« 이전계속 »
Roderick announced to be read, there was only one which had not been read before! In a previous part of his address, he had mentioned some of these papers as having been “read and amply discussed”. As to the strong remarks we have received respecting this part of the President's address, we would observe that in all cases they have been from those who were not personally present to witness the support and courtesy which Sir Roderick invariably gave to anthropological papers and to anthropologists. We would also observe, that Sir Roderick gave a viva voce statement, which was not printed, at the end of his address, in which he acknowledged the valuable additions of papers the Section was likely to have from the representatives of the Anthropological Society of London. Nor do we think that Sir Roderick meant to do more in what he said than give his aid to ethnological science. We feel sure that he cares far too much for truth to care for any one set of men more than another. We ourselves are grateful for any aid he renders to ethnological science. We are as much interested in the result of ethnological science as of general Anthropology. There may be difference of opinions as to the best means of advancing the Science of Mankind; but we are sure that there is no difference of opinion as to the importance of Ethnology, or the Science of Races. Nor do we think that any man is worthy of the name of an ethnologist, who looks with disfavour on those anthropologists who believe that the Science of Mankind embraces something more than Ethnology. Rather ought they to rejoice to see the great success which is attending the labours of their fellow-workers. The British Association is for the advancement of science, perfectly regardless of personal opinions or party cliques. We feel sure, therefore, that it only requires a little time to remove any jealousy that may exist in the breasts of some ethnologists respecting the success attending the labours of anthropologists. Let them learn not to quarrel with the decrees of Nature. Astronomy was not arrested in her progress by the clamours of the astrologers; nor will anthropologists cease to develope the extent, magnitude, and importance of their science by the invectives of ethnologists. Rather let them develope their own subject, and look with rejoicing on the beneficent wave which will ere long raise them from their present state of isolation, and raise them to their place as one of the branches of light which will illuminate the great system of organic life.
We will now give a general abstract of the anthropological papers read at the Association. On a future occasion, more of these papers will be printed at length. We have classed the papers under two heads : General Anthropology ; * and one special branch of that subject-Ethnology.
GENERAL ANTHROPOLOGY. On Anthropological Classification. By Dr. James Hunt, F.S.A., President of the Anthropological Society of London.—After the author had given a short outline of the nature of the subject, in which he distinctly stated that the origin of man belongs entirely to mythical times, and is a question which could not at present be solved by human experience, he proposed merely to classify man as he now exists, or as he has existed since the historical period, without reference to those distinctions being absolutely original. It was Dr. Hunt's duty to inquire-were these well-defined differences in mankind at the earliest dawn of history? a question which he answered in the affirmative, as the ethnology of the most anciently known continents is very much the same as at the present day. He considered also that these differences had been permanent; and the scope of the present paper was to inquire whether these physical differences were so well marked as to serve as the basis of classification. He reviewed the classifications of Ephorus of Cuma, Buffon, Linnæus, Gmelin, Herder, Voltaire, Blumenbach, Lacépède, Duméril, Maltebrun, Cuvier, Virey, Hunter, Lawrence, Metzan, Bory, Desmoulins, Prichard, Lesson, Fischer, Morton, Latham, Hombron, Jacquinot, D’Omalius D'Halloy, Pickering, Burke, Knox, Agassiz, Crawfurd, and Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, and offered critical remarks on each of these systems as a whole. Many of them were of the most arbitrary nature, the offspring of chance or human fancy, unfounded on the knowledge of any ascertained facts, and there was no attempt to define the method on which a sound anthropological classification might be based. The multiplicity of the systems at present in vogue is a sufficient refutation of the truth of most of them. Dr. Hunt considered that anatomy and physiology were the primary sources whence an adequate knowledge of the principles of anthropological classification could be derived. Language he considered no test of race. He laid great stress upon the form of the cranium as the most convenient and certain distinctive mark, and spoke with great approval of the ternary classification adopted by Gratiolet, who divides mankind into the Frontal (European), Parietal (Mongol), and Occipital (Negro) races—these cranial distinctions being coincident with the mental and moral characters which were solely dependent on man's physical structure. Other secondary physical characters could also be used with advantage; and Dr. Hunt especially alluded to the classifications which might be based upon colour, stature, hair and beard, longevity, diseases, temperaments, odour, entozoa, and other subsidiary points of distinction. The degree of intelligence was the chief character distinguishing man from the inferior animals. If a classifier of the negroes of the West Indies were to use language alone as a criterion, he would classify them under the head of Europeans, with whom their acquired language is identical; their physical characters alone mark them as African. Dr. Hunt considered that language must be utterly discarded as the first principle of anthropological classification. He gave a far higher value to religion, and to art, considering language merely as the third element. It was possible to change the language of a race; but apparently impossible to change either their religion or their innate ideas of art. That there are well-marked physical, mental, and moral distinctions in mankind is as well an ascertained fact as that there are differences in the orang and the chimpanzee. We must, therefore, classify mankind according to the physical, and psychological differences which now exist, for the present state of anthropology will not enable us to say how and when these distinctions have originated.
