The Human Race
TextUnless, therefore, we regard men as a solitary exception among all living beings, unless we withdraw them from the operation of the universal laws of nature, we must come to the conclusion that they do but form a certain number of races of one and the same species, and all descend from one primitive unique species.
Men are brothers in blood: this principle of universal fraternity imposed by nature, may be placed side by side with the corresponding maxim suggested by the moral sense.
Those who deny the unity of the human species, polygenists, or supporters of the plurality of human kind, base their arguments in favour of there being more than one species, upon the assertion that the distinction between the Negro and the white man is too great to permit of their possibly being classed together. But, between the lap-dog and the mastiff, the wild and tame rabbit, the spaniel and the greyhound, or the Shetland and Russian horse, there is a much greater difference than exists between the Negro and the white man. We are unable to state exactly, or to explain with any degree of accuracy, how it is that man, as he was first created, has given birth to races so widely different as the white, black, yellow, brown, and red which people the earth at the present day. We can but furnish a general explanation of what we see in the widely varying conditions of existence, and in the opposite character of the media through which man, for ages past, has dragged his existence, frequently with much difficulty and uncertainty. If the dog, the horse, the rabbit, and the turkey, through the agency of human industry applied to them during a period of scarcely two thousand years, have given birth to so many varieties, how much more would man, whose appearance upon the globe is of such antiquity that we cannot assign to it even approximatively a date – man, whose fate it has been to pass through so many different climates, such various physical and social positions, expect to see his own type become modified and transformed? We should, with more reason, feel surprised at finding that the differences between one variety and another are not much wider than they appear to be.
In order to avoid this argument, there remains to the supporters of the plurality of human kind no alternative but to regard man as an exception in nature; to assert that he has laws peculiar to himself, and that the principles which pervade the life of plants and animals can in no way apply to him. But man, who is an organized and living being, and is furnished with a body that differs but little from that of any mammiferous animal, is, so far as concerns his organization, subject to the universal laws of nature, and that of intermixture among the rest. It is therefore impossible to admit the question of exception raised by those who deny the unity of the human species.
The principle that the human species is one, and what follows as a natural conclusion, namely, that all men who inhabit the earth are but races or varieties of this one species, will, therefore, appear to the reader to be satisfactorily established.
These different races which originate in one species, the primitive type having been modified by the operation of climate, food, soil, intermixture and local customs, differ, it must be admitted, to a marvellous extent, in their outward appearance, colour and physiognomy. The differences are so great, the extremes so marked and the transitions so gradual, that it is well-nigh impossible to distribute the human species into really natural groups from a scientific point of view, that is to say, groups founded upon organic characteristics. The classification of the human races has always been the stumbling block of anthropology, and up to the present time the difficulty remains almost undiminished.
A cursory examination of the various classifications which have been brought forward by the most important of those who have essayed the task will make this truth apparent to all.
Buffon, in his chapter upon man; a work which we can always read again with admiration and advantage, contents himself with bringing forward the three fundamental types of the human species which have been known from the first under the names of the white, black and yellow race. But these three types in themselves do not exemplify every human physiognomy. The ancient inhabitants of America, commonly known as the Red-Skins, are entirely overlooked in this classification, and the distinction between the Negro and the white man cannot always be easily pointed out, for in Africa the Abyssinians, the Egyptians, and many others, in America the Californians, and in Asia the Hindoos, Malays and Javanese are neither white nor black.
Blumenbach, the most profound anthropologist of the last century, and author of the first actual treatise upon the natural history of man, distinguished in his Latin work, De Homine, five races of men, the Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay and American. Another anthropologist, Prochaska, adopted the divisions pointed out by Blumenbach, but united under the name of the white race, Blumenbach’s Caucasian and Mongolian groups, and added the Hindoo race.
The eloquent naturalist Lacépède, in his Histoire naturelle de l’Homme, added to the races admitted by Blumenbach the hyperborean race, comprising the inhabitants of the northern portion of the globe in either continent.
Cuvier fell back upon Buffon’s division, admitting only the white, black and yellow races, from which he simply derived the Malay and American races.
A naturalist of renown, Virey, author of l’Histoire naturelle du Genre humain, l’Histoire naturelle de la Femme, and of many other clever productions upon natural history and particularly anthropology, gave much attention to the classification of the human races. But he was not favourable to the unity of our species, being led to entertain the opinion that the human species was twofold. This was the starting point of an erroneous deviation in the ideas of naturalists who wrote after Virey. We find Bory de Saint Vincent admitting as many as fifteen species of men, and another naturalist, Desmoulins, doubtless influenced by a feeling of emulation, distinguished sixteen human species, which, moreover, were not the same as those admitted by Bory de Saint Vincent.
