Researches into the physical history of man

Front matter

ie eeee papery . a Peck ety ie ; oe i Sesenele8 Sates: eas Tener 4 “ : 3 ‘ 1-4 TAS ae. ) a EE phen M ot, en $ : ] d ; re Loe Ny 2h ere re ken oe eaten sotccecht woe mee ence ee ee peseprtt test beens as E mm mie 2 ° 2 oe Pes ; ro ; : Berries eee pee” ‘ Pid eae Sate inte ee eee ee

openness ; 4 Pf % 4 7 ; r i ' bibs ¢ ot j - : ene Fees ; tees v = Poberes ol was eee é 3 ae

3 - 5 eee oem

Preface

— PPP PIP PP —

"THE nature and causes of the physical diversities which characterize different races of men, though a curious and interesting subject of inquiry, is one which has rarely engaged the notice of writers of our own country. The few English authors who have treated of it, at least those who have entered into the investigation on physiological grounds, have for the most part maintained the opinion that there exist in mankind several distinct species. A considerable and | very respectable class of foreign writers, at the head of whom we reckon Buffon and Blumenbach, have given their suffrages on the contrary side of this question, and have entered more diffusely into the proof of the docirine they advocate, ul PREFACE.

My attention was strongly excited to this inquiry many years ago by happening to hear the truth of the Mosaic records implicated in it and denied on the alleged impossibility of reconciling the history contained in them with the phenomena of “Nature, and particularly with the diversified characters of the several races of men. The arguments of those who assert that these races constitute distinct species appeared to me at first irresistible, and I found no satisfactory proof.in the vague and conjectural reasonings by which the opposite opinion has generaily been defended. I was at least convinced that most of the theories casrent concerning the effects of climate and other modifying causes, are in great part hypothetical and irreconcilable with facts that cannot be disputed.

I resumed my inquiry into the physical history of mankind on hearing it treated of by the late Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, whose unrivalled powers of eloquence never failed to impart a lively interest even to the most sterile and unpleasing speculations, At this time I was indueed to

PREFACE, il investigate the subject the more attentively, as 1 found that some of my own opinions concern ing it did not altogether agree with those of my illustrious Preceptor. This inquiry furnished me with the argument of an inaugural essay published in the same University.

Having had occasion after the lapse of several years to reconsider my former reasonings and inferences, I have been persuaded that some of them approach more nearly ta the truth than the notions which generally prevail, and under this conviction I have ventured to offer the following pages to the perusal of the public,

In the course of this essay I have maintained the opinion that all mankind constitute but one race or proceed from a single family, but Iam far from wishing to interest any religious predilections in favour of my conclusions. On the contrary I am ready to admit, and shall be glad to believe, if it can be made to appear, that the truth of the scriptures is not involved in the decision of this question. I have made no reference to the writings of Moses, except with i¥ PREFACE, relation to events concerning which the authority of those most ancient records may be received as common historical testimony, being aware that one class of persons would refuse to admit any such appeal, and that others would rather wish to see the points in dispute established on distinct and independent grounds.

Bristol, November 3, 1813.

Chapter I

Inquiry whether the human kind contains more than one Species.

PAGE Section I.—Different modes of reasoning adopted on this question-—Method proposed to be followed inthis Treatise ~.* .. .. 27d .2 aa eQoret II.—Of the diversities of Colour . . . . . 17 II1.—Of the hereditary transmission of the varicties 25:

CHAPTER II. Lhe same Inquiry continued

Section 1.—On diversities of Form—Natural Physi- OSMOMIY, GOs i's Lee on 2s 33 I1.—Continuation.—Diversities in re Ces A6 J{1.—Continuation.—Other diversities of Figure 66

TV.—Continuation.—Some curious instances of MEVISTON «op nt tteulre ney obs baw a! 21 V.—Of diversities of Stature . . ... . 9% WE 0 6 Gie Fair 85S Pel WO. ss. 80

CHAPTER IIT.

Inquiry whether all mankind are of one race or stock.

