Canoe with OutriggerFIG.83.—Malayo-Polynesian canoe with outrigger (seventeenth century).(After O. Mason.)
FIG.83.—Malayo-Polynesian canoe with outrigger (seventeenth century).(After O. Mason.)
CLASSIFICATION OF RACES AND PEOPLES.
Criticism of anthropological classifications—Frequent confusion of theclassing of races and of peoples—The determining of races can be based only onsomatic characters—For the classing of peoples, on the contrary, it is necessary to take into accountethnic characters(linguistic and sociological), and above allgeographical distribution—Classification of races proposed by the author—Succinct characterisation of the twenty-nine races which are therein mentioned—Classification of ethnic groupsadopted in this work.
EXCEPTIONhas 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 genusHomois often only apparent, for most classifications confuse ethnic groups and races. If my readers refer back to what I said in theintroduction 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 beamalgamated, or merely exist injuxtaposition.
Race-characters appear with a remarkable persistency, in spite of all intermixtures, all modifications due to civilisation, change of language, etc. What varies is theproportionin which such and such a race enters into the constitution of the ethnic group. A race may form the preponderatingportion 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 ofpeople. 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 humanracesis 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 mixedclassifications 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 calledtypes, 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—
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 bevain 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. TheBushmanrace 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. TheNegroidgroup comprises three races: Negrito, Negro, and Melanesian.
2. TheNegritorace may be split up into two sub-races:a, theNegrilloesof Africa, of which the pure representatives are the Akkas, the Batuas, and other sub-dolichocephalic pigmies; andb, theNegritoesof 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. TheNegroesmay likewise be sub-divided into two sub-races:a, theNigritians, of the Sudan (Fig.140) and of Guinea (Fig.9), more prognathous (more “negroid,” if we may thus express it) thanb, theBantusof sub-equatorial and southern Africa (Figs.47,141, and142). 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. TheMelanesianrace 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.53and152), and the other with squarer and heavier face, which occupies the rest of Melanesia (Melanesian sub-raceproperly so called, Fig.153).[331]The first of these sub-races enters into the composition of several mixed tribes of Celebes, Gilolo, Flores (Figs.146to148), Timur, and other islands of the Asiatic Archipelago situated farther to the east.
III. 5. TheEthiopianrace 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 bloodamong 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 THEHUMANRACES ACCORDING TO THEIRAFFINITIES.
Table: Classification
IV. 6. TheAustralianrace (Figs.14,15,149, and150) is remarkable for its unity and its isolation on the Australian continent, and even theTasmanians(seeChapter XII.), the nearest neighbours to the Australians, at the present day extinct, had a different type.
V. 7. TheDravidianrace, which it would have been better to callSouth-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, and127). The Veddahs (Figs.5,6, and133) 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. TheAssyroidrace, 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 figure6, 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. TheIndo-Afghanrace (seeChapter 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.125and134).
VIII. TheNorth Africangroup 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 theBerberrace (Fig.136), which admits four varieties or “types,” according to Collignon (seeChapter XI.).
IX. TheMelanochroidgroup comprises the four dark-complexioned races of Europe (12 to 15),Littoral,Ibero-insular,Western(Fig.98), andAdriatic.
X. TheXanthochroidgroup contains the two fair races of Europe (16 and 17),Northern(Figs.88to90) andEastern. (For further details respecting groups IX. and X. seeChapter IX.)
XI. 18. TheAinurace is preserved fairly pure among the people of this name (Figs.49and117); it forms one of the constituent elements of the population of Northern Japan (seeChapter X.).
XII. TheOceaniangroup is formed of two races, the relations of which are somewhat vague. 19. ThePolynesianrace (Figs.154to156), 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. TheIndonesianrace 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.146to148).
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 ofCentral Americans, brachycephalic, short, with straight or aquiline nose (Figs.163and164), is frequentlymet 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 theNorth Americanrace; in the latter, with theSouth Americanrace (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.158and159); andb, thePacific, 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 theSouth Americanrace we most probably admit two sub-races:a, thedolichocephalicrace, with hair often wavy, or even frizzy (Figs.48,165,172, and175),[333]which is perhaps derived from the oldest inhabitants of the continent, and which I calledPalæo-Americantype in my first attempt at a classification of the human races (1889), and another (b), which would be the present type of South Americanmesocephalicrace with straight hair (Figs.167to170). The tallPatagonianrace, brachycephalic, of deep brown colour, has its representatives among the Patagonians and among certain peoples of Chaco and the Pampas.[334]
XIV. 25. TheEskimorace (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. TheLapprace 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 theEurasiangroup (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. TheUgrianrace 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. TheTurkishrace, which I would willingly callTuranian, 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. TheMongolrace admits two varieties or sub-races:TunguseorNorthern Mongolian, with oval or round faces and prominent cheek-bones, spread over Manchuria, Corea, Northern China, Mongolia (Figs.20,115,116, and118); andSouthern 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 ofraces, 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 clearsub-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.
