Previous to entering upon the details connected with the varieties, and affinities of the human species, it is advisable to explain the meaning and full import of certain terms that are likely to be of frequent occurrence. It is only, however, so far as an explanation is required, that any remarks will be made. The questions themselves, although necessary and preliminary, are well capable of being isolated from the properly descriptive portions of the subject, and of forming separate sections of ethnological science; a separation which is fully justified by their great range and extent.

A. Terms descriptive of differences in the way of physical conformation.—If we were to take three individual specimens of the human species, which should exhibit three of the most important differences, they would, I think, be—1. A Mongolian, or a TungÚs, from Central or Siberian Asia; 2, a Negro from the Delta of the Niger; and 3, a European from France, Germany, or England. At the first view the Negro would seem the most unlike of the three; and, perhaps, he would do so after a minute and careful scrutiny. Still, the characteristic and differential features of the Asiatic would be of a very remarkable kind. In the general profile, in the form of the eye, in the front view of the face, he would differ from both. In the colour of his skin, in the character of his hair, and in the lower part of his profile, he would differ from the Negro. In the upper portion of the profile, and in the outline of the head, he would differ from the European.

The Mongolian's, or Tungusian's, face would be broad and flat, with the cheek-bones prominent. The breadth of the head from side to side would be nearly equal to its length from the forehead to the occiput; the nose would be flat, and, almost certainly, neither arched nor aquiline; the eyes would be drawn upwards at their outer angle, the skin would be of a yellowish-brown, the hair straight, the beard scanty, and the stature undersized.

The Negro, besides his black complexion and crisp hair, would exhibit a greater depth of head measuring from before backwards, and the upper jaw would be much more projecting. Possibly it might be so prominent as to give the head the appearance of being placed behind the face rather than above it.

The European would be characterized by negative rather than positive qualities. His face would be less broad, and his head would have greater depth in proportion to its breadth than would be the case with the Mongol. As compared with the African he would differ most in the parts between the nose and chin. The mouth of the Negro, instead of lying under the nose and forehead, projects forwards, in a slightly elongated shape, so as, in extreme cases, to be a muzzle rather than a mouth; the effect of which, as already stated, is to throw the upper part of the face and head behind the jaw. In the European profile, on the other hand, the general direction is vertical. The upper jaw does not project, and the forehead does not retire; so that the forehead, nose, and mouth are, comparatively speaking, nearly in the same line.

Now these distinctions we find in looking at the face only; those of the Mongolian being best shown in a front view, those of the Negro and European in profile. They are also those that would be drawn by a painter or a sculptor; i.e. such as we can detect by merely examining the outline and surface of the head and face. They are external. Differences in the colour of the eyes and the form of the limbs might also be easily discovered.

Important as these are, they are not the points which the ethnologist most looks to. Although the colour of the skin and eyes and the texture of the hair may be determined by external influences, the real reasons for the differences of outline lie in the differences of the skull and the bony parts of the face: and as, in addition to this, the skull is the receptacle of the brain, and the brain is the organ wherein the human species most differs from others, anatomists have long been in the habit of determining the different varieties of the human race, by the difference in the conformation of their skulls. With this view, the particular bones of most importance are the following:—

The Frontal bone, forming the forehead.—The more the frontal bone retires, the lower is the forehead, and the more prominent the face. The more it is vertical or arched, the more the brain seems to be in superposition over the face; rather than lying behind it. By drawing one line from the opening of the ear to the base of the nose, by drawing a second from the most prominent part of the forehead to the insertion of the teeth, and by measuring the inner angle at which these two lines bisect each other, we have the famous facial angle of Camper; in other words, we have a measure for the extent to which a forehead is retreating or vertical.

The Occipital bone.—This forms the back of the head. The distance between the frontal and occipital bones is the occipito-frontal diameter. It constitutes the length or depth of the head, in contradistinction to its breadth.

The Parietal bones, forming the sides of the skull.—The distance between the two parietal bones is the parietal diameter. It constitutes the breadth of the skull, in contradistinction to its length or depth. The ratio between these two diameters has been most studied by Professor Retzius, of Stockholm. Nations where the development is in the occipito-frontal diameter are called dolikhokephalic.[1] Nations where it is in the parietal diameter are called brakhykephalic.[2]

The Zygoma.—Formed by the union of two processes, one from the malar, and one from the temporal bone, and enclosing a space, within which the muscles pass from the temporal bone to the lower jaw. It constitutes the ridge that can be felt through the skin, between the cheek-bone and the ear. When the zygomatic space is large, the arch of the zygoma itself projects laterally outwards.

