is almost entirely imaginary; this type is in reality confined to comparatively few peoples, and we find with the negro many other types which may partly be considered as transitions to European forms, and partly are simply variations and modifications of the negro type itself.""

2

"If the different races all had a separate origin," says K. E. v. Baer, "we should expect to find that their characteristics were especially marked in certain regions, or, as races may change their abode very considerably, at least in certain peoples. Now it is well known that the prognathous face is most conspicuous in the negroes of Guinea, and specially on the Slave Coast, where the European colonies in America principally obtained their slaves. But not very far from them we find tribes said by all who have seen them to be much handsomer. The Joloffs, e.g., have higher foreheads, their jaws project very little, their teeth are straight, and they are well formed, but they are quite black. Their neighbours, the Mandingoes, have much more the characteristics which we are accustomed to consider as typical of the negroes, projecting jaws, flat noses, flat foreheads, but they are less black in colour. It would be desirable to have measurements of the bodies and skulls of both tribes, in order to be able to judge more thoroughly whether the other characteristics which distinguish negroes from Europeans are divided amongst them. What we know, even already, does not seem to me to favour the separate origin of negroes, for I should expect to find all the characteristies in which they differ

1

Anthropologie, i. 239.

2 Bericht über die Zusammenkunft einiger Anthropologen, p. 68.

from Europeans united. I am of the same opinion when I examine the original home of the Mongol races. The skull seems to me to be broadest in the middle of Asia, amongst the actual Mongolian peoples. The broad and flat face is much more widely distributed. This characteristic is very conspicuous in the Tunguses, who have decidedly longer skulls. In the Eskimo the skull is quite long, and the face remains broad. Which people represents the type?'

As I have said, these numerous intermediate forms make it seem probable that the different races have a common origin, however little Europeans and negroes, in whom the type of their race is most completely developed, may resemble one another. It is specially worthy of remark that the principal criterions of race, the form of the skull and the colour of the skin, do not, as we have seen, coincide in several cases; that if we look only to the form of the skull, many tribes would appear to belong to one race, and if we look only to the colour of the skin to another.

Further, we must guard against the error of supposing that all the characteristic peculiarities of a race, or even of a tribe, a certain form of skull for instance, are equally strongly marked in all the individuals. It has been often asserted that peculiarities which had been observed, as I mentioned before, in single individuals only, were characteristic of a tribe. Retzius says that the Slavs belong to the decidedly round skulled peoples, because he found this form existing in the few Slav heads which he could examine. Baer, who was able to examine many more Russian skulls, found that this form existed in a few Little Russian heads, but not in

others which were put down as Russian, without any more definite specification of their place of birth.' The same savant became persuaded, after visiting a collection containing a great many negro skulls, that the differences in this race, of which modern travellers speak so much, had been very inadequately observed, and that the form of skull of certain tribes in Guinea had been erroneously considered to represent the whole negro race.2

To this we must add the fact that what is the rule in one race is found at least exceptionally in other races; and that "there appear to exist everywhere on the earth, individuals who in external characteristics differ considerably from their race, and show the type of a strange race, although the assumption of an intermixture with that race is inadmissible." Red hair generally occurs only in the Caucasian race; but we find red haired individuals in every race, even among the negroes. In the same way we find amongst ourselves people whose hair resembles the black woolly hair of the negroes; others, the colour of whose skin is unusually dark, and a still greater number whose faces are shaped like those of the negroes or Mongols. Amongst the negroes we find oval, amongst Europeans elongated skulls; indeed we may say that in every race we find forms of skulls which are foreign to it.*

1 Bericht, etc. p. 4.

2 Das. p. 6. Tiedemann, Das Hirn des Negers, p. 49. 3 Waitz, Anthropologie, i. 243.

4 Waitz, Anthropol. i. 251. "Peculiarities of race are not absolute; the tendency to variation often produces them in single cases in other races, and climatic influences also tend to produce them. We find the woolly, curly hair almost as strongly marked amongst Europeans as amongst negroes. Their special form of face and skull also sometimes occurs

in

As regards language, which I have hitherto left out my discussions, I think, that on Kaulen's authority,1 I may say that what follows is the result of the studies in comparative philology, which especially in recent years have been carried on with great success. The hundreds of different languages which are known to exist at present do not form so many independent genetically different systems, but simply represent varieties of higher units, the groups of languages; these again are differentiations of a small number of principal languages, which are called root languages. It is admitted that the separate tribes who speak languages belonging to one root were originally only one nation, and that the growth of lower forms of language (families, languages, dialects, etc.) was the result of the gradual division of this nation.2 As the course of philology hitherto has increased the extent, but diminished the number of the co-ordinate groups, we are justified in expecting that further investigation will prove even those root languages, which at present are disconnected, to be historical species of one summum genus of language. It has

amongst Europeans, and according to Weber, besides the predominating oval form of skull, the long square shaped form of skull is also sometimes found amongst the latter, showing a sporadic tendency towards the negro and Mongol type. Vrolik has thrown a good deal of light on the differences in the pelvis of the separate races; it often differs very much from the European type, and especially amongst negroes and Bushmen; but here also we find variations from the race type. Weber's investigations show that in the different races examples of a form of pelvis with an oval, round, square, and wedge-shaped entrance are found.”—J. Müller, Physiologie, ii. 773.

1 Die Sprachverwirrung zu Babel, Mainz 1861. Cf. Max Müller, Lectures on the Science of Language. Wedewer, Die neuere Sprachwissenschaft und der Urstand der Menscheit, Freiburg 1867, p. 43.

2 Kaulen, Op. cit. p. 16.

been already shown that some root languages, such as the Indo-Germanic and the Semitic, have a common origin.1

human race.

But even before a general conclusion has been attained, the fact that nations who agree in the root language are identical in origin, affords weighty support to the theory of the original unity of the For if physiological differences can exist between nations speaking the same root language (supposing that they have preserved their own language), it follows that such differences can appear in one and the same race. Now we find, for instance, that within the Indo-Germanic nations physiological differences, such as those between the almost black Hindoos and the white Germans, do exist; and as here there can be no question of any change of language, the existence of physiological differences between men cannot prove that their genetical unity is impossible. In the same way the Arabic language is divided between members of the Caucasian and the Ethiopian races.2

We obtain a similar proof if we examine the nature of the differences existing between languages. These, in so far as they make a language independent, are simply formal, and do not rest on physiological, but on

1 Kaulen, Op. cit. p. 21. "We are justified in hoping that at a time not far distant it will be shown to be probable, if not certain, that all the languages of the earth are connected with one another."-Wedewer, Op. cit. p. 55.

2 Kaulen, Op. cit. p. 202. On examining a large collection of Russian skulls, Baer found (see Bericht, etc. p. 4) "that the skull form of one people, that is, the average form which was obtained after examining a number of individuals, may differ very much from the skull form of another people, who are supposed from their language to be related."