Chapter 34

[328]Tribes (sub-divisions): (1)Lophocomi(woolly hair, tufted), comprising the following species (races): Papuans, Hottentots; (2)Eriocomi(woolly hair, growing uniformly and not in tufts): Kafirs and Negroes; (3)Euthycomi(straight hair): Australians, Malays, Mongols, Arctic people (Hyperboreans), Americans; (4)Euplocomi(curly hair): Dravidians, Nubians (Ethiopians), Mediterraneans (Aryans). (Haeckel,Natürl. Schöpfungsgesch., 7th ed., pp. 628 and 647, 1879; Fr. Mueller,Allg. Ethnogr., 2nd ed., pp. 17 and 19, Vienna, 1879.)[329]“Trunks”: (1)Negro, with its “branches,” Indo-Melanesian, Australian, African, and Austro-African; (2)Yellow, with its “branches,” Siberian, Thibetan, Indo-Chinese, and American (Eskimo-Brazilian); (3)White, with its “branches,” Allophyle (Ainu, Miao-tse, Caucasian, Indonesian-Polynesian, etc.), Finnish, Semitic, and Aryan. “Mixed Races”: (1)Oceanians(Japanese, Polynesian, Malay); (2)Americans(of North, Central, and South America). (A. de Quatrefages,Hist. Gen. Races Hum., pp. 343et seq., Paris, 1889.)[330]Deniker, “Essai d’une classification des races hum., etc.,” Paris, 1889 (Extr. du Bull. Soc. Anthr., vol. xii., p. 320). Cf. O. Mason,Smithson. Report for 1889, p. 602.[331]Fig.153represents individuals of one tribe only, but belonging to the two sub-races mentioned. Fig.151represents the blending of the two types with Polynesian admixture.[332]E. Schmidt, “Die Anthropologie Indiens,”Globus, vol. 61, 1892, Nos. 2 and 3.[333]Ehrenreich,loc. cit.(Urbewohner Brasil.), and Von den Steinen,loc. cit., describe numerous individuals with wavy or frizzy hair among the Bakairis, the Karayas, the Arawaks, etc. I myself have noticed Fuegians with frizzy or wavy hair (Hyades and Deniker,loc. cit.). See also Fig.171, which represents the blending of the Central American and South American types, and portraits of theGoajiresinLe Tour du Monde, 1898, 1st half year.[334]A. Barcena, “Arte ... lengua Toba,”Rev. Mus. de la Plata, vol. v., 1894, p. 142.[335]Bain,Census of India, 1891. Calcutta, 1896.[336]Each continent in fact contains distinct populations, with the exception, however, of Asia, to which belongs half a score of peoples, of whom part live outside its borders: in America (Eskimo), Oceania (Malays and Negritoes), Africa (Arabs), Europe (Samoyeds, Vogule-Ostiaks, Tatars, Kirghiz, Kalmuks, Caucasians, Armenians, and Russians), or in other parts of the world (Greeks, Jews, Gypsies).[337]See for details, De Mortillet,Le Préhistorique, chap. iii., Paris, 1883; Stirrup, “So-called Worked Flints of Thenay,”Journ. Anthr. Inst., vol. xiv., 1885, p. 289, andRev. d’Anthr., 1885; Cartailhac,La France Préhistorique, p. 35, Paris, 1889; Newton, “The Evidence for the Existence of Man in the Tertiary Period,”Proceed. Geolog. Assoc., vol. xv., London, 1897; Salomon Reinach,Antiquités Nationales, Descrip. Musée St.-Germain, vol. i., p. 96, Paris, 1889,—this work contains a mass of prehistoric information and a copious bibliography.[338]The so-called tertiary skeleton of Castenedolo, near Brescia, discovered by Ragazonni, is an “odd fact,” an “incomplete observation,” to use the happy phrase of Marcellin Boule, and cannot be taken into account.[339]J. Geikie,Great Ice Age, London, 1894; Marcellin Boule, “Paléontol. stratigr. de l’Homme,”Rev. d’Anthr., Paris, 1888.[340]The extreme limit of the spread of glaciers to the south at that period may be indicated by a line which would pass near to Bristol, London, Rotterdam, Cologne, Hanover, Dresden, Cracow, Lemberg; then would go round Kief on the south, Orel on the north, and rise again (on the south of Saratov) up to Nijni-Novgorod, Viatka, the upper valley of the Kama, to blend with the line of the watershed of this river and the Pechora (seeMap 1.).[341]See G. and A. de Mortillet,Musée préhistorique, Paris, pl. vi. to ix.; J. Evans,Ancient Stone Implements, 2nd ed., chap. xxiii., London, 1897.[342]Frequently these implements have been found, in sufficiently deep beds, beside bones of the straight-tusked elephant (Elephas antiquus), the smooth-skinned, two-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Merckii), the great hippopotamus—that is to say, of animals characteristic of the first interglacial period. As these species are allied to the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus of Africa of the present day, the hypothesis has been propounded that they came from this continent, utilising the numerous isthmuses then existing (between Gibraltar and Morocco, between Sicily, Malta and Tunis, etc.). Man, the maker of the Chellean implements, followed, it is supposed, in their steps. One might argue with equal force that the migration took place in the opposite direction.[343]Woldrich (after Nehring),Mit. Anthr. Gesell., vol. xi., p. 187, Vienna.[344]In England it is sometimes designated the “cave period” to distinguish it from the Chellean, called “River-drift” period, but this term is open to objection; thus, for example, in the celebrated Kent cavern there have been found at the bottom implements of the Chellean type identical with certain objects of the River-drift. (See the works already quoted, as well as Windle,Life in Early Britain, p. 26, London, 1897.)[345]According to G. de Mortillet, Mousterian industry also differs from the Chellean in regard to technique. In the Chellean period what is utilised is the core or nucleus of the stone cut right round on both sides; while in the Mousterian period what are fashioned are the splinters struck off from this core, which are trimmed especially on one face, the inner face remaining smooth and showing the trace of its origin under the form of a “cone” or “bulb of percussion,” which corresponds to a hollow in the block from which the splinter has been dislodged. However, implements recalling at first sight the “knuckle-duster,” but which differ from it by their amygdaloidal form and their straight edges (Saint-Acheul type), are still to be found at this period.[346]In G. de Morlillet’s classification a yet additional period is inserted between the Mousterian and the Magdalenian. This is theSolutrian, characterised by finely cut heads (spear or arrow?) in the shape of a laurel leaf. But the zone in which these implements are met with is limited to certain regions of the south and west of France only. For many palæethnographers this is a “facies local” of the Magdalenian period.