Locality.—Hesse, conterminous with the Franks, Saxons, and Thuringians.Descent.—The Catti.
Locality.—Hesse, conterminous with the Franks, Saxons, and Thuringians.
Descent.—The Catti.
And after these the—
Area.—Bounded, east and west, by the rivers Werra and Saal, the latter a Slavono-Germanic limit. In its southern extension, probably, passing into some language representing the Mœso-Gothic.
Area.—Bounded, east and west, by the rivers Werra and Saal, the latter a Slavono-Germanic limit. In its southern extension, probably, passing into some language representing the Mœso-Gothic.
Conterminous with the Hessians on the west, either a nation, or a confederacy, and transitional between the High and Low Germans; the—
Language.—More Dutch than Saxon or Frisian, and (perhaps) more High German than Dutch.Area.—Indeterminate, but ethnologically bounded by those of the Batavians,Old Saxons, and High Germans.Encroaching; being that of the population which either displaced or incorporated the Old and the Hanoverian Saxons, as well as the greater part of the Slavonians of the Elbe.Descent.—Usipetes, Ripuarii, Sicambri.
Language.—More Dutch than Saxon or Frisian, and (perhaps) more High German than Dutch.
Area.—Indeterminate, but ethnologically bounded by those of the Batavians,Old Saxons, and High Germans.Encroaching; being that of the population which either displaced or incorporated the Old and the Hanoverian Saxons, as well as the greater part of the Slavonians of the Elbe.
Descent.—Usipetes, Ripuarii, Sicambri.
Languages.—With the plural forms generally ending in-a, or-srather than-n.Area.—The Lower Rhine, Ems, Weser; the Elbe near its mouth.Divisions.—1. Batavians. 2. Saxons, 3. Frisians.
Languages.—With the plural forms generally ending in-a, or-srather than-n.
Area.—The Lower Rhine, Ems, Weser; the Elbe near its mouth.
Divisions.—1. Batavians. 2. Saxons, 3. Frisians.
Locality.—HollandminusFriesland.Language.—Low German, with the plurals ending in-n, rather than-s,-a, or-r.Descent.—From the Batavi, Chamavi, Tubantes, Salii(?), Caninifates.
Locality.—HollandminusFriesland.
Language.—Low German, with the plurals ending in-n, rather than-s,-a, or-r.
Descent.—From the Batavi, Chamavi, Tubantes, Salii(?), Caninifates.
Language.—Forming the infinitive mood in-an(not in-a), certain plurals in-as(not in-n), and the plural of the present tense in-þ(not in-n, or-a).Divisions.—1.Nordalbingians(=north of the Elbe) of Holstein. Most probably Saxons. Extinct, or incorporated.2.Saxons of Hanover.—Extinct, or incorporated in Germany. The Anglo-Saxons of England.3.Saxons of Osnaburg and Westphalia.—Extinct or incorporated. Descendants of the Cherusci.
Language.—Forming the infinitive mood in-an(not in-a), certain plurals in-as(not in-n), and the plural of the present tense in-þ(not in-n, or-a).
Divisions.—1.Nordalbingians(=north of the Elbe) of Holstein. Most probably Saxons. Extinct, or incorporated.
2.Saxons of Hanover.—Extinct, or incorporated in Germany. The Anglo-Saxons of England.
3.Saxons of Osnaburg and Westphalia.—Extinct or incorporated. Descendants of the Cherusci.
Language.—Low German, with the infinitives ending in-a.Physical appearance.—Preeminently of the first type.Divisions and localities.—1. West Frisians, of Friesland and Groningen; the latter speaking the Dutch of Holland. Descendants of the Frisii.2. East Frisians of East Friesland, Oldenburg, and Hanover.Language.—Except in Saterland, replaced by the German. Descent from the Chauci.3. North Frisians of Heligoland, and the parts about Husum and Bredsted, in Sleswick.
Language.—Low German, with the infinitives ending in-a.
Physical appearance.—Preeminently of the first type.
Divisions and localities.—1. West Frisians, of Friesland and Groningen; the latter speaking the Dutch of Holland. Descendants of the Frisii.
2. East Frisians of East Friesland, Oldenburg, and Hanover.
Language.—Except in Saterland, replaced by the German. Descent from the Chauci.
3. North Frisians of Heligoland, and the parts about Husum and Bredsted, in Sleswick.
The date of the occupancy of the North Frisians is uncertain. Probably, they are emigrants from Hanoverian Friesland rather than aborigines.
The Frisian is the most unmixed, and typical portion of the Gothic population. It is also transitional between the Teutons and the—
Area.—Denmark and Scandinavia.Languages.—With a middle voice, and with the definite article incorporatedwith, and appended to, its noun. (Thus, whilstsol=sunandbord=table,hin=thefor the masculine, andhitt=thefor the neuter gender,sol-en=the sun, andbord-et=the table.)Divisions more or less artificial.—1. Icelander. 2. Feroe Islanders. 3. Norwegians. 4. Swedes. 5. Danes.
Area.—Denmark and Scandinavia.
Languages.—With a middle voice, and with the definite article incorporatedwith, and appended to, its noun. (Thus, whilstsol=sunandbord=table,hin=thefor the masculine, andhitt=thefor the neuter gender,sol-en=the sun, andbord-et=the table.)
Divisions more or less artificial.—1. Icelander. 2. Feroe Islanders. 3. Norwegians. 4. Swedes. 5. Danes.
What is the import of the differences just indicated between the Scandinavian tongues and the Teutonic; are they of such slow growth as to denote a very early separation of the Dane and Swede from the Northern German, or might they be evolved in a comparatively short space of time? The answer to this involves the question as to date of the Scandinavian migration into the parts north of the Eyder.
My own opinion is that a common mother-tongue might,within the space of a few centuries, develop itself into the languages represented by the present Frisian on the South, and the Scandinavian dialects on the North respectively. If so, the Gothic occupation of the Scandinavian area need not amount to any very remote antiquity. Probably, I am singular in this opinion. It will be noticed again within a few pages.[188]
As this class comprises the Lithuanic as well as Slavonic members of the so-called Indo-European class, the termSarmatianhas been preferred to either of the more sectional denominations.