The Malar bones, i.e. the cheek-bones.—It is unnecessary to say that the prominence of the cheek-bone affects the physiognomy. When, over and above this prominence, the zygoma has a lateral and outward development, the breadth of the face becomes remarkably and characteristically broad and flat. It is upon the effect of a great zygomatic development on the form of the skull that Prichard has founded one of his primary divisions.

Distance between the zygomata gives breadth to the face. Distance between the parietal bones, to the head.

The Nasal bones.—The flatter the nasal bones the flatter the nose. They are generally flat in tribes of Central Asia and Africa; prominent, or saddle-shaped, in those of Europe.

The Upper Maxillary bone.—In this are inserted the teeth of the upper jaw. In the European it is nearly perpendicular. In the Negro it projects forwards; hence, in the European, the insertion of the teeth is perpendicular, in the African oblique. The effect of a projecting maxilla is a character upon which Prichard has founded one of his primary divisions. When the insertion of the teeth is perpendicular, or nearly perpendicular to the base of the nose, the skull is orthognathic;[3] when projecting forwards, prognathic.[4]

Upon these distinctions are founded the following forthcoming terms: occipito-frontal diameter, parietal diameter, occipito-frontal[5] profile, frontal profile, nasal profile, maxillary profile, zygomatic development.

Next to the head, the bony structure of the pelvis has drawn most attention; the importance thus given being natural and reasonable. The form of the pelvis determines the erect posture of man. These, however, and other numerous minor details will be noticed as occasion requires.

Notwithstanding the anatomical character of the principles upon which the varieties of the Human Species have been arranged, the terms denoting the chief divisions have not been given upon anatomical grounds. Hence we do not talk of the zygomatic or the occipito-frontal tribes, but of the Negro, or the Mongolian, &c. In other words, the term is taken from that particular variety which has the most characteristic conformation.

How many of such terms are necessary is a disputed point; the number of the primary divisions being undetermined. My own opinion is in favour of it being limited to three,—the Mongolian, the African, and the European. To these, many would add a fourth, and fifth, the Malay and American; whilst others would raise the Australian and Hottentot (and many other) conformations into separate and primary types. As terms, these will be retained. Their value, however, as the names of groups and divisions, will be subordinate to that of the three great types first named; a circumstance which brings us to the terms, typical, sub-typical, transitional and quasi-transitional.

A Malay and an American, although different, agree between themselves much more than either of them would with a Negro. Furthermore, each of them differs from the Mongolian and Chinese; less, however, than from the African and European.

Now, so far as this difference is concerned, the terms typical and sub-typical, in their usual sense, are sufficient; the Mongolian being the type of the variety which he represents, whilst the Malay and American each illustrate a sub-typical modification.

But this is not all. In departing from one type, an individual, a tribe, or a nation may approach another. This is the case when the hair of the African becomes straight, his complexion brunette, and his lips thin. It is also the case when a Mongol becomes light-haired or blue-eyed. In each of these changes the effect is the same. The original conformation has become Europeanized. Hence we have—

1st. Simple sub-typical deviation.—This occurs in the Eskimo. His face is broader than that of the Mongolian; but, as this increased breadth merely makes him somewhat unlike the natives of Central Asia, without approximating him to the African or European, the deviation is simple.

2nd. Deviation with Transition.—The Finlander has a Mongoliform skull, but (very often) blue eyes and light hair; so that he agrees with the European where he differs with the Kalmuk. This is deviation and something more. It is deviation accompanied with the phenomenon of a transition in form.

Transitions in form, however, are of two kinds—a. those in which descent plays a part; b. those in which causes other than descent play a part.

a. The light-haired Finlander is probably one of three things—

1. The descendant of Mongolians passing into Europeans.

2. The descendant of Europeans passing into Mongolians.

3. The descendant of the common stock from which the Europeans on one side, and Mongolians on the other, originated. In all these cases his differential characters are accounted for by the doctrine of descent.

b. Contrast, however, the case of an Australian Black. He has Mongol characters and he has Negro characters; so that, looking to his form only, he presents the phenomenon of transition; yet he is in none of the predicaments of the Finlander, since few ethnologists believe that, in the way of descent, he has any but the most indirect relationship to the African.

Hence, transitional forms are of two kinds, the first indicates descent, affiliation, and historical connexion; the second, the effect of common climatologic, alimentary, or social influences. This last will be called quasi-transitional.