[347]There may be added to the masterpieces here reproduced the famous representation of the mammoth carved on the tusk of this animal itself by a man of La Madeleine (Dordogne), discovered and described by Lartet; and by Boyd Dawkins,Early Man in Brit., p. 105, London, 1880. See Cartailhac,loc. cit., p. 72.[348]After the second interglacial period the “Great Baltic Glacier” still covered the Scandinavian peninsula, with the exception of its southern part (Gothland), extended over the emerged bottom of the Baltic, over nearly the whole of Finland, and spreading round Gothland invaded the east coast of Denmark and the littoral of Germany to the east of Jutland. After the retreat of this glacier and a series of changes in the surface of the ground (a sinking which brought the Baltic into communication with the North Sea by means of the Strait of Svealand, followed by the upheaval which cut off that communication and made of the Baltic theAncylus Lakeof the geologists), the climate became milder in these parts, and the trees of Central Europe, first the pines, then the oaks and birches, penetrated into Denmark and Gothland, while in the north of Sweden there were two other new glacier movements. (Gerard de Geer,Om Skandinavens Geografiska Utveckling, Stockholm, 1897; G. Andersson,Geschichte Végétat. Schwed., Leipzig, 1896.)[349]This supposition is invalidated by this fact among others, that, in the neolithic “shell heaps” of Scandinavia no remains of the reindeer are found.[350]As witnessed by the diggings of Piette at Mas d’Azil, see p. 163.[351]There was yet to take place another sinking of the ground which established a communication, by means of the Sound, between the “Ancylus Lake” of the preceding period with the North Sea, transforming it thus into a very salt and warm sea called, from the principal fossil which reveals to us its existence, the Littorina Sea.[352]Nehring,Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., 1895, No. 6 (Verh., pp. 425 and 573); Salomon Reinach,L’Anthropologie, 1897, p. 53; P. Salmon,Races hum. préhist., p. 9, Paris, 1888; Cartailhac,loc. cit., p. 327; M. Boule,loc. cit., p. 679; G. de Mortillet,La Format. de la Nat. Franc., p. 289.[353]Out of forty-six skulls to which the title “quaternary” has been applied, I have only been able, after a careful examination of all evidence, to recognise as such the ten to fifteen following skulls. For the age of the mammoth or “Mousterian” period, seven skulls certainly quaternary: two skulls from Spy (Belgium), and those from Egisheim (Alsace), Olmo (Val d’Arno, Italy), Bury St. Edmunds (England), Podbaba (Bohemia), and Predmost (Moravia). Perhaps we should refer to this period the skulls which cannot be definitely traced to a certain alluvial bed, like those of Neanderthal (Rhenish Prussia), Denise (Auvergne), Marcilly-sur-Eure (Eure), La Truchère (Saône), and Tilbury (near London). As to the skulls of the “reindeer” age (Magdalenian period), three only are known which are not called in question: these are the skulls of Laugerie-Basse, Chancelade (Dordogne), and Sordes (Landes). Perhaps we should include among them the skulls of uncertain date, like those of Bruniquel, Engis, Sargels (near Larzac), and perhaps others which certain authorities classify as belonging to mesolithic and even neolithic times: the three skulls of Cro-Magnon (Dordogne); the six so-called Mentone skulls (Baoussé-Roussé, Maritime Alps); the skulls of theTrou de Frontalat Furfooz (Belgium), of Solutré (Valley of the Saône), Bohuslan (near Stangenas, Sweden), Clichy and Grenelle (Paris). And, lastly, we have no data on which to form an opinion as to the date of the skulls of Canstatt (Wurtemberg), Maëstricht (Holland), Gibraltar, Brux (Bohemia), Lhar, Nagy-Sap (Hungary), Schebichowitz (Bohemia), Valle do Areciro (Portugal), etc. Cf. S. Reinach,loc. cit.(Antiquités Nation.), p. 134; and Hervé,Rev. École Anthr., p. 208, Paris, 1892.[354]The instances of the skull of Saint Mensuy, an Irish bishop, and others, are universally known. See on this subject, Godron,Mem. Acad. Stanislas, p. 50, Nancy, 1884; Worthington Smith,Man, the Primeval Savage, p. 38, London, 1893; and W. Borlase,The Dolmens of Ireland, vol. iii., p. 922, London, 1897.[355]De Quatrefages and Hamy,Cr. Ethn., p. 44; De Quatrefages,Hist. Gén. Races Hum., vol. i., p. 67; Hervé,Rev. École. Anthr., Paris, 1893, p. 173; 1894, p. 105; 1896, p. 97.[356]Hervé, “Les brachycéphales néolith.,”Rev. École. Anthr., Paris, 1894, p. 393; and 1895, p. 18.[357]J. Beddoe,The Races of Britain, Bristol-London, 1885, and “Hist. de l’indice ceph. dans les îles Britan.,”L’Anthropol., 1894, p. 513; Windle,loc. cit., p. 9; Inostrantsev,Doïstoritcheskii,etc.(Prehistor. Man of Ladoga), St. Petersburg, 1882, fig. and pl.[358]Montelius,Temps. préhist. en Suède, p. 41, Paris, 1895; Cartailhac,Âges préhist. Esp. et Portug., p. 305, Paris, 1886; H. and S. Siret,Prem. âges du métal dans le sud-est de l’Esp., 3rd part (by V. Jacques), Antwerp, 1887.[359]S. Reinach, “Mirage oriental,”L’Anthropologie, 1894, pp. 539 and 699; A. Evans, “Eastern Question,”Rep. Brit. Assoc., 1896, p. 911; Montelius,loc. cit.; Much, “Die Kupferzeit in Europa,” Jena, 1893.[360]A. Evans,loc. cit., “Eastern Question”; Sal. Reinach,L’Anthropol., 1893, p. 731; Montelius, “The Tyrrhenians, etc.,”Jour. Anthr. Inst., vol. xxvi., 1897, p. 254, pl.; and “Pre-classic Chronology in Greece,”ibid., p. 261.[361]This term, used first in Germany, is accepted by almost all men of science. The La Tène period corresponds pretty nearly with the “âge Marnien” of French archæologists and thelate Celticof English archæologists. Cf. M. Hoernes,Urgesch. d. Mensch., chaps. viii. and ix., Vienna, 1892.[362]Together with the Sards, the Turses are the only European peoples of which the Egyptian inscriptions anterior to the thirteenth centuryB.C.make mention, under the name ofShordanaandThursana(W. Max Müller,Europa und Asien, 1894).[363]D’Arbois de Jubainville,Les Anciens Habitants de l’Europe, new ed., vol. i., p. 201, Paris.[364]See for this history, Isaac Taylor,The Origin of the Aryans, chap. i., London, 1890, and S. Reinach,L’origine des Aryens, Paris, 1892.