Physical conformation.—According to Retzius, brakhykephalic rather than dolikhokephalic, Indo-Germans. In many cases approaching the Turanian type.Intermixture.—Turanian, arising from the so-called Tartar invasions. How far the Tartar intermixture coincides with the brakhykephalic formation of the cranium requires investigation.Extent of area.—West and east from (about) 10° to (about) 40° west latitude. From (about) 40° north latitude to (about) 60° north latitude.Primary divisions.—1. Lithuanians. 2. Slavonians (Slaves).
Physical conformation.—According to Retzius, brakhykephalic rather than dolikhokephalic, Indo-Germans. In many cases approaching the Turanian type.
Intermixture.—Turanian, arising from the so-called Tartar invasions. How far the Tartar intermixture coincides with the brakhykephalic formation of the cranium requires investigation.
Extent of area.—West and east from (about) 10° to (about) 40° west latitude. From (about) 40° north latitude to (about) 60° north latitude.
Primary divisions.—1. Lithuanians. 2. Slavonians (Slaves).
The point most open to objection in the present section is extent, to which theoriginalarea of the Sarmatians is brought westwards.
Philological Divisions.—1.Prussian(orOldPrussian).—Dialects of Samland, Nattangen, Tolkemir—Extinct, and known only through a pater-noster and a vocabulary ofA.D.1521, a catechism ofA.D.1545, and a pater-noster ofA.D.1561. Spoken in West and East Prussia from (there or thereabouts) the Vistula to the Pregel.2.Lithuanic.—Spoken from the Pregel to the frontier of Courland.—Dialects of Insterburg and Nadrau in Prussia, and the Shamaitic dialect in Polish Lithuania.3.Lettish.—Courland, Southern Livonia, parts of Wilna, and Witepsk.—Dialects—numerous,i.e.for the parts about Liebau (corrupt), Mittau (pure), Riga (pure), Dunaburg (corrupt).Descent.—A.From nations of tribes of the Middle Ages—a.The Galanditæ, Sudowitæ, Pomerani, Pogesani, Warmienses (Hermini, Jarmenses), Nattangi, Barthi, Nadrovitæ, Sambitæ, Scalovitæ.b.Jaswingi, Pollexiani.c.Lettones, Samogitæ, Semgalli, Carsowitæ.d.Curi (Curanii), Lami (Lamonii), Lettgalli (Letti), Ydumei, Selones,—Zeuss, pp. 674—683.B.From the nations or tribes of classical antiquity.—The Ὠστίωνες of Stephanus Byzantinus=the Ὠστίαιοι of Artemidorus= the Κόσσινοι of Pytheas=the Gothones (Guttones) of Tacitus; the Lemovii.Pantheon.—Perkunos, Potrimpos, Picollos.Native name of a certain section.—Guddon (=Guttones).
Philological Divisions.—1.Prussian(orOldPrussian).—Dialects of Samland, Nattangen, Tolkemir—Extinct, and known only through a pater-noster and a vocabulary ofA.D.1521, a catechism ofA.D.1545, and a pater-noster ofA.D.1561. Spoken in West and East Prussia from (there or thereabouts) the Vistula to the Pregel.
2.Lithuanic.—Spoken from the Pregel to the frontier of Courland.—Dialects of Insterburg and Nadrau in Prussia, and the Shamaitic dialect in Polish Lithuania.
3.Lettish.—Courland, Southern Livonia, parts of Wilna, and Witepsk.—Dialects—numerous,i.e.for the parts about Liebau (corrupt), Mittau (pure), Riga (pure), Dunaburg (corrupt).
Descent.—A.From nations of tribes of the Middle Ages—
a.The Galanditæ, Sudowitæ, Pomerani, Pogesani, Warmienses (Hermini, Jarmenses), Nattangi, Barthi, Nadrovitæ, Sambitæ, Scalovitæ.
b.Jaswingi, Pollexiani.
c.Lettones, Samogitæ, Semgalli, Carsowitæ.
d.Curi (Curanii), Lami (Lamonii), Lettgalli (Letti), Ydumei, Selones,—Zeuss, pp. 674—683.
B.From the nations or tribes of classical antiquity.—The Ὠστίωνες of Stephanus Byzantinus=the Ὠστίαιοι of Artemidorus= the Κόσσινοι of Pytheas=the Gothones (Guttones) of Tacitus; the Lemovii.
Pantheon.—Perkunos, Potrimpos, Picollos.
Native name of a certain section.—Guddon (=Guttones).
The main points connected with the Lithuanian branch of the Sarmatian stock are the following:—
1. Of all the Iapetidæ they preserved their original paganism the longest.
2. Of all the Iapetidæ they have had the least influence on the history of mankind.
3. Of all the Iapetidæ they speak a language nearest in structure to the Sanskrit. It is the latter fact which has given prominence to thePhilological Divisionsof so important a tongue.
Prominence, too, has been given to their relations in the way of descent, since the denial of the existence of anynations, other than Sarmatian, as occupants of the water-systems of either the Vistula or the Oder, anterior to the tenth century, notwithstanding the numerous statements as to the occurrence of Gothic tribes in the present countries of Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Prussia, Courland, and even Esthonia, is a point to which I have no hesitation in committing myself; a series of papers upon the subject being in the course of delivery and publication, for the Philological Society.
Furthermore, whoever will so far divest himself of his prepossessions as to admit the possibility of theJuteofJutland, and theGothofGothland being something other thanGothicin the usual sense of the term, will find that no provisional hypothesis will explain so many of the difficulties created by the conflicting evidence involved in the termsJute,Eote,Goth,Reid-Goth,Gaut, &c., as that of anextension of the Lithuanian Vitæ, or Guttones, to the southern parts of Sweden and to Jutland.