TheAryansare 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). TheAnaryansare 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). TheCaucasiansare 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 Asiacomprises three groups of populations:Yenisians(Samoyeds, Toubas, etc.), thePalæo-asiatics(Chukchis, Giliaks, Ainus), and theTunguses(Manchu, Orochons, etc.).Central Asialikewise contains three groups of populations:Turkish(Yakuts, Kirghiz, Osmanlis, etc.),Mongol(Buriats, Kalmuks, etc.), andThibetan(Lepchas, Bods, etc.).Eastern Asiais occupied by three “nations”:Japanese,Coreans, andChinese.Indo-China, or the Transgangetic peninsula, includes five ethnic divisions: theAborigines(Negritoes, Tsiam, Mois, Mossos, Naga), theCambodians, theBurmese, theAnnamese, and theThaï(Shans, Kakhyens, Siamese, Miao-tse, etc.). The Cisgangetic peninsula, or India, includes four linguistic divisions: theDravidians(Tamils, Khonds, etc.), theKols(Santals, etc.), theIndo-Aryans(Hindus, Kafirs, etc.), andthe peoples whose languages are not classified(Veddahs,Singhalese,Nairs, etc.).Anterior Asiais divided between two great linguistic groups:EranianorIranian(Persians, Afghans, Kurds, etc.) andSemite(Syrians and Arabs, the latter partly in Africa), and further comprises some other peoplesnot classified(Brahuis, Takhtajis), orcosmopolites(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 speakingSemiticorHamiticlanguages may be united into three groups: theArabo-Berbers(Touaregs, Fellahs, etc.), theEthiopians(Gallas, Bejas, Abyssinians), and theFulah-Zandehs(Fulahs, Niam-Niams, Masai, etc.). TheBushmen-Hottentotsform an ethno-somatological group quite apart. As to theNegroes, they may be divided as follows:—theNegrilloesor Pygmies (Akkas, Batuas, etc.), theNigritiansorNegroes properly so called(Dinkas, Hausas, Wolofs, Krus, Tshis, etc.), and theBantus(Dwalas, Batekes, Balubas, Swaheli, Kafirs, Bechuanas, etc.). The populations of theIsland of Madagascaralso form alinguistic and geographicalgroup 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: theNegritoes(Aeta, etc.), theIndonesians(Battas, Tagals, etc.), and mixed peoples like the Javanese, the Bugis, the Malays, etc.Australiais peopled, over and above the white or yellow colonists, by only one race-people, theAustralians; theTasmanianswho lived near them no longer exist.Melanesiais peopled by Papuans (of New Guinea), and byMelanesians properly so called(of New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, etc.). Lastly,Polynesiacomprises thePolynesians properly so called(Samoans, Tahitians), and theMicronesians(natives of the Carolines, the Marshall Islands, etc.).
V. AMERICA.—ForNorth Americawe may adopt three ethno-geographical groups: theEskimo, with the Aleuts; theAmerican Indians(Athapascans, Yumas, Tlinkits, etc.); and theIndians of Mexico and of Central America(Aztecs, Pimas, Miztecs, Mayas, Isthmians, Ulvas, etc.).
South Americahas four geographical groupings: theAndeans(Chibchas, Quechua-Aymara, etc.); theAmazonians(Caribs, Arawak, Pano, Miranha, etc.); the Indians ofEast Brazil, and of thecentral region(Tupi-Guarani, Ges or Botocudo-Kayapo, etc.); and, finally, thePatagonians, tribes of Chaco, of the Pampas, etc., with theFuegians.
It is likewise well, as regards the New World, to take intoaccount 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.).
RACES AND PEOPLES OF EUROPE.
Problem of European ethnogeny—I. ANCIENT INHABITANTS OFEUROPE—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—Migrationof European peoples in thehistoric period—II. EUROPEAN RACES OF THE PRESENT DAY—Characteristics of the six principal races and the four secondary races—III. PRESENT PEOPLES OFEUROPE—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 theelements 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.
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 oftertiary manin 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 somehypothetical 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. Thequaternary agein 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—theElephas meridionalis, a survival of the pliocene age, theRhinoceros Etruscus, etc.
But soon, from causes still imperfectly known, ice began to accumulate aroundcertain 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 thefirst glacial period, or the period of thegreat 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.