypsies of Crimea                             | 1,657
          142 | Svane Georgian highlanders                    | 1,658
          370 | Bashkirs of Orenburg and Ufa                  | 1,658
        1,305 | French Basques                                | 1,658
          231 | Crimeans of the south coast                   | 1,664
          187 | Ruthenian highlanders (Galicia)               | 1,666
       20,509 | Venetians                                     | 1,666
        6,909 | Thuringians of the Saxon prov., Prussia       |
              |     (conscripts)                              | 1,667
           60 | Slovens                                       | 1,668
          200 | Ukrainians or Little Russians of Kief         | 1,669
          200 | Ruthenes of the Bukovine (soldiers)           | 1,670
          200 | Rumanians of the Bukovine (soldiers)          | 1,673
           28 | Lesgians (Avars and Kazi Kumyks)              | 1,676
       22,979 | Karelians of Finland                          | 1,680
          458 | Ossets                                        | 1,680
        1,220 | Swedes of the province of Kalmar (conscripts) | 1,681
           80 | Tavastians or Western Finns                   | 1,682
           44 | Kabards (Cherkesses) of the Caucasus          | 1,684
        9,345 | Dutch (conscripts)                            | 1,685
        3,000 | Danes                                         | 1,685
        4,964 | Sleswickians (soldiers)                       | 1,692
       89,021 | German emigrants to the United States         | 1,693
          741 | Inhabitants of Wales                          | 1,695
           41 | Gypsies of Bosnia                             | 1,695
          176 | Tatar (Kabard) highlanders (Caucasus)         | 1,697
              |                                               |
              |                   _Africans_.                 |
              |                                               |
           32 | Arabs of Algeria                              | 1,656
           28 | Mushikongos of the Congo                      | 1,658
        1,103 | Berbers of Tunis                              | 1,663
           29 | Abyssinians                                   | 1,669
           35 | Danakils of Tajura                            | 1,670
           52 | Berbers of Biskra (Chauia tribe?)             | 1,673
          244 | Kabyles of Great Kabylia                      | 1,677
          180 | Berbers of Algeria                            | 1,680
           27 | Bashilange of the Kasai                       | 1,680
        2,020 | Negroes of the United States                  | 1,681
          863 | Mulattos of the United States                 | 1,682
           28 | Bechuanas                                     | 1,684
       25,828 | Negroes and Mulattos of the United States     | 1,693
              |     (conscripts)                              |
              |                                               |
              |                  _Oceanians_.                 |
              |                                               |
           50 | Aborigines of Southern Australia              | 1,657
           65 | Australians in general                        | 1,667
          233 | Australians of Central Australia              | 1,670
           52 | New Caledonians (Melanesians)                 | 1,673
           72 | Papuans of British New Guinea                 | 1,674
           58 | Australians of Victoria                       | 1,677
           50 | Maoris of New Zealand                         | 1,680
              |                                               |
              |                  _Americans_.                 |
              |                                               |
           61 | Tinné of the S.W. (interior of British        |
              |     Columbia)                                 | 1,658
           32 | Hupa Indians (Tinné of Oregon)                | 1,661
          121 | Ute Indians                                   | 1,661
           26 | Bilkula Indians                               | 1,661
           37 | Tsimshian Indians (Brit. Columbia)            | 1,666
          165 | Shushwap Indians (Salish)                     | 1,670
          104 | Cherokis of the East                          | 1,677
           74 | Comanches                                     | 1,678
           30 | Klamath Indians                               | 1,679
           59 | Chicasaw Indians                              | 1,679
           68 | Piute Indians                                 | 1,683
           57 | Cree Indians                                  | 1,685
          147 | Apaches and Navajos                           | 1,686
           37 | Flathead Indians (Salishan Têtes plates)      | 1,687
           32 | Papagos of California                         | 1,695
           71 | Sahaptin Indians (Nez percés)                 | 1,697
           28 | Ottawa Indians                                | 1,699
              |                                               |
              |     HIGH STATURES (1 M. 70, OR 67 INCHES AND  |
              |                    UPWARDS).                  |
              |                                               |
              |                   _Americans_.                |
              |                                               |
          111 | Indians of the south of the State of          |
              |   California (Yuma?)                          | 1,700
          260 | Choctaws                                      | 1,700
          100 | Pimas                                         | 1,703
       21,645 | Canadian soldiers (chiefly descendants of     |
              |     French)                                   | 1,703
           76 | Cherokis of the west                          | 1,712
          198 | Ojibwas of the south                          | 1,712
           41 | Pawnees                                       | 1,713
           92 | Delawares and Blackfeet                       | 1,715
           79 | Micmacs and Abenakis                          | 1,717
      315,620 | Citizens of the United States born in the     |
              |     country                                   | 1,719
           29 | Maricopas of California                       | 1,722
        1,413 | Ojibwas of the east                           | 1,723
          612 | Siouans                                       | 1,726
           94 | Iroquoians or Iroquois                        | 1,727
          517 | Indians of the United States (chiefly         |
              |   Iroquois)                                   | 1,730
           91 | Omahas and Winnebagos                         | 1,732
          213 | Crow Indians                                  | 1,732
           53 | Creek Indians                                 | 1,735
           35 | Mohaves of California                         | 1,740
           50 | Cheyennes                                     | 1,745
              |                                               |
              |                    _Africans_.                |
              |                                               |
           31 | Mandingans in general                         | 1,700
           25 | Bejas (called Nubians)                        | 1,708
           72 | Kafirs (Ama-Xosa and Ama-Zulu)                | 1,715
           56 | Western Zandehs (Mandjas, Akungs, Awakas,     |
              | etc.)                                         | 1,717
           56 | Somalis (Eyssa, Habis, Awals, etc.)           | 1,723
           30 | Toucouleurs or Torodos                        | 1,725
           62 | Wolofs, Serers and Leybus                     | 1,730
           25 | For Negroes of Darfur                         | 1,730
           35 | Fulahs or Fulbés of French Sudan              | 1,741
              |                                               |
              |                    _Asiatics_.                |
              |                                               |
           33 | Awan (Ghazikhan tribe, Punjab)                | 1,706
           97 | Sikhs of the Punjab                           | 1,709
           29 | Gypsies of Russian Turkestan (Lulis, etc.)    | 1,719
              |                                               |
              |                    _Oceanians_.               |
              |                                               |
           25 | Polynesians of the Samoan Islands             | 1,726
          414 | Polynesians in general                        | 1,730
           32 | Polynesians of Tahiti, Pomotu, Tubuai         | 1,733
          202 | Polynesians of the Marquesas Islands          | 1,743
              |                                               |
              |                    _Europeans_.               |
              |                                               |
          605 | Dutch of the province of Overijssel           |
              |     (conscripts)                              | 1,701
           61 | Cossacks of Kuban (Little Russians)           | 1,701
           68 | Letts of Esthonia                             | 1,704
      232,367 | Swedes in general (soldiers)                  | 1,705
        1,107 | Serbs of the Kingdom of Servia (conscripts)   | 1,709
          763 | Bosnian-Herzogovinians (soldiers)             | 1,710
        6,194 | English in general                            | 1,712
        1,489 | Finns of Finland in general (682 of them      |
              |     soldiers)                                 | 1,713
          325 | Dalmatians                                    | 1,715
        9,979 | Swedes of the province of Helsinghe (soldiers)| 1,716
        8,585 | Inhabitants of the United Kingdom of Great    |
              |     Britain and Ireland                       | 1,719
      106,446 | Norwegians (soldiers)                         | 1,720
          346 | Irish                                         | 1,725
          100 | Livonians                                     | 1,736
        1,304 | Scotch in general                             | 1,746
          134 | Scotch of the north (Ayrshire, etc.)          | 1,782
           75 | Scotch agriculturists of Galloway             | 1,792



APPENDIX II.

CEPHALIC INDEX, 336 SERIES (see p. 75).


