Categories
- Antiques & Collectibles 13
- Architecture 36
- Art 47
- Bibles 22
- Biography & Autobiography 811
- Body, Mind & Spirit 110
- Business & Economics 26
- Computers 4
- Cooking 94
- Crafts & Hobbies 3
- Drama 346
- Education 45
- Family & Relationships 50
- Fiction 11812
- Games 19
- Gardening 17
- Health & Fitness 34
- History 1377
- House & Home 1
- Humor 147
- Juvenile Fiction 1873
- Juvenile Nonfiction 202
- Language Arts & Disciplines 88
- Law 16
- Literary Collections 686
- Literary Criticism 179
- Mathematics 13
- Medical 41
- Music 39
- Nature 179
- Non-Classifiable 1768
- Performing Arts 7
- Periodicals 1453
- Philosophy 62
- Photography 2
- Poetry 896
- Political Science 203
- Psychology 42
- Reference 154
- Religion 488
- Science 126
- Self-Help 61
- Social Science 80
- Sports & Recreation 34
- Study Aids 3
- Technology & Engineering 59
- Transportation 23
- Travel 463
- True Crime 29
Scientific American Supplement No. 822, October 3, 1891
by: Various
Categories:
Description:
Excerpt
THE STUDY OF MANKIND.
Professor Max Muller, who presided over the Anthropological Section of the British Association, said that if one tried to recall what anthropology was in 1847, and then considered what it was now, its progress seemed most marvelous. These last fifty years had been an age of discovery in Africa, Central Asia, America, Polynesia, and Australia, such as could hardly be matched in any previous century. But what seemed to him even more important than the mere increase of material was the new spirit in which anthropology had been studied during the last generation. He did not depreciate the labors of so-called dilettanti, who were after all lovers of knowledge, and in a study such as that of anthropology, the labors of these volunteers, or franc-tireurs, had often proved most valuable. But the study of man in every part of the world had ceased to be a subject for curiosity only. It had been raised to the dignity and also the responsibility of a real science, and was now guided by principles as strict and rigorous as any other science. Many theories which were very popular fifty years ago were now completely exploded; nay, some of the very principles by which the science was then guided had been discarded. Among all serious students, whether physiologists or philologists, it was by this time recognized that the divorce between ethnology and philology, granted if only for incompatibility of temper, had been productive of nothing but good.
CLASSIFICATION.
Instead of attempting to classify mankind as a whole, students were now engaged in classifying skulls, hair, teeth, and skin. Many solid results had been secured by these special researches; but as yet, no two classifications, based on these characteristics, had been made to run parallel. The most natural classification was, no doubt, that according to the color of the skin. This gave us a black, a brown, a yellow, a red, and a white race, with several subdivisions. This classification had often been despised as unscientific; but might still turn out far more valuable than at present supposed. The next classification was that by the color of the eyes, as black, brown, hazel, gray, and blue. This subject had also attracted much attention of late, and, within certain limits, the results have proved very valuable. The most favorite classification, however, had always been that according to the skulls. The skull, as the shell of the brain, had by many students been supposed to betray something of the spiritual essence of man; and who could doubt that the general features of the skull, if taken in large averages, did correspond to the general features of human character? We had only to look around to see men with heads like a cannon ball and others with heads like a hawk. This distinction had formed the foundation for a more scientific classification into brachycephalic, dolichocephalic, and mesocephalic skulls. If we examined any large collection of skulls we had not much difficulty in arranging them under these three classes; but if, after we had done this, we looked at the nationality of each skull, we found the most hopeless confusion. Pruner Vey, as Peschel told us in his "Volkerkunde," had observed brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skulls in children born of the same mother; and if we consider how many women had been carried away into captivity by Mongolians in their inroads into China, India, and Germany, we could not feel surprised if we found some long heads among the round heads of those Central Asiatic hordes.
Only we must not adopt the easy expedient of certain anthropologists who, when they found dolichocephalic and brachycephalic skulls in the same tomb, at once jump to the conclusion that they must have belonged to two different races. When, for instance, two dolichocephalic and three brachycephalic skulls were discovered in the same tomb at Alexanderpol, we were told at once that this proved nothing as to the simultaneous occurrence of different skulls in the same family; nay, that it proved the very contrary of what it might seem to prove. It was clear, we were assured, that the two dolichocephalic skulls belonged to Aryan chiefs and the three brachycephalic skulls to their non-Aryan slaves, who were killed and buried with their masters, according to a custom well known to Herodotus....