I say, LithuanianVitæandGuttones, because whatever may be the value of other supposed applications of the rootsGoth-,Jut-, andVit-, the only families to which any of them have undeniably been brought home as a native name are the Lithuanic.
Besides this, I am so far from attributing either an over-high antiquity, or a preeminent independence of origin to the Scandinavian mythology, that I see in the GodYmer, the FinnicYumala, and in theFiorgyn, the LithuanicPerkunos.
Lastly, the combinationk-l-m(as in Kalmar) is not the only geographical root common to the two sides of the Baltic, Lithuanic and Swedish.
Still, the hypothesis is, at present, little beyond a mere suggestion.
Divisions.—A.Extent.—Chiefly philological. α. Russians. β. Servians, γ. Illyrians. δ. Tsheks. ε. Poles. ϛ. Serbs. ζ. Polabi.B.Extinct or incorporate, but undoubtedly Slavonic.—The Slavonians of Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Uckermark, Altmark, Luneburg, Holstein, &c.C.—Extinct or incorporate, but not undoubted Slavonic.—The following nations of antiquity.—1. Scoloti (Σκόλοτοι), Getæ, Daci, Thracians, Pannonians, original inhabitants of Noricum and Dalmatia, Crobyzi (whenceChrobatiandCroatian), &c.Descent.—a.From nationsand tribes mentioned by the authors of Classical Antiquity.—Thracians (?), Getæ(?), Daci(?), Pannonii(?), Iazyges, Limigantes, Quadi, Ligii (Lekhs=Poles), Silingæ, Bastarnæ, Suardones, Rugii, Buri, Sciri, Turcilingi, Venedæ, &c.b.From nations and tribes mentioned by Slavonic authors.—Morawa (Moravians), Czeczi (Bohemians), Chorwati bjelii (= White Croatians), Serb', Chorutane (Carantanians), Ljachowe (Lekhs=Poles), Luticzi, Masowszane (Masovians), Pomoranje (Pomeranians), Derewljane, Poloczane (probably Lithuanians), Sjewera, Radimeczi, Wjaticzi.—Zeuss.Earliest introduction of Christianity.—The eighth century.Pagan Pantheon.—a.Of the Middle Age writers.—Veli-bog=White God, Czerne-bog (Tshernibog)=Black God, Perown, Sviatowit (Swantevit), Radegast, Vitislav, Krasopani, Pogwist, Jessa, Laicon, Nia, Marzana, Zievonia, Lelus, Potetus, Liadu, Djedijielia, Pogoda.b.Of the Classical writers.—Zamolxis, Gebeleixis(?).
Divisions.—A.Extent.—Chiefly philological. α. Russians. β. Servians, γ. Illyrians. δ. Tsheks. ε. Poles. ϛ. Serbs. ζ. Polabi.
B.Extinct or incorporate, but undoubtedly Slavonic.—The Slavonians of Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Uckermark, Altmark, Luneburg, Holstein, &c.
C.—Extinct or incorporate, but not undoubted Slavonic.—The following nations of antiquity.—1. Scoloti (Σκόλοτοι), Getæ, Daci, Thracians, Pannonians, original inhabitants of Noricum and Dalmatia, Crobyzi (whenceChrobatiandCroatian), &c.
Descent.—a.From nationsand tribes mentioned by the authors of Classical Antiquity.—Thracians (?), Getæ(?), Daci(?), Pannonii(?), Iazyges, Limigantes, Quadi, Ligii (Lekhs=Poles), Silingæ, Bastarnæ, Suardones, Rugii, Buri, Sciri, Turcilingi, Venedæ, &c.
b.From nations and tribes mentioned by Slavonic authors.—Morawa (Moravians), Czeczi (Bohemians), Chorwati bjelii (= White Croatians), Serb', Chorutane (Carantanians), Ljachowe (Lekhs=Poles), Luticzi, Masowszane (Masovians), Pomoranje (Pomeranians), Derewljane, Poloczane (probably Lithuanians), Sjewera, Radimeczi, Wjaticzi.—Zeuss.
Earliest introduction of Christianity.—The eighth century.
Pagan Pantheon.—a.Of the Middle Age writers.—Veli-bog=White God, Czerne-bog (Tshernibog)=Black God, Perown, Sviatowit (Swantevit), Radegast, Vitislav, Krasopani, Pogwist, Jessa, Laicon, Nia, Marzana, Zievonia, Lelus, Potetus, Liadu, Djedijielia, Pogoda.
b.Of the Classical writers.—Zamolxis, Gebeleixis(?).
Original area.—-Roughly speaking, the eastern part of the water-system of the Dnieper.Conterminous with—a.Lithuanians on the Middle Pripet, and Upper Duna (i.e.in Mensk and Viteskp).b.Ugrians along the Valdai range, and on the Oka.c.Ugrians, Turks, or Caucasian, south-east.Dialects.—a.Russian Proper,b.Susdalian, spoken in the government of Moscow.c.Olonetz.d.Malo-Russian (Little Russian) of the Ukraine, probably passing into thee.Russniak of Bukowina, Lodomir, and Gallicia andf.the White Russian of Volhynia.Alphabets.—Derived directly from the Old Slavonic, indirectly from the Greek.Christianity.—Greek Church. Introduced betweenA.D.980, andA.D.1015.
Original area.—-Roughly speaking, the eastern part of the water-system of the Dnieper.
Conterminous with—a.Lithuanians on the Middle Pripet, and Upper Duna (i.e.in Mensk and Viteskp).b.Ugrians along the Valdai range, and on the Oka.c.Ugrians, Turks, or Caucasian, south-east.
Dialects.—a.Russian Proper,b.Susdalian, spoken in the government of Moscow.c.Olonetz.d.Malo-Russian (Little Russian) of the Ukraine, probably passing into thee.Russniak of Bukowina, Lodomir, and Gallicia andf.the White Russian of Volhynia.
Alphabets.—Derived directly from the Old Slavonic, indirectly from the Greek.
Christianity.—Greek Church. Introduced betweenA.D.980, andA.D.1015.