    ---------------+------------------------------------+--------------
         NUMBER.   |                                    |   CEPH. IND.
    -------+-------+                                    +-------+------
     Living|       |         ETHNIC GROUPS.             |Living |
      Sub- |                                            | Sub-  |
     jects.|Skulls.|                                    |jects. |Skulls.
    -------+-------+------------------------------------+-------+------
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       | DOLICHOCEPHALS, BELOW 77 (75).     |       |
           |       |         _Oceanians_.               |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      --   |73 (S.)| Islanders of Viti-Levu (Fiji)      |  --   | 67.2
     204   | --    | Natives of the Caroline Archipelago|  69.4 | --
      --   | 52    | Natives of the smaller Fiji Islands|  --   | 69.0
      --   |148    | Papuans of Misore Island           |  --   | 70.2
      --   |24 (S.)| Islanders of Mallicollo (New       |       |
           |       |   Hebrides)                        |  --   | 70.4
      --   | 71    | New Caledonians                    |  --   | 70.7
      10   |29 (S.)| Islanders of Lifu (Loyalty Islands)|  72.4 | 70.8
      --   |118(S.)| Natives of the Duke of York Islands|       |
           |       |   (New Britain)                    |  --   | 71.7
      --   |16 (S.)| Natives of Engineer Island         |       |
           |       |   (Louisiade Archipelago)          |  --   | 71.9
      27   |82 (S.)| Various Australians                |  74.2 | 71.2
      --   | 10    | Australians of Queensland          |  --   | 72.2
      --   | 20    | Natives of Ruck Island (Carolines) |  --   | 72.8
      --   | 51    | Maoris of New Zealand              |  --   | 73.6
      20   | --    | Natives of the Solomon Islands     |  76.3 | --
      --   | 24    | Papuans of the Fly River           |       |
           |       |   (New Guinea)                     |  --   | 74.2
      --   | 25    | Tasmanians                         |  --   | 74.9
      23   |30 (S.)| Natives of New Britain Archipelago |  76.7 | 72.4
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |            _Asiatics_.             |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      95   | --    | Badagahs of the Nilgiris           |  71.8 | --
      40   | --    | Cashmerians                        |  72.2 | --
      32   | --    | Kols of the N.W. Prov. and Oudh    |  72.4 | --
     979   | --    | Brahmans, Rajputs, and other high  |       |
           |       |   castes of the N.W. Prov.         |  72.6 | --
     685   | --    | Kolarians, N.W. Prov.              |  72.7 | --
      80   | --    | Sikhs of the Punjab                |  72.7 | --
    1,616  | --    | Hindus of various castes (N.W.     |       |
           |       |   Prov. and Oudh)                  |  72.8 |  --
      103  | --    | Baltis                             |  73.6 |  --
    1,443  | --    | Dravido-Hindus (N.W.Pr.& Oudh)     |  73.8 |  --
       45  | --    | Todas                              |  74.1 |  --
       25  | --    | Kotas of the Nilgiris              |  74.1 |  --
      444  | --    | Punjabi (Hindus, Baluchis, etc.).  |  74.2 |  --
       54  | --    | Malayalim of the Shevaroy Hills .  |  74.3 |  --
       27  | --    | Kulu-Lahuli                        |  74.6 |  --
      100  | --    | Malé or Assal (Dravid. of Bengal)  |  74.8 |  --
       90  | --    | Bhumij of Chota Nagpur             |  75.0 |  --
       55  | 43    | Veddahs of Ceylon                  |  75.1 | 71.5
       58  | --    | Irulas of the E. slope of the Nilg.|  75.1 |  --
       15  | --    | Gypsies of Lycia                   |  75.2 |  --
      100  | --    | Kharvars (Dravidians of Chota      |       |
           |       |   Nagpur)                          |  75.6 |  --
       45  | --    | Dardi (India)                      |  75.6 |  --
      100  | --    | Kurmi of Chota Nagpur              |  75.7 |  --
      695  | --    | Hindus of the Prov. of Behar       |  75.7 |  --
      100  | --    | Mal-Paharia (Drav. of Beng.)       |  75.8 |  --
       25  | --    | Urur-Kurubas of Mysore             |  75.8 |  --
      100  | --    | Bhuiyas (Drav. of Beng.)           |  76.0 |  --
       20  | --    | Dums of Chota Nagpur               |  76.0 |  --
      100  | --    | Santals of Chota Nagpur            |  76.1 |  --
       --  | 12    | Alfurus of Ceram                   |   --  | 74.3
       --  | 37    | Ainus of Saghalien                 |   --  | 74.8
       64  | --    | Tamils of Ceylon                   |  76.3 |  --
       80  | --    | Pathans (Afghans) of Punjab        |  76.5 |  --
       33  | --    | Kanarese of Mysore                 |  76.8 |  --
    1,570  | --    | Bengalese                          |  76.9 |  --
       27  | --    | Islanders of Rotti (to the S. of   |       |
           |       |   Timur)                           |  76.9 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |           _Africans_.              |       |
       14  | --    | Mushikongo and Bakongo             |  72.5 |  --
       36  | --    | Bateke (Congo)                     |  73.6 |  --
       30  | --    | Toucouleurs                        |  73.8 |  --
       30  | 30    | Jagga (Bantu of Kilimandjaro)      |   --  | 71.9
       15  | --    | Hottentot-Orlans                   |  74.3 |  --
       37  | --    | Fulahs or Fulbés                   |  74.3 |  --
       35  | --    | Danakils of Tajura                 |  74.5 |  --
       14  | --    | Duala or Dwala of the Cameroons    |  75.1 |  --
       27  | --    | Negro-Krus                         |  75.1 |  --
       62  | 13    | Wolofs, Serer, and Leybus          |  75.2 | 69.8
       29  | 10    | Various Mandingans                 |  75.5 | 78.8
       13  | --    | Kakongo                            |  75.6 |  --
       47  | --    | Arabs of Algeria                   |  76.3 |  --
        -- |  56   | Kafirs (Ama-Zulus and others)      |    -- | 72.5
       184 |  --   | Betsimisaraka (Madagascar)         |  76.3 |   --
       13  |  --   | Kabyles of Palestro                |  76.4 |   --
       27  |  --   | Bashilanges of the Kasai           |  76.8 |   --
       13  |  --   | Ashantis                           |  76.9 |   --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |         _Americans_.               |       |
       12  |  --   | Karayas (Amazon Basin)             |  73.0 |   --
        -- |  76   | Hurons                             |   --  | 74.7
      614  |  31   | Eskimo of Greenland                |  76.8 | 72.4
        -- | 152   |   do.     E. America               |   --  | 71.3
        -- |  16   |   do.     W. America               |   --  | 74.8
       10  | 33(S.)| Botocudos                          |  76.8 | 73.9
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |          _Europeans_.              |       |
        -- | 417   | Portuguese                         |   --  | 74.3
       500 |  --   | Corsicans                          |  76.6 |  --
       502 |  --   | Spaniards of Valencia              |  76.8 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |SUB-DOLICHOCEPH. 77-79.6(75-77.6).  |       |
           |       |        _Asiatics_.                 |       |
       12  |  --   | Ladaki                             |  77.0 |  --
       17  |  --   | Inhabitants of Nagar, Hunaza, and  |       |
           |       |   Yasin                            |  77.0 |  --
       20  |  --   | Chinese of the North               |  77.0 |  --
       75  |  --   | Kurumbas (to the E. of the         |       |  --
           |       |   Nilgiris)                        |  77.3 |  --
       136 |  --   | Tamils of the South of India and   |       |
           |       |   Ceylon                           |  77.4 |  --
       360 |  --   | Mois of French Indo-China          |  77.5 |  --
       17  |  --   | Sikas (Central Floris)             |  77.7 |  --
       11  |  92   | Ainus of Yezo                      |  77.8 | 76.5
       23  |  --   | Turkomans of the Transcaspian      |  77.9 |  --
       18  |  --   | Lio (Central Floris)               |  78.1 |  --
       208 |  --   | Aderbaijanis                       |  78.1 |  --
       168 |  --   | Persians in general                |  78.4 |  --
       11  |  --   | Disfulis of Susa                   |  78.4 |  --
       332 |  --   | Kurds                              |  78.5 |  --
       78  |  64   | Japanese of all classes            |  78.5 | 80.2
       68  |  --   | White and Yellow Sakais(Malay P.)  |  78.7 |  --
       30  |  --   | Atoni of the west of Timur         |  78.8 |  --
       142 |  --   | Singhalese                         |  78.8 |  --
       20  |  --   | Yuruks of Lycia                    |  78.9 |  --
       28  |  --   | Black Sakais of Gunong Inas        |       |
           |       |   (Malay Peninsula)                |  79.5 |  --
       29  |  --   | Tates of the Transcaucasus         |  79.0 |  --
      106  |  --   |Moormen of Ceylon                   |  79.1 |  --
       45  |  44   |Sumbawa Islanders                   |  79.1 |  --
      --   |  37   |Nias Islanders                      |   --  | 77.6
      106  |  37   |Ostiaks                             |  79.3 | 74.3
       16  |  --   |Tatar-Tchern (Altaians)             |  79.5 |  --
       25  |  --   |South Chinese of Lang-Choo          |  79.5 |
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |     _Africans_.                    |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
       50  |  --   |M’Zabits of Algeria                 |  77.3 |  --
       56  |  --   |Western Zandeh (Mandja, etc.)       |  77.9 |  --
      --   |  14   |Bushmen                             |   --  | 75.9
      --   | 139   |Negroes of Fernand-Vaz              |   --  | 75.9
      --   |  13   |Hausas                              |   --  | 77.3
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |   _Americans_.                     |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      --   |  62   |Half-caste Algonquians              |   --  | 76.2
      --   | 315   |Natives of Santa Barbara Archip.    |   --  | 76.9
       14  |  --   |Arawaks of the Rio Xingu            |       |
           |       |  (Mehinaku, etc.)                  |  78.2 |  --
       31  |  --   |Indians of Arizona                  |  78.6 |  --
      419  |  --   |Pimas of New Mexico                 |  78.4 |  --
      123  |  --   |Ute Indians                         |  79.5 |  --
       28  |  --   |Tupis of the Xingu (Kamayuras       |       |
           |       |   and Anetos)                      |  79.1 |  --
      114  |  37   |Eskimo of Alaska                    |  79.2 | 77.0
      --   | 103   |Indians of the Californian coast    |   --  | 77.3
      135  |  --   |Iroquoians                          |  79.3 |  --
       26  |  27   |Yahgan Fuegians                     |  79.5 | 76.8
      570  |  42   |Indians: Algonquians, Abenaki,      |       |
           |       |   Cree, etc.                       |  79.8 | 77.4
      261  | 136   |Siouans                             |  79.8 | 78.9
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |      _Oceanians_.                  |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      163  |  --   |Natives of Solomon Islands          |  77.6 |  --
      --   |12 (S.)|Morioris of the Chatham Islands     |   --  | 76.2
      --   |  30   |Natives of the Marquesas Islands    |   --  | 76.4
     22(S.)|22 (S.)|Natives of the Gilbert Islands      |       |
           |       |  (Kingsmill)                       |  78.4 | 73.8
       59  |  --   |Various Polynesians                 |  79.7 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |      _Europeans_.                  |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      122  |  --   |Catalans of the Balearic Islands    |  77.7 |  --
    6,579  |  --   |Sardinians                          |  77.5 |  --
    1,410  |  --   |Castillians                         |  78.5 |  --
      574  |  --   |Catalans of Spain                   |  78.1 |  --
    8,368  |  --   |Spaniards in general                |  78.2 |  --
      --   | 48    |Swedes of the central provinces.    |  78.2 | 76.0
      50   | --    |French Catalans of Roussillon       |  78.6 | --
      --   | 59    |Chuvashes                           |  --   | 77.2
    32,526 | --    |Sicilians                           |  79.0 | --
      325  | --    |Spanish Basques                     |  79.3 | --
      129  | 18    |Cheremisses                         |  79.2 | 76.8
      362  | --    |Belgian Flemings                    |  79.5 | --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |MESOCEPHALS, 79.7-81.9 (77.7-79.9). |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |    _Americans_.                    |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
       10  | --    |Bakairis of Brazil                  |  79.0 | --
       84  | 10    |Pawnee Indians                      |  80.0 | 78.8