Section I.—Method of inquiry . .... .. 86

IJ.—Of the local relations of genera . . . . 89 1ii.—Of particular oc ae we a Dia

pace "+ ee Ts as EON

$ IV.—Of the peopling of distant” one - « » 146

CONTENTS.

Chapter IV

Of the structure of the parts in which the variety of colour subsists, and of the nature of this diversity. PAGE Section 1—General anatomical observations . . . 156

Of the organization-of the Skin . . . 156

Of the organization of the Hair . . . 161 II.—Comparison of different Races . . . . 165 Ili.—Physiologieal observations . . . . . 167

CHAPTER Y.

Of ihe causes which have produced the diversities of the human spectes.

‘Section I. ~Of the opinion of Buffon and his followers 174 II1.—Of the production of varieties in the race 194 Ili.—Of the circumsiances which promote the aispositiot to’vartatiom 2. ce eC. 205 IV.—Primitive stock of men Negroes . . . 233 V.—Of the causes of varieties of form . . . 240

On the physical history of the most remarkable races of men.

CHAPTER VI. Of the South-Sea and Indian Islanders

Section 1.—General Observations . . . . . 3 . 243 Ii.—General view of the nations inhabiting the South Sea islands and the Austral countries 248 III.—Of the Eastern Negroes. , OF the people of New Guinea . . 256 Of the New Hollanders . . . . 261 Of the New Hebrides, Néw Caledonia, and other Papua Islands . . . 272

CONTENTS,

Sect. 1¥, —Of the Islanders of the Pacific Ocean . . 28h Of the New Zealanders... 7; 232

Of the Natives of the Friendly his 284

Of Otaheite and the Society Isles . 286

Of the Sandwich Islands . . . . 291

Navigators and Beauman Isles . . 292

Ladrones aud Caroline Islands I «ci20h

V.—Of the Malays . . . 1. © «© . . 298 VI.—Of the ancient people of the Indian acne 307

Chapter VII

— of the common-origin of the ancient Indians and Ligeyptians.

Section I.—Of the Political history of the Indians . 318

1i.—Of the Political history of the Egyptians 332 Iit.—Of coincidences in the general principles of

the Indian and Egyptian Mytholegies . 340

IV.—Of coiucidences in the Theogenies . . . 355

V.—Of the Physical characters of the Egyptians 376 ViI.—OCf the Physical characters of the ancient

CHAPTER VITP.

The same subject continued.

Section L—Examination of the historical conjectures proposed in order to account for the facts above stated See “Boer Be

II.—Of the history of other nations connected with this inguiry . . he ee ee Of the Antiquity of the Pe in ~.. 424 ITI.—Of the Antiquity ef the Indians . . . 433 1V.—Of the Antiquity of the Assyrian Empire 439 V.—Of the ancient inhabitants of Upper Asia 444 Of the Philistines oc Se ake cs) Of the Canaanites or Phoenicians . 447 Of the Syrians and Assyrians . . . 449

CONTENTS.

PAGE Sect. VI.—Of the Persians . . PE toe AS a VII.—Conclasion of this astiese co Ge ee

Chapter IX

Concerning the other principal Races of Men and their connexion in origin with the foregoing. Section I.—Introductory remark . . . . . . . 473 If.—Of the Scythian or Sarmatic tribes . . . 474 TiI.—Of the Gothic or German race.

“Of the Crmmerti . . 6. ./« . 485

» Of the Germ. . a ts ue 1 ABT

x OF the da Otht: ;.g yeni oresdh - 490

. Of the German Tribes in cic 501 . Of the connexion of this great fa. mily of nations with the ancient

PASTAS soe on 88 «,,~ 502

7. Of the Physical be sing of ae

SCRMNANS 6 06. cs ek ye

IVi:—Of the Pelasgian race «. «0. aa -s, » 507

V.—Of the Celticrace . . «. we . . 526 VI.—Of the Mongoles and other races orilite

them in form ats se ee) ee

VII.—Of the American race... . .. . « SAT

Vill.—Conclusion . . w or ee

RESEARCHES

PHYSICAL HISTORY OF MAN.