[365]Th. Poesche,Die Arier, Jena, 1878; Penka,Die Herkunft der Arier, Vienna, 1886. This identification has been turned to account by several men of science, especially by O. Ammon (loc. cit.) in Germany and V. de Lapouge (Sélections sociales, Paris, 1895) in France, in the construction of somewhat bold sociological theories.[366]Osc. Schrader,Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch., 2nd ed., Jena, 1890.[367]According to Hirt, “Die Urheimat ... d. Indogermanen,”Geogr. Zeitsch., vol. i., p. 649, Leipzig, 1895, the home of dispersion of the primitive Aryan language would be found to the north of the Carpathians, in the Letto-Lithuanian region. From this point two linguistic streams would start, flowing round the mountains to the west and east; the western stream, after spreading over Germany (Teutonic languages), left behind them the Celtic languages in the upper valley of the Danube, and filtered through on the one side into Italy (Latin languages), on the other side into Illyria, Albania, and Greece (Helleno-Illyrian languages). The eastern stream formed the Slav languages in the plains traversed by the Dnieper, then spread by way of the Caucasus into Asia (Iranian languages and Sanscrit). In this way we can account, on the one hand, for the less and less marked relationship between the different Aryan languages of the present day and the common primitive dialect, and, on the other hand, the diversity between the two groups of Aryan languages, western and eastern.[368]A. Bertrand and S. Reinach,Les Celtes dans la vallée du Pô, etc., Paris, 1894.[369]D’Arbois de Jubainville,loc. cit., vol. ii., p. 297.[370]For particulars see J. Deniker, “Les Races de l’Europe,”Bull. Soc. d’Anthropol., 1897, pp. 189 and 291;L’Anthropologie, 1898, p. 113 (with map); and “Les Races de l’Europe,” first part,L’indice Céphal., Paris, 1899 (coloured map). Cf. Ripley, “Racial Geography of Europe,”Appleton’s Popular Science Monthly, New York, for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899.[371]See inAppendices I.toIII.the figures relative to the different populations of Europe, taken from the works referred to by me in the previous note.[372]Sergi,Origine ... Stirpe Mediterranea, Rome, 1895.[373]Houzé, “Caract. phys. des races européennes,”Bull. Soc. Anthro., Brussels, vol. ii., 1883, 1st part.[374]R. Collignon,Bull. Soc. Anthro., Paris, 1883, p. 463, andL’Anthropologie, 1890, No. 2.[375]Ch. de Tourtoulon and Bringuier, “Limite ... de la langue d’oc, etc.,”Arch. Miss. Sc. Paris, 1876. Cf.Rev. École Anthr. Paris, 1891, p. 218.[376]Province of Namur, nearly the whole of the provinces of Hainault, Liège, and Luxemburg, as well as the southern part of Brabant. Cf. Bremer,Nationalit. und Sprache in Belgien(with map), Stuttgart, 1887.[377]H. Gaidoz, “Die französisch. Thäler Piemonts,”Globus, p. 59, 1891, with map; Sachier,Le Français et le Provençal(Fr. trans. by Monet, Paris, 1891).[378]F. Pullé, “Profilo antr. dell’ Italia,”Archivo. p. Antr., 1898 (with maps).[379]Dr. N. Manolescu,Igiena Teranului(Hygiene of the Rumanian peasant, an ethnographical inquiry), Bucharest, 1895; S. Weigand,Die Aromunen, vol. i., Leipzig, 1895 (with plates and maps).[380]A. J. Ellis,English Dialects, London, 1890, two maps; and other publications of the English Dialect Society (1873–98).[381]Almost all the two Flanders, the half to the north of Brabant, the provinces of Antwerp and of Limbourg. Cf. Bremer,loc. cit.[382]R. Andree, “Gränzen Niederd. Sprache,”Globus, 1891, vol. lix., No. 2.[383]See Langhans,Deutsch. Kolon. Atlas, maps Nos. 3 to 7. For a comprehensive view of the Germans generally, see Ranke,Der Mensch., vol. ii. (Somat., Archeol.), and E. H. Meyer, “Deutsche Volkskunde” (Ethnography, Folk-lore), Strassburg, 1898; for the Austrians:Oester.-Ung. Monarchie, vols. iv. and vi., Vienna, 1886–89; and for the Bavarians,Beiträge z. Anthr., etc., Bayerns, Munich (1876–99).[384]See for the Slav languages: A. Pypine and Spassovitch,Istoria, etc.(Hist. of Slavonic Literatures), St. Petersburg, 1879, 2 vols., of which there is a translation of the first in French by S. Denis (1881); for a slight general view: F. von Hellwand,Die Welt der Slaven, Berlin, 1890; Zograf,Les peuples de la Russie, Moscow (1895); andOester-Hung. Monarch., vols. ix., xi., xiv., xv. (1891–96); for ethnogeny and archæology: Lubor Niederle,O Puvodu Slovanu(Origin of the Slavs), Prague, 1897 (in Czech); andCheloviechestvo, etc.(Prehistoric Man), Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1898.[385]Beddoe, “The Kelts of Ireland,”Journ. of Anthropol., 1871, p. 117 (map); Broca, “La Question Celtique,”Bull. Soc. Anthro. Paris, 1873, pp. 313 and 247; Havelock Ellis, “The Men of Cornwall,”New Century Review, 1897, Nos. 4 and 5.[386]T. Aranzadi,El pueblo Escalduna, San Sebastian, 1889 (maps); R. Collignon, “La Race Basque,”L’Anthropologie, vol. v., 1894, p. 276.[387]Oester.-Ung. Monarchie, vols. v., ix., and xii., 1888–93.[388]Retzius,Finska Kranier, Stockholm, 1878, pl. (with French summary); see also publications of the Finno-Ugrian Society of Helsingfors, etc.[389]S. Sommier,Un Estate in Siberia, Florence, 1885; andArchivo p. l’Antro., vols. xvii. and xix. (1887–89); Maïnof,Resooltaty, etc. (Anthr. and Jurid. Studies of the Mordva); “Zapiski,” Russian Geog. Socy. (Ethnog. Sec.), vols. xi. and xiv. (1883–85); works of Smirnov on the Mordva, Cheremiss, etc., Fr. trans. by Boyer (Paris, 1897–98).[390]P. Mantegazza and Sommier,Studii antr. sui Lapponi, Turin, 1880 (phot. pl.); “Notes on the Lapps,” by Prince R. Bonaparte, Keane, and Garson,Jour. Anthr. Inst., vol. xv., 1885, pp. 210et seq.; Montefiore, “The Samoyeds,”Jour. Anthr. Inst., vol. xxiv., 1895, p. 396; Zograf, “Esquisse des Samoyedes,”Izviestia(Bull.)Soc. Friends. Nat. Sc., Moscow, vol. xxxi., 1878–79, supl. (analysed in theRev. d’Anthr., 1881); Sommier,loc. cit.(analysedRev. d’Ethnogr.), Paris, 1889.[391]R. Erckert,Der Kaukasus u. Seine Völker, Leipzig, 1885 (with map); E. Chantre,Rech. Anthropol., dans le Caucase, Lyons, 1885–87, 4th vol., and atlas; Pantiukhof, “Obser. Anthr. au Caucase,”Zapiski Caucasian Sec. of Russ. Geog. Soc., vol. xv., Tiflis, 1893, phot.[392]For particulars see Deniker,loc. cit.(Races de l’Europe).