       16  | --    |Yakis                               |  79.8 | --
      257  | 38    |Crow and Cheyenne Indians           |  80.5 | 79.8
       28  | --    |Southern Caribs of the Rio Xingu    |  79.8 | --
       20  | --    |Bororos of the Amazon basin         |  81.2 | --
       15  | --    |Nahuquas of Brazil                  |  80.6 | --
       30  | --    |Caribs of the four Guianas          |  80.9 | --
      225  | 99(S.)|Omahas                              |  81.8 | 80.5
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |    _Asiatics_.                     |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      130  | --    |Tenggerese of the east of Java      |  79.7 | --
       60  | --    |Baluchis of Baluchistan             |  80.0 | --
       --  | 125   |Chinese in general                  |  --   | 78.3
       36  | --    |Nicobarese                          |  80.4 | --
       13  | --    |Dungans of Kuldja                   |  80.5 | --
       58  | --    |Tipperahs of Chittagong             |  80.5 | --
       20  | --    |Achinese                            |  80.5 | --
       58  | --    |Battas of Lake Toba                 |  80.6 | --
       22  | --    |Jakuns of Johor                     |  80.9 | --
       61  | 84(S.)|Southern Chinese (princ. of Canton) |  81.2 | 78.2
       19  | 24    |Andamanese                          |  81.4 | 81.6
       90  | --    |Magh or Arakanese of Chittagong     |  81.8 | --
       11  | --    |Teleuts or Telenghits (Siberia)     |  81.8 | --
       --  | 14    |Eskimo of Asia                      |  --   | 79.0
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |    _Europeans_.                    |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
       35  | --    |Gypsies of Hungary                  |  79.9 | --
       37  | --    |Tatars of the Crimea                |  80.0 | --
       55  | --    |Jews of Bosnia                      |  80.1 | --
      171  | --    |French of the dep. du Nord          |  80.4 | --
       60  | --    |Letts of the Baltic provinces       |  80.5 | --
    1,000  | --    |Limousins and Perigourdins          |  80.7 | --
      463  | --    |Spaniards of the Cantabrian region  |  80.3 | --
     30(S.)| 47(S.)|Dutch of the prov. of Gröningen     |  81.0 | 77.6
     1,000 |  --   | Normans (Calvados, Seine-Inf.,     |  81.3 |
           |       |    etc.)                           |       |
       --  |  87   | Dutch of the province of Friesland |  --   | 78.1
       --  | 206   | Inhabitants of the prov. of Prussia|  --   | 79.2
       --  |96 (S.)|Cherkess (Abkhazians, Chapsug, etc.)|  --   | 79.4
       --  | 159   | Franconians of N.W. of Bavaria     |  --   | 79.8
     59,165|  --   | Italians of the South (Abruzzi,    |       |
           |       | Puglie, etc.)                      |  81.2 | --
       54  |  --   | Magyar-Szeklers                    |  81.4 | --
       67  |  --   | Georgian-Mingrelians, and Imers    |  81.4 | --
       91  |  --   | Provençals                         |  81.7 | --
       59  |  --   | Meshtcheriaks                      |  81.8 | --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |         _Oceanians_.               |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
       14  |  --   | Islanders of Fakaofu (Takelau      |       |
           |       |   Arch.)                           |  80.6 | --
       12  |  --   | Natives of New Ireland             |  81.0 | --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |    SUB-BRACHYCEPHALS, 82-85.2      |       |
           |       |          (80-83.2).                |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |     _Asiatics and Eurasians_.      |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      22   |  --   | Parsees of Bombay                  |  82.0 | --
      20   |  --   | Kouïs of Cambodia                  |  82.0 | --
     97(S.)|51 (S.)| Kalmuks of the Volga               |  82.1 | 81.4
      11   |  14   | Coreans                            |  82.6 | 81.6
      25   |  --   | Man-Tien of Kaobang (Tong King)    |  82.5 | --
     182   |  --   | Annamese in general                |  82.8 | --
      49   |  --   | Malays of Sumatra and Penang       |  82.8 | --
     231   |  --   | Burmese                            |  83.1 | --
     139   |  --   | Yakuts                             |  83.1 | --
      14   |  --   | Tsiams of French Indo-China        |  83.2 | --
      --   |18 (S.)| Tunguse Reindeer-holders           |  --   | 81.2
      21   |  --   | Solorese (E. of Flores and Solor)  |  83.4 | --
      56   |  --   | Laotians of Lower Laos             |  83.6 | --
      30   |  --   | Cambodians                         |  83.6 | --
      76   |  --   | Annamese of Tong King              |  83.8 | --
    152(S.)|15 (S.)| Samoyeds                           |  83.8 | 82.4
      13   |  13   | Takhtadji of Lycia                 |  84.2 | --
      26   |  --   | Ansariehs of Antioch               |  84.2 | --
     100   |  --   | Chakama (Arakan-Bengali mongrels)  |  84.3 | --
     197   |  14   | Kalmuks of Kuldja and Tarbagat     |  84.5 | 83.3
      12   |30 (S.)| Bugis of Mangkassar                |  84.6 | 80.6
      --   |  12   | Islanders of Madura (N. of Java)   |  --   | 82.6
      66   |88 (S.)| Javanese                           |  84.6 | 83.0
      18   |  --   | Negrito Aetas (Philippines)        |  84.7 | --
     107   |  27   |Uzbegs of Russian Turkestan         |  84.8 | --
      74   |  --   |Tajiks                              |  84.8 | --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |      _Americans_.                  |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      60   |  --   |Arawaks of Dutch Guiana             |  82.6 | --
     63(S.)|  --   |Haidas                              |  82.7 | --
      77   |  --   |Maricopas (Yuma Indians)            |  82.9 | --
     129   |  --   |Zuñi Indians                        |  83.0 | --
      16   |  --   |Indians of S. Oregon                |  84.0 | 82.2
      --   |  22   |Navajos (deformed)                  |  84.2 | --
     26(S.)|  --   |Bilculas                            |  84.5 | --
      74   |  --   |Comanches                           |  84.6 | --
      16   |  --   |Yucatecs of Mexico                  |  84.7 | --
     193   |  --   |Moquis or Mokis                     |  84.9 | --
      18   |       |Patagonians                         |  85.2 |
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |      _Africans_.                   |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      20   |  --   |Saras of Shari                      |  82.4 | --
           |       |  (Basin of Lake Chad)              |       |
      14   |  --   |Hovas of Madagascar                 |  84.0 | --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |     _Oceanians_.                   |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
      10   |  --   |Islanders of Fanafuti               |  82.4 | --
           |       |   (Ellice group)                   |       |
      23   |  19   |Islanders of Tonga Arch.            |  82.6 | 84.2
      --   | 177   |Hawaiians of Sandwich Islands       |  --   | 80.4
      23   |13 (S.)|Samoans                             |  83.7 | 77.5
      43   |52 (S.)|Polynesians of Tahiti, Marquesas,   |       |
           |       |  Pomotu, and Tubuai Islands        |  85.1 | 76.0
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |       _Europeans_.                 |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
     126   | --    |Votiaks                             |  82.0 | --
     100   | --    |Permiaks                            |  82.2 | --
      36   | --    |Zyrians                             |  82.2 | --
     199   | --    |Belgian Wallons                     |  82.2 | --
    30,970 | --    |Italians of Liguria and Tuscany     |  82.3 | --
     290   | --    |Bielorousses or White Russians      |  82.4 | --
     775   | --    |Alsatians of Lower Alsace           |  82.5 | --
     294   | --    |Italians in general                 |  82.7 | --
     261   | --    |Ossets                              |  82.6 | --
     3,000 | --    |Bretons (France)                    |  82.7 | --
      30   | --    |Tatars of Kassimov                  |  82.8 | --
     447   |421(S.)|Great Russians of the Central       |       |
           |       |   and N. provinces                 |  82.9 | 80.7
     220   | --    |French Basques                      |  83.0 | --
       98  |  --   |Wurtembergers                       |  83.1 |  --
      168  |  --   |Mordvinians                         |  83.3 |  --
      416  |  --   |Jews of Galicia and Western Russia  |  83.4 |  --
    1,355  |  --   |Ruthenians of the Plain (Galicia)   |  83.4 |  --
       90  |  --   |Georgian-Gruzins                    |  83.5 |  --
       17  |  --   |Veps or Chud of Olonetsk            |  83.5 |  --
      187  |  --   |Ruthenians of the Mountains         |       |
           |       | (Galicia)                          |  83.6 |  --
   15,914  |  --   |French in general                   |  83.6 |  --
      170  |  --   |Tatars of the Mountains (Caucasus)  |  83.6 |  --
      165  |  --   |Cherkess-Kabards                    |  83.7 |  --
       20  |  --   |Russian Lapps                       |  83.8 |  --
       19  |  --   |Georgian-Svanes                     |  83.9 |  --
    6,800  |  --   |Inhabitants of Baden                |  84.1 |  --
   53,020  |  --   |Italians (Lomb., Umbr., March.)     |  84.1 |  --
      226  |40 (S.)|Magyars in general                  |  84.5 | 82.3
       78  |  --   |Eastern Chechen                     |  84.5 |  --
      200  |  --   |Little Russians of Kiev             |  84.6 |  --
       52  |  --   |Lesghi-Didos                        |  84.6 |  --
       44  |  --   |Kumyks of the Caucasus              |  84.7 |  --
   52,410  |  --   |Italians of Venetia-Emilia          |  85.1 |  --
       --  | 134   |Swiss of Untervalden                |   --  | 83.8
       53  |  --   |Jews of Akhaltsikh (Caucasus)       |  85.2 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |   BRACHYCEPHALS, 85.3-86.9         |       |
           |       |         (83.3-84.9).               |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |            _Asiatics_.             |       |
       56  |  --   |Galchas (Russian Turkestan)         |  85.5 |  --
       --  |  16   |Tunguse-Orochons                    |   --  | 83.4
       17  |  17   |Siamese                             |   --  | 83.0
      341  |  --   |Armenians in general                |  85.6 |  --
       --  |  13   |Burmese of Arakan and Talaing       |   --  | 83.7
       21  |  18   |Sundanese (West Java)               |  86.3 | 85.5
   20 (S.) |35 (S.)|Giliaks                             |  86.3 | 83.4
   16 (S.) |  --   |Bicols of Luzon (Philippines)       |  86.6 |  --
      333  |  --   |Taranchi of Russian and Eastern     |       |
           |       | Turkestan                          |  86.6 |  --
      270  |  --   |Armenians of Transcaucasia          |  85.6 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |           _Europeans_.             |       |
       --  |1000(S.)|Bavarians of old Bavaria           |   --  | 83.2
   32,790  |  --   |Piedmontese                         |  85.9 |  --
       16  |  --   |Tatar Nogai of the Caucasus         |  85.8 |  --
      130  |  --   |Lesghi-Darghis of the Caucasus      |  86.2 |  --
    200    |  --   |Rumanians of Bukovina               |  86.3 |  --
     25    |  --   |Lesghi-Udes                         |  86.6 |  --
     27    |  --   |Georgian Lazes                      |  86.8 |  --
    235    |  --   |Savoyards                           |  86.9 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |    _Oceanians and Americans_.      |       |
     20    | 20(S.)|Islanders of Tahiti                 |  85.5 |  76.6
     --    |  36   |Aleuts                              |   --  |  84.8
     --    | 100   |Araucans of Argentine Republic      |   --  |  83.9
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |  HYPER-BRACHYCEPHALS, 87 (85)      |       |
           |       |        AND ABOVE.                  |       |
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |           _Europeans_.             |       |
     --    | 65(S.)|Romanches of Switzerland            |   --  |  85.0
     30    |  --   |Dalmatians                          |  87.0 |  --
     19    |  --   |Jews of Daghestan (Mountaineers)    |  87.0 |  --
    105(S.)| 41(S.)|Scandinavian Lapps                  |  87.4 |  85.0
     69    |  --   |Magyars of Rumania                  |  87.8 |  --
    140    |  --   |French (Haute-Loire, Lozère,        |       |
           |       |       Cantal)                      |  87.4 |  --
           |       |                                    |       |
           |       |           _Asiatics_.              |       |
    384    |   --  |Kirghiz-Kasaks and Karakirghiz      |  87.2 |  --
     33    |   --  |Aissors of Transcaucasia and Urmia  |  88.7 |  --