Chapter I. Section I

IF an itliterate person, bred in some remote corner of England, who had never seen or heard of any human creatures different from the natives of ‘his own vicinity, were suddenly transported into the western continent, and introduced to a horde of the naked and dusky barbarians who wander on the shores of the Missisippi, or if he were presented to a tribe of yellow and bald-headed Mongoles, or carried into the midst of the black population of a negro hamlet, he would certainly experience strong emotions of wonder and surprise. He would indeed immediately recognise the beings whom he saw as men, for the expression of rational intellects the likeness of the Creator which was imprinted on the first of the human kind, is every where instantly striking and con- A spicuous. Buta spectator in such circumstances would be exceedingly perplexed in contemplating appearances so new to him, and in comparing with himself persons who differed from him in so extraordinary a manner, and yet so nearly resembled him, that he could not fail to consider them as fellow creatures. The differences of voice and gesture and manners of life would probably occasion no less surprise to him than the peculiarities of natural structure. Philosophers have learnt to attribute all discrepancies of the former kind to accident and education, and to consider the moral diversities of nations as proceeding rather from external and adventitious circumstances than from innate and inherent causes. So far they have the advantage of the uninformed spectator of such phenomena. But when these accessory differences are explained, there still remains a great variety in the physical constitution of the several races of men, concerning the nature of which the most sagacious of our scientific reasoners have made little progress towards a satisfactory conclusion. Some authors who have treated of this subject have supposed that all the nations on the earth. are descended from a single family, and have attributed the varieties which we observe in their aspect and bodily structure to the action of natural causes on a race originally uniform. Others on the contrary insist that the differences x adverted to, are too great to have been so produced, and must therefore be referred to original diversity. This question has already undergone much discussion, and we find among the disputants in either party, names eminently respectable in the literary and scientific world.

In the following pages I shall endeavour to state as clearly as possible the principal facts whether physiological or historical, which appear to me likely to illustrate this interesting inquiry, and shall draw such inferences as seem to be authorised by the commonly received methods of reasoning. With such evidence I shall attempt to answer the question, whether it is probable that all mankind are the offspring of one family, and shall afterwards proceed to trace the affinities of different nations, as far as an inquiry of this nature may tend to throw any light on the physical history of man. I shall in the course of this investigation endeavour to obtain some idea of the efficacy of those causes, which have been supposed capable of producing the diversities of the human kind.

Many of the writers, who have entered on the inquiry before us, have preferred the more specious and expeditious modes of reasoning which are drawn from probabilities, and founded on arguments a priori, to the tedious process of analytical discussion. Some of them confidently assuming that all mankind are of one natural species, proceed to force the Newtonian principle of simplicity of causes, into the support of the position, that they all sprang from a single pair. Nature, they tell us, does nothing in vain. But it is vain and superfluous to do by many means what may be done by fewer; we must not therefore admit more causes of natural things than those which are true and sufficiently account for natural phoenomena. But it is true that one pair at least of every living species must at first have been created, and that one single pair was sufficient for the population of our globe in a period of no considerable length, is evident from the most common calculations of political arithmeticians. “ It follows,” says the illustrious writer whose words we are quoting, * that the Author of Nature (for all Nature proclaims its Divine Author) ereated but one pair of our species; yet had it not been among other reasons, for the devastations which history has recorded of water and fire, famine and pestilence, the earth would not now have had room for its multiplied inhabitants.” *

The other party reason with as much logical subtilty, and with arguments equally plausible and ingenious. It is highly improbable, they observe, assuming in their turn some points which ought to have been first proved, that so

— ® Sir W. Jones’s Essay on the Families of Nations.