Divisions.—1. Servians of Servia, Slavonia, Transylvania, and New Servia (a Russian colony on the Dnieper, settledA.D.1754).[189]2. Bosniaks of Bosnia andHerzegovina (Mahometans). 3. Dalmatians, Ragusans, and Montenegriners of Monte Negro, conterminous with the Albanians.Alphabet.—Old Slavonic, of Cyrillus and Methodius for Servia. Glagolitic for Dalmatia. Both of Greek origin.Christianity.—Greek Church. Introduced anterior to 800A.D.Old Slavonic, the church language.
Divisions.—1. Servians of Servia, Slavonia, Transylvania, and New Servia (a Russian colony on the Dnieper, settledA.D.1754).[189]2. Bosniaks of Bosnia andHerzegovina (Mahometans). 3. Dalmatians, Ragusans, and Montenegriners of Monte Negro, conterminous with the Albanians.
Alphabet.—Old Slavonic, of Cyrillus and Methodius for Servia. Glagolitic for Dalmatia. Both of Greek origin.
Christianity.—Greek Church. Introduced anterior to 800A.D.Old Slavonic, the church language.
Divisions.—a.Croatian.b.Slovenzi of Carinthia, Carniola, Steyermark, South-western Hungary.Alphabet.—Originally of Greek origin, or Glagolitic. Replaced by the Roman.Christianity.—Originally of the Greek Church; replaced by Romanism.
Divisions.—a.Croatian.b.Slovenzi of Carinthia, Carniola, Steyermark, South-western Hungary.
Alphabet.—Originally of Greek origin, or Glagolitic. Replaced by the Roman.
Christianity.—Originally of the Greek Church; replaced by Romanism.
Native name.—Tshekh (Czech)=foremost(?).Descent.—The WesternDaci(=Czech?).Divisions.—a.The Czesky Gazyk=Tshekh language of Bohemia.b.The Morawsky Gazyk=Moravian language of Moravia.c.Slovac, Upper Hungary,i.e.the water-systems of the rivers Waag and Gran.Alphabet.—Roman.Christianity.—Roman Catholic, introduced in the ninth century.
Native name.—Tshekh (Czech)=foremost(?).
Descent.—The WesternDaci(=Czech?).
Divisions.—a.The Czesky Gazyk=Tshekh language of Bohemia.b.The Morawsky Gazyk=Moravian language of Moravia.c.Slovac, Upper Hungary,i.e.the water-systems of the rivers Waag and Gran.
Alphabet.—Roman.
Christianity.—Roman Catholic, introduced in the ninth century.
Philological divisions.—1. Of Poland, Posen, and parts of Lithuania and Gallicia.2.Kassubic.—a.Of West Prussia.b.Pomerania.Descent.—From the Lygii of Tacitus.Alphabets.—Roman.Christianity.—Roman Catholic and Protestant.Native name of at least one tribe—Lekh, the term Pole, being the geographical rather than ethnological, and=level plains.
Philological divisions.—1. Of Poland, Posen, and parts of Lithuania and Gallicia.
2.Kassubic.—a.Of West Prussia.b.Pomerania.
Descent.—From the Lygii of Tacitus.
Alphabets.—Roman.
Christianity.—Roman Catholic and Protestant.
Native name of at least one tribe—Lekh, the term Pole, being the geographical rather than ethnological, and=level plains.
Localities and divisions.—a.The Sserske (a native name) of Lower,b.The Srbie (do) of Upper, Lusatia.Partial descent.—The Silingi.
Localities and divisions.—a.The Sserske (a native name) of Lower,b.The Srbie (do) of Upper, Lusatia.
Partial descent.—The Silingi.
The wordpo=on, andLabe=Elbe, so that the Polabic Slavonians means the Slavonians on the Elbe. The importance of this section arises from the fact that at the time of Charlemagne they were, with the exception of thetract occupied by the Saxons of Holstein, and the north-west part of Hanover, not only the occupants of Mecklenburg, and the partseastof that river, but of Lauenburg, Luneburg, Altmark, and a vast section of Germany to thewestof it.
To suppose that the Slavonic frontier was not equally extended westwards, in the eighth, seventh, sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second, or first centuries, is, in the first instance, to admit the accuracy of an author like Tacitus.
On the other hand, however, it involves the assumption of so vast an amount of migration, displacement, and other unlikely ethnological processes, that a writer who weighs conflicting probabilities is led to the conclusion that a great historian is more likely to be wrong in the ethnology of countries like Prussia and Poland—countries which could be known to Tacitus only as the interior of Africa can be known to Mr. Hallam or Macaulay—than that, betweenA.D.100, and 900, a whole Gothic population, extending from the Niemen to the Elbe, should have been replaced by a Slavonic one, without leaving a single trace of its existence in any intermediate locality; the same encroaching Slavonians, when we first find them mentioned by cotemporary historians, being themselves in a state of displacement by the same previously-displaced Germans.
This, however, is but a very general and superficial view of the difficulties that attend the belief that the Oder and Vistula were originally German. Nevertheless, it is all that room can be found for here.
As to the tribes themselves the chief were—
The Wagrians.—Occupants of the country between the Trave and the upper portion of the southern branch of the Eyder.
The Polabi.—Conterminal with the Wagrians and theSaxons of Sturmar, from whom they were separated by the river Bille.
The Obodriti.—This is a generic rather than a specific term. It means, however, the tribes between the Trave and the Warnow; chiefly along the coast. Zeuss makes Schwerin their most inland locality.
Varnahi.—This is the form which the name takes in Adam of Bremen. It is also that of the Varni, Varini and Veruni of the classical writers; as well as the Werini of the Introduction to theLeges Anglorum et Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum.
Linones.—Luneburg. Language spoken during the last century. Known through a pater-noster. Slavonic, modified by German.