APPENDIX III.

NASAL INDEX OF LIVING SUBJECTS, 71 SERIES

(see p. 79).


  ---------+-------------------------------+------+-----------------------
   Number  |                               |      |
    of     |           ETHNIC GROUPS.      |Nasal |
  Subjects.|                               |Index.|     Observers.
  ---------+-------------------------------+------+-----------------------
           |_Leptorhinians (less than 70)._|      |
           |                               |      |
     110   |Armenians                      | 60.4 |Pantiukhof
      62   |Georgian Imers                 | 60.8 |Pan., Chantre, Erckert
   1,969   |Brahmans, Rajputs and other    |      |
           |  high castes, N.W. province   |      |
           |  and Oudh                     | 63.0 |Crooke, Drake-Brocken
     100   |French (fair type, dolicho.)   | 63.0 |Collignon
      41   |Georgian Mingrelians           | 63.1 |Pan., Chantre, Erckert
      49   |Georgian Gruzins               | 64.5 |Pan., Chantre, Erckert
      50   |Lorraines                      | 64.6 |Collignon
      30   |French Catalans  (Eastern      |      |
           |  Pyr.)                        | 65.1 |    „
      20   |Anglo-Scotch                   | 65.1 |Beddoe
      23   |Arabs of Tunis                 | 65.2 |Collignon
      50   |French dolichoceph. of the     |      |
           |  South                        | 65.7 |    „
     184   |Various Kabyles                | 66.5 |Prengruber
     160   |French of Normandy             | 66.5 |Collignon
      88   |Sardinians                     | 66.6 |Gilbert d'Hercourt
      27   |Galchas of Turkestan           | 66.8 |Ujfalvy
     237   |Ossets                         | 66.8 |Ghiltchen., Ch., Erck.
     168   |Mordvinians                    | 66.9 |Maïnof
      21   |English                        | 67.0 |Beddoe
   1,443   |Dravido-Hindus, N.W. Prov.     | 67.0 |  --
   1,000   |French in general              | 67.3 |Collignon
      70   |Bretons                        | 67.5 |    „
      80   |Pathans of the Punjab          | 68.4 |Risley
      80   |Sikhs                          | 68.8 |    „
      98   |Parisians                      | 69.1 |Collignon
      60   |Baluchis of Baluchistan        | 69.4 |Risley
     120   |Tunisians (2nd Berber race)    | 69.8 |Collignon
           |                               |      |
           |   _Mesorhinians_ (70-84.9).   |      |
           |                               |      |
      10   |Scotch                         | 70.0 |Beddoe
   1,334   |Tunisians in general           | 70.2 |Collignon
     444   |Punjabis                       | 70.2 |Risley
     865   |Dravidians(Kharvars, Korwas,   |      |
           |  Cheros, Khunjas) of N.W.     |      |
           |  Prov.                        | 71.0 |Crooke, Drake-Brock.
      20   |Baltis of Cashmere             | 71.4 |Ujfalvy
      50   |Berbers (brachycephalic race ) | 72.5 |Collignon
      29   |Singhalese                     | 74.9 |Deschamps, Manouv.
      36   |Kalmuks of the Volga           | 74.7 |Deniker, Erck., Chantre
      40   |Kara-Kirghiz of Semiriechie    | 74.9 |Seeland
      27   |Todas                          | 74.9 |Thurston
      40   |Badagas of Nilgiris            | 75.6 |    „
      23   |Siouans                        | 75.9 |Denik., Laloy, Manouv.
      33   |Kanarese of Mysore             | 76.8 |Thurston
      40   |Tamil-Brahmans of Madras       | 77.2 |    „
      22   |Kotas of the Nilgiri Hills     | 79.2 |    „
      36   |Malayalim of the Chevaroy      |      |
           |  Hills                        | 74.4 |    „
      20   |Dums of Chota Nagpur           | 79.1 |Risley
     695   |Hindus of Behar                | 80.0 |    „
   1,616   |Hindus of the N.W. Provs.      |      |
           |  and Oudh                     | 80.9 |    „
      17   |Rhodias of Ceylon (both        |      |
           |  sexes)                       | 81.3 |Deschamps
      32   |Kols of the N.W. Provinces     |      |
           |  and Oudh                     | 82.2 |Risley and Oude
     100   |Kurmis of Chota Nagpur         | 82.6 |    „
      90   |Maghs or Arakanese of          |      |
           |  Chittagong                   | 82.7 |    „
      30   |Annamese of Cochin-China       | 83.3 |Deniker, Laloy
      34   |Irulas of the Nilgiris         | 83.4 |Thurston
     100   |Chakamas (Arakanese-Bengalis)  | 85.4 |Risley
      23   |Zuñis                          | 84.9 |Ten Kate
           |                               |      |
           |   _Platyrhinians_ (85-99.9).  |      |
           |                               |      |
      23   |Annamese of Tong King          | 86.2 |Deniker, Laloy
      90   |Bhumij of Chota Nagpur         | 86.5 |Risley
      27   |Bashilanges                    | 87.0 |}Maistre
      21   |Bubangis                       | 87.2 |}  „
     100   |Santals of Chota Nagpur        | 88.8 |Risley
      15   |Kurumbas of Wynaad             | 88.8 |Thurston
      100  |Munda-Kols of Chota Nagpur     | 89.0 |Risley
       13  |Polynesians                    | 89.8 |After Collignon
       11  |New Caledonians and New        |      |
           |Hebridians                     | 93.8 |Collignon
       17  |Fulahs or Fulbés               | 95.3 |Deniker, Collignon
       44  |Negroes of Tunis               | 96.3 |Collignon
       21  |Toucouleurs                    | 99.9 |Deniker
           |                               |      |
           |    _Ultraplatyrhinians_       |      |
           |      (_over_ 100).            |      |
           |                               |      |
       23  |Leybus and Serers              |100.1 |Deniker, Collignon
       52  |Negroes of Zambesi             |101.5 |After Collignon
       21  |Mandingans and Bambaras        |101.6 |Deniker, Collignon
       13  |Ashantis                       |107.5 |Deniker
       11  |Australians                    |107.6 |After Collignon
       14  |Angolese Negroes (both sexes)  |107.9 |Deniker



INDEX OF AUTHORS.


    Abbott, 511

    Adam, L., 552

    Adrianof, 363

    Amat, 432

    Ambialet, 177

    Ameghino, 512

    Ammon, 74, 318

    Anderson, G., 307

    Anderson, J., 397

    Andree, R., 109, 128, 198, 201, 206, 227, 250, 255, 274, 341, 425,
    428

    Anuchin, 262, 277, 373

    Aranzadi, 348

    Aubin, 140

    Aymonier, 393, 394, 399, 400, 402


    Baber, C., 400

    Bachofen, 233

    Baden-Powell, 247

    Baelz, 51, 62, 64, 107

    Bahnson, 520

    Bain, 294

    Balfour, H., 262, 272

    Ball, 409

    Bancroft, H. H., 249, 521

    Bandelier, 536

    Barcena, 292

    Bartels, Max, 95, 227, 230

    Barth, 446

    Barthel, 429

    Bastian, A., 460

    Batchelor, 373

    Bates, H., 159

    Beddoe, 50, 314, 348

    Bell, 23

    Béranger-Féraud, 442, 447, 450

    Bergaigne, 394

    Bergemann, 146

    Bernard, A., 497, 505

    Berthelot, S., 431

    Bertholon, 433

    Bertillon, A., 80

    Bertin, S., 435

    Bertrand, 321

    Betz, 134

    Biart, 537

    Biddulph, 415

    Billet, 400, 401

    Binger, 447, 449, 451

    Bischoff, 18, 98

    Blanchard, 97

    Blandford, 362

    Blumentritt, 490

    Boas, 520, 531

    Boggiani, 573

    Bonaparte, Prince Roland, 351

    Bordier, 121

    Borlase, W., 312

    Bouchereau, 469

    Boulart, 15, 18, 94

    Boule, M., 301, 309, 511

    Bourne, 400

    Bowditch, 106

    Boyd, 18

    Bremer, 335, 340

    Breul, 46

    Brigham, 183

    Brinton, 122, 490, 514, 517, 518, 521, 527, 535, 536, 544, 547

    Broca, 16, 48, 55, 57, 61, 62, 64, 72, 73, 83, 85, 98, 177, 348

    Bruhl, 536

    Buch, 263

    Buchner, M., 134

    Bunge, 145

    Burrows, 454

    Buschmann, 534

    Butler, J., 396

    Buttikofer, 451

    Calori, 76, 100

    Campbell, J. M., 115

    Capart, 427

    Capus, 415

    Cardi, Comte de, 453

    Cardoso, 413

    Carol, J., 469

    Carr, 514

    Cartailhac, 300, 309, 314, 362, 364

    Castelnau, 564

    Castren, 366

    Catat, 469, 549

    Catlin, 521

    Cauvin, 477

    Cavendish, A., 387

    Chalmers, 493, 494

    Chamberlain, B., 373, 391

    Chantre, 355, 423

    Chapman, R., 475

    Chastaing, 387

    Chauvet, 362

    Christian, F., 475

    Chudzinsky, 95

    Clercq, De, 420

    Clozel, 458

    Codrington, 497

    Colini, 561

    Collignon, R., 5, 79, 88, 334, 348, 427, 433, 435, 450, 470

    Colocci, 425

    Colquhoun, 381, 400

    Comte, P., 441

    Cooper, 273

    Couillault, 427

    Courant, 387

    Crampel, 442, 454

    Crooke, W., 231, 404, 408, 413

    Cunningham, D., 15, 84

    Curr, 223, 477

    Cushing, 516, 534

    Cuvier, 5, 69


    Dall, 520, 531

    Dalton, 380, 408, 409

    D’Amelineau, 426

    Danielli, 486

    Danilevski, 101

    Darwin, 6, 7, 23, 110, 115, 118, 146

    David, A., 362

    Davidson, C., 172

    Davy, 117

    Dawkins, Boyd, 307

    Deblenne, 400

    Delafosse, 451

    Delage, Y., 6

    Delisle, 177

    D’Enjoy, 255

    Deniker, 15, 18, 24, 64, 78, 94, 108, 109, 214, 215, 220, 223, 231,
    242, 284, 292, 325, 358, 367, 373, 375, 377, 378, 399, 425, 435,
    436, 450, 453, 454, 458, 468, 470, 486, 493, 494, 500, 512, 533,
    555, 576