* To those papers which were not read before Section E, we have affixed the letter of the Section after the title of the paper,
Cranioscopy of South American Nations. By Mr. C. Carter BLAKE, F.G.S., F.A.S.L.—The object of the paper was to re-consider some of the primary principles on which those cranioscopists who have classified the races of South America, have based their arrangements, and to call especial attention to a few important exceptions which appear to invalidate the generalisations commonly accepted. Every practical cranioscopist is aware that Retzius's classification of human skulls into brachycephalic and dolichocophalic was applied by that illustrious Swede to the arrangement of the great leading South American types. The lamented and deceased cranioscopist gave, as as examples of the brachycephalic type, as exhibited in South America, the tribes of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, La Plata, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego; while the dolichocephalic or longheaded type found its representatives in the populations of Carib, Guarani, Brazilian, Paraguay, and Uruguay origin. This broad generalised statement of facts still remains the accepted and predominant hypothesis. How far is it consonant with the extent of our knowledge on the subject ? Those few tribes and nations of South America of which any accurate and reliable information exists will be briefly recapitulated in the following observations, and especial attention drawn to the desiderata which appear in our collections. The geographical order will be adhered to, apart from any broad generalisation, which may arise, based on craniometrical classification; such generalisations, e.g., as that of Morton, who divided the whole American races into two great families, the Toltecan, comprising the extinct half-civilised tribes which have become extinct during a pre-historic period, and the barbarous tribes. The latter division was subordinated amongst the Appalachian, Brazilian, Patagonian, and Fuegian branches. Mr. Blake then proceeded to criticise these types in detail. In the first place, he pointed to Colombia; the characteristic type prevailing amongst the tribes of Venezuela is the Carib. The skull is here markedly longheaded, with the parietal diameter less than the longitudinal. The frontal bones are strongly flattened; the zygomatic arches large. Accurate and reliable evidence respecting the cranial conformation of the natives of Ecuador is wanting. The Cara and the Scyri unknown. There were several types in Peru; e.g. the Chincha type shortheaded ; the Chimu type longheaded, so far as known; the Inca or Quichua shortheaded, flattened from before to behind by compression from the frontal bone to the occiput. In Bolivia there were the Aymará, longheaded, of which few examples existed in our collection; the Titicacan, longheaded, but of whom the other physical characters are unknown. In Chile the type was longheaded, so far as known at the present day. The Anthropological Society of Paris has recently sent a series of queries respecting the physical characters of the Chile races, which showed the utter want of information on this topic. In Patagonia the type was also longheaded, as in Tierra del Fuego, Paraguay, La Plata, and Brazil.
Commodore MAURY asked the author of the paper whether there was any relation between the distribution of any of the cranial types alluded to and the distribution of the inland basins. An attention to physical geography would, he was confident, throw much light on the question of race.
Mr. MARKHAM pointed out that the Quichua and Aymará tribes were distinct as regards language. The Aymará language was as distinct from the Quichua as the Italian from the Spanish. The Chinchas were far more nearly allied to the Quichuas than were the Aymarás.
Mr. CRAWFURD, after complimenting the author of the paper on the industry with which his materials had been collected, denied that cranioscopy afforded us any sound knowledge of the affinities of races. He would tell an anecdote which was entirely new to the British Association Professor Owen on one occasion had described a skull which was really that of a Scotchman, as that of a Negro. Therefore, Mr. Crawfurd concluded that knowledge of the cranium was no guide to the affinities of races. He complained that Mr. Blake had not offered any generalisation as to the number of indigenous stocks in South America, and stated that no such generalisation could be arrived at by mere cranioscopy.
After a few remarks from Mr. GREENFIELD,
Dr. JAMES HUNT said that he had intended not to offer any remarks on the interesting paper that had just been read, but he could not silently listen to the observations of Mr. Crawfurd without rising to protest to the British Association against the sneers which Mr. Crawfurd was in the habit of casting in the teeth of anthropologists who devoted themselves to the science of man. Section E. had become notorious for their neglect of all true science relating to man. All other sections made advance from year to year, but Section E. did not.
The same subjects were discussed every year, and no progress was made or would be until anthropology became recognised by the A880ciation. Many men of science devoted to this subject despaired of doing any good by attending the Association. Dr. Hincks said yesterday that Mr. Crawfurd was entirely ignorant of the science of language, and he was obliged also to say that his friend, Mr. Crawfurd, was not competent to judge of the value of cranioscopy as a basis. for the classification of man. It was useless to argue with one who rejected both physical and physiological characters as a basis of classi. fication, and one who was also opposed to the evidence of language..
Professor WILSON said he was sorry that it had been suggested that the subject under discussion was of no importance. He was not a craniologist, and therefore would not presume to offer an opinion upon the questions at issue, but he would mention a fact which had some bearing upon them. He was acquainted with a batter in Canada, carrying on an extensive business both with the English and French communities. He took the measure of his customers' heads according to the Paris fashion, and he (Dr. Wilson) had collected the models upwards of a hundred-and, with the assistance of a scientific friend, had classified them, without referring to the names affixed to them, in two distinct groups, the English and the French. Upon examining the names, it was found that, with two or three exceptions, they had made a perfectly right classification, though the only data they went upon was the shape of the skull. The science of craniology might bave been carried too far, but he was sure it was calculated to lead to very valuable results. There were no doubt distinct national types of skulls, and he hoped that anthropologists, instead of being discountenanced would receive every encouragement from the British Association.
Mr. CABTEB BLAKE, in reply, agreed with Captain Maury with respect to the advantages which were derived from a comparison of the cranial types with the geographical localities. He answered Mr. Crawfurd's complaint respecting the absence of any generalizations respecting the origin of the South American natives, by saying that he was quite content to wait and accumulate facts. As regards Mr. Crawfurd's amusing anecdotes, he was afraid his learned friend bad put the
YOL. I.-NO. 111.