This course of classification might have been followed to a much greater extent, for the differences among men are so great, that if strict rule is not adhered to, it is impossible to fix any limit to species. Unless therefore the principle of unity has been fully conceded at starting, the investigation may result in the admission of a truly indefinite quantity.
This is the principle which pervades the writings of the most learned of all the anthropologists of our age, Dr. Pritchard, author of a Natural History of Man, which in the original text formed ten volumes, but of which the French language possesses but a very incomplete translation.
Dr. Pritchard holds that all people of the earth belong to the same species; he is a partisan of the unity of the human species, but is not satisfied with any of the classifications already proposed, and which were founded upon organic characteristics. He, in fact, entirely alters the aspect of the ordinary classifications which are to be met with in natural history. He commences by pointing out three families, which, he asserts, were in history the first human occupants of the earth: namely the Aryan, Semitic, and Egyptian. Having described these three families, Pritchard passes to the people who, as he says, radiated in various directions from the regions inhabited by them, and proceeded to occupy the entire globe.
This mode of classification, as we have pointed out, leaves the beaten track trodden by other natural historians. For this reason it has not found favour among modern anthropologists, and this disfavour has reacted upon the work itself, which, notwithstanding, is the most complete and exact of all that we possess upon man. Although it has been adopted by no other author, Pritchard’s classification of the human race appears to us to be the most sound in principle.
M. de Quatrefages, in his course of anthropology at the Museum of Natural History, Paris, makes a classification of the human race based upon the three types, white, yellow and black; but he appends to each of these three groups, under the head of mixed races attached to each stem, a number of races more or less considerable and arbitrary which were excluded from the three chief divisions.
The classification of M. de Quatrefages will be found in his Rapport sur les progrès de l’Anthropologie, published in 1867.3 It is extremely learned and well worked out, but a classification which entirely passes by the simple mode of reasoning we shall adopt in the following pages.
The classification of the human race which we propose to follow, modifying it where in our opinion it may appear to be necessary, is due to a Belgian naturalist, M. d’Omalius d’Halloy. It acknowledges five races of men: the white, black, yellow, brown and red.
This classification is based upon the colour of the skin, a characteristic very secondary in importance to that of organization, but which yet furnishes a convenient framework for an exact and methodical enumeration of the inhabitants of the globe, permitting a clear consideration of a most confused subject. In the groups, therefore, which we shall propose, the reader will fail to find a truly scientific classification, but will meet with merely such a simple distribution of materials, as shall permit us to review methodically the various races spread over every portion of the Earth’s surface.
CHAPTER II
General characteristics of the human race – Organic characteristics – Senses and the nervous system – Height – Skeleton – Cranium and face – Colour of the skin – Physiological functions – Intellectual characteristics – Properties of human intelligence – Languages and literature – Different states of society – Primitive industry – The two ages of prehistoric humanity.
Before entering upon a minute description of each of the human races, we shall find it well to lay before the reader a generalization of the characteristics which are common to all.
Since man is an intelligent being, living in an organized frame, our attention has to be directed to the consideration of his organs and intellect, that is, in the first place, we must investigate the physical, in the second, the intellectual and moral elements of his constitution.
The physical characteristics bear but secondary importance among those of the human race. Man is a spirit which shines within the body of an animal, and the only difficulty is to ascertain in what manner the organism of the mammalia is modified in order to become that of man; to compare the harmony of this organism with the object in view, namely the exercise of human intellect and thought. We shall see that the organs of the mammalia are greatly modified in the human subject, becoming, either on account of their individual excellence or the harmony of their combination, greatly superior to the associations of the same organs among animals.
Let us first consider the brain and organs of sense. When we examine the form and relative size of the brain in ascending the series of mammiferous animals, we find that this organ increases in volume, and progresses, so to say, toward the superior characteristics which it is to display in the human species. Disregarding certain exceptions, for the existence of which we cannot account, but which in no way alter the general rule, the brain increases in importance from the zoophyte to the ape. But, in comparing the brain of the ape with that of man, an important difference becomes at once apparent. The brain of the gorilla, orang-outang, or chimpanzee, which are the apes that bear the greatest resemblance to man, and which for that reason are designated anthropomorphous apes, is very much smaller than that of man. The cerebral lobes in man are much longer than in the anthropomorphous apes, and their vertical measure is out of all proportion with the height of the cerebral lobes in apes; this is what produces the noble frontal curve, one of the characteristic features of the human physiognomy. The cerebral lobes are connected behind with a third nervous mass called the cerebellum. The large volume of these three lobes, the depth and number of convolutions of the encephalic mass, and other anatomical details of the brain, upon which we are unable here to treat at greater length, place the brain of man very far above that of the animal nearest to him in the zoological scale. These differences bear witness in favour of man to an unparalleled intellectual development, and we should be better able to measure these differences, were we able to show in what the cerebral action consists, but this we are utterly unable to do.