    Deschamps, 408, 418

    Desgodins, 380

    Diguet, 535

    Dodd, 391

    Donaldson, H. H., 104

    Dorsey, 530

    Dourisboure, 392

    Dubois, E., 18, 361

    Duchenne, 93

    Duerden, 557

    Duval, Mathias, 110

    Duveyrier, 434

    Dybowski, 442, 454, 458


    Ehrenreich, 73, 292, 517, 555

    Elisiéef, 386

    Ellis, Sir A. B., 451, 453

    Ellis, A. J., 340

    Ellis, Havelock, 51, 55, 56, 348

    Ellis, W., 500

    Emin Bey, 454

    Erckert, 353

    Erman, 521

    Etheridge, 475

    Evans, A. J., 142, 315

    Evans, Sir J., 304


    Faidherbe, 435, 449

    Fawcett, Miss, 75

    Finsch, 493, 497

    Fison, 232, 233, 234

    Flechsig, 103

    Flower, Sir W. H., 13, 21, 61, 62, 64, 283, 454, 497

    Forsyth, 416

    Fournereau, 399

    Fox, 451

    Frazer, J. G., 248

    Fritsch, 465, 467

    Frobenius, 446, 463

    Fuse, 262

    Gaches-Sarraute, Mme., 176

    Gaidoz, 336

    Garnier, F., 381, 382

    Garson, 72, 84, 85, 99, 351

    Gatschet, 517, 527

    Gautier, T., 145

    Geer, G. de, 307

    Geikie, J., 301, 511

    Gibbs, 530

    Giglioli, 280

    Gilchenko, 100

    Gillen, F., 477, 478

    Giraud-Teulon, 230

    Glaumont, 170

    Godden, Miss, 396

    Godron, 312

    Goebel, 145

    Gomme, G. L., 215, 247

    Gonner, 74

    Gooch, W., 427

    Gosse, L. A., 177

    Gottsche, 387

    Gould, 50, 508

    Grandidier, 469

    Groos, 197

    Gros, 500

    Grosse, E., 124, 202, 209, 212

    Guiral, 458

    Guppy, 497


    Haddon, A. C., 202, 204, 493, 494, 497, 557

    Haeckel, 284

    Hagen, 486, 497

    Hahn, 192, 195

    Hale, H., 135, 514, 527, 531

    Hamada, 107

    Hamy, 62, 91, 135, 313, 454, 467, 486, 495, 511, 535, 536, 537,
    550, 561

    Hanoteau, 432

    Harmand, 135, 392, 393, 402

    Hartmann, 431, 435, 436

    Haxthausen, 236

    Hedley, 500

    Hellwald, 146, 159, 255

    Henning, 84

    Herrera, 511

    Hervé, 96, 310, 313

    Herzenstein, 111

    Hettner, 120

    Hiekisch, 374

    Hirt, 320

    Hoernes, 316

    Holm, G., 520

    Holm, S., 226

    Holmes, 184, 509, 511

    Holub, 465

    Hösel, 163

    Hosie, 400

    Hough, 150, 269

    Houssay, 422

    Houzé, 83, 332

    Hovelacque, 96, 131

    Hovorka, 83

    Howitt, A. W., 232, 233

    Hoyer, 83

    Hull, H., 482

    Humboldt, A. von, 507, 517

    Hunt, 497

    Huxley, 119, 283

    Hyades, 64, 108, 109, 215, 220, 223, 231, 292, 512, 576


    Ihering, 513

    Imbault-Huart, 391

    Im Thurn, E., 552

    Ino, 391

    Inostrantsev, 314

    Inuzuka, 362

    Iokhelson, 370

    Ivanof, 64

    Ivanovsky, 92, 108, 230, 378


    Jackson, 521

    Jacobs, J., 424

    Jacquard, 69

    Jacques, V., 458, 461

    James, H., 374

    Jellinghaus, 408

    Johansson, 74

    Johnston, Sir H. H., 465

    Jolly, A., 469

    Jubainville, D’Arbois de, 317, 321

    Junghuhn, 486

    Junker, W., 440, 441, 454

    Junod, 465


    Karr, Seton, 427

    Keane, A., 132, 280, 351

    Kemp, D., 452

    Key, Axel, 106

    Kharouzin, 166, 376

    Kidd, 23

    Kingsley, Miss M., 453

    Kochs, 116

    Köganei, 64

    Kohlbrugge, 14, 483, 490

    Koike, 386

    Koslowsky, 566

    Kotelmann, 111

    Kovalewsky, 247, 249

    Krause, 226, 254, 531

    Kropf, 465

    Kubary, 271, 505

    Kuhn, E., 394

    Kulischer, 114

    Kuznetsof, 361


    Labarth, 400

    Lacerda, 513

    Lajard, 134

    Laloy, 399, 450, 453, 454, 458, 486

    Landor, A. H. S., 373

    Lang, A., 223

    Lang, L., 206

    Langle, Fleuriot de, 451

    Lapicque, 107, 397, 485

    Lapouge, 318

    Lartschneider, 95

    Last, 469

    Laveleye, 249

    Leclerc, 469

    Le Double, 96

    Leitner, 413

    Lenz, O., 454

    Leroy-Beaulieu, 236

    Letourneau, 159, 169, 231, 252, 271

    Letourneux, 431

    Lister, 500

    Livon, 85

    Lloyd, 527

    Lubboch, Sir J., 231, 234

    Lumholtz, 477, 535, 536

    Luschan, F. von, 261, 423, 440, 451, 467, 497

    Lydekker, 13


    Macalister, 95

    MacCauley, 528

    Macdonald, 465

    Macgregor, 493

    Madrolle, 449

    Maine, Sir H. S., 236, 247

    Maïnof, 351

    Maistre, 442, 446

    Malief, 64

    Mallery, G., 129, 138

    Man, 397

    Manolescu, 339

    Manouvrier, 55, 56, 87, 90, 99, 100, 361, 555

    Mantegazza, 64, 73, 110, 158, 351

    Margaritof, 363

    Marillier, 220

    Markham, Sir Clements, 118

    Markuse, 500

    Marri, 84

    Marshall, 411

    Martin, 87

    Martins, 274

    Martonne, E. de, 446

    Mason, Mrs., 395

    Mason, Otis, 153, 154, 182, 184, 191, 225, 261, 262, 270, 275, 278,
    284

    Maspero, 278, 420

    Mathews, R., 242

    Maurel, 109, 394

    McLennan, J. F., 233

    Medlicot, 362

    Meinecke, 500

    Menant, D., 420

    Mensé, 458

    Metchnikof, 77

    Metzger, 122

    Meyer, A. R., 483

    Meyer, E. H., 341

    Middendorf, 547

    Milne, 363

    Mindeleff, 516

    Möckler, 421

    Modigliani, 216, 486

    Mohnike, 391

    Moloney, 453

    Monnier, 228

    Montano, 64, 483, 486

    Montefiore, 351

    Monteil, 446

    Montelius, 314, 315

    Mooney, 527, 530

    Morel, 399

    Moreno, 513

    Morgan, De, 426, 429

    Morgan, Lewis, 124, 234, 516

    Morgen, 458

    Morse, E., 264

    Mortillet, A. de, 304

    Mortillet, G. de, 184, 300, 304, 306, 309

    Moser, 278

    Moura, 399

    Much, 315

    Müller, F., 114, 131, 283

    Müller, Max, 317

    Munro, H. R., 16


    Nachtigal, 444, 445, 446

    Nadaillac, 511

    Naegeli, 5

    Nansen, 520

    Nehring, 309

    Neis, 169, 392

    Niblack, 531

    Niederle, 344

    Nillsson, 272

    Noetling, 359

    Nordeck, C. de, 449

    Nordenskiold, 367, 516


    O’Brien, H. O., 122

    Oliver, E., 420

    Oppert, 411

    Orozco y Berra, 535


    Pagliani, 106

    Pallas, 115, 378

    Pantiukhof, 116, 353, 358, 422

    Papillault, 169

    Parker, L., 478

    Paspati, 425

    Paulitschke, 436, 438

    Peacock, 98

    Peal, S., 364, 396

    Pearson, Karl, 75

    Peary, 520

    Peixoto, 513

    Penka, 318

    Petersen, 423

    Petitot, 520

    Petrie, Flinders, 427, 428, 435

    Phillips, 262

    Piette, 137, 308

    Pinabel, 392

    Pinart, 546

    Pinto, Serpa, 461

    Pleyte, 475, 488

    Ploss, 97, 112, 240, 241

    Poesche, 318

    Pogge, 461

    Pogio, 387

    Poole, S., 435

    Porcher, 399

    Post, 230, 250, 252

    Potanin, 363

    Powell, 254, 519, 521, 524

    Pozdniéef, 378

    Prjevalsky, 380, 381

    Pruner-Bey, 435

    Pullé, 337

    Pypine, 344


    Quatrefages, De, 62, 214, 284, 313, 397, 454, 483, 505, 512

    Quedenfeld, 432

    Quevedo, L., 572

    Quibell, 427


    Rabentisch, 55

    Radde, 116

    Radlof, 363

    Ramon y Cajal, 104

    Ranke, J., 15, 341

    Ranke, K. E., 517

    Rasch, 122

    Ratzel, 125

    Ray, 494, 497

    Read, 72

    Reclus, Elie, 411, 416

    Reclus, Elisée, 118, 383, 460, 463

    Regalia, 77

    Regibus, 101

    Reid, 396

    Rein, J. J., 391

    Reinach, Salomon, 300, 309, 310, 315, 317, 321, 427

    Retzius, 348, 516

    Reuleaux, 187

    Révoil, 438

    Rey, P., 563

    Richthofen, 385

    Rigges, 530

    Rink, 520

    Ripley, 325

    Risley, 381, 404, 408, 413

    Rivett-Carnac, 362

    Rockhill, 380

    Roepstorff, 397

    Rojdestvensky, 92

    Rosenberg, 119

    Rosenstadt, 113

    Rohlfs, 434

    Romanes, 5

    Roth, Ling, 255, 482, 490

    Roth, W. E., 477

    Roux, 382

    Royce, C., 527

    Ruskikh, 116


    Sachier, 336

    Saint-Hilaire, J. G., 282

    Santelli, 438

    Sarasin, 62, 64, 418, 493

    Sarzec, E. de, 420

    Sasaki, 107

    Schadenberg, 483

    Schellong, 494

    Schinz, 228, 456, 467

    Schlegel, 149

    Schlichter, 454

    Schmelz, 226, 254

    Schmidt, E., 10, 106, 290, 408, 416, 435, 514

    Schrader, 366, 373, 374

    Schramm, 225

    Schrenck, 366, 373, 374

    Schwalbe, 83, 361

    Schweinfurth, 429, 441, 446, 454

    Seler, 547

    Sénart, 404

    Sergi, 73, 330, 435, 438

    Serurrier, 450

    Shortt, 236, 411

    Shevyref, 23

    Shrubsall, 467

    Sibree, 469

    Siret, H. & J., 314

    Sittig, 505

    Smeaton, 395

    Smirnov, 351

    Smith, E., 248

    Smith, Donaldson, 454

    Smith, Worthington, 312

    Smith, W. T., 140, 475

    Smyth, Brough, 223, 226, 475

    Sören Hansen, 51, 512, 520

    Sommier, 351

    Spalikowski, 74

    Spassovitch, 344

    Spencer, Baldwin, 477, 478

    Stainier, 427, 428

    Stanley, H. M., 454

    Staudinger, 446

    Stearns, 274

    Steinen, K. von den, 170, 204

    Steinmetz, 148, 220

    Stevenson, J., 526

    Stieda, 73

    Stirling, E., 477

    Stoddard, 552

    Stolpe, H., 202

    Strabo, 436

    Studer, 195

    Stuhlmann, 440, 446, 454


    Tarentsky, 373

    Tautain, 475, 500

    Taylor, I., 317

    Ten Kate, 62, 64, 68, 96, 450, 485, 493, 517, 524, 526, 533, 536,
    547, 555, 569

    Terrien de Lacouperie, 382

    Testut, 95, 96

    Thomas, Cyrus, 514

    Thomson, J., 440

    Thurston, 411

    Török, 19

    Topinard, 10, 18, 48, 64, 72, 73, 76, 91, 92, 97, 98, 99, 177, 280,
    283, 432, 476, 477

    Tourette, G. de la, 122

    Tourtoulon, 335

    Turner, Sir W., 16, 62, 64, 84, 85, 95, 103, 400, 477

    Tylor, E. B., 135, 152, 161, 183, 184, 199, 210, 214, 217, 219,
    220, 235, 240, 242


    Ujfalvy, 416

    Uvarof, 361, 363


    Veckenstedt, E., 153

    Verneau, 84, 431, 450, 513

    Vierkandt, 126

    Vierordt, 107, 108

    Villot, 432

    Virchow, 64, 435, 436, 490

    Vogt, 142

    Voit, C., 100


    Waddell, 380, 416

    Wallace, A. R., 5

    Wallaschek, 209, 210

    Wauters, 458, 461

    Weber, Max, 493

    Weeren, 186

    Weigand, 339

    Weisbach, 73

    Weiss, 63

    Westermarck, E., 231, 235, 236, 237, 238

    Westermarck, F., 75

    Weule, 263

    Wilhelm, E., 83

    Wilken, 145, 230, 475

    Williams, 508

    Wilson, T., 511

    Windle, B., 306, 314

    Windt, De, 242

    Wirth, A., 391

    Wissmann, 146, 148, 456

    Wlislocki, H. von, 425

    Wolff, 461

    Woodthorpe, 215, 396

    Wright, F., 511


    Yadrintsef, 367


    Zaborowski, 427

    Zintgraff, 458

    Zograf, 344, 351



    INDEX OF SUBJECTS.