[393]The flint flakes resembling palæolithic tools, found by F. Noetling (Records Geol. Survey, India, vol. xxvii., p. 101, Calcutta, 1894) in Miocene or lower Pliocene beds, at Yenang-Yung (Central Burma), are considered by Oldham and other scholars as natural products. However, Noetling has since (in 1897) described an animal bone, artificially polished(?), of the same beds.—Nat. Science, London-New York, 1894, p. 345; 1895, 1st half-year, p. 367; 2nd, pp. 199 and 294; and 1887, 1st half-year, p. 233.[394]The bones of thePithecanthropus, a thigh-bone, a calvaria (Figs.112and113), and two molar teeth (Fig.112), were found by Dr. Dubois at Trinil (province of Madioun), on the bank of the river Bengavan, in a layer of lava, by the side of bones of animals of the Pliocene period. The calvaria, indicating a cranial capacity of about 900 cubic centimetres, recalls rather the Neanderthal-Spy skull (Fig.86) than that of a gibbon; the thigh-bone is entirely human; the teeth are of a form intermediate between those of Man and of the Anthropoids.—For particulars see E. Dubois,Pithecanthropus ... aus Java, Batavia, 1894; and his articles in theAnat. Anzeig., 1896, No. 1, and theJour. Anthr. Inst., London, vol. 25, p. 240 (1896); Manouvrier, Bull. Soc. Anthr., Paris, 1895, pp. 12 and 553; 1896, pp. 396 and 467; G. Schwalbe,Zeitsch. Morph. u. Anthr., vol. i., p. 16, Stuttgart, 1899.[395]Uvarof,Arkheologia, etc. (Archeol. of Russia, vol. i., Moscow, 1881, p. 162, in Russian); Kuznétzof,Mittheil. Anthr. Gesell., Vienna, 1896, Nos. 4 and 5; “Age de la pierre au Japon,”Mater. hist.... homme, Toulouse-Paris, 1879, p. 31; S. Fuse,Journ. Anthr. Soc. Tokyo, vol. xi., 1896, No. 122 (in Japanese); Inuzuka,ibid., No. 119; E. Cartailhac, “L’âge de la pierre en Asie,”Congr. Orientalistes, 3rd ser., 1, p. 315, Lyons, 1880; G. Chauvet, “Age de la pierre en Asie,”Congr. intern. arch. prehis., 11th session, vol. i., p. 57, Moscow, 1892. The arrows picked up by Abbé A. David in Mongolia, and supposed to be palæolithic, belong to the historic period (Hamy,Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat., 1896, p. 46).[396]Medlicot and Blandford,Manual of Geol. of India, Calcutta, 1879, 2 vols.; Cartailhac,loc. cit.; Rivett-Carnac,Journ. Anthr. Inst., vol. xiii., 1884, p. 119.[397]Potanin,Otcherki, etc. (North-West Mong. Sketches), St. Petersburg, 1881–83, 4 vols., (in Russian); Adrianof, “Zapiski, etc.,”Mem. Russ. Geog. Soc., Sect. Gen. Geog., vol. xi., 1888, p. 149; Radloff,Aus Sibirien, Leipzig, 1884, 2 vols., andArbeit. Orkhon. Exped., St. Petersburg, 1893–97 (in course of publication). For summary of the question and bibliography, see Deniker,Nouvelles Geogr., p. 54, Paris, 1892 (with map).[398]Radloff,loc. cit.(Arbeit., etc.); Thomson,Mem. Soc. Finno-Ougriennevol. v., Helsingfors, 1896. We cannot admit as a general rule an exact synchronism between the prehistoric periods of Europe and those of Northern Asia. If, as Uvarof says, the age of the mammoth was earlier in Siberia than in Europe, it is none the less true that many peoples of Eastern Siberia were still in the midst of the “stone age” at the time when the Russians penetrated into this country (seventeenth century). As to the peoples of Western Siberia and the Kirghiz Steppes, the beginning of their bronze age goes back at the furthest to the beginning of the Christian era.[399]Margaritof,Memoirs Amurian Soc. of Naturalists, vol. i., Vladivostok, 1887. The only skull found in these heaps is dolichocephalic and reminds one of the Ainu skull. Thus one might suppose, as Milne had done (Trans. As. Soc. Jap., Tokio, 1899, vol. vii., p. 61), in connection with the similar kitchen refuse found in Japan, that they are the work of the Ainus; however, the presence of pottery, unknown to the Ainus even to recent times, militates against this view.[400]The Nagas have still at the present day axes of precisely the same form, which they use as hoes. (S. Peal,Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, vol. lxv., Part III., p. 9, Calcutta, 1896.) Cf. Noulet, “Age de la pierre ... au Cambodge d’après Moura,”Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. i., p. 3, Toulouse, 1879; andMater. Hist. Nat. Homme, vol. xiv., p. 315, Toulouse, 1879; Cartaillac,L’Anthropol., p. 64, 1890 (a summary of Jammes’s discoveries).[401]Schrenck,Reisen in Amur-Lande, vol. iii., Parts I. and II., St. Petersburg, 1881–91.[402]Müller and Gmelin saw in 1753 the last surviving Arines, and in 1855 Castren was still able to find five individuals speaking the Kotte tongue.[403]Yadrintsef, “Ob Altaïtsakh, etc.” (On the Altaians and Tatars of Chern),Izviestia of the Russ. Geogr. Soc., St. Petersb., 1881.[404]Nordenskiold,Voyage de la Vega, vol. ii., chap. xii., Paris, 1883–84; Deniker,loc. cit.(Rev. Anthr., p. 309, 1882).[405]The disappearance of these tribes is more apparent than real. The Anauls, in the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Anadyr, exterminated by the Cossacks in 1649, were only a fraction of the Yukaghirs, as is indicated by the termination “ul” which is found again in the name “Odul,” which the Yukaghirs use to describe themselves. The word “Omok” means simply people, “tribe” in Yukaghir language. As to the Cheliags, who, according to the Cossack Amossof, occupied at the end of the last century the Siberian coast between the Gulf of Chaun and the mouth of the Kolima—they were probably one of the Chukchi tribes.[406]Iokhelson, “Izviestia, etc.,”Bull. East-Siberian Sect. of the Russ. Geogr. Soc., vol. xxix., p. 8, Irkutsk, 1898.[407]Anuchin, “Izviestia”Soc. Friends Sc. Moscow, suppl. to vol. xx., 1876 (analysedRev. d’Anthr., 1878, p. 148); Scheube,Mitt. Deut. Gesell. Natur. u. Volkenk, vol. iii., pp. 44 and 220, Yokohama-Tokio, 1880–82; G. Batchelor,Trans. As. Soc. Japan, vol. x., part 2, Tokio, 1882, andThe Ainu of Japan, London, 1892; Chamberlain,Mem. Imper. Univ. Japan, Litter. coll. No. 1, Tokio, 1887 (analysedRev. d’Anthr., 1888, p. 81); Tarenetsky,Mem. Ac. Sc. St. Petersburg, 1890, vol. xxxvii., No. 13; Hitchcock,Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1890, pp. 408 and 429; S. Landor,Alone with the Hairy Ainu, 1893; Koganeï,Beitr. z. Phys. Anthr. Aino(extr. fromMit. Med. Fakult., vols. i. and ii., Tokio, 1893–94).

