OCR Text |
Show 226 TTIE CRANIAT~ CITAR.AC'l'ERISTICS the nature of the object which we examine. This scienc~ is the PhyRiology of races, or, in other words, a knowledge of th01r ~oral and phyAical cl1aracters. Through Physiology has been ?stabhs?ed the x1Htence of antediluvian beings, their genera, th01r spec10s, and their varieties; by it also we shall discover tho origin of races of m H, even tho most mysterious. Through it we shall o~c day be able to classi(y populations as surely as we now class ammals and plants: history, philology, annals, inscriptions, tho monuments ?f nrts and of religion, will be auxiliaries in these researches. Herem we consider its indications as motives of certitude, and its decisions as a cl'i terion." 62 Anthropology has been involved in not a little confusion by certain injudicious departures from tho well-tried zoologicn,l methods employed by naturalists generally. But little difficulty seems t~ be oxp rionced in the practical determination of species in the ammal and vegetable worlds; but as soon as the rnlos and specific distinctions here employed have been applied to man, exceptions have been taken at once, and attempts made to invalidate their appl.icability, by excluding man entirely from tho pale of tho animal kingdom, as if, in tho latter, development, formation and deformation w ro controlled by laws dif:l.orent from th se processes in the f! rmer. Barban9ois regards man as "un typo tout a part clans la creation, comme lc representant d'un regno particulior-lo re'gne moral." So the celebrated Marcel de Serres says, "l'homme no constituc dans la natLno ni uno cspcce, ni un genre, ni un ordro, il est ~\ lui senl un regno, lo regne ltumain." ro Aristotle, the faLher of philosophical natural history, !{ay, Br·isson, Pennant, Vic d'Azyr, Daubcnton, Tiedemann, and others qually distinguished, have all unwisely attempted this disruption of nature. The futility of the arguments mi loyed may be learned by reference to Swainson's at. llist. and OlaF! ifi ation of Quad.rupeds.64 But those who re ognizo the animality of man, and place him accordingly at tho head of the Mammalia, arc not exactly agreed as to the extent of isolation which Hhould be claimed for him in this position, or, in other words, differ-nco of opinion exists as to the extent and scientific meaning of the gap which s pamtcs him from the highest brnto. Linnrous grouped Man, the Simiro and Brtts under tho general division, Primatos.65 IlUg 1',66 Cnvior,G7 Lawr ncc,GS and otherA, assign him a distinct order. o~ Etudes sur I' Algerie, Algor, p. 18. 68 Voyage au Pole Sud. Anlhropologie, do Dumouticr, par Blanchard. Poria, 1854, p. 18. M Pp 8-10 00 Ho observes, "Nullum cbn.motorcm hac tenus eruero potui, undo Homo a Simill. internosontu• ··"- l•'auna Suocicn.. Prcfncc, p. ii. 00 Prodomua Systomatis Mt~mmtllium. 01 R.~gno Animal. GS Op. cit. OF THE RACES 01'' MEN. 227 V,\N AMHJNOF. corrsid rs Man tho sole representative of a distinct and separate mammalian class, to which he applies the term Psychical or Spiritual, in contradistinction to the Instinctive mammals.69 As might bo naturally oxp ·ted fi·om the above r marks, till 1 ss agreement is manifested in relation to the classification of the differ nt r·accs or tribes of men. This want of accordan ·e arises from. tho diJTicnJty of determining what characters arc fundamental and typieal, and what arc not. Now, it should never be forgotten that an ethnical, like any other natural type, is an id al creation, not a positive entity. It is analogous to the mean or average of a series of numbers. These numb rA may all be but slightly diHcrent from each other, and yet non of them be cxa tly id ntical with the m an. In xnrnining a number of objects presenting many peculiarities, the mind insLinctivcl.v fignres to itself an object possessing all these peculiarities. ']'his object, tllis ideal image, gradnally assumes the dignity and importn. nce of a standard to which all other similar objects arc referred, as greater or less approximations to tho type, the approximation being dependent upon the degTee of predominance of Lhe peculiarities in question. It~ on comparing any body with this imaginary standard - ((this form which exists everywhere, and is nowh rc to be found" -the pointfl of r semblance arc in numb L' equal to or even less than t.h' points of difrcrence, then it is said to eli veegc from tho type. It is a divcrg nt form. Now, a type as it is mm1if< stcd in nature is, for all pmctical I ur·poses, :fixed and immutable; our mental conception of it is necessarily a constantly var·ying one. The more numerous the individuals of the group, and tho more extensive our examination, the more per£ ct will be our generalization, upon whi h, in fact, the type is based. The examination of but a few iudividnals of a group is apt to lead to an erroneous idea of tho type. Bnt a singular fact here claims our attention. Along with this increasing perfection of tho typical idea comes a diminished confidence in its importance; for the same observations which serve to est<tblish tho typo, also lead us to perceive Lhnt the distance which separates one typo from another is a plenum, and is not mar·ked by gaps, but by transitionary forms -not transitionary in tho souse of variations from certain persistent forms brouglrt about by climatic conditions, &c., but transitionary forms ab o1·igine and self-oxiAtent, presenting themselves unchanged as they were characterized by the Great Fir t Canso, and inherently capable of those known and limited variations produced by intet·matTiaO'e, &c. The elements 69 An Invostigo.tion of tho 1'hcorics of tho Nat. Hi~tory of Mtm, &o. Now York, 1848, p. 72. |