a many extensive continents should be created to lie vacant and sterile during thousands of years, till the tardy ramifications of one primary stock should spread themselves progressively to each distant corner of the globe, or that the infinite number of islands which diversify and ornament the face of the deep, should be left to be peopled by fortuitous incident, by the chance of shipwrecks or the wanderings of some navigator, or perhaps to lie perpetually desert, destined never to be marked by the footsteps of men. It is much more consistent with our views of Divine wisdom and benevolence, to suppose that the. earth was plentifully covered at the period of its creation with animal and vegetable productions, naturally adapted to every peculiarity of soil and climate, and that each part became immediately subservient to the great designs of the Almighty Maker.*

It would be easy to multiply reasonings of this kind on either side of the question, almost without any limit, but it is impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion, or to. produce any conviction by means of them. All speculations concerning the system of the world, which are founded on arguments from probabilities and ihe supposed fitness of things, demand a greater

* See Lord Kaimes’s Sketches of the History of Man, and other writers who follow him,

A 3 share of intelligence than has been given to the human mind, and become not the humble interpreter of nature. Philosophers who pursue such modes of reasoning, may explain to us very clearly indeed how they would have made the world, if the task had been entrusted to their discretion, but they never can afford us any insight into its actual constitution. If truth be our object we must pursue it in a very different path.

Our first and most important attempt ... this pursuit must be the solution of the inquiry whether all mankind are to be considered as of one natural species, or not; or whether the physical diversities which so curiously distinguish the several races of men are, to borrow a term which is chiefly used in abstract reasonings, specific differences or only varieties. And here it will be advantageous to extend our view to the other departments of animated nature, and to consider the. genera] question, how we are to determine on the identity or diversity of species, in races of animals which differ enough in their appearance to excite our doubt on this point. :

_ Many of the discriminations which are most frequently used in the works of naturalists are artificial, and have their origin not in any fun-. damental distinction established by nature, but in some attempt of philosophers at generaliza-

X ‘ tion. The design of arrangements of this kind is chiefly to facilitate memory by a lucid order ; to enable it to retain in its comprehension a vast variety of pheenomena, in which in the confused mass it could have no secure hold, by distributing them according to certain classes. Such classes are constituted by some one character possessed by all the individuals belonging to each, or by a general resemblance pervading a whole department. Of this kind are the genera of the older zoologists, as well as the classes and orders in the several systems of Linnzus and other botanists, and natural historians. The principle of these arrangements being an arbitrary definition, they may be changed or modified ad infinitum according to the caprice of the constructor. But it is not so In the case of species. Here the distinction 1s formed by nature, and the definition must be constant and uniform, or it is of no sort of value. It must coincide with Nature.

Providence has distributed the animated world into a number of distinct species, and has ordained that each shall multiply according to its kind, and propagate the stock to perpetuity, none of them ever transegressing their own limits, or approximating in any great degree to others, or ever in any case passing into each other. Such a confusion is contrary to the established order of Nature.

$8

The principle therefore of the distinction of species is constant and perpetual difference. Where two races of animals are distinguished by any undeviating marks in such a way that they never will under any circumstances pass into each other, or that the progeny of either can never acquire the characters of the other, they are of distinct species, and it matters not how wide, or how narrow be the line of discrimination, provided that it never be broken ™m upon. -

This: rule is simple, but it is not possible to apply it immediately to the phenomena. For it is well known that considerable varieties arise within the limits of. one species, and such varleties often become to a great degree hereditary in the race, and permanent. It is therefore often very. difficult to ascertain, whether the tribes thus distinguished are varieties which have arisen in the manner mentioned above, though we cannot trace their origin; or species distinct from their first creation. And in order to solve this question, we must have recourse to indirect methods of reasoning.