[329]“Trunks”: (1)Negro, with its “branches,” Indo-Melanesian, Australian, African, and Austro-African; (2)Yellow, with its “branches,” Siberian, Thibetan, Indo-Chinese, and American (Eskimo-Brazilian); (3)White, with its “branches,” Allophyle (Ainu, Miao-tse, Caucasian, Indonesian-Polynesian, etc.), Finnish, Semitic, and Aryan. “Mixed Races”: (1)Oceanians(Japanese, Polynesian, Malay); (2)Americans(of North, Central, and South America). (A. de Quatrefages,Hist. Gen. Races Hum., pp. 343et seq., Paris, 1889.)

[330]Deniker, “Essai d’une classification des races hum., etc.,” Paris, 1889 (Extr. du Bull. Soc. Anthr., vol. xii., p. 320). Cf. O. Mason,Smithson. Report for 1889, p. 602.

[331]Fig.153represents individuals of one tribe only, but belonging to the two sub-races mentioned. Fig.151represents the blending of the two types with Polynesian admixture.

[332]E. Schmidt, “Die Anthropologie Indiens,”Globus, vol. 61, 1892, Nos. 2 and 3.

[333]Ehrenreich,loc. cit.(Urbewohner Brasil.), and Von den Steinen,loc. cit., describe numerous individuals with wavy or frizzy hair among the Bakairis, the Karayas, the Arawaks, etc. I myself have noticed Fuegians with frizzy or wavy hair (Hyades and Deniker,loc. cit.). See also Fig.171, which represents the blending of the Central American and South American types, and portraits of theGoajiresinLe Tour du Monde, 1898, 1st half year.

[334]A. Barcena, “Arte ... lengua Toba,”Rev. Mus. de la Plata, vol. v., 1894, p. 142.

[335]Bain,Census of India, 1891. Calcutta, 1896.

[336]Each continent in fact contains distinct populations, with the exception, however, of Asia, to which belongs half a score of peoples, of whom part live outside its borders: in America (Eskimo), Oceania (Malays and Negritoes), Africa (Arabs), Europe (Samoyeds, Vogule-Ostiaks, Tatars, Kirghiz, Kalmuks, Caucasians, Armenians, and Russians), or in other parts of the world (Greeks, Jews, Gypsies).

[337]See for details, De Mortillet,Le Préhistorique, chap. iii., Paris, 1883; Stirrup, “So-called Worked Flints of Thenay,”Journ. Anthr. Inst., vol. xiv., 1885, p. 289, andRev. d’Anthr., 1885; Cartailhac,La France Préhistorique, p. 35, Paris, 1889; Newton, “The Evidence for the Existence of Man in the Tertiary Period,”Proceed. Geolog. Assoc., vol. xv., London, 1897; Salomon Reinach,Antiquités Nationales, Descrip. Musée St.-Germain, vol. i., p. 96, Paris, 1889,—this work contains a mass of prehistoric information and a copious bibliography.

[338]The so-called tertiary skeleton of Castenedolo, near Brescia, discovered by Ragazonni, is an “odd fact,” an “incomplete observation,” to use the happy phrase of Marcellin Boule, and cannot be taken into account.

[339]J. Geikie,Great Ice Age, London, 1894; Marcellin Boule, “Paléontol. stratigr. de l’Homme,”Rev. d’Anthr., Paris, 1888.

[340]The extreme limit of the spread of glaciers to the south at that period may be indicated by a line which would pass near to Bristol, London, Rotterdam, Cologne, Hanover, Dresden, Cracow, Lemberg; then would go round Kief on the south, Orel on the north, and rise again (on the south of Saratov) up to Nijni-Novgorod, Viatka, the upper valley of the Kama, to blend with the line of the watershed of this river and the Pechora (seeMap 1.).

[341]See G. and A. de Mortillet,Musée préhistorique, Paris, pl. vi. to ix.; J. Evans,Ancient Stone Implements, 2nd ed., chap. xxiii., London, 1897.

[342]Frequently these implements have been found, in sufficiently deep beds, beside bones of the straight-tusked elephant (Elephas antiquus), the smooth-skinned, two-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Merckii), the great hippopotamus—that is to say, of animals characteristic of the first interglacial period. As these species are allied to the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus of Africa of the present day, the hypothesis has been propounded that they came from this continent, utilising the numerous isthmuses then existing (between Gibraltar and Morocco, between Sicily, Malta and Tunis, etc.). Man, the maker of the Chellean implements, followed, it is supposed, in their steps. One might argue with equal force that the migration took place in the opposite direction.

[343]Woldrich (after Nehring),Mit. Anthr. Gesell., vol. xi., p. 187, Vienna.

[344]In England it is sometimes designated the “cave period” to distinguish it from the Chellean, called “River-drift” period, but this term is open to objection; thus, for example, in the celebrated Kent cavern there have been found at the bottom implements of the Chellean type identical with certain objects of the River-drift. (See the works already quoted, as well as Windle,Life in Early Britain, p. 26, London, 1897.)

[345]According to G. de Mortillet, Mousterian industry also differs from the Chellean in regard to technique. In the Chellean period what is utilised is the core or nucleus of the stone cut right round on both sides; while in the Mousterian period what are fashioned are the splinters struck off from this core, which are trimmed especially on one face, the inner face remaining smooth and showing the trace of its origin under the form of a “cone” or “bulb of percussion,” which corresponds to a hollow in the block from which the splinter has been dislodged. However, implements recalling at first sight the “knuckle-duster,” but which differ from it by their amygdaloidal form and their straight edges (Saint-Acheul type), are still to be found at this period.

[346]In G. de Morlillet’s classification a yet additional period is inserted between the Mousterian and the Magdalenian. This is theSolutrian, characterised by finely cut heads (spear or arrow?) in the shape of a laurel leaf. But the zone in which these implements are met with is limited to certain regions of the south and west of France only. For many palæethnographers this is a “facies local” of the Magdalenian period.

[347]There may be added to the masterpieces here reproduced the famous representation of the mammoth carved on the tusk of this animal itself by a man of La Madeleine (Dordogne), discovered and described by Lartet; and by Boyd Dawkins,Early Man in Brit., p. 105, London, 1880. See Cartailhac,loc. cit., p. 72.

[348]After the second interglacial period the “Great Baltic Glacier” still covered the Scandinavian peninsula, with the exception of its southern part (Gothland), extended over the emerged bottom of the Baltic, over nearly the whole of Finland, and spreading round Gothland invaded the east coast of Denmark and the littoral of Germany to the east of Jutland. After the retreat of this glacier and a series of changes in the surface of the ground (a sinking which brought the Baltic into communication with the North Sea by means of the Strait of Svealand, followed by the upheaval which cut off that communication and made of the Baltic theAncylus Lakeof the geologists), the climate became milder in these parts, and the trees of Central Europe, first the pines, then the oaks and birches, penetrated into Denmark and Gothland, while in the north of Sweden there were two other new glacier movements. (Gerard de Geer,Om Skandinavens Geografiska Utveckling, Stockholm, 1897; G. Andersson,Geschichte Végétat. Schwed., Leipzig, 1896.)

