CLASSIFICATION OF RACES AND PEOPLES.

Criticism of anthropological classifications—Frequent confusion of the classing of races and of peoples—The determining of races can be based only on somatic characters—For the classing of peoples, on the contrary, it is necessary to take into account ethnic characters (linguistic and sociological), and above all geographical distribution—Classification of races proposed by the author—Succinct characterisation of the twenty-nine races which are therein mentioned—Classification of ethnic groups adopted in this work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROUPING OF THE HUMAN RACES ACCORDING TO THEIR AFFINITIES.

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

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

VI. 8. The Assyroid race, so named because it is represented in a very clear manner on the Assyrian monuments, is not found pure in any population, but it counts a sufficient number of representatives to give a character to entire populations, such as the Hadjemi-Persians (Fig. 22), the Ayssores, certain Kurdish tribes, and some Armenians and Jews. The characteristic Jewish nose of caricature, in the form of the figure 6, is an Assyroid nose; it is almost always associated with united eyebrows and thick lower lip. The Todas (Fig. 130) partly belong, perhaps, to this type.

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

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

IX. The Melanochroid group comprises the four dark-complexioned races of Europe (12 to 15), Littoral, Ibero-insular, Western (Fig. 98), and Adriatic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. ASIA.—We include in this continent six great geographical regions. Northern Asia comprises three groups of populations: Yenisians (Samoyeds, Toubas, etc.), the PalÆo-asiatics (Chukchis, Giliaks, Ainus), and the Tunguses (Manchu, Orochons, etc.). Central Asia likewise contains three groups of populations: Turkish (Yakuts, Kirghiz, Osmanlis, etc.), Mongol (Buriats, Kalmuks, etc.), and Thibetan (Lepchas, Bods, etc.). Eastern Asia is occupied by three “nations”: Japanese, Coreans, and Chinese. Indo-China, or the Transgangetic peninsula, includes five ethnic divisions: the Aborigines (Negritoes, Tsiam, Mois, Mossos, Naga), the Cambodians, the Burmese, the Annamese, and the ThaÏ (Shans, Kakhyens, Siamese, Miao-tse, etc.). The Cisgangetic peninsula, or India, includes four linguistic divisions: the Dravidians (Tamils, Khonds, etc.), the Kols (Santals, etc.), the Indo-Aryans (Hindus, Kafirs, etc.), and the peoples whose languages are not classified (Veddahs, Singhalese, Nairs, etc.). Anterior Asia is divided between two great linguistic groups: Eranian or Iranian (Persians, Afghans, Kurds, etc.) and Semite (Syrians and Arabs, the latter partly in Africa), and further comprises some other peoples not classified (Brahuis, Takhtajis), or cosmopolites (Gypsies and Jews).

III. AFRICA.—In this continent there are three great divisions: one linguistic in the north, the Semito-Hamites; and two ethnic or even somatological ones in the south, the Negroes and the Bushmen-Hottentots. The peoples speaking Semitic or Hamitic languages may be united into three groups: the Arabo-Berbers (Touaregs, Fellahs, etc.), the Ethiopians (Gallas, Bejas, Abyssinians), and the Fulah-Zandehs (Fulahs, Niam-Niams, Masai, etc.). The Bushmen-Hottentots form an ethno-somatological group quite apart. As to the Negroes, they may be divided as follows:—the Negrilloes or Pygmies (Akkas, Batuas, etc.), the Nigritians or Negroes properly so called (Dinkas, Hausas, Wolofs, Krus, Tshis, etc.), and the Bantus (Dwalas, Batekes, Balubas, Swaheli, Kafirs, Bechuanas, etc.). The populations of the Island of Madagascar also form a linguistic and geographical group apart.

IV. OCEANIA.—Four ethnic regions are here well defined: Malaysia, Australia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. Malaysia (to which, strictly speaking, should be joined a portion of the populations of Madagascar, Indo-China, and the Sino-Japanese islands) comprises four great groups of populations: the Negritoes (Aeta, etc.), the Indonesians (Battas, Tagals, etc.), and mixed peoples like the Javanese, the Bugis, the Malays, etc. Australia is peopled, over and above the white or yellow colonists, by only one race-people, the Australians; the Tasmanians who lived near them no longer exist. Melanesia is peopled by Papuans (of New Guinea), and by Melanesians properly so called (of New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, etc.). Lastly, Polynesia comprises the Polynesians properly so called (Samoans, Tahitians), and the Micronesians (natives of the Carolines, the Marshall Islands, etc.).

V. AMERICA.—For North America we may adopt three ethno-geographical groups: the Eskimo, with the Aleuts; the American Indians (Athapascans, Yumas, Tlinkits, etc.); and the Indians of Mexico and of Central America (Aztecs, Pimas, Miztecs, Mayas, Isthmians, Ulvas, etc.).

South America has four geographical groupings: the Andeans (Chibchas, Quechua-Aymara, etc.); the Amazonians (Caribs, Arawak, Pano, Miranha, etc.); the Indians of East Brazil, and of the central region (Tupi-Guarani, Ges or Botocudo-Kayapo, etc.); and, finally, the Patagonians, tribes of Chaco, of the Pampas, etc., with the Fuegians.

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