The senses, taken individually, are not more developed in man than they are in certain animals; but in man they are characterised by their harmony, their perfect equilibrium, and their admirable appropriation to a common end. Man, it will at once be admitted, is not so keen of sight as the eagle, nor so subtle of hearing as the hare, nor does he possess the wonderful scent of the dog. His skin is far from being as fine and impressionable as that which covers the wing of a bat. But, while among animals, one sense always predominates to the disadvantage of the rest, and the individual is thus forced to adopt a mode of existence which works hand in hand with the development of this sense, with man, all the senses possess almost equal delicacy, and the harmony of their association makes up for what may be wanting in individual power. Again, the senses of animals are employed only in satisfying material necessities, while in man, they assist in the exercise of eminent faculties whose development they further.
Let us consider shortly in detail our senses.
Man is certainly better off, as regards the sense of sight, than a large majority of animals. Instead of being placed upon different sides of his head, looking in opposite directions, and receiving two images which cannot possibly be alike, his eyes are directed forwards, and regard similar objects, by which means the impression is doubled. The sense of sight thus brings to his conceptions a complete image and solid idea of what surrounds him; it is his most useful sense, the more so when it is guided in its application by a clear intellect.
The sense of touch in man reaches a degree of perfection which it does not attain in animals. How marvellous is the sense of touch when exercised by applying the extremities of the fingers, the part of the body the best suited to this function, and how much more wonderful is the organ called the hand, which applies itself in so admirable a manner to the most different surfaces whose extent, form, or qualities, we wish to ascertain!
A modern philosopher has attributed to the hand alone our intellectual superiority. This was going too far. We find enthusiasm allied with justice in the views expressed in the excellent pages which Galen has consecrated to a description of the hand, in his immortal work De usu partium.
“Man alone,” says Galen, “is furnished with hands, as he alone is a participator in wisdom. The hand is a most marvellous instrument, and one most admirably adapted to his nature. Remove his hand, and man can no longer exist. By its means he is prepared for defence or attack, for peace or war. What need has he of horns or talons? With his hand, he grasps the sword and lance, he fashions iron and steel. Whilst with horns, teeth and talons, animals can only attack or defend at close quarters, man is able to project from afar the instruments with which he is armed. Shot from his hand, the feathered arrow reaches at a great distance the heart of an enemy, or stops the flight of a passing bird. Although man is less agile than the horse and the deer, yet he mounts the horse, guides him, and thus successfully hunts the deer. He is naked and feeble, yet his hand procures him a covering of iron and steel. His body is unprotected against the inclemencies of climate, yet his hand finds him a convenient abode, and furnishes him with clothing. By the use of his hand, he gains dominion and mastery over all that lives upon the earth, in the air, or in the depths of the sea. From the flute and lyre with which he amuses his leisure, to the terrible instruments by means of which he deals death around him, and to the vessel which bears him, a daring seaman, upon the bosom of the deep – all is the work of his hand.
“Would man without hands have been able to write out the laws which govern him, or raise to the gods statues and altars? Without hands could he bequeath to posterity the fruit of his labours, and the memory of his deeds? Could he (had man been created handless) converse with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the different great men, children of bygone ages? The hand is then the physical characteristic of man, in like manner as intelligence is his moral characteristic.”
Galen, having shown in this chapter the general formation of the hand and the special disposition of the organs which compose it; having described the articulations and bones, the muscles and tendons of the fingers; and having analyzed the mechanism of the different movements of the hand, cries, full of admiration for this marvellous structure:
“In presence of the hand, this marvellous instrument, cannot we well treat with contempt the opinion of those philosophers who saw in the human body merely the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms! Does not everything in our organization most clearly give the lie to this false doctrine? Who will dare to invoke chance in explanation of this admirable disposition? No, it is no blind power that has given birth to all these marvels. Do you know among men a genius capable of conceiving and executing so perfect a work? There exists not such a workman. This sublime organization is the creation of a superior intelligence, of which the intellect of man is but a poor terrestrial reflection. Let others offer to the Deity reeking hecatombs, let them sing hymns in honour of the gods; my hymn of praise shall be the study and the exposition of the marvels of the human frame!”