[349]This supposition is invalidated by this fact among others, that, in the neolithic “shell heaps” of Scandinavia no remains of the reindeer are found.

[350]As witnessed by the diggings of Piette at Mas d’Azil, see p. 163.

[351]There was yet to take place another sinking of the ground which established a communication, by means of the Sound, between the “Ancylus Lake” of the preceding period with the North Sea, transforming it thus into a very salt and warm sea called, from the principal fossil which reveals to us its existence, the Littorina Sea.

[352]Nehring,Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., 1895, No. 6 (Verh., pp. 425 and 573); Salomon Reinach,L’Anthropologie, 1897, p. 53; P. Salmon,Races hum. préhist., p. 9, Paris, 1888; Cartailhac,loc. cit., p. 327; M. Boule,loc. cit., p. 679; G. de Mortillet,La Format. de la Nat. Franc., p. 289.

[353]Out of forty-six skulls to which the title “quaternary” has been applied, I have only been able, after a careful examination of all evidence, to recognise as such the ten to fifteen following skulls. For the age of the mammoth or “Mousterian” period, seven skulls certainly quaternary: two skulls from Spy (Belgium), and those from Egisheim (Alsace), Olmo (Val d’Arno, Italy), Bury St. Edmunds (England), Podbaba (Bohemia), and Predmost (Moravia). Perhaps we should refer to this period the skulls which cannot be definitely traced to a certain alluvial bed, like those of Neanderthal (Rhenish Prussia), Denise (Auvergne), Marcilly-sur-Eure (Eure), La Truchère (Saône), and Tilbury (near London). As to the skulls of the “reindeer” age (Magdalenian period), three only are known which are not called in question: these are the skulls of Laugerie-Basse, Chancelade (Dordogne), and Sordes (Landes). Perhaps we should include among them the skulls of uncertain date, like those of Bruniquel, Engis, Sargels (near Larzac), and perhaps others which certain authorities classify as belonging to mesolithic and even neolithic times: the three skulls of Cro-Magnon (Dordogne); the six so-called Mentone skulls (Baoussé-Roussé, Maritime Alps); the skulls of theTrou de Frontalat Furfooz (Belgium), of Solutré (Valley of the Saône), Bohuslan (near Stangenas, Sweden), Clichy and Grenelle (Paris). And, lastly, we have no data on which to form an opinion as to the date of the skulls of Canstatt (Wurtemberg), Maëstricht (Holland), Gibraltar, Brux (Bohemia), Lhar, Nagy-Sap (Hungary), Schebichowitz (Bohemia), Valle do Areciro (Portugal), etc. Cf. S. Reinach,loc. cit.(Antiquités Nation.), p. 134; and Hervé,Rev. École Anthr., p. 208, Paris, 1892.

[354]The instances of the skull of Saint Mensuy, an Irish bishop, and others, are universally known. See on this subject, Godron,Mem. Acad. Stanislas, p. 50, Nancy, 1884; Worthington Smith,Man, the Primeval Savage, p. 38, London, 1893; and W. Borlase,The Dolmens of Ireland, vol. iii., p. 922, London, 1897.

[355]De Quatrefages and Hamy,Cr. Ethn., p. 44; De Quatrefages,Hist. Gén. Races Hum., vol. i., p. 67; Hervé,Rev. École. Anthr., Paris, 1893, p. 173; 1894, p. 105; 1896, p. 97.

[356]Hervé, “Les brachycéphales néolith.,”Rev. École. Anthr., Paris, 1894, p. 393; and 1895, p. 18.

[357]J. Beddoe,The Races of Britain, Bristol-London, 1885, and “Hist. de l’indice ceph. dans les îles Britan.,”L’Anthropol., 1894, p. 513; Windle,loc. cit., p. 9; Inostrantsev,Doïstoritcheskii,etc.(Prehistor. Man of Ladoga), St. Petersburg, 1882, fig. and pl.

[358]Montelius,Temps. préhist. en Suède, p. 41, Paris, 1895; Cartailhac,Âges préhist. Esp. et Portug., p. 305, Paris, 1886; H. and S. Siret,Prem. âges du métal dans le sud-est de l’Esp., 3rd part (by V. Jacques), Antwerp, 1887.

[359]S. Reinach, “Mirage oriental,”L’Anthropologie, 1894, pp. 539 and 699; A. Evans, “Eastern Question,”Rep. Brit. Assoc., 1896, p. 911; Montelius,loc. cit.; Much, “Die Kupferzeit in Europa,” Jena, 1893.

[360]A. Evans,loc. cit., “Eastern Question”; Sal. Reinach,L’Anthropol., 1893, p. 731; Montelius, “The Tyrrhenians, etc.,”Jour. Anthr. Inst., vol. xxvi., 1897, p. 254, pl.; and “Pre-classic Chronology in Greece,”ibid., p. 261.

[361]This term, used first in Germany, is accepted by almost all men of science. The La Tène period corresponds pretty nearly with the “âge Marnien” of French archæologists and thelate Celticof English archæologists. Cf. M. Hoernes,Urgesch. d. Mensch., chaps. viii. and ix., Vienna, 1892.

[362]Together with the Sards, the Turses are the only European peoples of which the Egyptian inscriptions anterior to the thirteenth centuryB.C.make mention, under the name ofShordanaandThursana(W. Max Müller,Europa und Asien, 1894).

[363]D’Arbois de Jubainville,Les Anciens Habitants de l’Europe, new ed., vol. i., p. 201, Paris.

[364]See for this history, Isaac Taylor,The Origin of the Aryans, chap. i., London, 1890, and S. Reinach,L’origine des Aryens, Paris, 1892.

[365]Th. Poesche,Die Arier, Jena, 1878; Penka,Die Herkunft der Arier, Vienna, 1886. This identification has been turned to account by several men of science, especially by O. Ammon (loc. cit.) in Germany and V. de Lapouge (Sélections sociales, Paris, 1895) in France, in the construction of somewhat bold sociological theories.

[366]Osc. Schrader,Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch., 2nd ed., Jena, 1890.

[367]According to Hirt, “Die Urheimat ... d. Indogermanen,”Geogr. Zeitsch., vol. i., p. 649, Leipzig, 1895, the home of dispersion of the primitive Aryan language would be found to the north of the Carpathians, in the Letto-Lithuanian region. From this point two linguistic streams would start, flowing round the mountains to the west and east; the western stream, after spreading over Germany (Teutonic languages), left behind them the Celtic languages in the upper valley of the Danube, and filtered through on the one side into Italy (Latin languages), on the other side into Illyria, Albania, and Greece (Helleno-Illyrian languages). The eastern stream formed the Slav languages in the plains traversed by the Dnieper, then spread by way of the Caucasus into Asia (Iranian languages and Sanscrit). In this way we can account, on the one hand, for the less and less marked relationship between the different Aryan languages of the present day and the common primitive dialect, and, on the other hand, the diversity between the two groups of Aryan languages, western and eastern.