Such are the chief western Slavonians of the time of Charlemagne. If they were not also the western Slavonians of the first and second centuries, they must have emigrated between the two periods;[190]"must have done so, not in parts but for the whole frontier; must have, for the first and last time, displaced a population which has ever been the conqueror rather than the conquered; must have displaced it during one of the strongest periods of its history; must have displaced it everywhere, and wholly; and (what is stranger still) that not permanently—since, from the time in question, these same Germans, who, betweenA.D.200 andA.D.800, always retreated before the Slavonians, have fromA.D.800 toA.D.1800, always reversed the process, and encroached upon their former dispossessors."
Physical conformation.—Dolikhokephalic, high facial angle; hair, eyes, and complexion, dark; frame, more slender than bulky.
Physical conformation.—Dolikhokephalic, high facial angle; hair, eyes, and complexion, dark; frame, more slender than bulky.
When we consider that the aborigines of Spain were Iberic, that they probably extended as far as the Rhone, and that the ancient Ligurians of the Gulf of Genoa are not absolutely known in respect to their ethnological relations, the apparent impropriety of restricting the termMediterraneanto the classical nations of Greece and Italy becomes diminished; to which it may be added that the undoubted civilizational influence of the land-and-water conditions of these two peninsulas requires some term to suggest it. The term, nevertheless, is open to amendment.
So much of what belongs to Greece and Italy is historical, that the brevity of the preceding and following notices may be excused.
Localities.—Greece and Italy.Area.—Discontinuous.Divisions.—1. The Hellenic branch. 2. The Italian (Ausonian) branch.Historical Influence.—Preeminently moral. Material as well.
Localities.—Greece and Italy.
Area.—Discontinuous.
Divisions.—1. The Hellenic branch. 2. The Italian (Ausonian) branch.
Historical Influence.—Preeminently moral. Material as well.
The discontinuity of the Greek and Italian areas is a difficulty which requires more investigation than it has met with, and is a purely ethnological question.
So is the archæological part of both the Greek and Roman ethnology,i.e.the relations of the Hellenes and Latins to the early inhabitants of their respective peninsulas.
So is the analysis of their present representatives,e. g.the question as to the amount of Slavonic, Italian, or Albanian blood in the modern Greek, or the determination of the Keltic, Roman, and Gothic elements amongst the French.
Of the sub-divisions of the—
the following classification is, perhaps, the most convenient; to which the previous arrangement of the ethnological elements intoa, the Original;b, the Roman; andc, the Superadded, gives precision.
1.Italians.—Original Elements—a, Samnite, Etruscan, Keltic(?), Ligurian, &c.;b, Roman of Rome;c, German.
2.Hesperians. (Spanish and Portuguese).—a, Iberian, Celtic(?);b, Roman of the time of the second Punic war;c, Gothic, Arabian.
3.French.—a, Celtic for the North, Iberian for the South;b, Roman, chiefly from the time of Cæsar;c, German.
4.Swiss of Graubündten.—a, Undetermined;b, Roman of an uncertain, though probably late, period;c, German.
5.Wallachians.—a, Undetermined; probably Slavonic;b, Roman of the time of Trajan;c, Turk (Hun, Comanian, and Bulgarian), Slavonic, German, Ottoman, Turk.
The whole of this class is hypothetical. Such as it is, however, it comprises the populations of Kurdistan, Persia, Beloochistan, Affghanistan, and Kafferistan.
In order to understand the complications which leave so large a section of the human species in an unsatisfactory ethnological position, a notice of the Sanskrit language, and of thehistory of opinionconcerning it, is necessary.
The language called Sanskrit has a grammar of the same copiousness and complexity as the Greek, and a vocabulary which places it in the Indo-European class of tongues.
It is the language of the religious and literary writings of theBrahminicalHindus; the Ramayana and Mahabharata (epic poems) being referred by Sanskrit scholars to the second centuryB.C.
A more archaic form of it is the language of the Vedas, referred by some Sanskrit scholars to 1400B.C.
A form said to approach the archaic character of the Veda. Sanskrit is the language of the arrow-headed inscriptions—so far as they are Persian; the date of these being the reign of Darius.
A form (the Pali)lessarchaic than the Sanskrit of the Mahabharata has been found upon inscriptions of the æra of the Seleucidæ in Babylon, and as such in records older than that of the Non-Vedaic Sanskrit literature.
The same Pali is the language of theBuddhistreligion and literature in India, in Ceylon, in the Trans-Gangetic Peninsula, in Tibet, and in the Sub-Himalayan range.
The Zend, a form closely allied to the proper Sanskrit is the language of the oldest Parsi religious books, the Zendavesta.
Lastly—The inscriptions upon the Indo-Bactrian coins of the successors of Alexander are either Sanskrit or nearly Sanskrit.
It is convenient in speaking of these several forms of speechas a class, to designate them by the term Iranian.
It is convenient, also, to indicate the extent to which the approach made by the Persepolitan of a period so late as the reign of Darius, to the Vedaic dialect,saidto be about one thousand years older, subtracts from the value of a common argument in favour of the antiquity of the Vedas,viz.the extent to which the language is more archaic than the Sanskrit of the Epics.
It is well too, to indicate as a further disturbance to the current opinions, the bearing of thePalicharacter of the inscriptions; whereby theoldestrecords are embodied in thenewestform of language.
All these, however, are subordinate questions; the main point being the enumeration of the Iranian Indo-Germans.
The Iranian Indo-Germans are those nations and tribes,whatever they may be, who are descended from the speakers of the Iranian languages—be they Sanskrit Proper, the Sanskrit of the Vedas, Pali, Zend, or Persepolitan; languages, which, it must be observed, are, in the present state of our inquiry,deadlanguages.
What, then, are these tribes and nations? The answer to this gives us the Iranian Indo-Germans.
When the Sanskrit literature of India first commanded attention, the answer to this question was—allthe nations of Hindostan.
The first researches (those of Ellis and others) upon the languages of southern India showed that the Tamul tongues, at least, were not in this category.
Further researches (those of Dr. Stevenson and others) gave reasons for making the Mahratta language Tamul rather than Iranian—not that thevocabularywas not Sanskritic, but that thegrammarwas such as could never have been evolved out of the grammar of that tongue.