The sense of hearing, without attaining in man the perfection which it reaches in certain animals, is nevertheless of great delicacy, and becomes an infinite resource of instruction and pure enjoyment. Not only are differences of intonation, intensity, and timbre, recognised by our ear, but the most delicate shades of rhythm and tone, the relations of simultaneous and successive sounds which give the sentiment of melody and harmony, are appreciated, and furnish us with the first and most natural of the arts – music. Thus the perfection and delicacy of our senses, which permit of our grasping faint and slightly varying impressions, the harmony of these senses themselves, their perfect equilibrium, their capability of improvement by exercise, place us at a considerable distance above the animal.
Let us now pass to the bony portion of the human body, and consider first of all the head. The head is shared by two regions, the cranium and the face. The predominance of either of these regions over the other, depends upon the development of the organs which belong to each.
The cranium contains the cerebral mass, that is, the seat of the intellect; the face is occupied by the organs appertaining to the principal senses. In animals, the face greatly exceeds the cranium in extent; the reverse is, however, the case with man. It is but rarely that with him the face assumes importance at the expense of the cranium – in other words, that the jaws become elongated, and give to the human face the aspect of a brute.
We find in works upon anthropology some expressions which call for an explanation here; they are frequently employed, since they enable us to express by a single term the relation which exists between the dimensions of any particular skull. The term dolichocephalous (from the Greek δολιχος, long, κεφαλη, head,) is applied to a cranium which is elongated from front to rear, or, to express the idea numerically, the cranium whose longitudinal diameter bears to its vertical diameter the proportion of 100 to 68. A short cranium is styled brachycephalous (from βραχυς, short, κεφαλη, head,) which term is applied when the relation between the longitudinal and vertical diameters is 100 to 80.
The attribute of length or shortness of the cranium is of less importance than is generally believed. All Negroes, it is true, are dolichocephalous; but it must not be supposed from this that the production backwards of the cranium is an indication of inferiority; since in the white race, heads are sometimes very long and sometimes very short. The North Germans are dolichocephalous; those inhabiting Central Germany being brachycephalous. This characteristic cannot therefore be regarded as a criterion of intellectual excellence.
There is in the human face an anatomical characteristic of greater importance than any taken from the elongation of the cranium; that is, the projection forwards, or the uprightness of the jaws. The term prognathism (from προ, forward, and γναθος, jaw,) is applied to this jutting forward of the teeth and jaws, and orthognathism (from ορθος, straight, γναθος, jaw,) to the latter arrangement.
It was long admitted that prognathism, or projection of the jaws, was peculiar to the Negro race. But this opinion has been forced to yield to the discovery, that projecting jaws exist among people in no way connected with the Negro. In the midst of white populations this characteristic is frequently met with; it is occasionally found among the English, and is by no means rare at Paris, especially among women. Prognathism would appear to be characteristic of a small European race dwelling to the south of the Baltic Sea, the Esthonians, and which itself is but the residue of the primitive Mongolian race to which we have alluded in our work, “Primitive Man,” as being the first race which, according to M. Pruner-Bey, peopled the globe. It is probably the mixture of Esthonian blood with that of the inhabitants of Central Europe, which causes the appearance in our large cities of individuals whose faces are prognathous.
We cannot close our remarks upon the face without speaking of a curious relation between it and the cranium, which has been much abused; we allude to the facial angle. By facial angle is meant the angle which results from the union of two lines, one of which touches the forehead, the other of which, drawn from the orifice of the ear, meets the former line at the extremity of the front teeth.
The Dutch anatomist Camper, after having compared Greek and Roman statues, or medals of either nationality, assumed that the cause of the intellectual superiority which distinguished Greek from Roman physiognomies was to be found in the fact, that, with the Greeks, the facial angle is larger than in Roman heads. Starting with this observation, Camper pursued his enquiries until it occurred to him to advance the theory that the increase of the facial angle may be taken in the human race as a sign of superior intelligence.
This observation was correct, insomuch as it separated men from apes, and carrion birds from other birds. But its application to different varieties of men, as a measure of their various degrees of intelligence, was a pretension doomed to be sacrificed to future investigations. Dr. Jacquart, assistant-naturalist in the Museum of Natural History at Paris, calling to his aid an instrument he invented, by which the facial angle is rapidly measured, has, in our day, made numerous studies of the facial angle of human beings. M. Jacquart found that this angle cannot be taken as a measure of intelligence, for he observed it to be a right angle in individuals, who, with respect to intelligence, were in no way superior to others whose facial angle was much smaller. M. Jacquart went so far as to show, that, in the population of Paris alone, the facial angle varies between much wider proportions than those imposed by Camper as characteristic limits of human varieties.