[368]A. Bertrand and S. Reinach,Les Celtes dans la vallée du Pô, etc., Paris, 1894.

[369]D’Arbois de Jubainville,loc. cit., vol. ii., p. 297.

[370]For particulars see J. Deniker, “Les Races de l’Europe,”Bull. Soc. d’Anthropol., 1897, pp. 189 and 291;L’Anthropologie, 1898, p. 113 (with map); and “Les Races de l’Europe,” first part,L’indice Céphal., Paris, 1899 (coloured map). Cf. Ripley, “Racial Geography of Europe,”Appleton’s Popular Science Monthly, New York, for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899.

[371]See inAppendices I.toIII.the figures relative to the different populations of Europe, taken from the works referred to by me in the previous note.

[372]Sergi,Origine ... Stirpe Mediterranea, Rome, 1895.

[373]Houzé, “Caract. phys. des races européennes,”Bull. Soc. Anthro., Brussels, vol. ii., 1883, 1st part.

[374]R. Collignon,Bull. Soc. Anthro., Paris, 1883, p. 463, andL’Anthropologie, 1890, No. 2.

[375]Ch. de Tourtoulon and Bringuier, “Limite ... de la langue d’oc, etc.,”Arch. Miss. Sc. Paris, 1876. Cf.Rev. École Anthr. Paris, 1891, p. 218.

[376]Province of Namur, nearly the whole of the provinces of Hainault, Liège, and Luxemburg, as well as the southern part of Brabant. Cf. Bremer,Nationalit. und Sprache in Belgien(with map), Stuttgart, 1887.

[377]H. Gaidoz, “Die französisch. Thäler Piemonts,”Globus, p. 59, 1891, with map; Sachier,Le Français et le Provençal(Fr. trans. by Monet, Paris, 1891).

[378]F. Pullé, “Profilo antr. dell’ Italia,”Archivo. p. Antr., 1898 (with maps).

[379]Dr. N. Manolescu,Igiena Teranului(Hygiene of the Rumanian peasant, an ethnographical inquiry), Bucharest, 1895; S. Weigand,Die Aromunen, vol. i., Leipzig, 1895 (with plates and maps).

[380]A. J. Ellis,English Dialects, London, 1890, two maps; and other publications of the English Dialect Society (1873–98).

[381]Almost all the two Flanders, the half to the north of Brabant, the provinces of Antwerp and of Limbourg. Cf. Bremer,loc. cit.

[382]R. Andree, “Gränzen Niederd. Sprache,”Globus, 1891, vol. lix., No. 2.

[383]See Langhans,Deutsch. Kolon. Atlas, maps Nos. 3 to 7. For a comprehensive view of the Germans generally, see Ranke,Der Mensch., vol. ii. (Somat., Archeol.), and E. H. Meyer, “Deutsche Volkskunde” (Ethnography, Folk-lore), Strassburg, 1898; for the Austrians:Oester.-Ung. Monarchie, vols. iv. and vi., Vienna, 1886–89; and for the Bavarians,Beiträge z. Anthr., etc., Bayerns, Munich (1876–99).

[384]See for the Slav languages: A. Pypine and Spassovitch,Istoria, etc.(Hist. of Slavonic Literatures), St. Petersburg, 1879, 2 vols., of which there is a translation of the first in French by S. Denis (1881); for a slight general view: F. von Hellwand,Die Welt der Slaven, Berlin, 1890; Zograf,Les peuples de la Russie, Moscow (1895); andOester-Hung. Monarch., vols. ix., xi., xiv., xv. (1891–96); for ethnogeny and archæology: Lubor Niederle,O Puvodu Slovanu(Origin of the Slavs), Prague, 1897 (in Czech); andCheloviechestvo, etc.(Prehistoric Man), Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1898.

[385]Beddoe, “The Kelts of Ireland,”Journ. of Anthropol., 1871, p. 117 (map); Broca, “La Question Celtique,”Bull. Soc. Anthro. Paris, 1873, pp. 313 and 247; Havelock Ellis, “The Men of Cornwall,”New Century Review, 1897, Nos. 4 and 5.

[386]T. Aranzadi,El pueblo Escalduna, San Sebastian, 1889 (maps); R. Collignon, “La Race Basque,”L’Anthropologie, vol. v., 1894, p. 276.

[387]Oester.-Ung. Monarchie, vols. v., ix., and xii., 1888–93.

[388]Retzius,Finska Kranier, Stockholm, 1878, pl. (with French summary); see also publications of the Finno-Ugrian Society of Helsingfors, etc.

[389]S. Sommier,Un Estate in Siberia, Florence, 1885; andArchivo p. l’Antro., vols. xvii. and xix. (1887–89); Maïnof,Resooltaty, etc. (Anthr. and Jurid. Studies of the Mordva); “Zapiski,” Russian Geog. Socy. (Ethnog. Sec.), vols. xi. and xiv. (1883–85); works of Smirnov on the Mordva, Cheremiss, etc., Fr. trans. by Boyer (Paris, 1897–98).

[390]P. Mantegazza and Sommier,Studii antr. sui Lapponi, Turin, 1880 (phot. pl.); “Notes on the Lapps,” by Prince R. Bonaparte, Keane, and Garson,Jour. Anthr. Inst., vol. xv., 1885, pp. 210et seq.; Montefiore, “The Samoyeds,”Jour. Anthr. Inst., vol. xxiv., 1895, p. 396; Zograf, “Esquisse des Samoyedes,”Izviestia(Bull.)Soc. Friends. Nat. Sc., Moscow, vol. xxxi., 1878–79, supl. (analysed in theRev. d’Anthr., 1881); Sommier,loc. cit.(analysedRev. d’Ethnogr.), Paris, 1889.

[391]R. Erckert,Der Kaukasus u. Seine Völker, Leipzig, 1885 (with map); E. Chantre,Rech. Anthropol., dans le Caucase, Lyons, 1885–87, 4th vol., and atlas; Pantiukhof, “Obser. Anthr. au Caucase,”Zapiski Caucasian Sec. of Russ. Geog. Soc., vol. xv., Tiflis, 1893, phot.

[392]For particulars see Deniker,loc. cit.(Races de l’Europe).

[393]The flint flakes resembling palæolithic tools, found by F. Noetling (Records Geol. Survey, India, vol. xxvii., p. 101, Calcutta, 1894) in Miocene or lower Pliocene beds, at Yenang-Yung (Central Burma), are considered by Oldham and other scholars as natural products. However, Noetling has since (in 1897) described an animal bone, artificially polished(?), of the same beds.—Nat. Science, London-New York, 1894, p. 345; 1895, 1st half-year, p. 367; 2nd, pp. 199 and 294; and 1887, 1st half-year, p. 233.