The Count de Buffon*, our great physiologist

* The invention of this criterion has been attributed to Dr. Ray. (Blumenbach, de Gen. Haman. Var. Nat.) But I cannot find that our learned countryman has any claim to whatever degree of credit may attach to this real or fancied discovery. rom a passage in his synopsis Animalium

John Hunter, and some others, have sought a solution of the question of species in the breeding of animals. It seems reasonable to suppose that Providence has taken care to prevent the mixture of kinds; and the fact that most hybrid animals are wholly unprolific would appear to be a provision for the attainment of this desirable end, and for maintaining the order and variety of nature. For if such had not been the condition of these intermediate animals, we have reason to believe that all the primitive distinctions would have been long ago totally effaced ; an universal confusion must have ensuged, and there would not be at this day one pure and unmixed species left in existence. The naturalists above mentioned, inferring from the apparent utility of this law that it must universally prevail, obtain by means of it a ready method of determining on identity or diversity of species. They consider that if a male and female produce an offspring which 1s prolific, the tribes to which the parents respectively belong, are hence proved not to be specifically different, and whatever diversities may happen to characterize them, are in this case looked upon as examples of variation. But if the third animal be unprolific, it is to be concluded that the races from which it

~

Quadrupedum, p. 76, it would seem that he had a very imperfect idea of the distinct propagation of species.

renee i is descended, are originally separate or of different kinds. On this ground, John Hunter has thought himself authorized to lay it down as proved, that the dog, same species, and that the fox is of a distinct kind*,

The rule being thus established, there remains no difficulty with regard to the diversities of wolf and jackall are of the mankind. We very easily conclude that all men are of one and the same species.

But we are prevented from acquiescing with full confidence in this conclusion, because the premises on which it is founded are not laid down with sufficient certainty. For until experiments shall have been made on a more extended scale, we shall not be authorized in affirming, that there are not any two distinct species in nature, of which the mixed progeny might be prolific.

The unmixed propagation of each species, which we observe among animals in the natural state, 1s certainly an argument of great force, and goes a considerable way towards establishing the general Jaw. But a question here arises, whether Nature has not provided for the preservation of these distinctions by a mutual repugnance between the individuals of different kinds, rather than by any more absolute decree.

* John Hunter on certain parts of the animal economy,

This has been imagined*, and it has been hence inferred as probable, that many of the species, which while they remain in their wild unrestrained condition, continue distinct, would, if they were brought into a state of domestication, in which the “natural propensities of animals cease in a great measure to direct their actions, | procreate offspring which might for ought we know be prolific.

This notion is contradicted however by the result of numerous experiments. For among the great number of domesticated races, we find that the fact is far otherwise.} The hybrid ani-

* Frisch, apud Blumenbach de Generis Humani Varietate Nativa.

+ This assertion is doubtless true in general, and being so is sufficient to establish the inference here founded upon it. It is not intended to assert the fact as universal. ‘Lhere are certainly exceptions to the rule, and some preper hybrid animals have produced offspring. ‘This happens occasionally, though rarely, with mules, as it has been repeatedly observed. Mr. Hunter has attempted to account for. this anomaly. Such uncommon deviations evidently have no effect in weakening the credit of the general observation.

It is said by Buffon, and the assertion has been repeated by other naturalists, that the hybrid between the sheep and the goat is prolific. Probably some examples parallel to those related of the mule may have given rise to this notion ; but if such be the usnal fact, it must be considered as an exception against the Jaw in question of a very different kind from the last.

But the mixed progeny of the wolf and dog is prolific; and some naturalists are confident that these animals are of distinct species, They differ indeed in many points, and mals, produced by the mixture of any two of them, is unprolific. Therefore the absolute sterility of such mixed offspring, must be held to im some particulars of internal structure, viz. in the intestinum cecum, as shown by Professer Guildenstadt (Petersburg transactions), in which respect the dog and jackall agree. The Count de Buffon asserts, that the time of uterogestation of a wolf is about 100 days, while that of a bitch is known to be about 62 or 63. If this fact be accurately stated, it must be admitted that the two animals are of distinct species. But the assertion seems to have been made carelessly by the Count, and is contradicted by facts related in his appendix. In the account of one of these, it is evident that the time of gestation of a wolf must have been between 57 and 73 days: 63 is a probable intermediate time. Some facts are related by Mr. Hunter, which appear to have been very accurately observed, and which seem to prove that this is the true time.

An instance of the same kind is reported in the 4th volume of the Annals of the Museum of Natural History at Paris. The time of gestation in this example seemed to be 89 or 91 days.