    Ababdeh, 436

    Abnakis, 526

    Abyssinians, 437, 438

    Accredians, 452

    Achango, 454

    Achinese, 489

    Aderbaijani, 294, 376, 419

    Aduma, 459

    Ægean civilisation, 315

    Aetas, 397, 483

    Afara, 438

    Afiffi, 454

    Africa, grouping of existing populations of, 431

    Afridis, 420

    Ainus, 44, 59, 68, 85, 110, 291, 365, 371-373

    Akkas, 454

    Alakalufs, 576

    Albinism, 51

    Aleuts, 521

    Alfurus, 136, 491

    Algonquians, 526, 527

    Alimentation.--Geophagy, anthropophagy--preparation of
    foods--method of fire-making and cooking, pottery, stimulants and
    narcotics, 144-160

    Amazonians, 552

    American linguistic families, number of, 519

    American Indians (North), 38, 80, 87, 133, 151, 204, 241, 248, 521

    Andamanese,  56, 85, 91, 99, 159

    Andeans, 545

    Andean dialects, 544

    Angolese, 461

    Animistic religion, absence of moral element in, 220

    Annamese, 98, 399

    Antaifasina, 471

    Antaimoro, 471

    Antaisaka, 471

    Antaisara, 472

    Antambahoaka, 471

    Antanosi, 472

    Anthropology and ethnology, distinction between, 9

    Anthropological classification, various, 280-284

    Apaches, 525

    Apalachi, 528

    Apollonians, 451

    Arabs, 87, 422, 432

    Araucans, 550

    Arawaks, 556

    Arimichaux, 570

    Armenians, 81, 422

    Arts, the.--Primitive design, sculpture, dancing, music vocal and
    instrumental, musical instruments, poetry, 197-212

    Aryan question, 317-320

    Ashantis, 451

    Asia, peoples of Anterior, 418-425;
      peoples of Central, 374-382;
      peoples of Eastern, 382-390;
      peoples of Northern, 366-374

    Asiatic races, geographical distribution and principal characters
    of existing, 365-425

    Asikuya, 460

    Assinaboins, 529

    Assinians, 451

    Assyroid race, 290, 365

    Athapascans, 524

    Australians, 39, 44, 80, 109, 137, 151, 170, 204, 207, 220, 226,
    232, 241, 248, 290, 476

    Awekwom, 451

    Aymaras, 547

    Aztecs, 536, 537


    Bacongo, 460

    Badagas, 411

    Bajaus, 490

    Bakairis, 553

    Bakalai, 459

    Bakamba, 460

    Bakoris, 458

    Bakunda, 458

    Balinese, 490

    Ballali, 460

    Baltis, 415

    Baluba, 462

    Baluchis, 420

    Banga, 463

    Bangi, 461

    Banja, 440

    Bantus, 159, 429, 456, 463

    Barabra, 435

    Basas, 458

    Bashkir-Meshcheriaks, 376

    Basques, 87, 99, 240, 348

    Bateke, 460

    Battas, 489

    Batua, 454

    Bayanzi, 463

    Bechuana, 206, 465, 466

    Bedouins, 422

    Bejas, 436

    Benin, 453

    Berbers, 432, 433

    Betsileo, 471

    Betsimasaraka, 471

    Bicols, 491

    Biped attitude, condition of brain development, 16

    Black Feet, 527

    Bongo, 445

    Bonjos, 461

    Bororos, 566

    Botocudos, 50, 147, 159, 170, 563

    Bows, 262

    Boyaeli, 454

    Brahuis, 421

    Brain weight among different races; relative weight of, in men and
    women; relation of stature and weight of body to weight of brain,
    etc., 97-104;
      brain weights of man and anthropoid apes, 17, 18;
      weight at different ages, 107

    Bubuendi, 460

    Bujis, 490

    Buriats, 379

    Burmese, 400

    Bushmen, 41, 44, 56, 80, 94, 204, 206, 287, 467

    Bushmen-Hottentots, 467


    Cagayanes, 491

    Cahitas, 535

    Cainguas, 563, 568

    Calchaquis, 547

    Cambodians, 398

    Caribs, 541, 552

    Caste and class organisation, 249

    Caste in India, 402

    Cayugas, 527

    Celts, 323, 347

    Cephalic index, its numerical expression and nomenclature, 57-59;
      its relation to mentality, 76

    Chapanecs, 538

    Characterisation of races in author’s classification, 285-293

    Charruas, 571

    Chechen-Lesgians, 354

    Che-hoan, 391

    Chenooks, 532

    Cherkess (Circassians), 354

    Cheyennes, 527

    Chibchas, 546

    Chicasaws, 528

    Children.--Voluntary limitation of, infanticide, rearing of
    children among primitive peoples, naming, education, etc., 239-241

    Chinese, 38, 43, 47, 50, 109, 141, 382, 386

    Chins, 413

    Chippewas, 524, 526

    Chontals, 538, 540

    Chukchi, 149, 182, 191, 242, 367

    Ciboneys, 557

    Classification of ethnic groups, 293-298

    Commerce, conduct of, in primitive societies, 270

    Coreans, 386, 387

    Corroborees, 207

    Couvade, 240

    Cranial capacity of different races, 56

    Cranial characters, 53-55

    Creeks, 528

    Crees, 526

    Crows, 530


    Dagomba, 447

    Dakotas, 530

    Damaras, 466

    Danagla, 436

    Dardi or Dardu, 413

    Death, conception of, among uncivilised peoples, 216

    Denakil, 438

    Dental formulæ of monkeys, anthropoid apes, and man, 13

    Dental index of man, anthropoid apes, chimpanzee, orang, and
    gorilla, 21

    Dinka, 445

    Disease, primitive conceptions of, 227

    Distinctive morphological characters of human races.--Stature, 25,
    31;
      influence of environment on stature, 31, 32;
      difference of stature of men and women, 32, 33.
        Teguments: the skin, hair of head and body, 37.
        Four principal types of hair, 38, 46.
        Pigmentation: colouring of the skin, eyes, and hair, 46-52

    Domestication of animals, 194-196

    Dravidians, 44, 47, 99, 290, 365, 410

    Dress and ornament: nakedness and modesty, adornment of the body,
    ethnic mutilations, adornment by objects attached to the body,
    making of garments, spinning and weaving, 170-184

    Druzes, 423

    Duala, 243, 458

    Duk-Duk societies, 253

    Dyaks, 45, 490


    Endocannibalism and exocannibalism, 148

    Eskimo, 137, 151, 160, 245, 263, 292, 365, 520, 521

    Ethiopians, 288, 436

    Eurasians, 81, 293

    European ethnogeny, problem of, 299-300

    European peoples, migrations during historic period, 320-325

    European races, characters and geographical distribution of six
    principal and four secondary, 325-334;
      linguistic divisions, 335-358

    Ewes, 453


    Facial index, 70, 72, 76, 77

    Family organisation, 248

    Fans, 459

    Fellaheen, 435

    Felups, 449

    Finns, 45, 80, 349

    Fœtal likeness in man and apes, 23, 24

    French, 87, 335

    Fuegians, 81, 85, 87, 91, 146, 170, 181, 189, 214, 241, 571, 575

    Fulahs, 45, 47, 439, 442

    Funereal rites, burial of weapons, pottery, etc., mourning and
    funeral feasts, modes of sepulture, etc., 242-244

    Furs, 445


    Gabunese, 459

    Gallas, 438

    Games and recreations, sports and spectacles, 197-201

    Ganguela, 461

    Genital organs, differences of, according to race, 96

    Germans, 87, 111, 323, 339

    Ges, 562

    Gesture language, 128, 129

    Giliaks, 373

    Goajires, 557

    Gonds, 410

    Gonja, 447

    Group marriage: exogamy and endogamy, the matriarchate, filiation
    and relationship, 231-234

    Guanches, 87

    Guaraunos, 561

    Guatos, 573

    Guaycurus, 572, 573

    Guaymis, 545

    Gurkhas, 415

    Gurma, 447

    Gurunga, 447

    Gypsies, 425


    Habitation, primitive types of--huts, tents, villages; furniture,
    heating, lighting, 160-169

    Hair of head and body, 37;
      four principal varieties of hair, straight, wavy, frizzy, woolly,
      38-46

    Hajemis, 419

    Hamrans, 436

    Hausas, 446

    Hawaiians, 502

    Head of living subject, measurements of, 68, 69

    Hidatsas, 530

    _Homo Americanus_, problem of, origin of, 509

    Hottentots, 42, 94, 97

    Hovas, 469, 470

    Huaxtecs, 537, 540

    Hunting, fishing and agriculture, primitive methods of, 185-194

    Hupas, 525, 553

    Hurons, 527

    Hut, origin and development of primitive, 160-163


    Idzo, 453

    Igara, 453

    Igbera, 453

    Igorrotes, 491

    Illyro-Hellenes, 346

    Incas, 546

    Indo-Afghan race, 290, 365

    Indonesians, 47, 153, 365, 406

    _Initiation_, ceremonies connected with, circumcision, etc., 241,
    242

    Ipurinas, 556

    Iranians, 44, 80, 419

    Iroquoians, 526, 527

    Irulas, 411


    Jakris, 453

    Japanese, 42, 44, 51, 68, 87, 107, 170, 243, 387-391, 489

    Javanese, 99, 489

    Jews, 50, 80, 93, 118, 423-425


    Kabards, 376

    Kabyles, 87

    Kafirs, 159, 163, 170, 211, 413

    Kalinas, 553

    Kalmuks, 50, 111, 375, 379

    Kanaras, 411

    Karayas, 565

    Karens, 394

    Kartvels or Georgians, 355

    Kayapos, 563, 564

    Kenai, 524

    Kerepunu, 495

    Khalkas, 379

    Khands, 410

    Khas, 415

    Khonds, 219, 259, 410

    Kiowas, 530

    Kirghiz, 108, 376

    Kizilbashes, 423

    Kolarians, 408

    Koriaks, 367

    Kotas, 411

    Kru, 450

    Kuis, 392

    Kulu-Lahuli, 415

    Kurds, 422

    Kumyks, 376

    Kurumbas, 411

    Kwakiutls, 532


    Lampongs, 489

    Lamuts, 373

    Languages, monosyllabic, agglutinative, polysynthetic,
    inflectional, 130-133

    Lapps, 80, 293

    Latins, 235, 335

    Leni-Lenapé, 526

    Lenkas, 540

    Levirate, 236

    Linguistic characters: gesture and speech, divisions of language
    according to structure, optic and acoustic signals, handwriting,
    mnemotechnic objects, pictography, ideography, alphabets, 127-143