Prominence being thus given to the non-Sanskritic character of the grammar of one Indo-Gangetic language, the undeniable fact of a vast per-centage of the vocables being Sanskrit, fell in value, as a sign of philological relation.
Thence came an application of the criticism which had unfixed the Mahratta language to the other (apparently) more undoubtedly Iranian dialects of Northern India—the Udiya, the Gujerati, the Hindi, and the Bengali.
The present writer believes that it unfixes these also; an opinion to which he has been led quite as much by what has been said by the defenders as by what has been said by the impugners of their Sanskritic origin. It is not likely any better case will be made out for this, than the one contained in a very able Dissertation of Dr. MaxMüllers.[191]Yet it is so unsatisfactory, that it almost proves the question the other way.
Now all this goes to show that Iranian Indo-Germans are not to be looked for in India; except, of course, as a foreign element to the originally Tamul population.
Whether they are to be looked for elsewhere, and (if anywhere) in what quarters, follows the notice of the—
Physical conformation.—Cranium, dolikhokephalic; complexion, varied, fair with the mountaineer tribes, dark with those of the sandy deserts of the south; features, sometimes regular and delicate, sometimes bold and prominent; in the one case approaching the character of the high-caste Indians, in the other Semitic or sub-Semitic.Area.—Persia, Beloochistan, Affghanistan, Bokhara, Kafferistan.Languages.—Undeniably Sanskrit in respect to a great per centage of the vocables.Notundeniably Sanskrit in respect to their grammatical structure.
Physical conformation.—Cranium, dolikhokephalic; complexion, varied, fair with the mountaineer tribes, dark with those of the sandy deserts of the south; features, sometimes regular and delicate, sometimes bold and prominent; in the one case approaching the character of the high-caste Indians, in the other Semitic or sub-Semitic.
Area.—Persia, Beloochistan, Affghanistan, Bokhara, Kafferistan.
Languages.—Undeniably Sanskrit in respect to a great per centage of the vocables.Notundeniably Sanskrit in respect to their grammatical structure.
The last sentence contains the reason for the provisional character of the present classification. The criticism, or rather scepticism, which has been extended by others to the Indo-Gangetic languages of Hindostan, is extended by the present writer to the Persian.
If so—the nation that is at one and the same time Asiatic and Indo-Germanic, remains to be discovered; it being remembered that it is only Indo-Germanic through its relations with the speakers of the Sanskrit.
The divisions (more or less artificial) of the Persian family are—
1.The Persians of Northern and Western Persia.—Mahometans. Occupants of elevated plateaux, the alluvial banks of great rivers being exceptional.
2.The Kurds of Kurdistan.—Mountaineers. Mahometans.
3.The Beluchi of Beloochistan.—Dark-complexioned, occupants of sandy steppes.
4.The Patans (Affghans).—Physiognomy frequently Semitic or sub-Semitic.
5.The Tajiks of Bokhara.—Here the dominant population is that of the Uzbek Tartars.
6.The Siaposh.—Fair-complexioned; pagan mountaineers, speaking a language with a great per centage of slightly-altered Sanskrit words.
I have no wish to undervalue the import of this last fact—a fact to which great prominence has been given.
Unaccompanied, however, with any proof that thegrammaris Sanskritic, it leaves the question but little altered.
Kafferistan the Siaposh locality, is (roughly speaking) the watershed between the rivers Cabúl and Oxus. In these parts we find conterminous with the Siaposh, and doubtless in the same category—
1.The Lughmani.—Conterminous with the Affghans.
2.The Dardoh.—Conterminous with the Cashmirians.
3.The natives of Wokhan.—On the sources of the Oxus, conterminous with the Turks of Pamer.
More desirous of directing attention to the numerous ethnological difficulties which have arisen, and must yet arise from the adoption of the current opinion respecting the relations between the undoubted Indo-Germans of Europe, and the equivocal Indo-Germans of Asia (meaning thereby a native and aboriginal population), I abstain from any positive expression of opinion as to the quarter from which the Sanskrit language originated. That the language which stands in the same relation to it, as the Italian does to the Latin, has yet to be discovered I firmly believe; to which I may add that, except in Asia Minor or Europe, I do not know where to look for it.
In justice to the classification of the so-called IndianMongolidæ, I must here remark that the position of the Indo-Gangetic portion of it as Tamulian by no means stands or falls with the relation of its languages to the Sanskrit; since, even if an undeniably Sanskrit origin were proved for them, the evidence of physical form would still justify the inquirer in asking whether they might not still be Tamulians whose language had been replaced by an imported one.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 19.
Fig. 20.
Fig. 20.
Fig. 20.
The term quasi-Pulinda now finds an explanation. The key to half the complexities of the ethnology of Hindostan lies in the fact of the Brahminical portion of the population being an invading one, whilst the degree to which it altered the physical and moral character of those who were invaded, has a great range of variation, from a general change to an inappreciable modification.
Fig. 21.
Fig. 21.
Fig. 21.
Now—where the invadedhave been so little changed as to preserve both their original habits and their original language, they are full or true Pulindas; whilst, where they have lost their language, but retained enough of their habits to show their probable Pulinda relations, they are calledquasi-Pulindas.
The "original[192]population of the country which now separates the nearest point of the Dioscurian area from the Seriform" must, in its earliest epoch, have been intermediate or transitional between the two stocks. However, long before the dawn of history, this was displaced. By what nations? Most probably, by one of the two following—The Turks, by means of a southern, the Persians by means of a northern extension.
In the present state of our knowledge it is safest to leave the following stocks unplaced.
That the Armenian language has Indo-Germanic elements is undoubted. Whether, however, they are sufficient to make it Indo-Germanic is questionable.
Sub-Semitic in appearance, and conterminous with the Semitic area, the Armenian has much in common with the tribes with which he is so often and so naturally associated, the Dioscurian Georgians; and it is through the Armenian that the transition from the Mongolidæ to the Atlantidæ is most likely to be recognized.