The measure of the facial angle, therefore, is far from bearing the importance which has long been ascribed to it; but this does not go to prevent its application, with advantage, in ordinary cases, when races of men are required to be distinguished from one another.
Erect carriage is another of the characteristics which distinguish the human species from all other animals, including the ape, by whom this position is but rarely assumed, and then accidentally and unnaturally.
Everything in the human skeleton is calculated to ensure a vertical posture. In the first place, the head articulates with the vertebral column at a point so situated that, when this vertebral column is erect, the head, by means of its own weight, remains supported in equilibrium. Besides this, the shape of the head, the direction of the face, the position of the eyes, and the form of the nostrils, all require that man should walk erect on two feet.
If our body were intended to assume a horizontal position, everything connected with it would be out of place: the crown of the head would be the most advanced part, and this would operate most detrimentally to the exercise of sight; the eyes would be directed toward the earth; the nostrils would open backward; the forehead and the face would be beneath the head. Moreover, the whole muscular system and all the tendons are, in man, auxiliary to erect posture, without mentioning the curves which occur in the vertebral column, and the exceptional formation of the limbs, &c.
J. J. Rousseau was, therefore, very far from right, when he contended that man was born to go on all fours.
The height of men, as well as the colour of their skin, are characteristics which must not be overlooked, since they are of importance as distinctive attributes of different races.
And first, with regard to height, the differences which this incident may present in the human species have been greatly exaggerated. Much allowance must be made in admitting what has been written with respect to dwarfs, and what has been alleged concerning giants. The Greeks believed in the existence of a people they called Pygmies, but whose place of abode they always omitted to point out. These were very small people, who were entirely hidden from view when they entered a field of standing wheat, and who passed much of their time in resisting the attacks of Cranes. The same fable was revived in more modern times, with reference to a people supposed to live in the island of Madagascar, who were styled Kymes. But Pygmies and Kymes are equally fabulous.
Antiquity tells us of giants, but without forming them into a separate race. It is rather in modern times that the existence of races of human giants has been put forward. In the sixteenth century, when Magellan had doubled Cape Horn and discovered the Pacific Ocean, a companion of this navigator, Pigafetta, gave an altogether extraordinary description of the Patagonians, or inhabitants of the Tierra del Fuego. He made giants of them. One of his successors, Leaya, adding yet more to the height of the Patagonians, assigned to these men a stature of from three to four metres.
Modern travellers have reduced to accurate proportions the exaggerated statements of ancient navigators. The French naturalist Alcide d’Orbigny actually measured a large number of Patagonians, and found that their height, on an average, was about 1m.73.
This, then, is about the limit of the height which is reached by the human species.
With reference to the extreme of smallness we are able to arrive at this by referring to the Bushmen who inhabit Southern Africa. An English traveller, Barrow, measured all the members of a tribe of Bushmen, and found that their average height was 1m.31.
The human species, therefore, varies in height to the extent of about 0m.42, that is to say, the difference between the height of the Patagonians and that of the Bushmen. It is well to make this observation whilst we are upon this subject, since the supporters of the theory of a plurality of human races have invoked these differences in height in support of the multiplicity of the races of humanity. It is clear that, among animals, races vary in height to a much greater extent than they do with man; there is, by comparison, a much greater difference in size between a mastiff and a dog of the Pyrenees, than there is between a Bushman and a Patagonian.
As regards the colour of the skin of the human race, we find it necessary to say a few words, since we propose to take this as the basis of our classification.
The colour of the skin is a very convenient characteristic to fix upon in order to identify the various races, since this quality is peculiarly adapted to suggest itself through the eye. Its scientific importance must, however, by no means be exaggerated. Certain individuals, though they be members of the White or Caucasian Race, may yet be very darkly tinted. Arabs are often of a brown colour, which nearly approaches black, and yet they possess the finest marks of the White or Caucasian Race. The Abyssinians, although very brown, are not black. The American Indians, whom we rank as members of the Red Race, often have dark brown or almost black skins. Among members of the White Race in northern latitudes, especially women, the skin has often a yellowish tint. We must add that the colour of the skin is often difficult to fix, since the shades of colour merge into one another. All this must be said in order to show how difficult it is to form natural groups of the innumerable types of our species.
It would be for us now to speak of the physiological characteristics of the human race; but our consideration of this subject will be limited to a few words, since the condition of physiological functions is almost identical among all men, whatever be their race.