[394]The bones of thePithecanthropus, a thigh-bone, a calvaria (Figs.112and113), and two molar teeth (Fig.112), were found by Dr. Dubois at Trinil (province of Madioun), on the bank of the river Bengavan, in a layer of lava, by the side of bones of animals of the Pliocene period. The calvaria, indicating a cranial capacity of about 900 cubic centimetres, recalls rather the Neanderthal-Spy skull (Fig.86) than that of a gibbon; the thigh-bone is entirely human; the teeth are of a form intermediate between those of Man and of the Anthropoids.—For particulars see E. Dubois,Pithecanthropus ... aus Java, Batavia, 1894; and his articles in theAnat. Anzeig., 1896, No. 1, and theJour. Anthr. Inst., London, vol. 25, p. 240 (1896); Manouvrier, Bull. Soc. Anthr., Paris, 1895, pp. 12 and 553; 1896, pp. 396 and 467; G. Schwalbe,Zeitsch. Morph. u. Anthr., vol. i., p. 16, Stuttgart, 1899.

[395]Uvarof,Arkheologia, etc. (Archeol. of Russia, vol. i., Moscow, 1881, p. 162, in Russian); Kuznétzof,Mittheil. Anthr. Gesell., Vienna, 1896, Nos. 4 and 5; “Age de la pierre au Japon,”Mater. hist.... homme, Toulouse-Paris, 1879, p. 31; S. Fuse,Journ. Anthr. Soc. Tokyo, vol. xi., 1896, No. 122 (in Japanese); Inuzuka,ibid., No. 119; E. Cartailhac, “L’âge de la pierre en Asie,”Congr. Orientalistes, 3rd ser., 1, p. 315, Lyons, 1880; G. Chauvet, “Age de la pierre en Asie,”Congr. intern. arch. prehis., 11th session, vol. i., p. 57, Moscow, 1892. The arrows picked up by Abbé A. David in Mongolia, and supposed to be palæolithic, belong to the historic period (Hamy,Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat., 1896, p. 46).

[396]Medlicot and Blandford,Manual of Geol. of India, Calcutta, 1879, 2 vols.; Cartailhac,loc. cit.; Rivett-Carnac,Journ. Anthr. Inst., vol. xiii., 1884, p. 119.

[397]Potanin,Otcherki, etc. (North-West Mong. Sketches), St. Petersburg, 1881–83, 4 vols., (in Russian); Adrianof, “Zapiski, etc.,”Mem. Russ. Geog. Soc., Sect. Gen. Geog., vol. xi., 1888, p. 149; Radloff,Aus Sibirien, Leipzig, 1884, 2 vols., andArbeit. Orkhon. Exped., St. Petersburg, 1893–97 (in course of publication). For summary of the question and bibliography, see Deniker,Nouvelles Geogr., p. 54, Paris, 1892 (with map).

[398]Radloff,loc. cit.(Arbeit., etc.); Thomson,Mem. Soc. Finno-Ougriennevol. v., Helsingfors, 1896. We cannot admit as a general rule an exact synchronism between the prehistoric periods of Europe and those of Northern Asia. If, as Uvarof says, the age of the mammoth was earlier in Siberia than in Europe, it is none the less true that many peoples of Eastern Siberia were still in the midst of the “stone age” at the time when the Russians penetrated into this country (seventeenth century). As to the peoples of Western Siberia and the Kirghiz Steppes, the beginning of their bronze age goes back at the furthest to the beginning of the Christian era.

[399]Margaritof,Memoirs Amurian Soc. of Naturalists, vol. i., Vladivostok, 1887. The only skull found in these heaps is dolichocephalic and reminds one of the Ainu skull. Thus one might suppose, as Milne had done (Trans. As. Soc. Jap., Tokio, 1899, vol. vii., p. 61), in connection with the similar kitchen refuse found in Japan, that they are the work of the Ainus; however, the presence of pottery, unknown to the Ainus even to recent times, militates against this view.

[400]The Nagas have still at the present day axes of precisely the same form, which they use as hoes. (S. Peal,Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, vol. lxv., Part III., p. 9, Calcutta, 1896.) Cf. Noulet, “Age de la pierre ... au Cambodge d’après Moura,”Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. i., p. 3, Toulouse, 1879; andMater. Hist. Nat. Homme, vol. xiv., p. 315, Toulouse, 1879; Cartaillac,L’Anthropol., p. 64, 1890 (a summary of Jammes’s discoveries).

[401]Schrenck,Reisen in Amur-Lande, vol. iii., Parts I. and II., St. Petersburg, 1881–91.

[402]Müller and Gmelin saw in 1753 the last surviving Arines, and in 1855 Castren was still able to find five individuals speaking the Kotte tongue.

[403]Yadrintsef, “Ob Altaïtsakh, etc.” (On the Altaians and Tatars of Chern),Izviestia of the Russ. Geogr. Soc., St. Petersb., 1881.

[404]Nordenskiold,Voyage de la Vega, vol. ii., chap. xii., Paris, 1883–84; Deniker,loc. cit.(Rev. Anthr., p. 309, 1882).

[405]The disappearance of these tribes is more apparent than real. The Anauls, in the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Anadyr, exterminated by the Cossacks in 1649, were only a fraction of the Yukaghirs, as is indicated by the termination “ul” which is found again in the name “Odul,” which the Yukaghirs use to describe themselves. The word “Omok” means simply people, “tribe” in Yukaghir language. As to the Cheliags, who, according to the Cossack Amossof, occupied at the end of the last century the Siberian coast between the Gulf of Chaun and the mouth of the Kolima—they were probably one of the Chukchi tribes.

[406]Iokhelson, “Izviestia, etc.,”Bull. East-Siberian Sect. of the Russ. Geogr. Soc., vol. xxix., p. 8, Irkutsk, 1898.

[407]Anuchin, “Izviestia”Soc. Friends Sc. Moscow, suppl. to vol. xx., 1876 (analysedRev. d’Anthr., 1878, p. 148); Scheube,Mitt. Deut. Gesell. Natur. u. Volkenk, vol. iii., pp. 44 and 220, Yokohama-Tokio, 1880–82; G. Batchelor,Trans. As. Soc. Japan, vol. x., part 2, Tokio, 1882, andThe Ainu of Japan, London, 1892; Chamberlain,Mem. Imper. Univ. Japan, Litter. coll. No. 1, Tokio, 1887 (analysedRev. d’Anthr., 1888, p. 81); Tarenetsky,Mem. Ac. Sc. St. Petersburg, 1890, vol. xxxvii., No. 13; Hitchcock,Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1890, pp. 408 and 429; S. Landor,Alone with the Hairy Ainu, 1893; Koganeï,Beitr. z. Phys. Anthr. Aino(extr. fromMit. Med. Fakult., vols. i. and ii., Tokio, 1893–94).

Back to Index Next