Native Name.—Euscaldunac.Localities.—The provinces of Biscay and Navarre, in Spain; the department of the Basses Pyrenees in France. Conterminous with theFrench and Spanish.
Native Name.—Euscaldunac.
Localities.—The provinces of Biscay and Navarre, in Spain; the department of the Basses Pyrenees in France. Conterminous with theFrench and Spanish.
Compared with the Spanish and Portuguese of the Peninsula, and (to a certain extent) with the French of France, the Basque language has the same relation as the Welsh has to the English. It is the remains of the ancient language of the whole country.
Considering its mountain locality and its position at the north-western extremity of the country, on the one hand, and the undeniably recent origin of the present Spanish and Portuguese, on the other, this is no more than is expectedà priori.
Further proof, however, has been supplied by the researches of ethnographical philologists, most especially by those of W. Humboldt. In an elaborate essay, first published in Vater's Appendix to theMithridates, that writer analyzes the names of the ancient Spanish rivers, mountains, and tribes, and shows that, whenever they have a meaning at all, that meaning is to be found in the Basque.
He shows more,viz.that not only Spain and Portugal, but that the Aquitanian province of Southern Gaul was Basque as well; in other words, that the present language of Bilbao and Navarre was extended southwards, and that of Les Basses Pyrenees northwards. Thus far the views of Humboldt have been generally received.
The extension of the Basque to Sardinia and Corsica, to Sicily and part of Italy, is more problematic. Nevertheless, it has been suggested; and,in the way of colonization, althoughnot as an aboriginal language, it is probable.
A geographical extension, however, is not necessary to create an interest in the Basque language. Its antiquity is that of the oldest tongues of Europe. Before Rome, before Greece, before Tyre or Carthage had been attracted by the mineral wealth of the far west, the mother-tongue of the Basque was spoken on the Douro, the Tagus, the Ebro, and the Guadalquiver. Afterwards it was the language of those who defended Numantia and Saguntum; of those who dealt with the Greeks at Emporiæ, and of those who bought and sold with the Phœnicians at Gades and Tartessus. The Lusitani, the Turdetani, the indomitable Cantabri, were Euskaldunac. It is better, however, when speaking of the Basque in its oldest form to call itIbericorIberian.
That the general ethnological relations of the Basque are undetermined is denoted by the place it takes in the present volume. The principle, however, which is most likely to determine it deserves to be noticed. It arises out of a bold conception of (I believe) Arndt's, adopted in its fullest extent by Rask, and, serving, at the present moment, as one of the bestmethodswhich honourably characterize the Scandinavian school of ethnology.
Just as, in geology, the great primary strata underlie the more recent super-imposed formations, so does an older and more primitive population represent the original occupancy of Europe and Asia, previous to the extension of newer, and (so to say) secondary—the Indo-Germans.
And just as, in geology, the secondary and tertiary strata are not so continuous but that the primary formations may, at intervals, show themselves through them, so also do fragments of the primary population still exist—discontinuous, indeed, but still capable of being recognized.
With such a view—the earliest European populationwas once comparatively homogeneous, from Lapland to Grenada, from Tornea to Gibraltar. But it has been overlaid and displaced; the only remnants extant being the Finns and Lapplanders, protected by their arctic climate, the Basques by their Pyrenæan fastnesses, and, perhaps the nation next in order of notice.
The Euskaldune is only one of the isolated languages of Europe. There is another—the Albanian.
The notion that the Albanian is a mere mixture of Greek and Turkish, has long been superseded by the conviction that, although mixed, it is essentially a separate substantive language. The doctrine, also, that it is of recent introduction into Europe has been similarly abandoned. There is every reason for believing that, as Thunmann suggested, it was, at dawn of history, spoken in the countries where it is spoken at the present moment.
If so, it is easily identified with either the ancient Illyrian, or the ancient Epirote; and, as it is by no means certain that these two languages were essentially different, it is possible that the Albanian may represent both. Hence, it would certainly be spoken by a portion of the soldiers of Pyrrhus, and, most probably, by the whole army of Teuta and Gentius. At present, however, it is enough to insist upon its independent character as a separate substantive language.
Native Name.—Skipetar=Mountaineer.Turkish.—Arnaout.Locality.—The ancient Illyria and Epirus. Albanian settlers in Greece, Turkey, and Calabria.Conterminouswith the Greek, Turk, Slavonic, and Italian languages; and containing numerous words borrowed from each of them.Religion.—Imperfect Christianity and Mahometanism.Social Constitution.—Division and sub-division into tribes and families.
Native Name.—Skipetar=Mountaineer.
Turkish.—Arnaout.
Locality.—The ancient Illyria and Epirus. Albanian settlers in Greece, Turkey, and Calabria.
Conterminouswith the Greek, Turk, Slavonic, and Italian languages; and containing numerous words borrowed from each of them.
Religion.—Imperfect Christianity and Mahometanism.
Social Constitution.—Division and sub-division into tribes and families.
Is there reason to believe that any definite stock, or division of our species has become eitherwhollyextinct, or so incorporated as to be virtually beyond the recognition and analysis of the investigator? With the vast majority of theso-called extinctstocks this is not the case—e. g.it is not the case with the old Gauls of Gallia; who, though no longer extant, have extant congeners—the Welsh and Gaels.
To an extinction of this kind amongst the better-known historical nations of Europe and Asia—for in America such extinction, or the tendency towards it, is the normal condition of the majority of the aboriginal populations—the nearest approach is to be found in the history of—
Æra.—In the time of Herodotus, known only in two—Localities.—Chreston and Plakiæ.Area.—As then known, discontinuous.Language.—Unintelligible to an Hellenic Greek.
Æra.—In the time of Herodotus, known only in two—
Localities.—Chreston and Plakiæ.
Area.—As then known, discontinuous.
Language.—Unintelligible to an Hellenic Greek.