B. Terms descriptive of differences in the way of language.—At the present moment, there are three methods by which the relation between the different words that constitute sentences is indicated:—1. The method of which the Chinese is a sample; 2. The method of which the Greek and Latin are samples; 3. The method of which the English is a sample.

In the way of illustration, though not in the way of history, it is best to take the second first.

1. The Classical method.—In a word like homin-em, there are two parts, homin-, radical; -em, inflectional. In the word te-tig-i, there are the same. The power of these parts is clear. The tig- and homin- denote the simple action, or the simple object. The te- denotes the time in which it takes place; the -i the agent. In the proposition te-tig-i homin-em, the -em denotes the relation between the object (the man touched) and the action (of touching). Logically, there are two ideas, e.g., that of the action or object, and that of the superadded conditions in respect to time, agency, and relation. In Latin and Greek, as in many other languages, these superadded conditions are expressed by altering the form of the original word. Sometimes this is done by the addition of some sound or sounds, sometimes by simple change—(a,) homin-is, homin-em; (b,) speak, spoke. Now this method of expressing the relation between the different words of a proposition by changes in the form of the words themselves is called the method of inflection, and languages which adopt it are called inflectional.

2. The English method.—The English language possesses inflections. Words like father-s, touch-ed, spoke, are instances of it. Nevertheless it has such important non-inflectional methods, that it may fairly be put in contrast with the Latin and Greek. Where a Roman said te-tig-i, we say I have touched, or I touched; using I, a separate word, instead of the incorporated syllable -i. Where a Roman said patr-i, we say to father; where a Roman said tang-am, we say I will (or shall) touch. In other words, we make auxiliary verbs and prepositions do the work of inflections, expressive of case and tense.

3. The Chinese method.—The Chinese method agrees with the English in expressing the different conditions and relations of actions and objects by separate words rather than by inflections; and it carries this principle so far as to have even a less amount of inflection; according to some writers, none at all. Wherein, then, does it differ? Even thus. The English is non-inflectional because it has lost inflections which it once possessed. The Chinese is non-inflectional because inflections have never been developed. This involves a great difference between the nature of the words which, in the two languages (English and Chinese) do the work of the Greek and Latin inflections. In English they are, generally speaking, so abstract, as to have a meaning only when in the context with other words. In Chinese they are often the names of objects and actions, i.e. nouns and verbs. If, instead of saying, I go to London, figs come from Turkey, the sun shines through the air, we said, I go, end London, figs come, origin Turkey, the sun shines, passage air, we should discourse after the manner of the Chinese.

But what if the inflectional parts of inflected words (nouns and verbs) were once separate words, which have since been incorporated with the radical term? In such a case, the difference between languages of the Chinese, and languages of the classical type would be a difference of degree only. Nay more, in languages like the Chinese the separate words most in use to express relation may become adjuncts or annexes. In this case, inflection is developed out of mere juxtaposition, and composition. Is this a hypothesis or a real fact? It is thus much of a fact. The numerous inflectional languages fall into two classes. In one the inflections have no appearance of having been separate words. In the other their origin as separate words is demonstrable.

The nomenclature arising from these distinctions, and requiring notice in the present preliminary remarks, is as follows:—

1. Languages of the Chinese type.—Aptotic.[6]

2. Inflection which can generally be shown to have arisen out of the juxtaposition and composition of different words.—Agglutinate.—Here the incorporation has not been sufficiently complete to wholly disguise the originally independent and separate character of the inflectional addition.

3. Inflection, wherein the existence of the inflectional elements as separate and independent words cannot be shown.—Amalgamate.—Here the speculator is at liberty to argue from the analogy of the agglutinate inflections, and to suppose that, owing to a greater amount of euphonic influences, the incorporation is more perfect.

4. Languages of the English type.—Anaptotic.[7]

c. Terms descriptive of differences in social cultivation.

1. The hunter state.—The full import of this term, which always implies a low degree of civilization, is to be inferred from the extent to which it indicates migratory habits, precariousness of subsistence, and imperfect property in the soil. Changing the land for the sea, the fisher state is essentially the same.

2. The pastoral state.—Precariousness of subsistence less than in the hunter state. Migratory habits, in many cases, much the same. Higher in the scale of civilization; since the breeding of animals gives moveable property. Property in the soil improved but still imperfect.

3. The agricultural state.—Migratory habits rare. Precariousness of food but slight. Property in the soil—except in the cases of migratory[8] cultivation—perfect.

4, 5. Material and moral influences in the history of the world.—The first term means changes effected by physical force only; the second, the influences of religion, literature, science, and political and social morality.