It is difficult to reconcile these contradictory statements : but the greater portion of evidence seems to be in favour of the coincidence of these two races in the time of utero-gestation, ;

The fact that the wolf is subject to hydrophobia, is an argument tending to countenance the opinion of Hunter, that the wolf and dog are of the same species.

The Bactrian and Arabian camel breed together ; and this fact has been mentioned as an argument contradicting the general doctrine of the distinct propagation of species: but these animals are considered by most naturalists as varieties of one species.

On ihe whole, the assertion in the text seems not to be too general.

be a law established in nature, and to it, rather than to any supposed agency of instinct, must be attributed the universal preservation of distinct species. te

On the whole then, it is clear that the position on which the above theory is founded, is true to a considerable extent. It is confirmed by experiment among the domesticated races, though perhaps not without exceptions. And in that wider range which uncultivated nature holds out to our view, we have strong reason for believing that the same law prevails. Still we are not authorized in inferring its universality.

In the present case, however, I think we may deduce from this quarter a presumptive argument, that all mankind are of one species.

It must be confessed that this argument is not conclusive, and until the doctrine on which it is founded shall be more fully proved, we must look for some other method. In the present state of our knowledge, it will be better to proceed on a more cautious and inductive mode, and in the first instance to ascertain as nearly as possible what are the kinds of variation in which Nature chiefly delights. When we have found that any particular deviation from the primitive character has taken place in a number of examples, the tendency to such variety may be laid down as a law more or less general, and accordingly when paralle] diversities are observed in instances, which do not afford us a view of the origin and progress of the change, we may nevertheless venture to refer the latter with a sufficient degree of probability to the class of natural varieties, or to consider them as examples of diversified appearance in the same individual species. Thus, if we find mice, rats, or crows, resembling in other respects the animals commonly known to us under those names, but having their hair or plumage perfectly white, and their eyes of a light-red colour, we need not hesitate in referring these peculiarities to variation from the primitive hue of the respective “races, because we find a change exactly similar exhibited in many parts of the animal kingdom, concerning which we are well informed*.

* T had adopted this analogical method of reasoning in my first inquiries into this subject, and had soon the satisfaction of finding it received and amply established by Blumenbach, (Blum. de Gen. Human. Var. Nat.)

It is much to be desired that we were in possession of a more simple criterion of speeies, but it does not appear that the present state of our physiological science will afford any. Perhaps an attention to the diseases of animals might tend to throw light on this subject. . Contagions appear to be, for the most part, incommunicable from one kind of animals to another. Apes have been discovered to be insusceptible of the syphilitic poison. Sheep and hogs are often carried +o the West Indies in the same vesscl, and a pestilence aris, ing in one kind has no effect on the other. But in these instances different genera are concerned, and we are not sure that several species closely allied may not be subject to the same contagion.. Some species of plants, however, of

AS

On a general survey of the animal and vegetable world we perceive no law, of which the influence appears to prevail more extensively, than that of the tendency to assume, under circumstances not well ascertained, varieties of form and colour. There is scarcely any species which does not exhibit some disposition of this kind, and its effects are particularly manifest among warm-blooded animals. The science of physiology must be much further advanced, and we require to have far more accurate ideas of the general process of reproduction, before it will be possible for us to ascertain with precision the causes of such deviations. We may however in general observe, that when the condition of each species is uniform and does not differ materially from the natural and original state, the appearances are more constant, and the phenomena of variation, if they in any degree display themselves, are more rare and less conspicuous, the same genus, and which very nearly resemble, are found not to be subject to the same diseases. If this criterion shall appear to be correctly founded, it will prove that all mankind are of one specics, since all human contagions are communicable to the whole genus.

In some degree allied to this method of distinction is the criterion which it has been proposed to derive from the examination of parasitical avimals, a distinct set being believed to be peculiar to each species. Some distinguished naturalists are at present occupied in this inquiry, and it scems likely to lead to curious and important results.