    Lo-lo, 381

    Loucheux, 524

    Lunda, 402

    Luri, 445

    Lushai, 395

    Lu-tse, 382

    Macusis, 134, 553

    Madurese, 490

    Maghrebi, 434

    Mahratis, 413

    Makirifares, 553

    Makua, 464

    Malayalim, 411

    Malays, 44, 47, 59, 63, 80, 83, 85, 87, 99, 107, 137, 288, 493, 497

    Mampursi, 447

    Manchus, 374

    Mandingans, 447, 448

    Mangars, 415

    Mangbattus, 440

    Manyuema, 465

    Maoris, 503

    Maricopas, 532

    Maronites, 423

    Masai, 440

    Mashona, 466

    Matrimonial customs, loan of wife, real and simulated abduction,
    marriage by capture, duration of union, etc., 237-239

    Mayas, 539

    Maypures, 556

    Melanesians, 46, 59, 63, 80, 83, 85, 87, 99, 107, 137, 288, 493, 497

    Melanism, 51

    Melanochroids, 291

    Melkits, 423

    Metal age in Europe, 314-316

    Metouali, 423

    Miao-tse, 381

    Micronesians, 504

    Minkopis, 397

    Minnetaris, 529

    Miranhas, 560

    Mixes, 538

    Miztecs, 538

    Modesty, conventionality of, 170

    Mohaves, 533

    Mohicans, 526

    Mois, 392

    Money, primitive standards of exchange, beads, cocoa-seed, cakes of
    tea, cowries, origin of modern money, etc., 271-274

    Mongo, 463

    Mongols, 38, 41, 44, 46, 49, 77, 80, 82, 87, 99, 112, 164, 241,
    293, 365, 379

    Monogenesis and polygenesis, 7

    Mons or Talaing, 393

    Moors, 434

    Moquis, 524

    Morality of the uncivilised, its utilitarian basis, 251-252

    Morioris, 503

    Moros, 491

    Moscos, 541

    Mossi, 447

    Mosso, 382

    Muskhogis, 528

    Mycenian civilisation, 315

    Myths, their intermediate position between science, poetry, and
    religion, 222


    Nagas, 45, 395

    Nahuas, 546

    Nahuquas, 553

    Nairs, 415

    Nasal index, 63-64

    Natchez, 528

    Navigation,  methods of--rafts, canoes, etc., 278-279

    Nazareans, 423

    Negrilloes, 454

    Negritoes, 482, 490

    Negroes, 63, 67, 80, 83, 89, 91, 96, 98, 107, 117, 135, 186, 220,
    288

    Nepalese, 415

    Nestorians, 423

    Nevajos, 525

    Niam-Niams, 47, 147, 440

    Nias, 216, 240

    Nicobarese, 396

    Niquirans, 536

    Nubians, 436

    Nuers, 445


    Odour of Negroes, Chinese, etc., 109

    Ojibwas, 526

    Olchas, 373

    Old men, the fate of, in primitive societies, their voluntary
    suicide, etc., 242

    Omahas, 530

    Oneidas, 527

    Onondagas, 527

    Oraons, 410

    Orbital index, 61-63

    Orochons, 374

    Oroks, 374

    Osages, 530

    Ossets, 111, 356, 421

    Otomis, 537

    Ottawas, 527


    Paharias, 415

    Pai-pi-bri, 451

    Palæ-American sub-race, 292, 512

    Palenbangs, 489

    Palkhpuluk, 415

    Pampeans, 571

    Panos, 559

    Papajos, 535

    Papuans, 483, 484, 493-497

    Parsis, 419, 420

    Pashtu, 420

    Passumahs, 489

    Patagonians, 574

    Pawnees, 530

    Pelvic index, 84

    Pepo-hoan, 391

    Persians, 419

    Peruvians, 67, 85

    Physiological characters, functions of nutrition and assimilation,
    respiration and circulation, reproduction, etc., 105-120

    Pictography, 137-140

    Pigmentation, race variations of, 46;
      ten principal shades of colour of skin, 47;
      pigmentation of the iris, 48;
      three fundamental shades of the iris, 49;
      colour of the eye in different races, 49;
      colouring of the hair, 49;
      four principal shades, 49;
      pigmentation at birth, 50;
      absence of pigment, 51

    Pigmies, 455

    Pimas, 535

    _Pithecanthropus erectus_, 360

    Politeness, rules of.--“Exchanging blood,” salutations, etc.,
    254-255

    Polyandry, 235

    Polygamy and monogamy, the patriarchate, 237

    Polymorphism, 5

    Polynesians, 47, 63, 85, 87, 91, 112, 204, 206, 500

    Ponkas, 530

    Pottery-making, modelling, moulding, and coiling methods of, 154,
    155

    Prehistoric “finds” in Africa, 427; in Oceania, 475

    Promiscuity, 231

    Property, systems under which held, collective, family, individual,
    245-247

    Psychological and Pathological characters, 121


    Quaternary age in Europe, 301

    Quaternary human remains in Europe, 309

    Quaternary man in Asia, 361

    Quechuas, 547


    Race, in what manner term applied, 8

    Rejangs, 489

    Religion--animism, fetichism, worship of natural objects
    and phenomena, religion and morality, rites and ceremonies,
    priesthoods, 214-223

    Respiration among uncivilised peoples and among Europeans, 108

    Right and justice, the power of taboo, vendetta, ordeals,
    oath-taking, extra-legal judges, etc., 252-254

    Russians, 111, 167, 344


    Sakai, 397

    Sakalavas, 470

    Salishans, 532

    Samarai, 495

    Samoans, 504

    Santals (Sonthals), 114, 409

    Sartes, 376, 419

    Savaras (Saoras), 409

    Scandinavians, 47, 186, 220, 228

    Scapular index, 85

    Sciences, primitive--knowledge of numbers, calculation of time,
    calendars and clocks, geography and cartography, 223-228

    Selungs, 396

    Senecas, 527

    Sexes, relation of, before marriage, 229

    Shans, 401

    Shawnees, 526

    Shield, evolution of the, 266-269

    Shiluks, 445

    Shuvashes, 376

    Siamese, 402

    Sikanese, 492

    Singhalese, 416

    Siouans, 528

    Skeleton of trunk and limbs, differentiative racial characters of,
    83, 93

    Skin, structure of the, 34;
      differences according to race, 36

    Skull, comparison of human skull and that of anthropoid apes, 18, 19

    Slavs, 59, 323, 343

    Social groups, stages of, conditions of progress of, classification
    of “states of civilisation,” 123-127

    Social organisation, under group marriage, totemism, clan rule,
    247-248

    Somalis, 438

    Somatological units, 3

    Soninké, 449

    Sonoran-Aztecs, 535

    Sonrhays, 447

    Sonthals, 114, 409

    Spaniols, 425

    Species, what constitutes, 5-8

    Spine, curvature of, in the _Cercopithecidæ_, in the anthropoid
    apes, in man, 13, 14

    Staff messages, 135

    “States of civilisation,” classification of, 127

    Stature, variations of, at birth, 25;
      average heights of different populations, 25;
      limits of stature, giantism, dwarfism, 27-31;
      influence of environment on stature, 31, 32;
      stature of men and women compared, 33

    Steatopygia, 93

    Stone and metal ages in Asia, 362-365

    Sundanese, 489

    Swazi, 465

    Syrians, 423


    Taboo, 252

    Tagals, 491

    Tails, pretended existence of men with, 95

    Tajiks, 419

    Takhtaji, 423

    Takullies, 524

    Talamancas, 545

    Tamils, 411

    Taranchi, 375

    Tarascos, 537

    Tasmanians, 482

    Tatars, 367, 375, 376

    Tecunas, 561

    Teguments, in man and apes, 22

    Tehuelches, 574

    Teleuts, 375

    Telingas, 411

    Tenggerese, 496

    Tent, origin and development of, 163, 164

    Territorial organisation, 249

    Tertiary man in Europe, 300

    Thai, 76, 400

    Thibetans, 43, 380, 381

    Thos-Muong, 401

    Tinné, 524

    Tlinkits, 110, 292, 532

    Todas, 411

    Toes and fingers of man and of anthropoid apes, 20, 21

    Tombo, 447

    Tonga, 465

    Tools of primitive industry, methods of making stone implements,
    etc., 184-188

    Totonacs, 536, 537

    Toucouleur, 450

    Transport and means of communication--primitive vehicles, sledges,
    chariots, etc., 275-277

    Trumai, 566

    Trunk and limbs of living subject, racial characters of, 93

    Tsimshians, 532

    Tuaregs, 434

    Tubas, 444

    Tula Dariens, 549

    Tulus, 411

    Tunguses, 246, 373

    Tupi-Guarani, 562, 567

    Turkomans, 376

    Turks, 59, 293, 365, 377

    Tyrolese, 59

    Tziam, 394


    Ugrians, 293, 365, 521

    Ulvas, 541

    United States, white population of, 508

    Uzbegs, 376


    Veddahs, 85, 87, 91, 145, 157, 159, 270, 417

    Vei, 449


    Wagogo, 464

    Wahabits, 423

    Wakamba, 464

    Wakguro, 464

    Wambutti, 454

    Wapokompo, 464

    Wataita, 464

    Weapons of offence and defence, clubs, missile weapons, boomerangs,
    the bow and arrow, methods of arrow release, shields, protective
    armour, 257-269

    Wichitas, 530


    Yakuts, 375

    Yamas, 554

    Yasafzais, 420

    Yeniseians or Tubas, 366

    Yeshkhun, 413

    Yezides, 423

    Yolofs, 450

    Yorubas, 453

    Yukagirs, 370

    Yumas, 533


    Zaparos, 561

    Zapotecs, 537

    Zoques, 538

    Zulus, 465

    Zuñis, 155, 225, 534


THE END.


THE WALTER SCOTT PRESS, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE



Footnotes:

[Footnote 1: In these ethnic groups there may further be distinguished
several subdivisions due to the diversity of manners, customs, etc.;
or, in the groups with a more complicated social organisation, yet
other social groups--priests, magistrates, miners, peasants, having
each his particular “social type.”]

[Footnote 2: Naegeli, _Mechanisch-Physiol. Theorie der
Abstammungslehre_, Munich, 1883.]

[Footnote 3: The most recent definitions of species given by Wallace
and Romanes approximate closely to that of Cuvier. Eimer has suggested
another, based solely on the physiological criterion. His definition
has the advantage of covering cases of _polymorphism_, in which the
female gives birth to two or several individuals so unlike that we
should not hesitate to classify them in two species if guided only by
morphology.]

[Footnote 4: See on this point, Y. Delage, _L’Hérédité_, pp. 252 _et
seq._ Paris, 1895.]

[Footnote 5: The question is summed up by Darwin, _Descent of Man_,
vol. i., p. 264, 2nd edition. London, 1888.]

[Footnote 6: In questions of hybridity, it must be observed, we often
confound the notions of “race” and “people,” or “social class,” and we
have to be on our guard against information drawn from statistics. Thus
in Central America we consider “hybrids” all those descendants of the
Spaniards and the Indians who have adopted the semi-European manner
of life and the Catholic religion, without inquiring whether or not
this physical type has reverted to that of one of the ancestors--a not
infrequent occurrence.]

[Footnote 7: Darwin, _loc. cit._, vol. i., p. 280.]