I follow Mr. Grote, in his masterly separation of the wheat of contemporary evidence from the chaff of tradition in respect to the Pelasgi; but do not follow him in the inference from the dissimilarity between their language and that of the Hellenes. The two sections might still be as closely allied as the Greek and Roman. On the other hand, the difference might be as great as that of the Hebrew and English.
The point of most importance is the nature of their two unconnected points of occupancy at the time of Herodotus.
1. If these representedparts of the original area, the intermediate portions whereof had been overlaid by a permanent invasion, the evidence would be in favour of thePelasgi having been in the same category with the Thracians; and, as such,perhapsSlavonic.
2. On the other hand—if they represented two separatecolonizationssuch a distribution would indicate an origin ina.Asia Minor;b.the Ægean Islands; orc.Continental Greece.
A sanguine scholar may, perhaps, hope that an investigation of the present dialects of the two Herodotean localities may reward the minute analyst with some Pelasgic glosses.—Optandum magis quam sperandum.
Æra of their maximum development.—The earlier centuries of the Roman Republic. Veii taken 360A.U.C.Historical Influences.—Upon early Rome.Social Development.—Agricultural, architectural, religious, commercial, artistic. Partially self-developed. Probably, chiefly of Greek origin.Alphabet.—Derived from the Greek.Language.—Extant, only in hitherto untranslated (or imperfectly translated) fragments. Considered, by Lipsius, as Indo-Germanic.
Æra of their maximum development.—The earlier centuries of the Roman Republic. Veii taken 360A.U.C.
Historical Influences.—Upon early Rome.
Social Development.—Agricultural, architectural, religious, commercial, artistic. Partially self-developed. Probably, chiefly of Greek origin.
Alphabet.—Derived from the Greek.
Language.—Extant, only in hitherto untranslated (or imperfectly translated) fragments. Considered, by Lipsius, as Indo-Germanic.
The reason in favour of the descent of the Etruscans from the Rhætian Alps has not been put, even by Niebuhr, so strongly as it might have been.
What we find in Livy is something more than anopinionto that effect. It is an express statement that the Rhætian and Etrurian languages were alike.
If so, we have a discontinuous area; an area which—considering that the Cisalpine Kelts were preeminently the tribes of an encroaching frontier—was, most likely, originally continuous.
I believe, then, that the Etrurians represented themaximumcivilization, and the Rhætian mountaineers themaximumrudeness of one and the same stock—a stock originally indigenous to Northern Italy, but subsequentlybroken-up by Keltic and other permanent invasions. Such, at least, is the ethnological view of the question—based upon the general phænomena of ethnological distribution.
How numerous these may once have been is difficult to determine. Thus much, however, may safely be assumed;—
1. That the languages represented by the western dialects of the Georgian hadsomeextension beyond their present frontier—possibly as far as Bithynia.
2. That the languages represented by the Lycian of the Lycian inscriptions hadsomeextension beyond Lycia—possibly (though there are several difficulties to be reconciled) as far as the Hellespont.
3. That on some portion of the coast, a language intelligible to some portion of the Thracians on the one hand, and the Armenians on the other, was spoken.
Such are a few of the details of an important section of our subject.—They are given, however, more for illustrating the nature of the difficult question ofDescentthan for exhausting the subject.
The same applies to the complex subject of—
Of this just enough will be said to illustrate the form which the present classification of the primary divisions of mankind renders necessary.
A.Kelts with Mongolidæ.—The infusion of Keltic blood takes place when the Welsh, Irish, or Scotch of England, like the—
B.Goths with Mongolidæ, come as 1.English or Americans, in contact with—a, Chinese;b, Malays;c, Polynesians;d, Australians;e, Eskimo;f, American Indians;g, East Indians.
2.High-Germans with—a, American Indians;b, Finns.
3.Dutch with—a, Chinese;b, Malays;c, East Indians;d, South Americans (Guiana).
4.Scandinavians with—a, Eskimo;b, Ugrians.
C.Slavonians with Mongolidæ—chiefly Russians with—a, Siberians;b, Eskimo;c, North-east Americans;d, Turanians;e, Dioscurians.
D.Mediterranean Indo-Germans with Mongolidæ—chiefly with—
1.French with—a, North Americans;b, South Americans (Guiana).
2.Spaniards with—a, Malays (the Philippines);b, North Americans (Mexico, &c.);c, South Americans (Peru, Buenos Ayres, Guiana, Venezuela, &c.)
3.Portuguese with—a, Chinese;b, East Indians;c, Brazilian Americans.
A.Kelts with Atlantidæ.—Under the same conditions as English Goths.
B.Goths with Atlantidæ.
1. English and Americans with Africans.
2. Dutch with Hottentots—Griquas.
C.Mediterranean Indo-Germans with Atlantidæ.Spanish and Portuguese with Africans.
1. North American Negroes with Native Indians—Zambos.
2. South American Negroes with Native Indians—Mamelucos.
It is only when two extreme sections of two of the primary divisions meet that there is true Hybridism. With intermediate and transitional forms, such as the Arab and Indian, and others, there is merely—
This is a point of minute ethnology. To take a few of the European populations as instances, it attempts to determine the amount of foreign elements in—
1.The English.—These being Keltic, Roman, Danish, Anglo-Norman, &c., anterior to, or engrafted on, a Saxon foundation.
2.The French.—Foundation, Roman; other elements, Keltic, German, &c.
3.The Spanish.—Foundation, Roman; other elements, Iberic, Goth, Arab.
4.The Germans.—Foundation, Gothic; other elements, Slavonic, Keltic.
5.The Slavonians.—Non-Slavonic elements, Ugrian, Turk, Mongol, Dioscurian, &c.
6.The Hungarians.—Non-Majiar elements; Roman, Turk, Mongol, Slavonic, German.
And so on throughout most countries of the world.
Intermediate between simple and extreme intermixture (or Hybridism), but at points where it is difficult to draw a line of demarcation, are such half-breeds as those of the Turk and Mongol, Turk and Persian, Turk and Georgian, Persian and Georgian, &c.—the difference between the parent stocks lying within a small compass.