[Footnote 8: Such is, for example, the scheme of Topinard, consisting
of two double parts (_Elements d’Anthropologie_, p. 216, Paris, 1885),
to which corresponds the system newly propounded by Em. Schmidt
(_Centralblatt für Anthropologie, etc._, vol. ii., p. 97, Breslau,
1897). The last-mentioned admits in reality two divisions, Ethnography
and Ethnology, in what he calls Ethnic Anthropology; and two others,
Phylography and Phylology, in what he names Somatic Anthropology. The
two last divisions correspond to the Special Anthropology and the
General Anthropology of Topinard.]

[Footnote 9: If we include the Lemurs in the order of Primates, the
five families just enumerated are all included in a “sub-order,” that
of _Anthropoidea_. (See, for further details, Flower and Lydekker,
_Introduction to the Study of Mammals Living and Extinct_, London,
1891.)]

[Footnote 10: J. H. Kohlbrugge, “Versuch einer Anatomie ... Hylobates,”
_Zoolog. Ergeb. einer Reise in Ned. Ind., von M. Weber_, vols. i. and
ii. Leyden, 1891.]

[Footnote 11: D. J. Cunningham, “The Lumbar Curve in Man and the Apes,”
_Cunningham Memoirs of the Royal Irish Academy_, No. II., Dublin, 1886.]

[Footnote 12: J. Ranke, “Ueber die aufrechte Körperhaltung, etc.,”
_Corr.-Bl. der deutsch. Gesell. f. Anthr._, 1895, p. 154.]

[Footnote 13: The enormous development of the laryngeal sacs in the
orang-utan is perhaps also in harmony with this protective function, as
I have shown in a special work. See Deniker and Boulart, “Notes anat.
sur ... orang-utans,” _Nouv. Arch. Mus. d’hist. nat. de Paris_, 3rd
Series, vol. vii., p. 47, 1895.]

[Footnote 14: R. Munro, “On Interm. Links, etc.,” _Proceed. Roy.
Soc. Edinb._, vol. xxi. (1896-97), No. 4, p. 349, and _Prehistoric
Problems_, pp. 87 and 165, Edin.-Lond. 1897; Turner, Pres. Address
Brit. Assoc., Toronto Meeting, _Nature_, Sept. 1897.]

[Footnote 15: Topinard, _L’homme dans la Nature_, p. 214. Paris, 1891.]

[Footnote 16: Deniker and Boulart, _loc. cit._, p. 55.]

[Footnote 17: Boyd, “Table of Weights of the Human Body, etc.,”
_Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London_, 1861; Bischoff, _Das Hirngewicht
der Menschen_, Bonn, 1880. The difference remains nearly the same
if, instead of the weight of the body, we take its surface, as was
attempted by E. Dubois (_Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris_, p. 337, 1897).]

[Footnote 18: For further details about this plane, see p. 59.]

[Footnote 19: See on this subject the interesting study of Dr. Török in
the _Centralblatt für Anthropologie, etc._, directed by Buschan, 1st
year, 1896, No. 3.]

[Footnote 20: Pfitzner, “Die kleine Zehe,” _Arch. f. Anat. u. Phys._,
1890.]

[Footnote 21: Bell, _The Naturalist in Nicaragua_, p. 209, 1874;
Shevyref, “Parasites of the Skin, etc.,” _Works Soc. of Naturalists_,
St. Petersburg, 1891, in Russian.]

[Footnote 22: Walter Kidd, “Certain Vestigial Characters in Man,”
_Nature_, 1897, vol. lv., p. 237.]

[Footnote 23: See for further details Deniker, _Recherches anatom. et
embryol. sur les singes anthropoides_, Paris and Poitiers, 1886 (Extr.
from _Arch. de Zool. experim._, 30 ser., vol. iii., supp., 1885-86).]

[Footnote 24: Deniker, “Les Races de l’Europe,” _Bull. Soc. Anthr.
Paris_, p. 29, 1897.]

[Footnote 25: Joest, _Verh. Berl. gesell. Anthr._, p. 450, 1887;
Topinard, _Elem. Anthr. gén._, p. 436.]

[Footnote 26: Manouvrier, _Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris_, p. 264, 1896.]

[Footnote 27: B. A. Gould, _Investigations in the Milit. and Anthrop.
Statistics of American Soldiers_, New York, 1869.]

[Footnote 28: Final Report of the Anthropometric Committee, Brit. Ass.,
1883.]

[Footnote 29: Pagliani, _Lo sviluppo umano per età, etc._ Milan, 1879.]

[Footnote 30: These figures differ from those up to the present given
in most works, according to Topinard (_Elem. Anthro. gén._, p. 462),
who fixes the limits between 1 m. 44 (Bushmen of the Cape) and 1 m. 85
(Patagonians), but the first of these figures is that of a series of
six subjects only, measured by Fritsch, and the second the average of
ten subjects measured by Lista and Moreno. This is insufficient, and
since the publication of Topinard’s work we have only been able to add
a few isolated observations concerning those interesting populations
the actual height of which is still to be determined.]

[Footnote 31: Topinard, _Elem. Anthr. gén._, p. 463.]

[Footnote 32: _Final Report Brit. Assoc._, 1883, p. 17.]

[Footnote 33: Beddoe, _The Stature and Bulk of Man in the Brit. Isles_,
pp. 148 _et seq._ London, 1870.]

[Footnote 34: Houzé, _Bull. Soc. Anthr. Bruxelles_, 1887; Roberts,
_A Manual of Anthropometry_, London, 1878, and _Jour. Stat. Soc._,
London, 1876; Anuchin, “O geograficheskom, etc.,” _Geograph. Distrib.
of Stature in Russia_, St. Petersburg, 1889; Erisman, _Arch. f. soz.
gesetzgeb._, Tübingen, 1888.]

[Footnote 35: Collignon, “L’Anthropologie au conseil de révision,”
_Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris_, 1890, p. 764.]

[Footnote 36: Ammon, _Die Natur. Auslese beim Menschen_, Jena, 1893;
Vacher de Lapouge, _Les selections sociales_, Paris, 1896; Beddoe,
_loc. cit._, p. 180; Ranke, _Der Mensch._, vol. ii., p. 109, Leipzig,
1887.]

[Footnote 37: Boas (_Zeit. f. Ethnol._, 1895, p. 375) found, however,
in thirty-nine series of Indians the difference greater with tribes of
high stature (13.5 centimetres) than with tribes of low stature (9.9
centimetres).]

[Footnote 38: Rollet, _Mensurations des os longs, etc._, Lyons, 1889
(thesis).]

[Footnote 39: Manouvrier, _Mem. Soc. Anthro._, 2nd ser., vol. iv., p.
347, Paris, 1893.]

[Footnote 40: Rahon, _Mem. Soc. Anthro._, vol. iv., p. 403, Paris,
1893.]

[Footnote 41: Bischoff, _Sitzungsber. Mat. Phys. Cl. Bayr. Akad._,
Munich, 1882, pp. 243 and 356.]

[Footnote 42: Galton, _Finger Prints_. London, 1892.]

[Footnote 43: Haeckel, _Natur. Schöpfungsgeschichte_, 4th ed., p. 603.
Berlin, 1873.]

[Footnote 44: Pruner-Bey, “Chevelure comme caracterist. des races
hum.,” _Mem. Soc. Anthr._, vol. ii., p. 1, Paris, 1863; Latteux,
_Technique microscopique_, p. 239, Paris, 1883; Waldeyer, _Atlas der
Menschl. u. Thier Haare_, Lahr, 1894.]

[Footnote 45: Topinard, _Elem. Anthrop. gén._, p. 265; J. Ranke, _loc.
cit._, vol. ii., p. 172.]

[Footnote 46: Baelz, “Körperl. Eigensch. d. Japaner,” _Mitth. Deut.
Gesell. Nat. und Völkerk. Ostasiens_, vol. iii., fasc. 28, p. 330, and
vol. iv., fasc. 32, p. 39, Yokohama, 1883-85; Montano, _Mission aux
îles Philippines_, Paris, 1885 (Extr. from _Arch. Miss. Scient._, 3rd
series, vol. xi.).]

[Footnote 47: P. S. Unna, “Ueber das Haar als Rassenmerkmal,” _Deutsche
Med. Zeit._, 1896, Nos. 82 and 83.]

[Footnote 48: See Stewart, _Microsc. Journ._, 1873, p. 54; and T.
Anderson Stuart, _Journ. Anat. Phys._, 1881-82, xvi., p. 362.]

[Footnote 49: B. A. Gould, _loc. cit._, p. 562.]

[Footnote 50: Breul, “Vertheil. d. Hautpigments bei verschied.
Menschenrassen,” _Morph. Arb._, directed by G. Schwalbe, vol. vi., part
3. Jena, 1896.]

[Footnote 51: Broca, _Instructions génér. pour les rech.
Anthropologiques sur le vivant_, 2nd ed., Paris, 1879.]

[Footnote 52: J. G. Garson and Ch. H. Read, _Notes and Queries on
Anthropology_, edit. for the Anthro. Institute, 2nd ed., London, 1892.]

[Footnote 53: Fair hair with all its shades is met with especially
among the European populations of the North; it is rarer in the
South. There are, it is computed, 16 fair-haired individuals to every
100 Scotchmen; 13 to every 100 Englishmen; and 2 only to every 100
Italians (Beddoe). On the other hand, brown hair is met with in 75
cases out of 100 Spaniards, 39 out of 100 Frenchmen, and 16 only of 100
Scandinavians (Gould). The fair variety is rarer among straight-haired
races; it is found, however, among the western Finns, among certain
Russians, etc.]

[Footnote 54: Baelz, _loc. cit._, vol. iv., p. 40; Matignon, _Bull.
Soc. Anthr._, p. 524, Paris, 1896; Collignon, _ibid._, p. 528;
Sören-Hansen, _Bidrag Vestgrönl. Anthr._, Copenhagen, 1893; Extr. from
_Meddel. om Grönl._, vol. vii., p. 237.]

[Footnote 55: Havelock Ellis, _Man and Woman_, p. 223. London, 1897.]

[Footnote 56: These characters, in conjunction with several others--the
small development of the lower jaw-bone, the frontal sinuses poorly
developed, the much greater development of the cranial vault
proportionately to its base, the persistence of the frontal and
parietal bumps--make the feminine skull approximate to the infantile
form. See the works of Broca, Manouvrier, and also Rabentisch, _Der
Weiberschädel, Morpholog. Arb._, Schwalbe, 1892, vol. ii., p. 207; and
H. Ellis, _loc. cit._, p. 72.]

[Footnote 57: H. Ellis, _loc. cit._, p. 89 and onwards; L. Manouvrier,
article “Cerveau” in the _Dict. de Physiol. de Ch. Richet_, vol. ii.,
part 8, Paris, 1897.]

[Footnote 58: According to the quinary nomenclature adopted in many
countries of Europe, the indices are grouped by series of five:
dolichocephalic from 70 to 74.9; mesocephalic from 75 to 79.9;
brachycephalic from 80 to 84.9; hyper-brachycephalic from 85 to 89.9.
The two systems might be combined with advantage, as I proposed ten
years ago, under the following nomenclature, which I have adopted
in this work:--Cephalic index of the skull: From 69.9 and under,
h